U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–046PDF 2017

ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS AT

THE UNITED NATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 28, 2017

Serial No. 115–68

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable Nikki Haley, U.S. Permanent Representative, United States 

Mission to the United Nations, U.S. Department of State ............................... 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Nikki Haley: Prepared statement ................................................ 7

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 67

The Honorable Adriano Espaillat, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York: Material submitted for the record ..................................... 68

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 71

Written responses from the Honorable Nikki Haley to questions submitted 

for the record by: 

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel ............................................................................. 73

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .................................................................................................................. 98

The Honorable Albio Sires, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey .................................................................................................... 105

The Honorable Jeff Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina .............................................................................................. 107

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly ..................................................................... 110

The Honorable Ann Wagner, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri ......................................................................................................... 113

The Honorable William Keating, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts ................................................................... 115

The Honorable Francis Rooney, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida ................................................................................................. 118

The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Rhode Island ....................................................................................... 120

The Honorable Ami Bera, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 127

The Honorable Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Illinois ................................................................................................. 132

The Honorable Bradley S. Schneider, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Illinois ........................................................................................... 133

The Honorable Adriano Espaillat ....................................................................... 139

The Honorable Ted Lieu, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ...................................................................................................... 141

(1)

ADVANCING U.S. INTERESTS AT

THE UNITED NATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. Today, we 

consider the role of the United States at the United Nations. 

In her first few months, Ambassador Nikki Haley has approached her job with determination and purpose. 

Chairing the U.N. Security Council in April, she spotlighted the 

grave security challenges of North Korea and nuclear proliferation 

and the threats that that poses to us. She has castigated Iran and 

Hezbollah for their role in sowing instability across the Middle 

East. And Ambassador Haley has made it crystal clear that the 

U.N. Human Rights Council’s record of protecting dictators cannot 

stand. Indeed, as Ambassador Haley has declared, the United 

States’ role at the U.N. is to ‘‘show our strength, show our voice, 

[and] have the back of our allies.’’ I think that is well said, Ambassador. 

The United Nations is charged with the ambitious mission to 

‘‘maintain international peace and security’’ and to ‘‘achieve international cooperation in solving international problems.’’ But, unfortunately, the organization all too often falls short. U.N. organizations continuously debate issues—but too often take no meaningful 

action. 

As Ambassador Haley has eloquently described, U.N. organizations like the Human Rights Council give dictators and human 

rights violators a platform to attack Israel. In addition to calling 

for the U.N. to end its bias against Israel, she has made crystal 

clear that the international body can no longer be used to promote 

anti-Semitism. 

I was pleased to see Ambassador Haley recognize that ‘‘human 

rights and conflict are directly connected,’’ in her words. From my 

standpoint, I think regimes that don’t respect the citizens over 

which they hold power—or visitors like Otto Warmbier—won’t respect their neighbors, and won’t respect international agreements. 

Given its terrible human rights record, it is no surprise that 

North Korea is determined to deploy international nuclear ballistic 

weapons technology, and that threatens the region and it threatens 

2

the United States. Meanwhile, companies and banks inside China 

continue to provide critical hard currency to that regime. The 

United Nations has passed good Security Council Resolutions on 

North Korea—spurred by U.S. legislation that we passed in this 

committee—but solid enforcement is needed. 

As we will hear today, the President’s budget proposal includes 

significant reductions in U.S. funding of the United Nations and its 

agencies. U.N. peacekeeping has played a critical role over the 

years in advancing U.S. interests and should be prioritized, in accordance with U.S. law. The recent deaths of peacekeepers in South 

Sudan and in Mali remind us of the dangers they face. But peacekeeping would find more support if failing missions—some decades 

old—were closed and the horrendous sexual abuses tackled headon. 

This committee has pushed to improve the U.N.’s transparency 

and accountability, advancing protections of whistleblowers and 

bringing U.N. peacekeepers that are sexual predators to the bar of 

justice. 

Ambassador Haley, we look forward to hearing how we can support you working to improve transparency and accountability. This 

committee stands ready to assist in your difficult tasks ahead. 

And I’ll now turn to the ranking member for his opening remarks. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Ambassador, welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

I have watched you in the short months that you have been Ambassador. I hope you are enjoying my hometown of New York—best 

place in the world—and I have watched you with admiration in 

terms of how you have been conducting yourself. 

As I said to you in the room before we started, we pride ourselves 

on this committee in being the most bipartisan committee in the 

Congress. The chairman and I have worked very hard to do that. 

Where there are disagreements, there are disagreements but we all 

share the same goal. 

And, of course, the United States is the world’s biggest superpower. We believe that we have a lot to offer the world and want 

to continue to work with all the countries of the world. 

I was disappointed in the budget. I said this to Secretary 

Tillerson as well. It cuts our support for key peacekeeping efforts 

in the United Nations by nearly 40 percent. Peacekeeping missions 

help people who have been driven from their homes by atrocities 

in South Sudan. U.N. peacekeepers are now protecting nearly 1⁄4

million civilians in places like Liberia and Cote d’Ivoire. 

Missions are scheduled to closed soon because they have been so 

effective in building stability and security. We have traditionally 

invested a little more than the minimum required in peacekeeping 

and that’s what I think an indispensable power should do, which 

is what we have done. That is to show the world we are a big 

hearted country that wants to see people all around the world live 

healthy, prosperous lives. 

American personnel are not deployed by these efforts. Our men 

and women aren’t put in harm’s way. These initiatives help prevent and resolve crises so that we don’t have to intervene militarily 

3

and they do it for eight times less than it would cost to send an 

American soldier. 

So burden sharing—I know we talk about burden sharing. I believe these efforts are the definition of burden sharing. The administration is also seeking to completely eliminate American support 

for the U.N. development program, for disaster relief coordination, 

for U.N. Women, for the U.N. Population Fund, for UNICEF support for children living in the most desperate circumstances—100 

percent reduction—I think that needs to be changed. 

The U.N. has its problems. No one disputes that. We talked for 

a little while about some of them. I personally think the way Israel 

is blamed and bullied by U.N. members is terrible. As I told you 

before, the so-called Human Rights Council has the worst human 

rights abusers on that council and it is the epitome of gall, or 

chutzpah, as we say in New York, to think that they can sit and 

look in judgement of anybody given the fact that they have the 

most abysmal human rights records in the world. It almost makes 

it a little bit like Alice in Wonderland. 

But I do think American leadership is urgently needed to help 

shape Security Council resolutions and initiatives in other U.N. 

bodies, and, when appropriate, use our veto to counter this imbalance. 

But walking away from our commitments isn’t the right way to 

affect the reform that we all want to see. I believe these cuts would 

send a deeply troubling message to U.N. members that the United 

States no longer wants to be a global leader on a whole range of 

issues, that we are willing to cede the ground, excuse me, to whomever steps into our place. And I can’t imagine a more harmful 

course. 

If we want our values and our priorities to be the values and priorities of other countries then withdrawing from multilateral engagement is a grave miscalculation. And make no mistake, Beijing, 

Moscow, Tehran, and plenty of others will be more than happy to 

see us back away. So I am glad that Congress will have the final 

word on the budget issues. 

I remain deeply concerned about the number of other areas 

where American foreign policy is going off course and how that affects our ability to work with other governments through the U.N. 

I hope your testimony will address some of these problems. 

And let me say, as I told you before, I look forward to working 

with you. You have approached this job with a zest and a verve 

that has been refreshing. We will from time to time have policy differences. But I think we all stand for the same thing, obviously, 

and that’s what we have tried to do in the Foreign Affairs Committee. 

So, welcome. I look forward to your testimony and I look forward 

to your tenure as U.N. Ambassador. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Engel. 

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan, to introduce our witness today. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure for me to introduce my friend, Ambassador Nikki 

Haley, to my colleagues. A South Carolina native, Ambassador 

4

Haley graduated from my alma mater, the 2016 national football 

champion, Clemson. 

(Laughter.) 

Mr. DUNCAN. I’m shameless, guys. Shameless. 

Ambassador Haley made her career as a trailblazer. In 2004, she 

became the first Indian-American to hold South Carolina public office when she won a seat in the South Carolina statehouse, where 

I served with her for 6 years. 

In 2010, she was elected the first female as well as the first minority governor of South Carolina. In her tenure as governor of 

South Carolina, Ambassador Haley brought investment and jobs 

from all over the world. 

South Carolina now holds more than 1,200 operations of international firms, which employ more than 131,000 South Carolinians. A lot of this investment was directly tied to Governor 

Haley’s efforts, especially in businesses in Europe and in Asia. 

On November 22nd, 2016, the President-Elect, Donald Trump, 

picked her to become the United States Ambassador to the United 

Nations, where she continues to strongly represent American interests on the world stage. 

Ambassador Haley, welcome to Congress and we look forward to 

your testimony. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. And welcome, Ambassador. Without objection, 

the Ambassador’s full prepared statement will be made part of the 

record. Members will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions or any extraneous material for the record. 

And I would ask you, Ambassador, if you could summarize your 

remarks. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NIKKI HALEY, U.S. PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE 

UNITED NATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you very much. And to my friend, 

Jeff—go, Tigers, and thank you for that introduction. 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss advancing U.S. interests at the United Nations. 

Five months and three days ago, I was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I came into this position at a time 

when many Americans felt a deep sense of betrayal at the U.N. in 

the wake of the passage of Resolution 2334. 

At my confirmation hearing, I made the following promise. If I 

am privileged to be the U.S. Ambassador, I will never sit passively 

while America’s interests and America’s friends are run down at 

the U.N. 

Five months later, I can say that I haven’t been quiet on the 

issues important to the United States. And I can say this: I have 

kept my promise. Our friends and our rivals know that America 

has once again found its voice at the United Nations. The international community is now very clear about what the U.S. is for 

and what the U.S. is against. 

It wasn’t long after my confirmation that my promise was put to 

the test. In early April, the Syrian regime dropped chemical weapons on Syrian children. We forced the Security Council to hold an 

5

open emergency session, which some member states didn’t want. 

We drew a red line. If the U.N. would not act collectively, the 

United States would act alone, and we did. 

We have brought new accountability to the North Korean regime. 

When North Korea continued its illegal missile tests, we brought 

all the nations of the Security Council together, including China 

and Russia, to impose new sanctions. 

Even as we focus on North Korea’s nuclear and missile threat, 

we also continue to highlight the barbaric human rights violations 

the regime is committing. Otto Warmbier’s death brought home to 

Americans the brutality that North Koreans have known for decades. 

The same clear voice we have used to take on our adversaries we 

have also used to support America’s values and America’s friends. 

Thanks to U.S. leadership, human rights are at the forefront of the 

U.N. agenda. For the first time ever during the U.S. Presidency of 

the Security Council we convened a meeting dedicated solely to the 

protection of human rights and their relationship to conflict. 

We made the case that human rights violations and conflict are 

directly related. History has played out that when governments 

don’t respect the rights and voices of the people, conflict will soon 

follow. 

We have also called out the U.N. Human Rights Council for legitimizing human rights violators at the expense of their victims. 

We have put forward reforms to make the council what it was 

meant to be: A place of conscience for nations and justice for victims. I traveled to Geneva earlier this month to make it clear to 

the council that continued U.S. participation is contingent on adoption of these reforms. 

On a related note, the U.S. mission now refuses to tolerate one 

of the U.N.’s most disreputable and dangerous habits: Obsessively 

bashing Israel. We forced the withdrawal of a false and biased report and we have steered the Security Council’s monthly debate on 

the Middle East away from unfairly targeting Israel and toward 

the true threats in the region, such as Iran and Hamas. 

In the areas in which the U.N. has real value, we have built on 

its good work. Peacekeeping is one of the most important things 

the U.N. does. We are reviewing every one of the peacekeeping 

missions with an eye toward ensuring that we have clear and 

achievable mandates. 

We are also working to ensure that troops are ready, professional, and committed to the safety of civilians on the ground. 

Troops in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, have long faced charges of sexual 

abuse and other serious misconduct. We inserted clear instructions 

into the mission’s most recent mandate to enforce performance 

standards for troops. There is no place in any U.N. peacekeeping 

mission for predatory and abusive troops. 

Our peacekeeping reforms are aimed at producing more effective 

missions for vulnerable citizens. We will hold governments accountable to their responsibility to protect their own citizens while also 

cutting down waste and inefficiency. 

6

We have adapted the mission in Haiti to changing conditions on 

the ground and are on target to save at least $150 million for the 

year. 

We will continue our reform efforts when we take up the peacekeeping mission renewal this month in Darfur, Sudan. Our efforts 

will hold the government accountable to improve humanitarian access. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to highlight our efforts to reassert U.S. leadership at the United Nations. 

It is hard to believe it has only been 5 months since I moved my 

family to New York to begin this exciting and challenging new 

chapter. I look forward to more progress in the months ahead and 

I welcome your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Haley follows:]

7


26046a-1.eps

AMBASSADOR NIKKI HALEY 

STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

June 28,2017 

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, and distinguished members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss advancing U.S. interests at the United Nations. 

Five months and three days ago I was sworn in as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. 

I came into this position at a time when many Americans felt a deep sense of betrayal at the UN, 

in the wake of passage of Resolution 2334. 

At my confirmation heating I made the following promise: "IfT am privileged to be the U.S 

ambassador, I will never sit passively while America's interests- and America's friends- are 

run down at the UN." 

Five months later, I can say that I haven't been quiet on the issues important to the United States. 

And I can say this I have kept my promise. Our friends and our rivals know that America has 

once again found its voice at the United Nations. 

The international community is now very clear about what the U.S. is for and what the U.S. is 

against. It wasn't long after my confirmation that my promise was put to the test. In early 

April, the Syrian regime dropped chemical weapons on Syrian children. 

We forced the Security Council to hold an open, emergency session, which some member states 

didn't want. We drew a red line: if the UN would not act collectively, the United States would 

act alone. And we did. 

We've brought new accountability to the North Korean regime. When North Korea continued its 

illegal missile tests, we brought all the nations of the Security Council together- including China 

and Russia- to impose new sanctions. 

Even as we focus on North Korea's nuclear and missile threat, we also continue to highlight the 

barbaric human rights violations the regime is committing. Otto Warmbier' s death brought 

home to Americans the brutality that North Koreans have known for decades. 

The same clear voice we've used to take on our adversaries, we've also used to support 

America's values and America's friends. 

Thanks to U.S leadership, human rights are at the forefront of the UN agenda. For the first time 

ever, during the U.S. Presidency of the Security Council, we convened a meeting dedicated 

solely to the protection of human rights and their relationship to conflict. 

We made the case that human rights violations and conflict are directly connected. 

1 
8


26046a-2.eps

History has played out that when governments don't respect the rights and voices of the people, 

conflict will soon follow. 

We've also called out the UN Human Rights Council for legitimizing human rights violators at 

the expense of their victims. We've put forward reforms to make the Council what it was meant 

to be: a place of conscience for nations and justice for victims. 

I traveled to Geneva earlier this month to make it clear to the Council that continued U.S. 

participation is contingent on adoption of these reforms. 

On a related note, the U.S. mission now refuses to tolerate one of the UN's most disreputable and 

dangerous habits obsessive bashing of Israel. We forced the withdrawal of a false and biased 

report. And we've steered the Security Council's monthly debate on the Middle East away from 

unfairly targeting Israel, and toward the true threats in the region such as Iran and Ham as. 

In the areas in which the UN has real value, we've built on its good work 

Peacekeeping is one of the most important things the UN does. We are reviewing each of our 

peacekeeping missions with an eye toward ensuring they have clear and achievable mandates. 

We are also working to ensure that troops are ready, professional, and committed to the safety of 

civilians on the ground. 

Troops in the cJN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for instance, 

have long faced charges of sexual abuse and other serious misconduct. We inserted clear 

instructions into the mission's most recent mandate to enforce performance standards for troops. 

There is no place in any UN peacekeeping mission for predatory and abusive troops. 

Our peacekeeping reforms are aimed at producing more effective missions for vulnerable 

civilians and holding host governments accountable to their responsibility to protect their own 

citizens while also cutting down on waste and inefficiency. 

We've adapted the mission in Haiti to changing conditions on the ground, and are on target to 

save at least $150 million for the year. We will continue our reform efforts when we take up the 

peacekeeping mission renewal this month in Darfur, Sudan. Our efforts will hold the 

government accountable to improve humanitarian access. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to highlight our efforts to reassert US leadership 

at the United Nations. It's hard to believe that it's been just five months since I moved my 

family to New York to begin this exciting and challenging new chapter. I look forward to more 

progress in the months ahead, and I welcome your questions. 

Thank you. 

### 

2 
9

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you, Ambassador Haley. 

Let me start with this point. This week, the White House issued 

a firm statement, a warning to Syria, after it was picked up that 

Assad, his regime was preparing, potentially, for another chemical 

weapons attack. 

You amplified that message yourself. Have we seen Assad’s regime take any steps in response to that warning? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I can tell you that due to the President’s actions, we did not see an incident. What we did see before 

was all of the same activity that we had seen prior for the April 

4th chemical weapons attack. 

And so I think that by the President calling out Assad, I think 

by us continuing to remind Iran and Russia that while they choose 

to back Assad, this was something we were not going to put up 

with. 

So I would like to think that the President saved many innocent 

men, women, and children. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let me ask you a question on the U.N. Security Council resolutions that were passed with respect to North 

Korea. We are a few years away from North Korea having an 

ICBM capability that can reach the U.S. and we have this question 

about enforcement. 

We have a second bill in addition to the sanctions bill—which I 

and Mr. Engel passed formally and that was signed into law—we 

have a second bill to try to close any additional loopholes. 

Specifically, what we are trying to do is to stop the use of forced 

labor by North Korea where they’ll have workers sent to the Middle East and other countries and instead of the workers being paid, 

the money goes right back into the bank account of the North Korean regime and is used on its nuclear weapons program. 

So we are trying to cut off that hard currency and trying to cut 

off some of the hard currency that comes out of Beijing that subsidizes the regime even with the sanctions that the Security Council has passed. 

Can you tell us, if we had enforcement, what would be the impact on North Korea’s regime and their ability to move forward 

with this nuclear weapons program? 

Ambassador HALEY. The more pressure we put on North Korea, 

the better. You are dealing with a paranoid leader who thinks that 

we are trying to assassinate him, who thinks we are trying to do 

regime change, who keeps his public in the dark, only hearing 

what he wants them to hear. 

And what we need to remember is that he is building a nuclear 

program and you are more optimistic saying it is multiple years before an ICBM comes forward. I think it is going to happen sooner 

because they are on target to do that and they continue to use their 

people for those violations. 

So I would welcome any sort of pressure that you could put forward to slow down that process of nuclear development. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I think this is so critical. Secretary 

Mattis has said that North Korea is the number one threat, from 

his standpoint, and I think key also is to get the Senate to take 

action now and I would suggest immediately. That bill has been 

over there for some time. 

10

I also wanted to ask you about the Human Rights Council and 

how your efforts to change this system to competitive voting rather 

than regional rotation in order to make sure that the Human 

Rights Council ditches some of its old procedures and ditches the 

anti-Israel focus. 

I mean, we had 70 resolutions against Israel and very few to 

touch on Iran, or rather, human rights abusers around the planet. 

How is that going? 

You sat down with many Europeans when you travelled over 

there to make this pitch to those governments. Can you give us an 

update on that? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes, and I can give you an example that will 

bring it very close to home. 

We have seen terrible things happening in Venezuela and we 

continue to be very, very concerned. And so I called for an emergency session in the Security Council for Venezuela and my colleagues were not appreciative of that because they said it wasn’t 

a peace and security issue and that it needed to be heard at the 

Human Rights Council. 

The problem is that the Human Rights Council never heard this 

or condemned Venezuela because Venezuela sits on the council 

along with Cuba and Saudi Arabia and China, and the list goes on. 

So I didn’t want to send a statement from New York. I thought 

it was important that I went in person. I explained to them that 

this can’t be a place bad actors go to to protect themselves and 

point fingers at others. I told them the Agenda Item 7 that picked 

on Israel, those issues can go to Agenda Item 4. Many of them 

agreed that it discredited the Human Rights Council. I do think we 

were heard and I do hope that there’s a change. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I go to Mr. Eliot Engel of New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to piggyback on the question about the Human Rights 

Council. 

First of all, let me say, Madam Ambassador, I heard your speech 

at AIPAC and I thought it was a very fine speech. What so aggravates me about the U.N. Human Rights Council is that they have 

the nerve, as I said before, to try to sit in judgement of anybody 

else. 

People should be investigating them for the worst human rights 

abuses and they do it to their own people as well. 

The U.N. Human Rights Council has targeted Israel ever since 

its creation. They have Agenda Item 7. It is a permanent agenda 

item targeting Israel. It is the only country-specific agenda item at 

the council. Obviously, it is ridiculous and unfair and the membership of the council is an embarrassment to the U.N. Some of the 

members engage in the worst abuses. 

With all the problems of the council, I do recognize that because 

of U.S. leadership the council has begun to shift its scrutiny to 

some of the world’s worst human rights violators. According to the 

American Jewish Committee’s Jacob Blaustein Institute, U.S. participation has improved the council’s treatment of Israel to some 

degree and shifted some of the council’s focus to human rights violations in North Korea, Iran, and Syria. 

11

At the same time, according to Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch, the 

2006 through 2009 U.S. boycott of the council, and I am going to 

quote him, ‘‘did nothing to prevent the council from continuing to 

cause damage.’’

So I have a couple of questions about this. What steps do you 

propose taking to remove Agenda Item 7 from the council’s agenda 

and reform criteria for membership of the council? I abhor conferring legitimacy on any entity which discriminates against Israel or 

is so one-sided, but I worry, on the other hand, if the U.S. withdrew from the council things could actually get worse. 

So I would like you to comment on that too—what would be the 

impact of U.S. priorities, including the protection of Israel, if the 

U.S. were to withdraw from the U.N. Human Rights Council? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Engel, and that is my 

dilemma, which is are we better off being on the Human Rights 

Council with all of these bad actors where it is very hard to give 

the council any credit or do we do our own human rights fights outside of the council. 

That is what remains to be seen. The reason I went there was 

because I thought it was important. 

In reference to Agenda Item 7, when I met with the like-minded 

members of the council, they admitted that Agenda Item 7 was embarrassing. They admitted that it discredited the council. They admitted that they thought it needed to come off. 

What we found is there are three main groups that continue to 

use Agenda Item 7. It is the Egyptians, it is the Saudis, and it is 

Pakistan. So those are the three. 

Everyone else has shifted to Agenda Item 4. We actually think 

that the Palestinians would be okay if we shifted to Item 4 if we 

talked to those three groups. So that is my focus now, trying to talk 

to those three groups to see how we can shift them off of Agenda 

Item 7. The truth is if somebody wants to bring Israel up for a violation that can happen under Agenda Item 4. 

But if you don’t have an agenda for North Korea, you don’t have 

it for Syria, you don’t have it for Venezuela, it really is nothing 

more than abusive to have it on Israel, especially with all the 

threats in the world. 

And so I think they took this seriously. I am continuing to have 

meetings on this. We met with Commissioner Zeid and told him 

that we needed his help on this front when it came to that. He 

agreed, and he felt like it was doable. 

So it is going to take a full court press and I am going to need 

all of you to help in terms of pushing that narrative that we really 

want to do that. I think they don’t want us to leave the Human 

Rights Council. 

We have just said there have to be competitive elections. We 

have to make sure that it is not already decided who is going to 

be on there and then we have to get the General Assembly to not 

vote for these bad actors. It happened last time Russia ran and 

Russia lost. That was a huge moment because typically, the P5 always win an election but that was due to what they were doing 

with Ukraine. 

So there is a possibility of change. We just have to be very aggressive about doing that. 

12

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. My time is almost up, but I wanted to 

reiterate some of the things I said before. I get just as angry at the 

U.N. as anybody when you think that they take us for granted. 

But I don’t want to cut off my nose to spite my face. The United 

States’ presence at the U.N. is very, very important and I worry 

about the President’s proposed budget cuts to U.N. funding and I 

wish that the administration would take another look at that. 

Nine of your predecessors signed onto a letter in support of the 

continued payment of U.S. voluntary and assessed contributions to 

the U.N., saying the cuts weaken our hand, alienate allies, and cost 

us more over the long run. I wonder if you could quickly comment 

on that. 

Ambassador HALEY. My job was to go in and see if I could find 

value in the U.N. That was the directive all of you gave me. That 

was the directive the President gave me. 

There are a lot of places that the U.N. is very effective. There 

is a lot of fat around the edges and some abuses that happen at 

the U.N. 

But I do think it is very important that we make the most of it 

and I will tell you that, from the President’s budget, keep in mind 

that that was more of making a point. It was making a point that 

he wanted to strengthen the military and it was putting the United 

Nations on notice, and it worked. And I have used that as leverage 

because now we are seeing a lot of the other countries come forward and say yes, we should do reform. 

When it comes to peacekeeping reform, they have worked with 

us on every single renewal to change it to make it smarter, to 

make it better work for the people. 

When it comes to management reform, they are working with us 

on changing it. So I really do think the message was effective and 

my hope is that I can be your conduit in terms of working from the 

President’s budget to where you all have to make some decisions 

to help exactly what I think is important in order for us to continue 

to have a strong voice at the U.N. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning, and thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Welcome, Madam Ambassador. You have 

done an admirable job in your first few months and have demonstrated strong leadership at the U.N. 

I also want to commend you for your forceful words against the 

Maduro regime. Thank you for speaking out so strongly in support 

of the Venezuelan people. 

Things have taken a turn for the worst. Just in the last 24 hours, 

as you know, there was a helicopter attack targeting the Supreme 

Court by Maduro, and Maduro-controlled armed colectivos surrounded the National Assembly. So the violence is escalating. 

And thank you to Mr. Deutch for bringing up Venezuela with the 

Secretary-General yesterday. What actions are you considering to 

hold Maduro accountable at the U.N.? 

Are you considering Security Council actions or sanctions? I 

know it is a difficult environment for you. How can we put pressure 

13

so that Maduro at least allows humanitarian assistance to help the 

people? 

And let me just quickly touch on two other topics, Madam Ambassador. 

I have introduced legislation over the years that exposes problems and offers solutions on UNRWA, particularly the incitement 

issues, the ties to Hamas from its employees, and the fact that U.S. 

taxpayer dollars are used to support this violence. 

UNRWA’s mandate was extended, lamentably, through June 

2020. How can Congress help to shift UNRWA’s mandate to the 

U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees? Because three more years of 

this is unacceptable. 

And lastly, the Human Rights Council is in the process of creating a black list, a database for supporters of BDS to use to target 

Israel’s interest. 

Where does this database effort stand right now and what are we 

doing to kill this effort and prevent it from doing harm to Israel? 

Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

So, first, on Venezuela, because the Human Rights Council would 

not hear the issue on Venezuela, we had the emergency Security 

Council meeting in New York. 

But then when I went to Geneva, we had a meeting outside of 

that to just discuss Venezuela’s issues to bring it home to the 

Human Rights Council that they needed to do this. 

The region very much didn’t want us to talk about it and said 

that this would make things worse. But as you saw with the OAS, 

when they attempted to talk about it, Venezuela got out of the OAS 

and then recently the OAS met again and they——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And we didn’t have the votes. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. And they were unable to do 

anything. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That’s unbelievable. 

Ambassador HALEY. So I can tell you, we need to keep the pressure on Maduro. There are signs that he is now going to start 

using his military and use weapons and anything you’ve seen on 

TV——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. He has been doing that. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. It is so much worse. It is a terrible situation. And so as much pressure as we can continue to put 

on Maduro that we are watching. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Almost 80 people dead, thousands arrested, 

thousands in jail. 

Ambassador HALEY. It is horrible. They just——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. And he is acting with impunity. 

Ambassador HALEY. They just want to be heard. They just want 

to be heard, and it goes back to any government that doesn’t listen 

and take care of their people, conflict will follow. It is a direct correlation. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Please keep acting on behalf of the people. 

Ambassador HALEY. And we will continue to do that. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. On UNRWA and BDS? 

Ambassador HALEY. So on UNRWA I will tell you I actually went 

and visited an UNRWA camp when I went to Israel——

14

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Yes. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. And the Palestinian area. I 

asked about the books and what we were seeing. They think they 

have gotten it down. They said the problem comes into the culture 

versus what we think is incitement. They are continuing to work 

on it. We are continuing the pressure on——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Baloney. 

Ambassador HALEY. We will continue to do that. I do think that 

we need to look at UNRWA in a way that we expect more of them 

and put pressure on them so that we can get the changes that we 

need to have—changes in what they consider to be a refugee, 

changes in any textbooks on incitement, changes in Hamas members teaching in the schools. There is work to do. I will say that 

there is also good that comes out of UNRWA. What they do with 

the schools and the health care you do see value in it. But I think 

we just need to continue to pressure them on the things we want 

to see changing. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. And on BDS? 

Ambassador HALEY. The concern on UNRWA is they are now trying to get assessed contributions in the U.N. and we are fighting 

that back desperately. 

On BDS, it is something I spoke about in Geneva and said that 

it was a problem. I am very concerned. I am very concerned that 

we may not be able to defeat this. 

But we are trying extremely hard to show that this is something 

that cannot happen. As governor in South Carolina, we were the 

first state to fight it off. 

I know how dangerous and abusive this would be and so we will 

continue fighting this the whole way through. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. Keep kicking butt. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Ambassador, thank you for your work on 

behalf of the people of South Sudan, your briefing on April 25th, 

and I hope you are able to achieve our objectives there. 

I also want to thank you and join with my colleagues on thanking you for your efforts to refute and to halt the U.N.’s obsessive 

tendencies with unjustified attacks on Israel. 

I hope that you are pushing inside the administration to get 

them to fill the empty boxes on the organization chart. Now, Rex 

Tillerson has praised the people who are filling the acting positions—you know, Acting Assistant Secretary, Acting Under Secretary. 

My wife has been with the State Department for 20 years, all 

over. You can’t get policy direction from somebody who’s got the big 

word ‘‘temporary’’ on their door. 

Until we get those positions filled with people that reflect where 

the administration wants to go, we won’t have foreign policy in the 

hundreds of areas that you and the Secretary of State can’t personally address. 

The world is better when the United States is involved. We are 

involved in the United Nations. We are not necessarily going to be 

paying our dues or our share of peacekeeping. 

Is it easier or harder for you to do your job if we don’t pay our 

dues? 

15

Ambassador HALEY. Okay. Thank you for that. 

Yes, we will continue to work on South Sudan. I will be visiting 

there in the fall to deal with it head on. 

Israel—I will continue to call them out every time that happens. 

I hear you on the State Department and what you told Secretary 

Tillerson. We have worked really hard to fill the roles at U.S./U.N. 

and are almost there. So thank you for that. 

In terms of the peacekeeping budget, what we did was——

Mr. SHERMAN. Both the peacekeeping and the dues budget. Yes. 

Ambassador HALEY. Peacekeeping and——

Mr. SHERMAN. My question was both. We have our general U.N. 

dues. The line item for that in the President’s proposed budget is 

cut 27 percent. 

Ambassador HALEY. Right. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Peacekeeping 37 percent. Does that diminish your 

ability to do your job or does it make your job easier? 

Ambassador HALEY. No, my job has worked well because I have 

used that as leverage. With every single renewal what we did was 

we looked at the political solution. We asked, is it working—is it 

actually helping the people on the ground? 

What they have done in the past is with challenged areas, they 

would just send more troops to it. Well, if the troops aren’t trained 

and the troops don’t have equipment, it is not going to be effective. 

So what we have now done is changed the mandates to make sure 

they are smarter. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ma’am, I’ve got to cut you off there because I’ve 

got this list——

Ambassador HALEY. Well, let me just tell you this. We just negotiated the peacekeeping budget last week and I was so proud of my 

team because we cut it by $1⁄2 billion and that was with the support of everyone——

Mr. SHERMAN. But now that it is a budget you like, should we 

contribute our allotted share? 

Ambassador HALEY. I think that you could comfortably go to 25 

percent and know that we will be okay. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Twenty. Russia—we have a bill that passed the 

Senate to impose sanctions on Russia and Iran. It has its congressional review provisions. 

I have been here a long time. The only way we got the sanctions 

on Iran was to overcome efforts of the last two administrations who 

wanted either no sanctions or wanted the administration to be able 

to just wave a wand and say, well, we don’t like them so we are 

not going to do them. 

Is the administration lobbying to change the congressional review provisions of the Senate-passed Iran-Russia sanctions bill? 

Ambassador HALEY. I am not aware that they are lobbying for 

anything. I do know that they are reviewing it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Other administration——

Ambassador HALEY. They also renewed recently the sanctions on 

Russia in reference to Ukraine. Those were renewed last week. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Other administration officials have testified that 

they haven’t spoken with the President regarding Russian interference in last year’s election. Have you talked to the President 

about that? 

16

Ambassador HALEY. I have not talked to the President about 

that. And, look, I think the best thing that can happen is for those 

investigations to play out quickly. 

I have no reason to think that there was any sort of involvement 

between the President and Russia and——

Mr. SHERMAN. I am going to try to move on to one last question. 

The U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 bans or deters Iran 

from testing ballistic missiles. Is the Security Council incapable of 

addressing Iran’s violations of that resolution? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, we are going to push hard to address 

it. They have tested. They have launched ballistic missiles and now 

we are seeing that they are sending off weapons and things to bad 

actors and so yes, we have to continue to address that. The problem is Russia will always veto it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for convening this important hearing. 

Good morning, Madam Ambassador. Thank you for your strong and 

effective leadership. It is principled. 

I know, talking to many of the diplomats in New York, how respected you are. You have absolutely made a mark and you’re 

deeply respected up here. So thank you for that leadership. There 

is no better friend or diplomat or otherwise for Israel and we thank 

you for that as well. 

Yesterday, Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, rightly designated 

China as a Tier 3 country—the Chinese Government, the worst violator for sex and labor trafficking. 

I want to thank you, the administration, for making that bold 

and, I think, long-missed call. For years we have been asking 

China, whether it be sex trafficking, somewhat attributable if not 

largely attributable to the missing girls—62 million missing girls 

because of sex-selection abortion. There is no other parallel in the 

world, and on labor trafficking, whether it be North Korea or the 

problems of just exploiting workers through what was thought to 

be a reform of the laogai system, which didn’t really happen. 

Thank you for that designation. It is very well accepted. 

Let me ask you about Liu Xiaobo. Obviously, a Nobel Prize winner who has terminal cancer. He is still in China. He is out of prison, we are told, getting medical care and I know the administration 

has already asked, through our Ambassador, that he be allowed to 

come here and get treatment along with his wife, who has suffered 

de facto. 

Whatever you can do, and I know you have a good working relationship, even though I am sure you butt heads occasionally with 

the Chinese Ambassador. 

Let him come and let him come now, please. So I would ask you 

for that. 

Let me ask you, too, on the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, that post has not been filled. I am the one who 

offered the amendment in the year 2004 to establish it. 

17

It remains unfulfilled and rightly so the American Jewish groups 

are very, very upset by that omission. Fill it. Put the people in 

there. Don’t double hat it, I would ask, respectfully. 

There is so much of a rise in anti-Semitism and it is needed now 

and that person, whoever he or she may be, can walk point on trying to stop this terrible hate that is on the rise around the world. 

Let me also just say thank you. Karen Bass and I were in South 

Sudan just a few weeks ago. I was there earlier in August. We met 

with Salva Kiir and the change in UNMISS is remarkable. 

They were a garrison military, U.N. deployment, that sat and did 

nothing when the Terrain compound was attacked, including a 

woman from my own district who was sexually abused. They just 

sat there, did nothing. 

We now, through your great leadership, have a very effective, 

much more robust, mandate by UNMISS. So I want to thank you 

for that leadership and I know you worked hard on that. 

On famine, and you might want to speak to this, we are concerned. Both Karen Bass and I were in refugees camps, two of 

them, and one IDP camp in Unity State, and there are shortages, 

particularly in Uganda. 

There was a 50 percent cut in food and I know there is some $990 million that has been appropriated in the appropriations bill. 

Our hope is that it does not carry over into next year. It needs to 

be spent now. These people, mostly women, 85 percent of the people in the camps are women or children, they are in desperate need 

of food security and food aid. So please make sure that money gets 

out. 

And finally, on WIPO—I know we are running out of time—but 

last year we had three of our subcommittees—including Ileana RosLehtinen’s—held a hearing on illicit transfers to rogue states of 

North Korea and Iran by the World Intellectual Property Organization and its Director General, Francis Gurry. 

Gurry retaliated against the whistleblowers who exposed the 

wrongdoing and today we have people who have lost their jobs at 

the U.N. because they did the right thing. 

Please—this is a injustice. This has to be corrected. I ask for 

your personal intervention on that. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

So in reference to the person being held in China, letting them 

go, we are all on it at different levels of the administration. That 

is moving. In terms of the envoy for anti-Semitism, we welcome all 

the help we can get because I agree with you on that. 

In terms of South Sudan, we are seeing baby step progress in 

that area but it is a baby step. We continue to work on that. Like 

I said, I will be visiting in the fall to speak with President Kiir myself on behalf of the United States to see if we can put some pressure there. Also, know that South Sudan has fallen off the famine 

list but it is still food insecure. It is still very volatile. It is still a 

vulnerable spot. 

Famine is on our radar across the board in all four of the regions 

that we need to be looking at and so we are watching that closely 

and working on that. And yes, WIPO—we continue to work with 

them and work on issues that come up and we will always do that. 

So please feel free to contact me any time. 

18

Chairman ROYCE. Greg Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Ambassador, I am actually stunned at the response that 

you just gave back to Mr. Sherman that you’ve never spoken to the 

President of the United States about Russia’s involvement in our 

democracy, never talked to the President of the United States. We 

have to deal with Russia and the biggest question that we have 

had recently is Russia’s involvement and what they have done to 

our democracy and for not to have had a conversation with the 

President of the United States about that involvement is absolutely 

shocking to me. 

Secondly, you mentioned the word betrayal in your opening 

statement. Well, I want you to know that that’s an appropriate 

word to describe what I am hearing from my constituents and fellow Americans and our allies all across—at home and abroad. 

They feel a sense of betrayal because of the way that the Trump 

administration has diminished America’s leadership and global 

standing. Our allies have expressed their sense of betrayal and 

mixed messages coming from the President and I believe this budget proposal is a betrayal of our nation’s interests. 

So while you mentioned a sense of betrayal regarding a single 

U.N. resolution, I hope you recognize the deep sense of betrayal 

that many Americans are feeling right now as the administration 

pursues a path of isolation. 

Recent Pew polling shows that America’s global image has been 

significantly hurt by President Trump. One exemption—Russia. 

They have confidence in him. And I know that this matters when 

it comes to diplomacy and our ability to successfully engage internationally. 

You mentioned earlier about human rights. Yet, when the President went to Saudi Arabia there was no mention of human rights. 

When he went to Egypt there was no mention of human rights. 

When he met with the Chinese there was no mention of human 

rights. When he had the Russians in his office giving away national 

secrets there was no mention of human rights. 

So I am concerned about—yet, when he went to Europe where 

our allies are, he was critical of them and criticized them. 

So it seems to me that the actions of the President of the United 

States will make your job a very difficult job because you’re supposed to be working with everyone and with the decrease in confidence in the United States, it seems to me that that would complicate your job to advance our national interests. 

And then it seems as though we are not sure when you say one 

thing and the President comes back and he says something else. 

So how do you handle situations in which the White House contradicts or overrides something you have publically said or the Secretary of State has publically said as regards to U.S. policy? 

Who determines what that U.S. policy is? And given all this, especially with the Pew polls, that’s going on it seems as if we have 

lost a lot of our leadership around the world. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you, Mr. Meeks, and I want to know 

what coffee you’re drinking this morning because I need to start 

drinking that. 

19

First of all, let us go through because I want to answer all of 

these. These are very important questions. First of all, with Russia—my conversations with the President are very much how you 

have seen me bash Russia on Ukraine. 

You have seen me bash Russia on Syria. You have seen me call 

out Russia if we see any sort of wrongdoings by Russia and, yes, 

I do think Russia meddled in our elections and, yes, I have said 

that to the President. 

So having said that, I haven’t asked the President any further 

questions because I just—it is not something that is on my radar. 

I don’t get asked about any of those things at the United Nations. 

So I am very focused on my work in New York and that has 

never come up once. There are no issues with Russia that have 

come up once by any member state in the U.N. and so that is the 

focus. 

U.S. leadership and our global standing—Mr. Meeks, we have 

really put a strong voice of the U.S. at the U.N. I mean, they know 

we are back. 

They know we are strong, and I will tell you when the action 

took place to strike Syria the number of Ambassadors that came 

to me and said, it is so good to see the U.S. leading again. Very 

important. 

Mr. MEEKS. Did we lead? We pulled out of the Paris agreement. 

Ambassador HALEY. Okay. I am going down your list. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay. I am just talking about how we are pulling 

out. 

Ambassador HALEY. I understand. 

Mr. MEEKS. We pulled out of a number of international—we have 

a President that has indicated that he wants to do bilateral, no 

multilateral, agreements. That he has no confidence in multilateral 

organization. 

Ambassador HALEY. He supports me at the U.N. and he supports 

what I am doing at the U.N. When you talk about human rights, 

I was the first person to ever bring up human rights at the Security Council. 

I went to Geneva to talk about human rights. I have been on it 

in terms of Venezuela, what is happening in South Sudan, all that. 

The President supports me on that. 

So when you talk about different views and those things that are 

happening, we are on the same team. For me to talk about it, he 

is supportive of that and so——

Mr. MEEKS. You have said it. The President hasn’t. 

Ambassador HALEY. I work for the President and I don’t go rogue 

on the President. He is very aware of what I am doing. He is very 

supportive of it and I can tell you that in all of these issues we are 

not apart on it. 

He believes as strongly on the things I talk about as anyone else 

and I would invite you to come to the United Nations so you can 

see for yourself the strength the U.S. is showing there because it 

is strong, it is heard, and it is valuable. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher 

of California. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

20

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. Pretty strong coffee 

there, Gregory. Pretty strong coffee. I don’t drink coffee myself. 

Ambassador HALEY. I don’t either. I might start. 

Mr. MEEKS. I don’t drink coffee, either. I am just concerned about 

my nation. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, let me just note that I think betrayal is a very rough word and I would suggest that anyone who 

voted for giving $150 billion to the Iranian Government, making 

that available, shouldn’t be talking about the words betrayal. 

Mr. MEEKS. I didn’t use it. She did. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. That’s noted. 

Madam Secretary, I would like to, number one, join my colleagues in suggesting that Venezuela is something really important 

to look at and those people down there. 

Venezuela used to be a shining example of how freedom can 

work, and although there were a lot of problems people were working together there peacefully. And now for that to degenerate into 

what it is, if we can lend a hand there both at the United Nations 

and through you as a spokesman there in the United Nations, 

make sure they know how concerned we are. 

We should also be concerned about Turkey. Turkey is going exactly the wrong way and these are things that we inherited from 

the last administration, let me just note. This is—Venezuela just 

didn’t happen now. It has been headed that way. I am sorry—the 

last administration did not do what needed to be done. We need to 

do more in that area to support the good people there in Venezuela 

and Turkey. Let me note, we also need to support the good people 

in Iran. Rather than giving $150 billion to their oppressors, we 

should be seeing what people we can actually be supportive of in 

Iran who oppose the mullah regime. 

So I would hope that in the United Nations that as these debates 

rage that those are the type of points that can be made. I would 

like to ask you about—how much money do we spend—you said it 

is 22 percent of the U.N. budget. How much is that all together? 

Ambassador HALEY. $600 million. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. $600 million. And how much does China pay 

in their dues? Do we know? 

Ambassador HALEY. A lot less. A lot less. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. A lot less. 

Ambassador HALEY. But I am happy to get you that number. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, I am just saying that because I 

think that when we have a body like the United Nations and such 

a high proportion of their budget comes from us and for us to be 

the whipping boy or our friend, Israel, become the whipping boy, 

I think that should be unacceptable and you can rest assured that 

those of us on this committee will be backing you up when you 

make such stands. 

My friend, Chris Smith, mentioned sex and labor trafficking in 

China is something we have ignored up until now and I would hope 

that these human rights issues do become part of President 

Trump’s agenda, let me note, and I think, by the way, we only have 

the last administration for 8 years to compare what President 

Trump is doing. 

21

I think President Trump is doing a great job—doing a fantastic 

job. How many American Presidents—instead of going—this American President went to Saudi Arabia and talked to the leaders of 

the Islamic world and said if you want to be friends with the 

United States, drive the terrorists out of your mosque. I have never 

been more proud of a President since Ronald Reagan said, ‘‘Tear 

down this wall,’’ and I think it was equivalent to that. 

So I would hope that those people who are just anti this President or trying to play politics with it—and just one last note. 

Russia is a flawed country—is a flawed state. I will just have to 

say that we should be making overtures to see if Russia can help 

us bring peace in the Middle East, especially in Syria, rather than 

trying to basically alienate Russia more and more and more because there are bad guys. 

The Syrians aren’t the only bad guys in that region. Many of our 

own allies are just as dictatorial and bad as Assad is. 

So let us hope that we can try to establish a more positive relationship with Russia that will help bring peace to that part of the 

world and help all of us. 

Thank you very much. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you, and I will do this very quickly. 

I will continue to be a thorn in Maduro’s side when it comes to 

Venezuela. I will continue to do that for human rights in any country that is an abuser of that. 

In terms of Russia, I agree with you. General Mattis continues 

to work with Russia because we do need to work with them on 

Syria and we can work them on counterterrorism. And so we are 

trying to find the places where we can work with them but we are 

going to call them out in places that we have to. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Albio Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to just say to 

my friend, my colleague, from South Carolina, what a great introduction. 

I just have a question. Which job did you like better? Being in 

South Carolina as the governor or being in the Big Apple in New 

York? 

Ambassador HALEY. Ask me——

Mr. SIRES. I am only kidding. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. Ask me in 6 months. 

Mr. SIRES. You don’t have to answer that. 

Ambassador HALEY. Ask me in 6 months. 

Mr. SIRES. Madam Ambassador, you know, I think some of us are 

frustrated. I did not grow up in this country. I grew up in a country 

where, you know, the Soviet Union just basically tried to indoctrinate everybody on the destruction of this country—how this is the 

worst country in the world, how we have to destroy democracy—

and I guess the frustration that we have is that the President 

doesn’t seem to share that view. 

He doesn’t seem to speak strongly enough on what Russia is 

doing interfering with the democracy of this country, how he is trying to undermine this country, how he is trying to basically destroy 

what we stand for. 

22

It seems that everybody around him certainly speaks enough 

about it but he is the biggest voice. You have a great voice. But 

he is a lot bigger, and I wish, you know, he would come and say, 

look, this is happening—they did meddle—they did try to undermine our democracy, and I think that is part of our frustration. 

The other thing I want to commend you on raising the human 

rights issue, and I promised the state troopers in New Jersey that 

I was going to raise this issue of Joanne Chesimard, who shot a 

state trooper in New Jersey and has fled to Cuba and has been living there as a hero for the last 40 years. If you could talk to the 

President, you know, mention to him that we want this—this 

criminal back so we can continue our—the justice. So if you can 

talk a little bit about that. 

And, obviously, Venezuela, I am very concerned about Venezuela. 

I saw a tape last night where one of the police officers shot through 

a fence a young boy just point blank. I mean, it is, you know, horrible. 

And the last thing is, I don’t know how you walk through the 

halls of United Nations. The hypocrisy there is just beyond. When 

you have human rights leaders in that commission who are some 

of the worst offenders in the world. So if you can just talk a little 

bit about that. 

Ambassador HALEY. I can. 

In terms of Russia, the only thing I can tell you is that I have 

done a strong share of Russia bashing while I have been at the 

U.N. The President has not called me once and said to stop it and 

has not in any way told me, don’t bash Russia. I hope that you will 

understand that he very well could have but he hasn’t. 

In reference to the Cuban criminal, yes, I am on it. I will make 

sure that we do something and see what we can do to get the administration—the administration has been very good about getting 

people home and it is something that it is on a priority. So I will 

also work and make sure that that is on our list. 

Venezuela—huge concern—huge concern in every way. I can’t 

bring enough attention to what the Venezuelan people are going 

through and how we are seeing more and more aggression by 

Maduro. If you heard his speech yesterday, he very much is saying 

he is going to use military action. He is very much saying that he 

is going to get more aggressive and he is blaming the protestors for 

trying to overthrow his government when all they want is true democracy on that front. 

And then in the U.N., you know, we work—it is just like your 

work here. I have to work with certain people and on some issues 

we agree and on some issues we don’t. But I have a loud voice on 

both of those. 

So when it is time to work with China, I do. But at the Human 

Rights Council I called out China. I called out Saudi Arabia. I 

called out Cuba and Venezuela. 

And so I will continue to do that because it—what we try not to 

do is isolate anyone. We try and make sure where we can work 

with them we do. But we are not shy about calling them out when 

we need to. 

Mr. SIRES. Ambassador, do we have any kind of a plan in case 

Maduro moves the military and—I think this—he’s in the final 

23

stage of just, you know, becoming a dictator. He already is, but I 

think it is going to just get worse. 

Do we have any plans? Are we talking to any members around 

there? Because I think you are going to have an exodus. You are 

going to have people leaving. Already I know Panama has told me 

that they are having a lot of people coming over. Colombia has a 

lot of—so do we have any plans? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I think there are plans in couple places. 

One, we brought it up at the Human Rights Council. Second thing, 

we were hoping for OAS. We didn’t see that. I am going to continue 

to push the Security Council. 

I would welcome any support that you all can give in terms of 

that. But I think now we have to go back to the Security Council 

and do something about it there. The U.S. is also reviewing the policy there on what we would do if this got worse. So I know within 

our National Security Council meetings that we have Venezuela is 

very much coming up on the radar as well. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Steve Chabot of Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you very much, Ambassador, for being here today. 

I had the pleasure of meeting you in the Capitol building for the 

first time last week when you met with a number of members and 

thank you for your time then and thank you for your time now, and 

a whole lot of us have been very impressed with what we have seen 

and heard thus far since you have entered into your current position. So thank you for your leadership——

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT [continuing]. At this important time in our history. 

I am going to repeat to some degree, first of all, what a number 

of other members have expressed as a big concern of theirs. It is 

mine as well, and that is the U.N. Human Rights Council. 

It seems that they spend an inordinate amount of time—it seems 

like most of their time, really, criticizing one of our most important 

allies, Israel. 

And as you know, you recently stated to the council, ‘‘It is essential that this council address its chronic anti-Israel bias if it is to 

have any credibility,’’ and I certainly agree with you in that respect 

and I would perhaps even go further. 

I don’t know if it is possible for them to gain credibility after the 

waste of time that they have spent criticizing Israel. So I, again, 

welcome your input—anything you would like to tell us on that 

issue. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you, and I had referred to the 

Human Rights Council before. 

The reason I went to Geneva was very much to say it to them 

and not just send a statement from New York, and we just said for 

the United States to be involved in the Human Rights Council they 

have to give us a reason to be because right now we are going to 

be for human rights. It is either going to be inside or outside the 

council. 

What you saw was a lot of other countries are embarrassed by 

Agenda Item 7. They get that it discredits them and they underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Nov 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\062817\26046 SHIRL
24

stand something needs to happen. What they have suggested is 

that it is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan that continue to use 

Agenda Item 7. We are now going to try and work with those three 

and see what we can do to get that to stop because I think that 

is incredibly important. 

I also think we need to have competitive elections. You know, 

when you have Cuba and Venezuela and Saudi Arabia and China 

and all of these on the Human Rights Council there is something 

very wrong, and what it has become over the years is a place that 

bad actors go to sit to keep the sunlight from shining on them. It 

very much embarrasses these countries when human rights is 

brought up and it is very much the reason they don’t want me to 

bring it up in the Security Council but I will continue to do that. 

So that is why we have a decision to make and we will see if they 

make any proactive changes to the Human Rights Council and 

then we will decide whether the U.S. is better to be in it or off of 

it. But that is a dilemma that we are still going through. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I agree with you completely. 

Let me turn now to Korea. We have 28,000, approximately, U.S. 

troops there and as we all know, they had elections recently and 

they have a new President who tends to be more on the left than 

the previous government was. 

And one of his first acts was to suspend deployment of the 

THAAD missile defense, which I think was a big mistake. They 

have put, I think, our troops at risk and President Trump said as 

much recently when he said he didn’t feel that our troops were safe 

there. 

It would seem to me that we ought to give South Korea a choice. 

They have the choice of having the most sophisticated missile defense system—the THAAD system—to defend them and to defend 

our troops so they get the missile system and our troops or they 

have no missile defense and no U.S. troops. 

I think it ought to be a very clear choice to them and they need 

to face that choice head on. I think it really is irresponsible for us 

to allow our troops—it was different when we didn’t have that capability. We had troops there for many years and the North Koreans were always a threat. We have troops all around the world 

that are at risk. But I think it is an unreasonable risk when we 

have the ability now to defend those troops and that government, 

in cooperation with us, could defend those troops much more effectively and I would welcome your comment on that. 

Ambassador HALEY. So I think that THAAD is something that—

what we saw was Moon was very cautious going into it but he has 

actually made good strides toward us and away from North Korea 

on many levels and, you know, those missiles that continue to be 

tested continue to push in the other way. 

I do think he was trying to slow walk THAAD to see where it 

was going to be. I also think he’s getting pressure from China to 

get rid of THAAD. China is the number one country pushing them 

to get the THAAD system out. 

At the end of the day, I personally believe it is going to work 

itself out. But I also know that the administration, the second we 

see something that’s not going in the favor of protection of our 

troops, then I know the President will act. 

25

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Welcome. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Welcome, Madam Ambassador. Glad to have you 

here today. 

You indicated that the budget was making a point more than it 

was a serious intention in and of itself. What point was being made 

by zeroing out funding for UNICEF, an organization that is highly 

praised, had a lot to do with saving millions of children’s lives 

around the world with child nutrition programs, rehydration programs from diarrheal diseases and the like, highly lauded, not political—why would we zero it out? What point was being made in 

that budget? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I think that what you saw in the budget 

was, it was trying to put the U.N. on notice. It wasn’t about the 

specific organizations as much as it was putting them on notice. 

I can tell you that I have seen UNICEF in action when I went 

to Jordan and Turkey and to see the schools, and what they do is 

highly valuable. 

I believe I am a conduit between what the President’s budget did 

and where you end up. So I am happy to give any information on 

what’s working, what is not working or what I see as valuable. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But Madam—but Madam Ambassador, I have 

been doing budgets up here and in my local government for over 

30 years. When you zero something out you are not making a 

point. You are making a profound statement and judgment about 

the value of that enterprise. 

Ambassador HALEY. I am——

Mr. CONNOLLY. To zero out UNICEF seems to be to be something 

that is not a particularly proud value that Americans would uphold. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I can tell you that as governor I also 

had a budget and an executive budget very much is a conversation 

point. It is a starting point and then you work with your legislature 

to bring those two together. 

And so I think what you have is that the President was trying 

to make a point to build up our military. Yes, it ended up going 

to where it had certain cuts there. I will——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I don’t think you want to go there. 

Ambassador HALEY. I am sorry? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I don’t think you want to go there. 

So the President was making a point we need to build up our 

military and people who need to pay the price for that are children 

around the world who are at risk of malnutrition? 

Ambassador HALEY. I know that having had conversations with 

the President on this budget and where Congress ends up there is 

working room. There is room where I know that he would want to 

support UNICEF. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are a loyal member of the administration. 

Good for you. 

26

Zeroing out UNICEF makes no sense to me and it is not making 

a point. You said members up at the U.N. are just so glad we are 

‘‘leading again.’’

Are those the same members who have condemned President 

Trump’s ripping up of the TPP and renouncing the Paris agreement? I am looking at some close allies, some of whom are members of the Security Council like France and—and not Germany, 

but Germany certainly wasn’t praising America’s leadership on 

those things. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I can tell you again, as a governor, 

with that Paris agreement the number of regulations it put on our 

businesses, the number of things it did with me trying to recruit 

international companies and how that——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I wasn’t asking that question, Ambassador. I am 

sorry. I only have 5 minutes. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I am trying to——

Mr. CONNOLLY. My question was whether your colleagues at the 

U.N. were praising those decisions as that is America ‘‘leading 

again.’’ I am quoting your words. 

Ambassador HALEY. The U.S. has to make decisions that are in 

the best interest of the U.S. It is not in the best interests for our 

businesses or our industries. We are not going to throw the climate 

out the window. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well——

Ambassador HALEY. We are going to continue to manage that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am glad to hear that. 

Ambassador HALEY. And you may not agree with how we manage that but I will tell you that I think what the President did was 

in the best interests of businesses and it was in the best interests 

of the country and that does not mean we are not going to be good 

stewards of the climate. And we don’t want——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, that would come as news to a lot of big 

businesses that endorsed it. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. We don’t want China and Russia telling us how we need to handle our climate. I think that it 

is very much point that——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Excuse me. We helped initiate the Paris agreement. They didn’t put a gun to our heads at all. 

Ambassador HALEY. But it didn’t go through the Senate——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well——

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. And it didn’t get passed——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, it is a proud moment that we are joining 

two other countries in the international community—Nicaragua 

and Syria. 

Ambassador HALEY. We are being independent. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It must be a proud moment. 

Ambassador HALEY. We are being independent. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Can I ask you, finally, what instructions have 

you been given about Russia? Presumably, you talk to your Russian counterparts about Syria, right? 

Ambassador HALEY. I talk to my Russian counterparts about a 

lot of things. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But not their interference with U.S. elections. 

That is off limits? 

27

Ambassador HALEY. I mean, what would you want me to say to 

them? I am at the U.N. We are working on international issues. 

I have made it public that I do believe they interfered with our 

elections. I have also said we can’t have any country interfere in 

our elections and I stand by that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I understand. But you now hold a very important 

diplomatic position at the United Nations. The Russians are at the 

United Nations. We talk about a panoply of issues, as you just indicated. 

But why wouldn’t we—have you received any instructions at all 

with respect to their meddling in our elections, like, don’t talk 

about that, Ambassador Haley? 

Ambassador HALEY. It hasn’t come up. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It has never come up? 

Ambassador HALEY. At the United Nations, it——

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. No. I am talking about Washington. Have 

you received instruction from the State Department, don’t talk 

about that? 

Ambassador HALEY. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Any instructions at all about it? 

Ambassador HALEY. None. I have said what I have said, I have 

been on the record, and no one has said, you are out of line. No 

one has said, don’t do anything. I mean, what I appreciate is this 

administration does not tell me what to say or what not to say. 

They allow me to say what I think and they support me through 

that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Let’s go to Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, for restoring American leadership to the United Nations. 

And thank you for participating in the National Security Forum, as 

well as Senator Rubio and myself. 

I chair the Homeland Security Committee and over the previous 

administration over the last 6 years I saw the Caliphate expand 

and expand, and nothing was done to stop it. External operations 

have been launched out of that region and now it has become the 

epicenter for terrorism and the epicenter of probably the greatest 

humanitarian crisis that we have seen with millions of refugees in 

Turkey and in Jordan, as you know, and throughout Europe, which 

poses a risk as well. 

I am very proud of this administration’s efforts now to crack 

down on this terrorist organization. But in the meantime, as we did 

nothing Russia went into Syria to get the ports on the Mediterranean. Iran is now in the region. 

So my question is very simple. What is your strategy to deal with 

this very, very complicated situation? 

Ambassador HALEY. I think that it is changing by the day. I 

think we literally are watching the Syria situation change by the 

day. I will tell you that I visited Jordan and Turkey recently just 

to make sure—as well as Israel—on that Syrian border to see what 

the migration was doing, to see exactly how we were dealing with 

Syrian refugees and how the host countries were dealing with it. 

Jordan and Turkey have been phenomenal to their refugees. 

They see it as their duty. What we saw in Jordan is they are giving 

28

education. They are giving health care. They are giving a stipend. 

They do it on a bank card, and whether that refugee goes to a bank 

or to a grocery store, it is by eye scan. They have zero percent 

fraud. And so it is impressive to see what is happening there. 

Turkey is doing very much the same things but they actually 

have their Turkish doctors training the Syrian doctors in 3 months 

so that the Syrian doctors can take care of Syrians. 

If you look, Jordan has taken in 1 million refugees. Turkey has 

taken in 3 million refugees. But they are feeling the pressure. They 

are double-shifting schools. Jordanian and Turkish children are 

going in the mornings, Syrians are going in the afternoons. 

Competition for jobs is starting to be there. But the Syrians are 

very grateful. They are very entrepreneurial. If you look in the 

camps they are creating their own economy with battery repair and 

alterations and all these types of businesses. So we need to support 

the host countries because they are doing a phenomenal——

Mr. MCCAUL. And if I could just applaud your actions against 

Assad and his use of chemical weapons to kill children in a hospital. 

But as long as he remains in power, propped up by Russia and 

Iran, this civil war will continue to go on. That is the root cause 

of this whole problem. The refugee humanitarian crisis won’t end 

until I think that problem is dealt with. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, and I think that from the political situation in Syria, what you are looking at is we are certainly making 

a lot of strides of getting ISIS out. I think it has been aggressive. 

I think it is going faster than we expected. From that standpoint, 

it is good. The Iranian influence in Syria is a problem. It is going 

to continue to be a problem because they are completely backing 

Assad. 

Russia is completely backing Iran. And so we are trying to make 

that separation because that needs to happen. One of the best 

things we did was after the chemical weapons program, when the 

President made that decision to go in and strike, it sent shock 

waves throughout the international community as well as in Syria 

to let them know we weren’t going to stand for it. I think the President has held true to any signs of chemical weapon usage we are 

going to get involved. 

Now we are going to have to start looking as a country at what 

is the U.S. role going to be post-ISIS, when ISIS gets out, because 

a healthy Syria is not with Assad. You can’t have Assad in power 

with a healthy Syria. 

And so I think we have to look at it from all levels and realize 

that a post-ISIS Syria doesn’t mean all goes back to where it 

should be happy and good again. We have to make sure it doesn’t 

stay vulnerable for other terrorist groups to come in. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Well, it is good to finally see some leadership in 

that part of the world and I will say that the Iranians are wedded 

to Assad. I am not sure the Russians quite are. 

Ambassador HALEY. I think they are starting to see him as a liability. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I think there is an opportunity possibly——

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. 

29

Mr. MCCAUL [continuing]. To work with them to have a graceful 

exile of Mr. Assad. 

Ambassador HALEY. I agree with you. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Welcome, Ambassador Haley. Before——

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. Asking questions, I just wanted to 

make one request, if I may. I represent Bob Levinson. He has been 

missing in Iran for 10 years. I would implore you at every opportunity you might have to see anyone from the Iranian delegation 

or when you speak with our allies who speak with the Iranians, 

please press for his return to his family. 

I want to—again, thanks, for being here and I am grateful for 

what you have said this morning and your presence at the U.N. 

these past 5 months and your willingness to speak out forcefully 

there and here in support of human rights is really welcome. 

At times, your advocacy for a human rights agenda seems to be 

at odds with some other members of the administration who don’t 

seem to place the same value on human rights in the center of our 

policy agenda where it belongs, as you do, and the lack of coordinated messaging has at times left our friends and allies around the 

world confused and questioning and I imagine it has, at times, 

made your job challenging. 

But I commend you for what you do. I commend you for convening the first special session on human rights during the month 

that the U.S. held the presidency of the Security Council. It is important to do what you are doing. We are able to shine a light on 

human rights abuses. You are able to push for peacekeeping reform. 

You are able to urge for greater efficiency in refugee assistance 

because the U.S. is fully engaged at the U.N. And while the U.N. 

is far from perfect and we can all acknowledge that, if we retreat 

from it instead of working from within it to improve it, we will cede 

leadership to those whose goals and interests run counter to our 

own. 

American leadership is what helps to prevent global health crises 

and address food insecurity. It is what helps address instability in 

dangerous places. Diplomacy and development helps to prevent 

wars. 

So I hope that you will continue to speak out and this Congress 

will fully fund our commitment to these efforts. 

I agree with the concerns that you have laid out. I have spoken 

out forcefully about the pervasive anti-Israel obsession at the 

Human Rights Council. No country has been subject to more resolutions than Israel. 

But it is also true that since the U.S. reengaged on the council 

the number of Israel-specific resolutions has decreased and it is, as 

you pointed out this morning, it is hard to take the Human Rights 

Council seriously when some of the world’s worst human rights 

30

abusers sit on the council in an effort to shield themselves from 

criticism. 

But, again, if we walk away from the council and give those bad 

actors free rein to continue to make a mockery out of human 

rights, we will all be the worse off for it and I hope that we will 

stick with it so that you can continue to make the case. 

You raise two possible reforms—membership standards and the 

removal of Agenda Item 7. On membership standards, I wonder if 

you could tell us how the team in Geneva is working to advance 

that. Specifically, are you laying out criteria for membership and 

how can we help you with that. And then secondly, on Agenda Item 

7, it is my understanding that procedurally the next time that the 

agenda can be changed is 2021. 

But earlier you mentioned that in your discussions with other 

countries you singled out Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as 

the only ones who will not acknowledge the absurdity of having a 

dedicated agenda item for a democratic ally of ours on the Human 

Rights Council agenda while completely ignoring the human rights 

abuses in Iran and North Korea and Venezuela. 

So my question to you on that is given that those countries are 

the ones who object and given that this administration at this moment has a lot on the table with those countries, have you spoken 

to the administration about using all of its resources with the 

Saudis and the Egyptians and the Pakistanis to help them understand why it is in their best interest to partner with us to make 

the Human Rights Council a place that actually can be respected, 

and if so what steps have they taken? 

Ambassador HALEY. Okay. Thank you. 

In reference to Bob Levinson, we will never let that go. I mean, 

that is something that I think sits on the hearts of many Americans wanting to see him and his family reunited. And so yes, we 

are going to continue to keep up the pressure on that. 

In terms of the budget, I want to be a conduit in any way I can. 

As you make your decisions on where the budget needs to go, I will 

let you know what I found to be valuable, what I think is important, and we will continue to be a leader at the U.N. I strongly believe that. And so we just need to decide what those areas are and 

we will continue to do that. 

In reference to the Human Rights Council, yes, we talked about 

competitive elections because typically what happens is by the time 

the region decides who that person is going to be, they are already 

on the ballot and there is no contest. 

So we have to look at the contests before. It is going to require 

more engagement but it is going to have to be willingness by others. We know it can be done because Russia lost last time and they 

lost because of their participation in Ukraine. So we have to learn 

from that and say, okay, how do we continue to bring those things 

up. So we are working not only with the Human Rights Council 

itself but we are also trying to engage in the General Assembly and 

maybe seriously look at using UNGA in September to bring that 

more to light and see what we can do there. I know Agenda 7 

doesn’t come up until 2021. We are not going to wait that long. 

So our goal is to go ahead and start doing this now because there 

are ways we could do it now. I have talked with the Secretary-GenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Nov 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\062817\26046 SHIRL
31

eral about it. I have talked with the Human Rights Council about 

it. 

I have talked to members of the administration. This will be 

multi-level and we are trying to do that. Secretary Tillerson and 

I have discussed what pressure we need to put on what countries 

and so yes, we are going to take that from all angles that we can. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam. 

Chairman ROYCE. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as I sat here this 

morning, I want to remind the committee that President Obama’s 

State Department sent $350,000 in taxpayer-funded grants to an 

organization called One Voice in Israel to influence the election or 

the ouster of Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2015. 

Ambassador Haley, you are doing a great job. Thanks for being 

here today. You know, on my side of the aisle I am one that believes that foreign aid is a powerful tool in U.S. foreign policy and 

I get a little more than chagrin when recipients of large amounts 

of U.S. foreign aid don’t vote with the United States at least half 

the time in the U.N. 

If you really look at the voting records of countries like Haiti, 

which was a huge recipient of U.S. foreign aid, and back when I 

did the research in, I think, 2012 they were voting with us, like, 

18 percent of the time. If you really go through the list of countries 

that receive billions of taxpayer dollars, this is money from hardworking American taxpayers that we are giving away to foreign 

countries that can’t even vote with us, their benefactor, at least 

half the time in the U.N. 

I know you are aware of that. Some have speculated that our efforts to whip the votes of the U.N. to try to get our beneficiaries 

to vote with us aren’t as good as our adversaries. 

Do you support the position that we ought to have beneficiaries 

of taxpayer dollars vote with us more at the U.N.? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I will tell you that the one point I continue to make at the U.N. is the U.S. will not be taken for granted 

and you cannot take the fact that this money that has always been 

rolling to you is going to continue to roll to you. 

So yes, we have put them on notice when it comes to that. I do 

think we very much have a partnership that we can have with 

Congress because we need to make sure they understand it is not 

just give me the money and then turn around and go against 

things that really matter to us on the other side, and coordinating 

that is something we very much want to start doing at the U.N. 

in terms of getting to see if we can push votes that way. 

And I am happy to work with you on that but yes, I think it is 

very important that we always want to do what is in the best interests to help people. 

We have always had, you know, a moral—we have always kind 

of been the moral compass to the world. But we are not going to 

be rolled over any more at the U.N. We are not going to allow that 

to happen. 

Every dollar matters and we don’t have to give it, and if we do, 

other countries just need to respect that and understand that and 

not vote against us on things that they know in turn will help 

them. So yes, I absolutely think you are right on that. 

32

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you for that. I have had the same conversation with countries that are part of the OAS with regard to 

Venezuela that don’t seem like they can vote with the United 

States and with democracy-loving countries as the OAS does different things—not really sanctions at this point toward Venezuela—I think it is a conversation to have. 

Let me ask you about the Colombia FARC negotiations and the 

peace deal that was implemented there. As chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the next thing to look at is going 

to be the increase in coca production and cocaine trafficking out of 

Colombia. I believe Colombia took their eye off the ball with regard 

to the cartel and even the FARC trying to grow a lot of coca and 

increase cocaine production to put some money in the bank before 

they became a legitimate political power under that peace agreement. 

Is there anything at the U.N., any conversations being had about 

cocaine trafficking increasing in Colombia and Peru and what we 

can do as a community to stop drug trafficking? 

Ambassador HALEY. Okay. First of all, to kind of go back to your 

last comment, I would remind you that we give quite a bit of 

money to the Palestinian Authority directly, bilaterally, and any leverage you can do on getting them to stop those martyr payments 

is going to be very important. If you can make that correlation and 

use that as a conversation point that would be very helpful to me. 

In terms of the FARC, we saw that the weapons turned over yesterday—we had a good announcement there in terms of things are 

starting to move. The Security Council does have a 1-year mandate 

in Colombia to sit there and look at all of those things and in that 

it is, obviously, to bring up the health and the effectiveness of how 

to make Colombia strong. 

So yes, those will be one of the things we are doing. You also 

know we have our South Carolina National Guard that is 

partnered with Colombia as well and so I think you are right to 

see past the FARC and see where it is going from there, to look 

at the future of Colombia. And so we will be happy to partner with 

you on that as well. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Yes, I visited with the National Guard folks 

in Colombia and am very proud of what they are doing with Colombia and that partnership. I know you were part of that, as well as 

General Livingston. 

So thank you for that. Good luck, and thanks for being here. God 

bless you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Karen Bass of California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 

Madam Ambassador. I want to congratulate your leadership in 

your short tenure and definitely register that I appreciated your 

bringing the Security Council to Washington, DC, and including 

Members of Congress. 

I would love to see that happen again and I also look forward to 

continuing to work with you on South Sudan and famine. So I 

wanted to ask you questions primarily related to that. 

Given that the U.N. has declared that famine in the four countries as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since 1945, what conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:34 Nov 02, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\062817\26046 SHIRL
33

cerns me the most is that it is the crisis that no one seems to know 

anything about. And I wanted to know specifically what the U.N. 

is doing to bring the crisis to the attention of the world. And, you 

know, the last time there was a crisis like this in 2011 in Somalia, 

200,000 people had to die before the world really took notice. 

The other thing is is that our contribution of $990 million we put 

that in the continuing resolution. I do have concerns, as I think Mr. 

Chairman Smith mentioned, that that money gets out of the door 

as quick as possible and that money not be rolled over into fiscal 

year ’18 because that blows the entire point. The point was to respond to the crisis. 

And then, of course, I am concerned about the budget proposed 

by the administration that would actually cut food aid. So when I 

look at this handout is from USAID and it talks about the funding 

gap and, you know, we have made substantial contributions but 

other donors still have quite a lot to contribute. 

And so I wanted to know your thoughts on how we might be 

helpful to you in terms of getting other donors to step up to the 

plate, including some nontraditional donors such as China and the 

Middle East. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you, and I really do believe these 

four famine areas are extremely important and if we really want 

peace and stability we need to look at that. 

When it comes to the food aid, very important that we continue 

to work with USAID but also with the World Food Programme. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. 

Ambassador HALEY. You know, we now have—we made sure that 

we have an American leading that who happens to be a former 

South Carolina governor——

Ms. BASS. Yes. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. David Beasley, and he has hit 

the ground running and is really starting to raise quite a bit of 

money for the World Food Programme as well. 

But we need to continue to put pressure on other countries because the Secretary-General has raised the famine issue as something to be concerned about. We don’t want people to get overly excited that South Sudan came off that list——

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. Because the food insecurity is 

still very strong, and then there are the political issues. You have 

still got access issues of trying to get the food in. You have still got 

issues with South Sudan when it comes to that. When it comes to 

Yemen, we are watching the port very carefully, Hodeidah. We 

have to make sure that there is no problem with that port or we 

will really be in a bad situation. And then when it comes to Nigeria 

and Somalia, just dealing with al-Shabaab and Boko Haram are 

going to continue to being issues as deterrences to getting the food 

in. 

So I think what is most important is that we continue to talk 

about it. Thank you, thank you, thank you for the billions dollars 

because that was hugely important when it came to the famine relief and I think we need to continue to do that. 

34

But it is also the reason I am going there in the fall so I can see 

it in terms of what else can the U.N. be doing, what else can the 

U.S. be doing in terms of helping with that. 

Ms. BASS. Well, when Chairman Smith and I did go, even though 

famine has been rolled back in South Sudan, we did find that people are only getting enough food for 1⁄2 month. So maybe it is that 

they are not dropping dead as quick but they still are very much 

in a crisis. 

Then you mentioned Mr. Beasley heading up the World Food 

Programme, yet our budget calls for cuts to that. And so I am hoping that in your position you can push back and encourage that 

those cuts not happen because we don’t have any reason in the 

world to think that we are not going to be facing famine next year 

until we address the root causes of the famine, which is the conflict. 

And then just on a final note at the end of my time, you know, 

I know that there is a lot of interest in getting countries that disagree with us to vote with us, and I don’t know where you measure 

that. And I would hate to think that the U.S. would move in a position of saying we are going to withhold aid unless you vote, what, 

10 percent? Fifteen percent? A hundred percent? How do you measure—you know, how do you measure that? I think that would be 

a very bad precedent and direction to us to go forward. 

So I look forward to continuing to work with you and maybe we 

can speak before you head off to South Sudan the next time. 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. No hard percentages on what funding 

should happen. I think that we just look at each individual one and 

where we see a bad actor that is not relating well—with the Palestinians, to get them to stop those martyr payments is so important and I think it creates a conversation for you all to have to help 

encourage that. 

But yes, we are not looking at hard cuts in terms of that and I 

continue to tell the President what is valuable and what is not. 

And so things like UNICEF and World Food Programme and the 

famine issues are things that I have talked with him about and 

will continue to talk to him about and I think that’s why we can 

be the conduit between the President and Congress on where the 

final budget ends up. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. It is great to be in the chair with Governor—

with Ambassador Haley here. 

The Chair will now go to Mr. Perry for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Mr. PERRY. Ambassador, great to see you. On behalf of all the 

Americans that feel as I do that we are tired of seeing America be 

the whipping post, are very proud of your service in the service of 

our President of the United States, and let me just state that. 

And then with your indulgence I just want to address what I 

think is political theater here. So while it is interesting, I, and the 

American people, may marvel at the Left’s newfound concern regarding Russian/Communist/Socialist nations’ continued efforts to 

diminish America. 

35

I just want to remind everybody about the FDR administration—

Alger Hiss, John Service, Harry Hopkins, who served at the very 

highest levels of government—and what seems to be the Left’s continued being enamored with Russia, Cuba, Che Guevara, et cetera. 

From FDR to the previous President’s statements to then-President 

Medvedev. And I just got a news flash for everybody—Russia, Communists, the Socialists have always meddled in America, have always targeted us and they are going to continue to do that. So welcome to the fight. 

With that, Ambassador, I have a question which I am going to 

put up front just for you to think about and then I am going to buttress it a little bit here. 

I am working on some legislation to prevent the U.S. taxpayers 

from funding UNRWA, right—the United Nations Relief and Works 

Agency—and I want to get your thoughts on that, in a general way, 

as it currently exists. 

And the context is this—it is 67 years old, right, and I looked at 

their mission statement—to establish a lasting, peaceful, and to the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict, direct bilateral negotiations. That’s 

number one. Number two—counter Palestinian terrorist groups. 

Number three—establish the norms of democracy, accountability, 

and good governance. 

And when I look at, in that context, what we are dealing with 

now—and I will just pick out a couple things—UNRWA’s expansive 

definition of refugee where President Abbas has acknowledged that 

that definition would mean the end of Israel—that is number one. 

Number two—the Hamas affiliation with UNRWA and the fact—

I will just give you a metric here—since 2006, Hamas-affiliated 

candidates have held 11 seats on the UNRWA teachers union executive boards and the UNRWA schools use textbooks and materials 

that delegitimize Israel, denigrate Jews, and venerate martyrdom. 

Fully 78.6 percent of youths in Gaza and 46.4 percent of youths in 

the West Bank support the Knife Intifada. Furthermore, 76 percent 

of the terrorists taking part in the Knife Intifada were under the 

age of 30. 

And finally, I don’t understand—and I am not sure why anybody 

can explain to me how they report directly to the General Assembly 

rather than the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. 

So it has been since 1950 that we have been paying for—I think 

we are currently up to about 31 percent of their budget—for a temporary mandate. The United States is out of money. We are out of 

cash to throw around, right. We are $20 trillion in debt, $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. It seems like it has been long enough 

to fund something that can’t even meet its mission. As a matter of 

fact, I think it would be correct to say that it flies in the face and 

runs completely counter to every single one of the policy goals it 

was set up for, yet the American hardworking taxpayer is paying 

for this thing. 

What are your thoughts, ma’am? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I had thought a lot of what you said 

about UNRWA but I wanted to see it for myself. And so when I 

went to Israel, I went to the Palestinian areas and looked at the 

UNRWA camp. We talked about the schools. We talked about the 

36

textbooks. We talked about participation of Hamas and where 

things were going with that, and this is what I will tell you. 

Yes, UNRWA is not perfect and yes, when it comes to any sort 

of relationship with Hamas that needs to come out. They claim 

they are cleaning up the textbooks but I think more work needs to 

be done on that front. 

The only reason why I would say don’t eliminate UNRWA is because there is so much resentment between the Palestinians behind that fence and Israel that an uneducated Palestinian versus 

an educated Palestinian are unhealthy——

Mr. PERRY. Okay. I am going to push back. Just a moment, Ms. 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador HALEY. No, and I want you to—I saw this. 

Mr. PERRY. So let me ask you this. This seems like a fair question. How much longer should folks like me wait on behalf of the 

American taxpayers until they clean up their act? What—I mean, 

it has been 67 years. How much longer should we wait? 

Ambassador HALEY. And I feel your frustration and I think that 

what we need to figure out is what is the replacement of UNRWA 

or how do we go back. First, we have to limit the number of refugees. 

It is out of hand the number of people that UNRWA covers because they are not all refugees. But the schooling and the health 

care for those groups in there, I mean, there is no other place for 

them to get it. And so there is a—there is a population there that 

does need to have that. All the points you raised are right and all 

the—those are all things that we need to fix. But I do——

Mr. PERRY. My time has expired, Ms. Ambassador. But at a minimum, I think we ought to look at what their mission is and we 

can’t meet this mission then we ought to reestablish a new one, 

and I yield. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ambassador HALEY. I understand. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I will now go down to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Ambassador——

Ambassador HALEY. Yes, good morning. 

Mr. KEATING [continuing]. Thank you for being here and thank 

you for your service. 

The Office of U.N. Women I think is a very important office. It 

empowers and trains women’s groups so that they can contribute 

to conflict resolution and peace building. It also deals with an issue 

that this committee has been very involved in in terms of having 

women be active as participants in counterterrorism implementation and dealing with that implementation task force, making sure 

that gender is addressed in counterterrorism strategies. It is also 

involved, among many other things in fighting violence against 

women, engaging women and protecting women themselves and 

providing resources to women who are victims of violence. 

You said the President’s budget is there to make a point. What 

point did the President make by zero funding this office? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, you know, my job is to go through and 

see what the office does, whether it is valuable, what the U.S. role 

37

should be and then report back, and so that is what I plan on 

doing. 

Mr. KEATING. Do you think it is valuable—that office? 

Ambassador HALEY. We will find out. I mean, I think I need to 

do more work. But yes, overall, anything that empowers women, 

creates a healthy situation for women, works for girls, does any of 

those things, yes, it sounds good on the surface. 

But we are going through all of those, whether it is, UNESCO 

or whether it is any of these programs we are going to continue to 

look at——

Mr. KEATING. What is the time frame for going through this now 

and can you enlighten us in terms of a time frame where this office 

will know it is going to continue to exist and go forward? 

Ambassador HALEY. I mean, I think you can expect in short 

term. I mean, we are going through all of these. It has only been 

5 months so we are trying to cover as much as we can at the U.N. 

I am happy to report back and let you know what we find out and 

whether it is valuable and it is something I would let the President 

know as well. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. This committee has been very involved 

in trying to empower women and deal in that area itself so it is 

something that I would appreciate in short term——

Ambassador HALEY. We will get back to you on that, yes. 

Mr. KEATING [continuing]. Getting back from you. 

Secondly, you know, we talked about staffing in the State Department in particular and all those areas that haven’t been 

staffed. 

I wonder, in your working with State, has that made it difficult 

to communicate back and forth for you and your function? 

And just to give a sense of things, do you have a lot of opportunity to deal directly with Secretary Tillerson and coordinate and 

have conversations? How frequently do you have the opportunity to 

converse or stay in touch? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I—because I am a Cabinet member, I primarily work with General McMaster at the NSC and so we work 

with his staff quite a bit. With the hirings at the State Department, you know, we have nothing to do with that so I am focused 

on the hirings at USUN. 

We have, up until now, saved $500,000 compared to this time 

last year just by cutting overtime and trips and, you know, certain 

things. But our experts there are fantastic. 

Mr. KEATING. But it hasn’t inhibited you in terms of your communication with the Secretary back and forth, that lack of staffing? 

Ambassador HALEY. I work more with the NSC than I do with 

the State Department. 

Mr. KEATING. I see. Do you have occasion to work with the President’s senior advisor because he is so involved right now in Middle 

East issues, Mr. Kushner? Have you talked and engaged with him? 

How frequently do you talk to Mr. Kushner about these international problems? 

Ambassador HALEY. It depends on what issues he is working on. 

But I talked to him certainly before I went to Israel to look at the 

U.N. programs. 

38

I always download them on what the trips are. They let me know 

if there is any issues. But with the U.N., I primarily work with 

Secretary Tillerson or General McMaster. But if Jared has a certain question or a certain issue that he wants to discuss then he 

will call me. 

Mr. KEATING. What is your view of his role? 

Ambassador HALEY. I think that when it comes to the IsraeliPalestinian peace process, I think he is being very effective in 

terms of—when I was there, there is hope. There is—I felt it. 

Both sides realize they have got to come to the table. Both sides 

realize something needs to happen. I think he’s handled it respectfully and I think he’s handled it aggressively. So that is really the 

one thing I have worked with him on and I think that on any other 

issues that he works on I am not as sure because we don’t have 

as much. I know that he was very involved in the trip that the 

President made, you know, to the area and that was extremely effective because I was in the area and it was very well received. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you. 

I just had one other quick question because my time is running 

out. 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. 

Mr. KEATING. With Qatar and the blockade, what is your position 

on that? There seems to be conflicting positions within the administration. 

Ambassador HALEY. I see it as an opportunity. We should take 

it as the opportunity that it is. It is a good chance to tell Qatar 

quit funding Hamas, quit doing these things in Gaza that they are 

doing. Let them know that they have been funding groups that are 

going toward that terrorist activity we don’t want to see but at the 

same time go back to Saudi Arabia and say, look, you can talk to 

them but at the same time you have to cut this out—you have to 

stop doing this. It is an opportunity to kind of hit on both of them, 

I think. 

Mr. KEATING. Yes. Well, thank you for coming here and I hope 

we have the opportunity to have you back here again. I appreciate 

the service. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KEATING. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ron DeSantis of Florida. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Welcome, Ambassador. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Before you assumed your position, the U.S. 

passed Resolution 2334—really disastrous resolution—a frontal attack on Israel. What is your understanding about the role that your 

predecessor played in facilitating that? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I made sure to let every member of the 

Security Council know what a kick in the gut 2334 was to the people of the United States. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And was that view a change from what they had 

been told previously with the previous administration? 

Ambassador HALEY. There was some who were apologetic. There 

were some that were resentful. There were some that acted indifferent. But yes, they did let me know that this was U.S.-led and 

U.S. pushed and that only made it worse. 

39

Mr. DESANTIS. No doubt. So the question is do we have an opportunity to repeal that or reverse that and if not why should the 

American taxpayer fund an organization that, of their 24 resolutions, 20 of them were dealing with this one tiny—the only Jewish 

state, the state of Israel? 

Ambassador HALEY. I can tell you, it has been nothing short of 

abusive what has happened to Israel and the only thing I can compare it to is like the kid bullied in the playground. They did it to 

make themselves feel better. They did it because it was in habit. 

They did it because they could. I think that what I will tell you is 

we put them on notice the very second I went to my first hearing 

because I could not believe how abusive it was. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So you think the American taxpayer has a right 

to expect changes at the U.N. in order to continue to send money? 

Ambassador HALEY. Absolutely, and they all know not to talk 

about 2334. Very hard to repeal now that it is done. But what we 

will do is call them out any time this happens and we have seen 

a decrease in that rhetoric and in this last Israel-bashing session, 

which they do every month and have for the last 10 years, it was 

the first time that the majority of the members just pushed the 

peace process instead of bashing Israel. So there is a change but 

there is a long way to go. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I appreciate your leadership. We also can 

take other actions. The President, when he campaigned, promised 

to move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I have gone over, 

looked at sites. It can be done. Do you support doing that and are 

we going to eventually do that? 

Ambassador HALEY. I have always supported the Embassy move 

and I believe the President supports it as well. It is not about if 

it happens. It is about when. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But I hope it is soon because I think it would be 

great if we could do it now. There is an issue of we have Americans 

that were born in Jerusalem. When they go to get passports the 

State Department does not allow them to write Israel—Jerusalem, 

Israel—because they claim that that’s disputed and it is not the 

capital of Israel. 

Can we get relief for some of those? I mean, would you favor 

that, allowing Americans born in Jerusalem to just have Jerusalem, Israel if they so choose on their passports? 

Ambassador HALEY. I have not—I am not aware of that. But I 

am happy to talk to the State Department about that——

Mr. DESANTIS. That would be great. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. To see what it would take. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The Muslim Brotherhood—is that part of the solution in the Middle East or part of the problem in the Middle 

East, in your view, and if it is the latter, should the U.S. designate 

them as a foreign terrorist organization? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I think that that is highly debated. That 

is not something that has been discussed within the administration. I am not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood and so I do think 

that they are more problematic in the area than helpful. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Because I think that we, you know, hit the terrorists, kind of Whac-A-Mole, which is good—you got to take them out. 

40

But there is a foundational ideological view that is motivating that 

and there will be other people who will fill that vacuum. 

The Brotherhood, I think, represents the foundation and if we 

can deal with that then I think we are dealing with the problem 

of radical Islamic terrorists much more holistically and likely to be 

more effective. 

Ambassador HALEY. I completely agree with you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Turkey—are they a valuable part of NATO at this 

point? There was a disastrous display here in Washington where 

Erdogan’s goons were beating American protesters. 

You have seen a country that used to be a bridge to the West 

has turned in a much more Islamist direction. Our relationship 

with Turkey—is it strained? What is the viability of them as a 

NATO ally if they seem to be going in a direction that is different 

from the Western values that the rest of the NATO allies hold? 

Ambassador HALEY. So a few things with Turkey. It is complicated. But when I was in Turkey, I did meet with the Foreign 

Minister. It was mainly focused on how to get access into Syria because they were stopping some of the NGOs from getting in there. 

But we talked about multiple other things—prisoner releases and 

some other things along those lines. Turkey is a fantastic host 

country to the Syrians. 

They are doing everything right by the Syrians. Their government is starting to turn for the worst. You can start to see more 

of a dictatorship that is starting to happen—those types of things. 

I work very closely with the Turkish Ambassador because with 

everything going on we need to. They are not happy with what we 

have done with the YPG but they get it. They don’t like it but they 

get it. 

And so I think Turkey is one of those that has its good sides. It 

has its bad sides. It has been made clear to them at the highest 

level that you can’t come to our country and act like that—at the 

highest level. 

They know that that’s not something we will tolerate. They know 

that it was very much frowned upon. They have given excuses as 

to why it happened and they know we are not taking any of their 

excuses. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Obviously, for the Indian-American diaspora this is probably a 

first and, obviously, proud for the community. You know, Madam 

Ambassador, when we think about the U.N. Security Council it has 

been a consistent policy from the past administration, also I think 

with the current administration, to do necessary reforms and modernize the U.N. Security Council. And can we get—obviously, the 

politics at the U.N. aren’t going to be easy but in a statement released earlier this week the President reaffirmed his commitment 

to add India as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council 

along with, what I would argue, we should include all of the G4 

nations. Is that something that we can get your commitment to 

continue to work on? 

41

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I have told all members of the U.N. 

that we are in support of Security Council reform as long as they 

don’t take our veto away. 

Mr. BERA. Right. 

Ambassador HALEY. You know, that has been very important. So 

yes, I know that there are multiple different plans out there and 

things that are going on. We are going to continue to engage and 

continue to talk about that. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

In your earlier comments you noted that the budget was making 

a point as opposed to being reality. My colleague, Mr. Connolly, 

talked a little bit about what UNICEF does and you yourself, in 

answering one of this questions, talked about how you’ve seen firsthand how what they do is incredibly valuable. 

Can we get your commitment as you’re working behind the 

scenes with the administration, with the President, we will do our 

part to restore full funding or as much funding as possible? Can 

we get your commitment that that is a priority? 

Ambassador HALEY. I think that we need to remind these organizations that they too need to smartly spend and they need to look 

at their budgets as well as we are all kind of looking at how we 

can be smarter about what we do. 

But yes, I absolutely will support UNICEF. It is something that 

I am happy to continue to talk to you about—that one and other 

organizations that we found helpful. But I am also talking with the 

administration about it. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BERA. Another organization that was zeroed out was the 

U.N. Family Planning Agency. Their mission is to prioritize the 

health and education and needs of women and girls around the 

world. If you look at their core work, it is providing access to contraception. It is providing safe childbirth. It is addressing and responding to gender-based violence. It is advocacy against abusive 

practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation. 

You would agree that those are worthy causes to fight? 

Ambassador HALEY. There are many causes that are important 

that affect women and children that we want to make sure that we 

keep that at the forefront. 

The problem with the UNFPA is they did have ties to China that 

does forced sterilization. But I can tell you every ounce of that 

money is going to all the things that you just talked about but it 

will be done through the general health programs through USAID. 

Mr. BERA. Well, so I have some concern because that has been 

brought up multiple times. Under the last Republican President, 

George W. Bush, the State Department did do an examination to 

see if that was occurring and they did not find that evidence that 

UNFPA was engaging in——

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield at that point? 

Mr. BERA. Well, I have only got a limited time so—that they 

were engaging in coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. If 

that is in fact occurring, great. Let us remove funding from those 

types of programs or lets hold UNFPA accountable. 

42

But UNFPA is doing tremendous work around the world protecting maternal-child health, and I say that as a doctor. We 

shouldn’t just throw everything out if there is a single program—

I understand there is the Kamp-Kasten Amendment and instead of 

just withdrawing all funding—a lot of women are going to suffer. 

There will be unnecessary deaths and so forth. 

So can I get your assurances that you will look at these programs 

as opposed to just zeroing out and eliminating these programs? If 

there is evidence of coercion, if there is evidence of involuntary 

sterilization, great. Address that. But let us not pull all of our 

funding. 

Ambassador HALEY. So on a lot of programs, yes, I am happy to 

work with you on all of those. That is a decision that has already 

been made by the administration. So I don’t anticipate a change in 

that. But I am happy to at least let you know the information that 

they have on——

Mr. BERA. But the administration already made a decision to 

zero out funding for UNICEF. That’s the starting point, as you 

said. It is not necessarily an ending point. We can continue to put 

some of this push back? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, and I think that that was just the directive that we got, you know, that that was going to happen. We 

haven’t had that on UNICEF and some other things. 

But what I will tell you is very important is that global health 

of women and children as we go forward and so we have made sure 

that that same money is going to global health programs to do the 

same things within the USAID. But I am happy to get you any information I have as to what the administration’s stance is on that. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ted Yoho of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Ambassador, it is great to see you here. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. It is refreshing to see you sitting there compared to 

where I—we saw last time. But I love your attitude because you’re 

not serving a political party. 

You are not serving so much the administration as you are representing America the way it needs to be represented and its 

strong leadership and I do thank you for that. 

Some members are still in denial that America is facing tough 

economic challenges. Austerity measures are coming and so I am, 

for one, happy to see some of the cuts the President has offered because that leads to reform and those reforms are what we need to 

make. 

Secretary Tillerson in Seoul declared the era of strategic patience 

toward North Korea has ended. In veterinary medicine we have a 

comparable phrase and it’s called benign neglect, and that is hoping an illness will get better on its own. 

However, it doesn’t work for a terminal disease and that is what 

the situation in North Korea is and we need to deal with it. So my 

directions are going to be toward China and China’s help with correcting the problems, and are they a strategic partner or a strategic opponent? Because I think their actions speak louder than 

their words. 

43

They say they want to help us and what I see is double speak. 

If you look at what China has said they were going to help us with 

with North Korea, they were going to put more pressure on them. 

But yet, when they said they are not taking in any more coal, if 

you look at their iron ore imports from North Korea to China it is 

up 270 percent. Their trade for North Korea in the first quarter of 

this year is up 37.4 percent. 

And so when you look at what China is doing, they are putting 

pressure and boxing Taiwan in. They have thrown them out of the 

World Health Assembly, and Taiwan was such a valuable partner 

in that. 

They are the ones that came up with the cures for the SARS epidemic, and they threw them out of that. They put pressure on Panama to take Taiwan out of that. They went against South Korea 

when we put the THAAD system in and that was strictly defensive 

in nature. 

And so China is showing aggression in there, at the same time 

telling us that they are going to work with us. Yet, they take over 

the South China and claim it all as theirs under the guise of peaceful navigational purposes. 

So it was great to see the FONOPs that we did—the freedom of 

navigation that the Navy did—and I hope we continue that with 

all nations in the South China Sea because China speaks that they 

are going to help us but yet their rhetoric isn’t there. A detailed 

U.N. report issued in February of this year published the names 

and addresses of multiple U.N.-designated proliferators that have 

openly operated on Chinese soils for years and since then the Center for Advanced Defense has exposed China-based business networks as being behind the smuggling of record cargoes of North 

Korean weapons to the Middle East. 

So China is funding and allowing North Korea to gain access to 

these weapons or they are producing them, selling them to the 

Middle East, going into the hands of terrorists fighting our troops. 

And so if China is really going to help us, my question to you 

is why hasn’t China been held accountable for the repeated violations and undermining of U.N. sanctions and what tools does the 

U.N. have in your capacity to hold China accountable and ensure 

the sanctions are implemented? 

And two last things. I chair the Asia Pacific Subcommittee in 

Foreign Affairs, and I know we are separate branches of government. But want to know where we can help you. And one of the 

things we did is put in the state sponsors of terror bill and I would 

sure love to see North Korea put back on the state sponsor of terror 

so that we can enforce the secondary and tertiary sanctions on 

banks and businesses doing business with them. So if you could answer that question about China, thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. So first of all, China is—when it came 

to North Korea, I do think there was a good faith effort initially. 

We continued to put more pressure. 

They continued to move a little bit more. As the missile testing 

continued to happen they actually publically in China were saying 

something about North Korea and then all of a sudden North 

Korea pounced back and at that point we saw a calming down of 

China and pulling back again of China. 

44

I can tell you that they did—when we proposed sanctions on 

North Korea and all the entities in those missile tests they voted 

with us and we were able to pass it because they voted with us. 

Are they doing enough on trade with North Korea? No. Laborers? 

No. Any of those other things? No. 

So the pressure we have put on has been strong and I have said 

publically if we had to go to secondary sanctions, we will. And so 

we are not past holding anyone accountable when it comes to supporting or helping North Korea in what they are doing with the nuclear situation and we will continue to push hard on that front and 

I think that the President has also——

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your service and thanks for being here. 

And any way we can help you let us know. Thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. Will do. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Hello. 

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I just want to thank you for your service. I have 

very high hopes and expectations for you and I am just urging you 

to remember that you represent all Americans, not just a President 

of the United States. 

Allow me to start with a little bit of a rant and then I do have 

a question. I do not understand why our President wants to keep 

putting more money in defense but yet reduce the funding for those 

elements of our security that would keep us from having to use our 

military. So that means, I think, that your efforts should be fully 

funded, obviously. 

I want to just say this and I want to say it politely because, as 

I said, I really—my purpose is to urge you to be a champion for 

the women of this world. I did not like your answer to my colleague’s question about the defunding of the United Nations Population Fund because you said well, the administration has already 

made that decision. 

Well, I want to urge you to try to convince our present administration to overturn that. You know, I know you would agree that 

for the world to be peaceful that women need to be fully productive 

in their societies—not just reproductive but productive and that 

means they have access to health care. 

In our own country, our Constitution gives us the right to contraception and to legal abortion and yet we are making every effort 

to cut that off all over the world. We have the gag rule now. Now 

we have this defunding of the United Nations Population Fund and 

with a totally phony excuse about something China is doing, which 

there is no proof of. 

So I want to know how you are going to fight to make sure that 

women have access to health care around this world. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, thank you, and I first want to say that 

I do believe in this position I am serving every citizen in the country to try and have a strong voice for the United States. I will continue to do that and I see that as my role in my job. 

I have a passion for not only women but children in conflict and 

so at every position, whether it was Jordan, whether it was Turkey, whether it was Israel, I always just meet with women. 

45

Now, I meet with others but I do a separate sidebar with women 

to find out exactly what they care about. And so, for example, in 

Jordan and Turkey, the psychological support that they need and 

their children is a huge thing and I am trying to really push that 

we start to go to that psychosocial support in helping them. 

When it comes to family planning, we want to help with that as 

well. 

Ms. FRANKEL. How are you going to do it? Let me ask you, have 

you had a discussion with the administration about reversing their 

position on this health care funding? 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, first of all, when it comes——

Ms. FRANKEL. Would you have a discussion? 

Ambassador HALEY. Of course. I have only been there 5 months, 

so understand that UNFPA that was decided very early on. I have 

no problem looking into it. I have no problem checking to see what 

the reasonings were behind it and——

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, I am just going to say something here. I 

think it is an urgent issue because I have to tell you that access 

to healthcare and reproduction is something that is occurring every 

single day. So you need to really do that. 

I have another question for you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Just one more point, if you don’t mind. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes, please. Yes. 

Ambassador HALEY. So keep in mind the U.S. is not the only one 

that funds the UNFPA. We are actually the third largest donor to 

the UNFPA. 

So while I know that the U.S. has decided not to do that, those 

programs are not stopping because we do have other countries that 

are funding it. So I don’t want you to think that that just goes 

away. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. I just want to urge you, plead with you, 

please focus your attention on that. 

The next question, last question, is I know that the President 

has suggested that your budget be cut. Hopefully, the Congress is 

not going to go along with that. I want to get a commitment from 

you. 

If we fund the positions and we fund the efforts at the U.N.—

the Congress—that we feel is necessary, are you going to take the 

effort to hire the positions and make sure that the issues we are 

trying to fund are executed? 

Ambassador HALEY. I don’t have anything to do with the State 

Department hires. That is different. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am asking you about your hires. 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. My hires, yes, we will continue to do 

that and whatever budget you give me I will work with. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. Thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Good luck. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am counting on you. 

Ambassador HALEY. I know, and I will try and make you proud. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Adam Kinzinger from Illinois. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you for being here. 

46

Ambassador HALEY. Good morning. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Very, very appreciated. Thank you for your service. Thanks for spending the time with us and delving into a lot 

of important issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I will point out the clock needs to be reset, otherwise I will go on forever. 

Anyway, so just thank you for everything you’ve done and for 

being here. A lot of important issues we are discussing. I think 

there is no more important issue than Syria, which I know you 

have touched on. 

But when we look at world stability, when we look at the war 

on terror, when we look at American’s safety, I think it’s important 

that Americans understand that what goes on in Syria affects us 

here and that the brutal regime of Bashar al-Assad backed up by 

the Iranians, backed up by the Russians that are bombing hospitals with GPS or precision-guided munitions, secondary strikes 

against the same hospitals, are actually creating a whole new generation of terrorists. 

In fact, there are some in this body that buy into the argument 

that strongmen somehow work in the Middle East. I think it is important to remember that with the era of information and the era 

of being able to communicate, people simply don’t like to be oppressed. Some people maybe think that they enjoy being oppressed 

but people don’t like it. They, naturally, desire freedom and in that 

process of being—whether it’s a chemical weapon attack, whether 

it’s a conventional weapon attack—losing your father or your mother or your child makes me much more likely to join an opposition 

force which, up until recently, appears to have been ISIS in many 

cases. 

I want to thank you and the administration for putting what I 

think was an amazing red line down in the statement about a 

pending potential chemical weapons attack. As you said earlier, I 

think that saved countless lives. There are lot of children that now, 

hopefully, can realize their dream of being a police officer or a 

teacher because of that really strong line. 

So it’s great having you there. It is great having an administration that understands this. Let me just ask a little about Syria and 

the discussion of that next generational war on terror. 

I think it’s the 7- and 8-year-olds today that are in the refugees 

camps that are either not getting education or are getting education that are going to be either the folks that in, frankly, 5 years, 

because that is how young they recruit them, that we find ourselves having to fight on the battlefield or else they are going to 

be the generation that actually rejects this ideology from within. 

Can you talk about the difficulties in the refugee camps and the 

difficulties in Syria generally and how that plays into the long-term 

fight on terror that we have on our hands? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. And so first of all, with Syria I would 

remind you that the post-ISIS decisions that are made in Syria are 

going to be extremely important to make sure that it is not a new 

breeding ground for other threats to come in. 

And having talked with the Syrian refugees both in the camps 

and outside of the camps, they are completely ready and waiting 

to go there and build it back up from scratch. They want to go 

47

home. They have family members there. That is something that I 

think is going to continue to happen. 

When it comes to the education, so what we know is the refugees 

that have come out, those children are getting educated. They are 

getting assistance. They are being well taken care of. 

All of those things are fine. There are about 500—300,000 students in Turkey that are not getting education but the 3 million 

people are and they are trying to accommodate that and that is 

why I am trying to get the U.N. to focus on supporting host countries so we can get those kids educated as well. 

In Syria, I don’t think they are getting educated in Syria. Now, 

I am sure every area is different but it is just such a mess because 

we are just still trying to get aid in there. We are still trying to 

get food in there and make sure that they are taken care of. 

But it is not just in Syria. In any area around the world, if you 

have children who have to do without, whether it is education, 

whether it is health care, any of those things, they are prime targets for terrorists to get them and we have to always remember 

that as we go forward because that is—yes, we can defeat ISIS 

today but those threats will go on forever and that is why I put 

so much emphasis on human rights as it relates to conflict because 

those things are what drive terrorists to come in and take advantage of the situation. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And I thank you for being part of that whole of 

government approach. I mean, I think sometimes we get mired 

down in this idea that when the Islamic State is defeated we can 

all come home and have fun rainbows and happy time. But the reality is you can’t defeat an ideology with bombs and bullets. You 

can only defeat existing terrorists. And so it’s important to think 

long term because, frankly, this is going to be a long-term war. 

And I think, you know, specifically, a great country I got the 

privilege of visiting was Liberia and there is a strong U.N. mission 

there. I think it is important to note that when we talk about the 

United Nations, though needing reforms, it can be a force multiplier, doing things that our troops don’t have to do. 

But you see in that whole generation that was torn apart by civil 

war and people that mean and want to do well, but you see 30-

year-olds that don’t know how to read and write with no hope. And 

when that happens in the Middle East that is a fertile ground for 

recruitment. 

So, again, I just want to say thank you so much for your service. 

Thanks for being here, and I will yield back. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Joaquin Castro of Texas. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, 

for your testimony today. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. CASTRO. I think your time during your service during this 

President’s tenure has been one of the more moderating voices on 

what I consider to be some of their more outlandish moves. But I 

think it has also put folks like yourself and Secretary Tillerson in 

a box sometimes. 

And so I want to ask you a question that I have been asked 

many times by the Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors, members of 

48

Parliaments that I have met with since President Trump took office, which is who reliably speaks for the President in the foreign 

policy space? 

Ambassador HALEY. So we work very much as a team and the 

team works strongly. In our NSC meetings I have a great relationship and we talk through things with Tillerson, Mattis, McMaster, 

we have Kelly—I mean, everybody there. That group is the main 

group—General Dunford—those are the main people. Pompeo is 

another important one. We go through all aspects of everything 

when it comes to dealing with that. So it really is a team——

Mr. CASTRO. So there is a process in place that——

Ambassador HALEY. And a very organized process in place. General McMaster has done a fantastic job and all of our voices are 

heard and all of us get to help push that decision. 

Mr. CASTRO. Do you feel as though the President takes your advice? 

Ambassador HALEY. I think that the President—you know, then 

General McMaster has to do that. I think the President does—he 

has turned out to be a very good listener in terms of the fact that 

he wants to learn and he appreciates different viewpoints and then 

he makes his decision. 

Mr. CASTRO. Well, I guess probably the most glaring example or 

problematic example that I have seen was when Prime Minister 

Netanyahu for a joint press conference—and the idea of a one-state 

solution rather than a two-state solution was broached, I believe 

while Secretary Tillerson was on a plane somewhere, was not 

present—and then the next day you had to come back and basically 

say, no, our approach is still a two-state solution. And then the 

President later said well, it is really whatever the parties want to 

do. 

Ambassador HALEY. Right. 

Mr. CASTRO. So you can imagine around the world that people 

start wondering who is speaking for the President. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, and in fairness too, everybody was involved with that. The President has very much felt like we don’t 

need to push what the solution is between Israel and the Palestinians—that we need to have them come to the table and make those 

decisions. 

So his point was if they come up with a one-state, if they come 

up with a two-state—whatever they come up with we are going to 

support and the way it got out—I agree with you, the communication was weird—but that was his intention. So we knew very much 

that he wasn’t giving up on a two-state solution. He just was saying whatever they come up with we will support and if that’s a onestate solution we will support that, too. 

Mr. CASTRO. Well, and then I guess a more recent example is the 

example of Qatar, where the President was essentially praising the 

blockade and at the same time, because we have a base there and 

other interests, other parts of our foreign policy apparatus seem to 

be coming to the defense of Qatar. Again, there seem to be at least 

two heads there. What happened on that issue? 

Ambassador HALEY. It is a complicated issue and, like I said, I 

have given my opinion. I think there is an opportunity to hit both 

sides and try and get more of what we want. 

49

Qatar has been funding—we know that they have done a lot with 

Hamas as we are dealing with Gaza and some other areas. And so 

I think the President really does want to push out ISIS, push out 

terrorism, and his whole point of going and making that first visit 

was to say we have got to get rid of all of these threats that we 

have. So when this came up with Qatar his focus was very much 

on the funding they were doing for terrorists and I think that, yes, 

we have a airbase there. Yes, there are some ties. But he sees the 

priority as cutting—is getting rid of ISIS and getting rid of terrorism as right there at the top. 

Mr. CASTRO. And then finally, because I just have about 50 seconds left, I am on the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee and Venezuela, of course, is a big issue. I know you probably fielded a question from Albio Sires, perhaps, on it. But what is your outlook for 

Venezuela and for the region? 

Ambassador HALEY. It is worse than what we are seeing on TV. 

It is in a very bad place and what I had said before was, you know, 

we did an emergency session—the Security Council. They weren’t 

happy with that. They felt like it needed to go to the Human 

Rights Council but we still had it. 

We went to the Human Rights Council. The reason they have not 

brought it up, which they need to, is because Venezuela sits on the 

Human Rights Council. And so we blasted them on that. 

We were banking on OAS doing something. That didn’t happen. 

This needs to be on our radar. Maduro is leaning more and more 

toward using military force and weapons and I think that this is 

something that is only going to get worse before it gets better and 

we need to make sure that we are watching this carefully and do 

something about it. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thanks for your service. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Lee Zeldin of New York. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, for your service to our country and for being here today. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. ZELDIN. U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 was an antiIsrael anti-Jewish resolution seeking to ethnically cleanse Judea 

and Samaria and East Jerusalem. Is it an accurate summary of 

your observations since taking over as Ambassador that some of 

the nations that voted for this resolution were resentful, some were 

apologetic and it appears to have been U.S.-led and U.S.-pushed? 

Ambassador HALEY. I talked to all of the Security Council members and told them how offended and what a kick in the gut it was 

for Americans. What I got was some felt very arm twisted by the 

U.S. Others thought it was the right thing to do and then, you 

know, the hard part about me talking with 2334 is they keep telling me, well, it is the U.S. that wanted it—it is the U.S. that wanted it. 

So it is hard for me at this point. I am just saying there is a new 

administration. This is not where we want to go and so now they 

don’t talk to me about it because they know it is such a sore subject with us. 

50

Mr. ZELDIN. And your testimony is confirmation that the U.S. 

was engaging in dangerous ugly backstabbing of our nation’s ally 

in Israel, and we abstained. 

And when Ben Rhodes and others were on conference call—this 

is in the White House records—quoting verbatim—when asked why 

we abstained Ben Rhodes, the taxpayer-funded White House fiction 

writer, says, ‘‘We abstained, as Samantha explained, for a number 

of reasons.’’

First, the United Nations, we continue to believe, is a flawed 

venue for this issue in that it has frequently been used to single 

out Israel. Not only was that effort U.S.-led and U.S.-pushed, but 

then publically we were abstaining and we were abstaining for the 

reason that I just quoted from Ben Rhodes. And I really appreciate 

your testimony to help clear the record and history on that. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, and if I could just add, I respect 

Samantha Power and appreciate her service very much. But that 

was one of our lowest points in our country with what happened 

because the international community, when they saw that we went 

against an ally, it set off a terrible tone in terms of where we are 

going to go. 

And just to let you know how bad it was, when she abstained, 

the entire Security Council and the audience got up and applauded 

and Israel was sitting there watching that. Think about what we 

just did to a friend, what happened. You don’t ever applaud in the 

Security Council. It never happens. It happened that day. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And I think it is clear from anyone in Israel who 

would be listening to your testimony here today that you have the 

back of America’s allies. You understand that we should be 

strengthening our relationship with our friends, treating our adversaries as our adversaries and I am very happy that you are there. 

I do want to ask about the Taylor Force Act, which has now 

grown bipartisan support in Congress, which would withhold aid to 

the Palestinian Authority until it stops inciting violence and financially rewarding terrorists—a policy otherwise known as ‘‘pay to 

slay.’’

Have you taken any position—are you able to share with regards 

to what your opinion is on the Taylor Force Act? 

Ambassador HALEY. So I have met with the family and yes, I am 

very vocal about the fact that the U.S. gives bilateral money to the 

Palestinian Authority and we need to have a strong conversation 

with them on how these martyr payments have to stop and I think 

that it is one of those things that, by us giving money, we are supporting it and we have to make that correlation with them and let 

them know that that’s not something that we are going to accept 

or do going forward. 

Mr. ZELDIN. And I think it is great that you did meet with the 

family. Taylor Force—this isn’t an Israeli. It is an American who 

graduated from the United States Military Academy, and I appreciate your leadership. 

In my remaining time, I am going to yield to the gentleman from 

South Carolina, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Ambassador, we are so proud, as your resident 

Member of Congress, to be here with you. Also, a fellow resident 

of Lexington County, as a South Carolinian, we are so proud of 

51

your efforts to reverse, as Congressman Zeldin has so correctly 

pointed out, the anti-Israel policies. It is just—what a breath of 

fresh air. 

I also want to thank you too, as I met with you in New York last 

week, thank you so much. Your first speech was to condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine—10,000 people dead—and Russian aggression in the Republic of Georgia. We are very proud of your 

service. And I am at the National Defense Authorization Act debate 

right now so I need to run back. 

Thank you. God bless you. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you, and thank you for being my congressman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ambassador. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. BOYLE. I actually wanted to raise an issue that has not been 

brought up yet, I think, for the 21⁄2 hours of this hearing. 

Yesterday, we saw all around the world one of the worst cyber 

attacks ever to strike. Hacks targeted government ministries, 

banks, utilities, and other important infrastructure and companies, 

especially in Ukraine. 

Ukraine, again, suffered the extent of that attack worse than any 

other country, including, by the way, the virus-downed systems of 

the site of the former Chernobyl, forcing scientists to monitor radiation levels manually. 

So I have introduced, along with my colleague on the other side 

of the aisle, Congressman Fitzpatrick, also from Pennsylvania, we 

have introduced H.R. 1997, the Ukraine Cybersecurity Cooperation 

Act in order for the United States to help our ally in an area in 

which they are clearly vulnerable and that vulnerability has been 

exploited. 

Do you think such an act would be helpful and do you believe 

that your role at the U.N. would be aided if the United States Congress would provide leadership in helping an ally like Ukraine 

when it comes to cybersecurity? 

Ambassador HALEY. So cyber attacks are the new ammunition 

that we are going to continue to see around the world and it continues to be worse and worse as every country continues to see how 

they can make it better. 

I can tell you that the U.N. is now trying to become the cyber 

activity police and we don’t want that because we don’t want China 

and Russia deciding how the U.S. would handle cyber attacks or 

dictate how we handle those things going forward. So we are fighting that. But yes, I think it would be helpful if the U.S. goes and 

does these things that would keep the U.N. from doing it and 

would allow for us to continue to help. And Ukraine, I can’t say 

enough about what a great ally they have been on the Security 

Council. They have just been with us on everything. 

Mr. BOYLE. So this is actually a good segue to the broader issue 

of our support for Ukraine. Your comments that you gave just now 

and others inspire a lot more confidence than the comments of our 

President and the Secretary of State when it comes to standing up 

52

and supporting our ally, Ukraine, turning back Russian aggression 

and illegal occupation of Crimea—and what they are continuing to 

do to this day in Eastern Ukraine, which often gets ignored in the 

media. 

I wanted to ask you about that, though, because, obviously, with 

the President, the Secretary of State, our Ambassador to the U.N., 

we have had, frankly, three different messages—at least two different messages. 

Do we, the United States, still stand and support and stand by 

the agreement that was reached in Minsk—the Minsk agreement? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes, we do. 

Mr. BOYLE. Okay. That, you realize, is contrary to what the Secretary of State has recently said, that there would be—we would 

allow a certain amount of back sliding or a renegotiation of it 

agreeable to both parties. How do you reconcile that? 

Ambassador HALEY. We continue to push the Minsk agreement. 

We just renewed sanctions last week on Russia’s role in Crimea. 

We are not lifting those. We are going to continue to stay strong 

on that. And so at the Security Council that is what I am pushing. 

That is what I am doing. 

Mr. BOYLE. And you would agree that we shouldn’t offer any 

sanction relief before Russia finally lives up to its obligation in 

Minsk? 

Ambassador HALEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. BOYLE. That is great. 

Have you had this conversation with the Secretary of State and 

even with the President himself? 

Ambassador HALEY. So the President and I have had a conversation with Ukraine and Russia. He very much wants to see how we 

can reconcile, if there is any way to—you know, how much this is. 

When I brought the Security Council not only did they meet with 

Members of Congress but they met with General McMaster. They 

met with the President and others, and Ukraine and Russia both 

sit on the Security Council. 

And so they also had conversations with him. I will remind you 

that my position is a Cabinet position so when I say something or 

I do something, yes, those are my views and those are my thoughts 

and that is what I share with General McMaster and with the 

President. So they are very aware of my thoughts on this and have 

not disagreed with me on that. 

Mr. BOYLE. Yes. I do want to point out—one my colleagues referenced this earlier—I can’t tell you the number of times that, because of being on this committee now several years, we have relationships with diplomats from other countries including parliamentarians of other countries, the number of people who have asked 

me, so who really speaks for this administration because the Secretary of State will say one thing. The President contradicts it 

within the hour. 

You give comments at the U.N. that are, frankly, more reflective 

of a traditional U.S.—Truman through Obama—foreign policy. So 

that continues to be a challenge and ends up making the U.S. look, 

frankly, incoherent in its foreign policy and makes your job more 

difficult. 

53

Ambassador HALEY. Well, we work very well together and we 

work closely together, and while we don’t, you know, just say the 

exact word for word talking points, we are all moving in the same 

direction. 

Chairman ROYCE. The Ambassador has to depart at 1:00 p.m. so 

I am going to ask members to be succinct. 

We go now to the co-sponsor of the legislation with Mr. Boyle 

and that is Brian Fitzpatrick. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Madam Ambassador, how are you? 

Ambassador HALEY. I am good. Thank you. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you for being a good leader. More importantly, thank you for being a good person. I think it is evident to 

anybody who is in your presence that you have a good heart and 

that is the most important quality you can have so don’t change, 

please, okay? 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. A couple things—I want to thank you for your 

support for Israel. We have covered that a lot. Focusing in on 

Ukraine, which my colleague, Mr. Boyle, had alluded to—Brendan’s 

legislation is outstanding. It is critically important. If you could do 

me a favor, review that and any support that you and the administration could give to that would be very, very helpful. 

From a philosophical standpoint, because right now we are in the 

budgetary process—we are being asked to make some really tough 

decisions between military spending, diplomatic spending—from a 

philosophical standpoint, some people believe that U.S. intervention is only appropriate when our national security interests are 

imminently at threat. 

Other people take the view that when there are atrocities occurring around the world that the U.S. cannot ethically and morally 

turn a blind eye to that. 

So your philosophy on when intervention is appropriate from all 

components—if you could comment on that. 

Ambassador HALEY. Well, I think that the U.S. should always 

have a strong voice. You always have to pick a side, you know, 

when it comes on any issue. I just think it is—abstentions are 

nothing that I believe in. I think you have to pick a side one way 

or the other and you have to tell what we are for and you have to 

tell what the U.S. is against and that doesn’t mean that you are 

cutting countries off. It means that on every issue we are going to 

have a different thought and we have to just communicate that and 

make that known. 

We are the moral compass around the world. We have been. It 

doesn’t mean we are perfect, but that is what we try and do. And 

so U.S. values, for us to continue to own those and express those 

I think is an important part of who we are. I also think that we 

are a leader and we are a leader that many other countries look 

to to see what we are going to do and they make their decisions 

on that. 

And so we need to always look at what our role is going to be 

and we need to decide place by place as opposed to just a blanket 

policy because all of these conflicts that we are seeing now are completely different. 

54

And so I think taking a custom approach to all of the conflicts 

and how we think we can be the strongest and most supportive to 

bring a political solution is very important. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Chairman ROYCE. We would like to get to the junior members, 

if we could. 

We are going to go to Dina Titus of Nevada. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Ms. TITUS. You said early on several times that we could count 

on you to be a thorn in the side of Russia or a thorn in the side 

of somewhere. But that’s kind of like saying you’re going to be a 

burr under the saddle or a pea under the princess. That sounds 

like we are more of an irritant than we are a leader and that is 

what worries some of us on this committee about what is happening to the image of the country. 

Also, I would like to go back to something that Mr. Meeks mentioned earlier and that’s that poll that showed our image declining 

internationally. It says since the inauguration of President Trump, 

according to citizens of 27 countries from around the world, we 

have just gone downhill. 

You think that the President is doing a pretty good job but the 

rest of the world doesn’t seem to think so. Sixty-four percent had 

confidence in the U.S. President at the end of the Obama administration. That number has fallen to 22 percent. At the end of the 

Obama administration, 64 percent had a favorable view of the 

United States. Now it is just 49 percent. 

I represent Las Vegas and, you know, that’s an international 

city. We welcome 8 million foreign visitors from all around the 

globe every year. But we have seen a real decrease in the interest 

in coming to the United States by foreign visitors. According to the 

U.S. Global Travel Association, there is going to be a $1.3 billion 

loss in 2017. That is 4,200 jobs in communities like Las Vegas and 

Charleston. 

So all the signs show that if we don’t work to correct this, it is 

going to have a major impact on a big part of our economy. In fact, 

the recent surveys show that 45 percent of European business travelers said that they would plan future meetings somewhere else because it is too difficult to come and travel to the United States. 

You said when you were governor that we want to continue to 

sell to the rest of the country and the world how great of a place 

South Carolina is to visit and you also said, when you were trumpeting the state’s economic tourism basis, that what it tells everybody across the world is if you haven’t been here, get here quickly, 

and if you have get back. Well, that’s kind of what we like to say 

in Las Vegas, too. 

But I wonder if you really believe that the Trump administration 

has been a good salesperson for international tourism, if you are 

concerned about this image decline and these statistics, and as our 

representative to the United Nations, what you are doing to try to 

just repair that image, put the welcome mat instead of saying no, 

we don’t want you to come. 

55

Ambassador HALEY. So, first, in reference to being a thorn in the 

side, being a thorn in the side means that I call out something 

when I think it is wrong and I think that that is part of what the 

U.S. does and I think that it is also praising when things are right. 

It is criticizing when things are wrong and acting accordingly, and 

so I stand by my comments on that. 

I will tell you, in reference to your poll, I have not seen it. But 

whereas that is 27 countries, I deal with 192 and the overwhelming 

feeling is that we are unpredictable. They don’t know exactly what 

we are going to do. But it has kept them more on alert in terms 

of wanting to be there with us, not wanting to get on the wrong 

side of us. 

So I haven’t felt that. My goal is to have a relationship with everyone and to make sure that I show that the U.S. wants to get 

political solutions to all things and work with countries to do that. 

And so I always try and do that as we go forward. 

In terms of the economy, and you brought up South Carolina, 

which I am very proud of, we have multiple international businesses continuing to come in. Our economy is through the roof and 

we have record years in tourism and we are not seeing a decline 

in any way on international tourism, trade, any of those things. 

And so I do think that the President has set a tone. Every President sets a tone, and we always have sides who agree with the tone 

or don’t agree with the tone. But my job is to make sure that I am 

on the side of the U.S. and that——

Ms. TITUS. You don’t think unpredictability is dangerous and it 

leads to instability and can be a problem in international diplomacy? 

Ambassador HALEY. In my job, I have found it has made my negotiations better and it has made it easier because they don’t assume. They don’t take us for granted anymore. They don’t—they no 

longer look at us as one that they can just push over and know exactly what we are going to do. So for me it has been helpful. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Tom Garrett of Virginia. 

Mr. GARRETT. First of all, I want to thank the chair for looking 

out for the junior members. We represent roughly the same number of people as the senior members and I am grateful. 

I am going to ask a series of questions that are really simple and 

I am seeking a relatively short answer. Do you think that conspiracy theories about things like Russian meddling and the outcome of our election that are propagated by some members of this 

body as well as the media, the basis of which a CNN exec recently 

called BS but ran the stories anyway, might contribute to diminished opinions of the United States around the world? 

Ambassador HALEY. No one at the United Nations is talking 

about this issue at all or anything——

Mr. GARRETT. But the questioning, ma’am, with all due respect, 

was about——

Ambassador HALEY. Yes, it does not help the situation. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And do you think that rhetoric that says 

that because we have disagreements over things like health care 

policy, the President and the Republicans want to kill children and 

56

old people, might contribute to diminished feelings about the 

United States across the world? 

Ambassador HALEY. That is far from the truth. 

Mr. GARRETT. But do you think that rhetoric might contribute to 

a diminished opinion of the nation? 

Ambassador HALEY. Of course. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And are you familiar with the quote by Vandenberg that said politics stop at the water’s edge? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Has that been your experience since you’ve served 

in your current capacity? 

Ambassador HALEY. You know, I think my job is to sit there and 

ignore what is happening in DC because I have found the rhetoric 

has just been over the top. 

Mr. GARRETT. It is—isn’t it? Isn’t it? And so I am not going to 

ask the follow-up question because I respect where you are coming 

from and appreciate the job you do and the fact that you have done 

it in a manner such that you personally at least have received bipartisan praise for in this meeting. 

But I think we reap what we sow as it relates to how people view 

us and that the reckless hurling of invective not undergird by facts, 

obviously, would perpetuate those who don’t like us not liking us. 

Now, moving on to something more pressing—the U.N. Security 

Council Resolution 2231 essentially endorsed the JCPOA, which I 

have repeatedly and for the press gone on record as calling the 

JCPOS. 

I will tell you that 2231 repealed what was U.N. Security Council 

Resolution 1929. You are probably familiar with this. I am not confident who the prior administration had negotiating the JCPOA but 

are you aware that U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 stated, 

‘‘Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles 

capable of delivering nuclear weapons,’’ and then it was replaced 

by a U.N. resolution commending the JCPOA that read, ‘‘Iran is 

called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles,’’ and then they gave a little bit more latitude—‘‘designed to 

carry a nuclear payload.’’

Are you aware of this? 

Ambassador HALEY. It is one of the most dangerous things that 

happened when we passed the JCPOA because basically what you 

did was you just deferred what is going to happen and you gave 

them a bunch of money to do it and now you see that they don’t 

follow the rules by 2231 with the testing, with the——

Mr. GARRETT. I would argue that they didn’t violate the rules of 

2231 because 2231 endorses the JCPOA and the JCPOA says is 

called upon not to instead of shall not. And who wrote that? And 

that is a rhetorical question. 

For our nation with the security of ourselves and our allies in 

mind and how incompetent, or nefarious, are they? You don’t need 

to—that is rhetorical. 

Ambassador HALEY. It is very concerning. Very concerning. 

Mr. GARRETT. Again, with all due respect. So my question becomes is there a way, and I have no clue to the answer, to repeal 

2231 and actually go back to the United Nations resolution which 

57

was more effective in deterring Iranian aggression than what the 

United States let a multinational coalition hammering out. 

Is there any way to go back from 1929 to 2231, which says shall 

not as opposed to it is called upon not to? 

Ambassador HALEY. Russia would veto it. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. And that leads beautifully—almost like we 

coordinated this—into my next question. So there has been Russian 

aggression in South Ossetia—I am going to probably butcher some 

of these names—Abkhazia, the Georgian regions. 

There has been Russian aggression in East Ukraine and Crimea. 

There has been a Russian and China veto of U.N. actions regarding 

the tragedy and crisis in Syria. And we spoke yesterday with the 

Secretary-General and he said, well, there is so many things we 

can’t do because the Security Council members would veto them. 

How do we make this organization with such lofty ideals an effective player on the world stage? 

And, part two—it is tangentially related—how do we repair the 

message that was sent when Ms. Power abstained that we will not 

be loyal to our allies by virtue of how we conduct ourselves today 

at the U.N.? 

Thank you. 

Ambassador HALEY. So my number one goal is to make the Security Council mean something. I think that the fact that we are not 

seeing a lot of resolutions against Israel shows that that part is 

working. 

I think that Russia does stop a lot of things and lately Russia 

stops anything the U.S. is for. That is a long line of reasoning. 

China can do the same thing. 

I do think we have made huge strides in terms of peacekeeping 

reforms and what we are going to do on management reforms and 

the fact that we just saved $1⁄2 billion on the peacekeeping budget 

was a huge win, and so we are going to continue to do that. 

But the one thing I will tell you is we are going to continue to 

talk about 2334 as something that the U.S. does not support, does 

not endorse, and if given the opportunity, that will never happen 

again. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Norma Torres of California. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ambassador Haley. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Ms. TORRES. I know the time has been long and I apologize that 

we have not given you a short break. 

Ambassador HALEY. No worries. I am fine. 

Ms. TORRES. Regarding Syria, I agree with you, we can never 

take Syria back to what it was. So through this horrific conflict last 

December the General Assembly created the international, impartial, and independent mechanism to collect and analyze evidence 

about the atrocities in Syria. 

I want to know what specific steps has the United States taken 

to advance this mechanism. 

Ambassador HALEY. So, interestingly enough, the Security Council supported the Joint Investigative Mechanism unanimously. 

They decided what it would do, how it would happen, and what 

58

things take place since that has happened and since we have had 

the Syrian atrocities with chemical weapons and everything else 

Russia now says it is not a fair mechanism even though they were 

the ones that helped put it together. 

We continue to support the JIM. We will continue to push the 

JIM. But Russia continues to undermine it and say that it is not 

something that is effective. 

Ms. TORRES. Speaking about Russia, on April 27th you stated 

that Russia continues to cover for the Syria regime. Russia continues to allow them to keep humanitarian aid from the people that 

need it. Russia continues to cover for a leader who uses chemical 

weapons against its own people. Russia continues to veto and 

Assad continues to do these things because they know Russia will 

continue to cover for them. Do you still stand by that statement? 

Ambassador HALEY. You know, I think General Mattis has implied that things are starting to move and I hope that’s the case. 

But that has definitely been the case in the past and I would love 

to see all of that change but——

Ms. TORRES. So do you still stand by that statement? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. 

Ms. TORRES. Okay. Great. 

Although Russia and China have not sent over a jet fighter plan, 

although submarines are nearing our coast, there are other things 

that they have done, both, that have impacted our economy greatly. 

One of them is happening now. The port of Los Angeles is the 

last victim of this global cyber attack. Now, I understand that we 

are still investigating. We don’t know exactly where that is. 

So I find it hard to believe and I would like to get clarification 

from you on your statement when you said—regarding Mr. Boyle’s 

question, that you do not want China or Russia to dictate how we 

approach these attacks. 

And I get, you know, somewhat where you are trying to get at 

that. But I am also concerned that there isn’t a conversation, you 

know, within 192 countries that you deal with about Russia’s influence in our election, about their influence in the European elections 

and, most recently in Germany’s election. 

How can that be? How can we not see cyber attacks or influence 

in our elections as a threat to our democracy, as a threat to our 

economic standing? 

Ambassador HALEY. So it is a threat and I think what you are 

seeing, and I’ve talked with my counterparts is we are seeing them 

intervene in multiple elections. I have talked with the Ambassadors about it. 

Everyone sees it as a problem and I do think it is something that 

is going to come up. I do think it is something that is going to surface because it is affecting so many other countries in the process. 

What we don’t want is for the U.N. to regulate cyber situations 

because they would put China and they would put Russia on it because they are two P5 members. 

And so we don’t want to do that because as they have done in 

so many other cases, they take care of themselves and they hurt 

everyone else. 

Ms. TORRES. I have 1 minute left and now I am going to move 

on to a easier question. I understand that the residence of the U.S. 

59

Ambassador to the United Nations has moved from the Waldorf 

Astoria to a different high-rise building close to the United Nations. 

In 2015, a Chinese company purchased the Waldorf Astoria for $1.95 billion and the U.S. presence there was under review since 

we have strong concerns about the security implications of Chinese 

ownership. 

Chinese-linked hackers have been accused of perpetrating the 

massive breach of personnel records that compromise the data of 

millions of our own Federal employees. So I am very happy that 

the residence in New York has moved so that we can ensure the 

security of our personnel and your security. But I would also like 

to get further clarity from you regarding the future of the residence 

since the Trump Tower is only a mile away. I want to ensure that 

you are not thinking about moving and spending taxpayers’ dollars 

at the Trump Tower. 

Ambassador HALEY. No, I am not. I did not pick this location. We 

did move because China bought it and for the reasons that you 

stated. I did not pick this location but I will stay wherever—I will 

stay in this location until it is time for me to leave. But no, I am 

not moving to the Trump Tower. 

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, and I appreciate your visit. 

Yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mark Meadows of North Carolina. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Haley, thank you so much——

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. For enduring almost 3 hours of questioning in such an eloquent way. I think—representing North Carolina, I get to share the same television market with you when you 

were governor and I must confess I am so unbelievably impressed 

with your grasp of foreign policy coming from a governor to your 

particular position now. 

Being someone who loves foreign policy, there are nuances that 

we could trip you up each and every time with a question and yet 

you have been able to masterfully answer those from either side of 

the aisle. So thank you. 

Let me drill down a little bit further because, as you know, 

whether it was in South Carolina or in North Carolina, there is a 

huge push back for spending American taxpayer dollars on something and then having our member states vote against the United 

States over and over and over again. 

And so it has been one of those areas where I had a wonderful 

meeting with the U.N. Secretary-General yesterday who, by the 

way, holds you in very high regard. I was very impressed with 

him—I mean, in his desire to reform the U.N. because many times 

member states have, I guess, a push back when it comes to reforming because that may mean that moneys don’t flow necessarily as 

easily to their host country. 

Would you be willing to work with Members of Congress on the 

voting records of member states to help us identify when they vote 

with us and when they do not vote with us so that we can have 

a very accurate account and perhaps tie it a little bit closer to foreign aid? 

60

Ambassador HALEY. So, yes, I absolutely would be willing to 

work with you but I would say we need to use leverage. So I gave 

the example earlier. You know, for example, we give a lot of money 

to the Palestinian Authority. We should tell them that we can’t 

continue to give money if they continue to have martyr payments——

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Ambassador HALEY [continuing]. And if they continue—so if we 

can tie it——

Mr. MEADOWS. And that doesn’t mean just changing it from the 

PLA to the PLO——

Ambassador HALEY. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Because they stopped it in one and 

they moved it to the other. 

Ambassador HALEY. Right. So I don’t think we should do it by 

percentages of how much they vote with us. I think we should do 

it be leverage on policy issues that we can change. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

And so we have worked up a new report with the Congressional 

Research Service in terms of dollars given and how they vote with 

us and I was amazed to see billions of dollars going to many of 

these different countries and yet when it comes to Israel they vote 

with us 4 percent of the time. 

Can you take a message to many of your Ambassador friends in 

New York and tell them that that dog will not hunt? 

Ambassador HALEY. I would love that list. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so the time has come. There is a new sheriff 

in town and we are going to look at it very, very closely. Will you 

take that message back to——

Ambassador HALEY. I will take that message. I have told them 

that we will no longer be a pushover and they can’t take our U.S. 

funding for granted any longer, and I would love that list. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And we will get that to you. 

And the last thing I would say is would you consider Israel’s 

human rights record to be better than that of Iran? 

Ambassador HALEY. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So why is it perplexing—I noticed that you had 

an op-ed where you showed that there was 70 resolutions against 

Israel and only seven against Iran. 

Can you fathom any logical reason why the U.N. would do that? 

Ambassador HALEY. Because they always have. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Can you take another message to them, 

that that dog won’t hunt either? 

Ambassador HALEY. That is right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And if you will——

Ambassador HALEY. Message already sent and will continue to 

be. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Well, thank you, Ambassador Haley, 

and with the last remaining minute I am going to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, so he can follow up on one 

question. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank my——

61

Chairman ROYCE. And, again, I am going to suggest to the members our goal was to reach all of the junior members. But the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, some things were said that need to be corrected 

and I would like to just get this on the record. 

I would like to thank the administration for faithfully and very 

effectively implementing longstanding U.S. law initiated under 

Ronald Reagan which requires the shut off of U.S. funds to any organization, not just the UNFPA, but any organization that supports or co-manages a coercive population control program. 

Since 1979, China has required women to get permission to have 

a child. You don’t have a child unless you get permission. Forced 

abortion is commonplace. 

It is pervasive, as is forced sterilization, and as you pointed out, 

Madam Ambassador, every dollar that doesn’t go to the UNFPA 

will go to some other NGO or entity that will do the same type of 

work—family planning, maternal and child health, and I think this 

is very important and I could go on but I am out of time. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. The committee made a commitment to Ambassador Haley to end at 1:00 p.m. 

Ambassador, I would ask that you respond to additional questions in writing. We go now to Mr. Bradley Schneider of Illinois. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ambassador, for being here. I want to personally thank you. Your staff 

has taken the time to meet with us on issues such as sexual violence and exploitation and I look forward to continuing to work together. 

I am going to apologize if I get a tap on my shoulder. We have 

a vote in another committee on refugees, and I will stop and let you 

out. 

Ambassador HALEY. I understand. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But we have talked about refugees. We have 

talked about human rights and, as Mr. Smith touched on, what is 

happening in China. 

I want to bring you back to UNRWA, if I can, and in your opening remarks you said that there is an issue of culture versus incitement as they were talking to you about it. 

And I would argue that culture is something that comes through 

education and the education that is happening in the territories is 

incitement and if we are going to have a prospect for peace, if we 

are going to have a prospect for two states living side by side, insecurity impedes the Jewish state of Israel and the Palestinian state, 

the culture is going to have to accept that and that is going to come 

from the education. 

In other questions you have addressed the issue of education and 

the importance to educate young people in the territories, which I 

could not agree with more. 

My question is as you look at UNRWA it has been in place for 

70 years. It has issues of harboring terrorists, working with terrorists. You can go on and on. 

Is there the opportunity to take the beneficial services, as you 

said, that are good, that come from UNRWA and find perhaps 

other agencies, whether it is the High Commission for Refugees or 

62

the PA itself and get to a point where after 70 years this special 

unique situation with UNRWA can be streamlined into the operations of the U.N. and the Palestinian Authority to move us toward 

peace? 

Ambassador HALEY. First of all, I agree with everything that you 

said and yes, we have——

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And excuse me. I will leave you to answer, but 

I have to go vote. 

Ambassador HALEY. We have talked to the Secretary-General 

and yes, we have made that push and would support that push. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I want to thank Ambassador Haley for 

your testimony here today. It is 1:00 and you have a lot of work 

to do with the reform agenda at the U.N. Many have tried before 

you and they haven’t found a lot of success. So we wish you well. 

Ambassador HALEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will be backing you and we can see from 

your attitude you intend to succeed in this. But while it is frustrating, it is needed work because several U.N. agencies do important work, and I mentioned the value of peacekeeping and the need 

to make it better. 

And our security should never be delegated to the United Nations. I know you won’t do that. But our security can also be improved when the U.S. rallies the world including at the U.N. 

So if I were to think of an example that comes to mind immediately it would be the North Korean resolution passed through the 

Security Council as an example. 

And, of course, we need better enforcement. We thank you for 

your commitment to that enforcement. 

Ambassador Haley, we look forward to following up on several of 

the issues that were raised today. Myself and the ranking member 

will see you in New York, and we all look forward to seeing you 

again in the committee. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

64

f


26046n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

June n. 2017 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You arc respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. to be held 

In Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and a,,-ailablc li,,-c on the Committee website at 

httP-://\\\\'\\ .f:Q:f!.d2.!l{\f_[q[r_?_,h_0.i~}'..): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESS: 

Wednesday, June 28, 2017 

10:00 a.m. 

Advancing U.S. Interests at the United Nations 

The Honorable Nikki Haley 

U.S. Pem1anent Representative 

United States Mission to the United Nations 

U.S. Department of State 

By Direction of the Chairman 

lfyou are in need nfspec!al accommndat:wm. please call 2112·225-5021 at 

accmmnodarwn.~ m (mcludmg ,n•m!ahilny of Cmmmttec 
65


26046m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MfNI.l'l ES OF I•'ULL COMMI'IThl•: li!~:AI{ING 

Day Wednesday Date. ___ _,6::cV2=:c8=-:f=-1'-7 ___ Room ___ ::_21=-7c:'2=----

Starting Time _:__lo:Oe.::c:0::,3 __ 1Cnding Time _:__J0::'-'0"'0 __ 

Recesses 0 to )( to )( .to .. )( to )( to 

Presiding Mcml>cr(s) 

L'hairman h'dward R. Royce, llep. Je.fj"JJuncan 

Check all of the following that apply: 

Open Session I:ZJ Executive (closed) Session D Televised [ZJ JClectronically Record~ taped) [ZJ 

Stenographic Record W 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Advancing ES. interests at the United Nations 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NON-COMMITTEE l\ffi;\IBERS PRESENT:. 

none 

HFARTNG WTTNF.SSRS: Same as meeting notice attached? YesEJ "'o0 

(lf "no", please list below and include title, agenr;y, depar/mer;.t, or organi:Z(lfion) 

STATEMENTS FOR TilE RECORD: (List any statements submittedfiJr tht! record) 

/FR- Rep. Eliot Engel QFR- Rep. Frum;;,,. Rooney 

JFR- Rep. Adriano EspailtaJ QFR -Rep. William Keating 

SFR" Rep. Gerald Connolly QFR "Rep. David Cicilline 

QFR -Rep. Ted Poe QFR- Rep. Ami Bera 

QFR- Rep. Eliot Engel QFR "Rep. Robin Kel!v 

QFR- Rep, Jeff Duncan QFR- Rep, Brad Schneider 

QPR- Rep. Albio Sires QFR- Rep. Adriano E:-.paillut 

QF'R ~ Rep.Ann Wt1gner QFR- Rep. Tt:ui T..ieu 

QFR - Rep. Gerald Connolly 

TIME SCHEDl:LED TO RECONVE"'E ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED _1_:0_0 __ _ 

)( 

Full COilllllittCCHCg Coordinator 

to. 
66

f


26046m-2.eps

PRT:ST:,\T 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

Fuu COMMTTTFF. HF:ARTNG 

Mr:URr:R PRT:ST:!a Mr:MRr:R 

Edward R. Royce, CA X Eliot L. Engel, NY 

Christopher H. Smith, NJ X Brad Sherman, CA 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Dana Rohrabacher, CA X Albio Sires, NJ 

Steve Chabot, OH X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Joe Wilson, SC X Theodore E. Deutch, FL 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X Karen Bass, CA 

Ted Poe, TX X William Keating, MA 

Darrell Issa, CA X David Cicilline, RI 

Tom Marino, PA X Ami Bera,CA 

Jeff Duncan, SC X Lois Frankel, FL 

Mo Brooks, AL Tulsi Gabbard, HI 

Paul Cook, CA X Joaquin Castro, TX 

Scott Perry, PA X Robin Kelly, TL 

Ron DeSantis, FL X Brendan Boyle, PA 

Mark Meadows, NC X Dina Titus, NV 

Ted Yoho, FL X Norma Torres, CA 

Adam Kinzinger,TL X Brad Schneider, TL 

Lee Zeldin, NY Tom Suozzi, NY 

Dan Donovan, NY X Adriano Espaillat, NY 

James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. WI X Ted Lieu, CA 

Ann Wagner, MO 

Brian J. Mast, FL 

Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Francis Rooney, FL 

Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., VA 
67

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

f


26046b-3.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


26046c-1.eps
69


26046c-2.eps

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room S-230 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room S-224 

Washington, DC 20510 

April 24, 2017 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker of the House of Representatives 

United States House of Representatives 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room 232 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

Minority Leader 

United States House of Representatives 

U.S. Capitol Building, Room 204 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan, and Leader Pelosi • 

As former U.S. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations who have served under both 

Republican and Democratic Administrations, we share a deep understanding of the lJN's 

strategic value in advancing U.S. national interests and promoting American leadership. While 

the UN is imperfect, and many reforms are needed, the UN remains an indispensable instrument 

for advancing the global stability and prosperity on which U.S. interests and priorities depend. 

We therefore urge you to support U.S leadership at the UN, including through continued 

payment of our assessed and voluntary financial contributions to the Organization. 

The United States and its allies and partners today face grave and interconnected challenges that 

transcend national borders. These include cascading conflict in the Middle East and South Asia, 

an emboldened North Korea, the rising threat of violent extremism and organized crime, 

vulnerability to pandemics, the worst forced displacement crisis since 1945, the prospect of 

famine in four countries, and the potential for major societal disruptions from climate change. 

The U.S., despite its wealth and military might, cannot afford to take on these issues alone, nor 

should it have to. That is exactly why the UN was created in the first place• to harness the 

resources and commitment of all countries to act on challenges that necessitate collective 

response 

Since its establishment, the UN has been a cornerstone of the post-World War IT international 

order, serving also to advance U.S. priorities and interests on many fronts. Through its 

peacekeeping operations, humanitarian relief work, efforts to address international public health 

emergencies, and development investments, the UN has helped secure core U.S. interests while 

reinforcing America's long-standing commitment to human rights and human dignity worldwide. 

By marshalling financial contributions from all UN member states, the UN has also reduced the 

burden on American taxpayers by leveraging U.S contributions to the UN four-fold. The whole 

lJN system is built on burden-sharing that ensures the United States does not have to go it alone 

and that other countries stand up, rather than stand by. 

We understand frustration in Congress at what can seem a needlessly slow pace of critical 

management, budgetary, and accountability reforms at the UN, all of which we have fought hard 
70

f


26046c-3.eps

to advance during our respective tenures at the helm of the U.S. Mission in New York. We 

fought those battles differently and did not always agree. Nevertheless, in our experience, the 

U.S. is much more effective in pressing refonns when it stays engaged and pays its dues and 

bills. Withholding or slashing funding for the UN, by contrast, weakens our hand, alienates allies 

whose support is critical to our reform priorities, undermines essential UN activities that promote 

core American interests and values, and costs us more over the long term. It also cedes the 

agenda to countries that can be hostile to our interests and more than willing to see the U.S. give 

up its seat at the table. 

This January, the UN elected a new Secretary-General- Antonio Guterres of Portugal -and the 

U.S. Administration fielded a new U.S. Pennanent Representative- Nikki Haley, the former 

Governor of South Carolina. Secretary-General Guterres and Ambassador Haley have both 

expressed a commitment to work together to create a more efficient, effective, and responsive 

cJN. We urge you to give them the time and space needed to advance this critical work and avoid 

policies, such as drastically reducing our financial support, that would damage our nation's 

ability to lead- not just at the United Nations but on the wider world stage. Thank you for your 

consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Ambassador Andrew Young 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1977-1979 

Ambassador Donald McHenry 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1979-1981 

Ambassador Thomas Pickering 

Pennanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1989- 1992 

Ambassador Edward Perkins 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1992- 1993 

Secretary Madeleine Albright 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1993-1997 

Ambassador Bill Richardson 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 1997-1998 

Ambassador John Negroponte 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 2001-2004 

Ambassador Susan Rice 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 2009-2013 

Ambassador Samantha Power 

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 2013-2017 
71


26046d-1.eps

Statement for the Record 

Submitted by Mr. Connolly of Virginia 

In the wake of World War II, the international community established the United Nations to 

serve as a platfonn for addressing global threats and responding to crises that demand 

coordinated, multilateral action. Since 1945, the U.N. has grown to include 193 member states, 

16 specialized agencies, and an annual budget of $7.9 billion for peacekeeping operations. The 

U.S. has long-concluded that supporting the United Nations is both a moral imperative and 

aligned with our national security interests. 

During her confirmation hearing to become the US. Pennanent Representative to the US. 

Mission to the United Nations, Ambassador Nikki Haley insisted that she does not believe in 

"slash and burn" attempts to decrease U.S. funding for the United Nations. Yet, the Trump 

Administration's FY 2018 international affairs budget does just that. The budget proposes a 27 

percent cut to the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account, which includes 

assessed contributions to the U.N. regular budget and U.N. specialized agencies Funding for 

U.N. peacekeeping operations would be reduced by 37 percent. The Administration zeroes out 

funding for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account, which would 

eliminate U.S. funding for the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), U.N. Development Program 

(UNDP), U.N. Women, U.N Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), U.N. 

Population Fund (UNFPA), U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and the 

U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. To say that this budget sends the message that 

U.S. leadership is essential in the world, as Ambassador Haley vowed to do in her confirmation 

hearing, would embarrass even George Orwell. 

Now we find ourselves yet again defending US. leadership in multilateral institutions that the 

United States helped to build. The Trump Administration has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific 

Partnership, balked at our sacred Article 5 commitment to our NATO allies, pulled out of the 

Paris Climate Accord, and decimated funding for U.S. diplomatic missions and foreign 

assistance. Such an abrogation of U.S. leadership only serves to harm U.S. interests and 

embolden our adversaries. U.S. engagement at the U.N. and fully funded U.N. dues ensure that 

countries like Russia and China do not co-opt the organization for their narrow interests. 

Decreasing US. support for UN. peacekeeping efforts will end up costing us more in the long 

run. While the US currently funds 28.5 percent of costs associated with the 16 ongoing UN. 

peacekeeping missions, we contribute only 0.06 percent of the troops (77 out of a global force of 

120,000 peacekeepers). According to the Center for Global Development, the U.S. only pays 

$24,500 per year for each deployed peacekeeper, compared to $2.1 million per year for an 

American service member deployed to a war zone- about 86 times as much. 
72

f


26046d-2.eps

UN. peacekeepers play a critical role in ending conflicts and preserving peace in fragile states. 

The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Cote d'lvoire (UNOCl) has stabilized the country through the 

2010 and 2015 elections and helped to reintegrate former combatants into society. Given Cote 

d'Ivoire's position as the world's leading producer of cocoa, Mars, Inc., which is headquartered 

in Northern Virginia, has a significant presence in the country and depends on a stable operating 

environment conducive to investment. Mars' Supply Chain Director Jeff Morgan recently noted 

"Presently, the country is enjoying a period of relative stability, which is due in large part to the 

actions of United Nations Peacekeeping forces ... At Mars, we are grateful for this effort and 

supportive of all the work that the UN does to support the cause of peace, the promotion of 

freedom, and respect for human rights." 

This week, Mars, lnc., Becton, Dickinson & Company (BD), and Walgreens sent a letter 

expressing support for continued U.S. financial support for the United Nations. These major 

American corporations state that "Each of us, in our own particular business sectors, regularly 

work with a range of UN entities to create and further develop initiatives with long-term 

implications for business, governments, and global populations .. the problems/opportunities we 

are jointly trying to address are unique and complex and we cannot do this work without the 

mutual support, collaboration, and global presence of the UN." 

That is not to say that we always agree with the will of the U.N. or that the institution is beyond 

reproach. However, the best way to influence U.N. reform in a way that benefits the United 

States is through more engagement, not less. As a pennanent member of the U.N. Security 

Council and the single largest contributor to the U.N. general and peacekeeping budgets, the U.S. 

has actively enforced reform initiatives. Yesterday, this Committee heard directly from U.N. 

Secretary General Antonio Guterres on the reform process that he is leading in close cooperation 

with the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. Through that process, he is working to bring more 

flexibility, transparency, and accountability to the organization, while prioritizing the protection 

of whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse. 

A unilateral retreat, which is what the President's budget represents, would neither improve the 

U.N., nor make our nation more secure. The U.N. has served as a valuable platform for collective 

action on some of the world's most intractable conflicts, and it is essential the U.S. continue to 

be a leading voice in the institution. I look forward to hearing from Ambassador Haley on how 

such dramatic cuts to U.S. contributions to the United Nations will maintain the vital role of U.S 

leadership in the world. 

2 
73


26046e-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

Representative Engel 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

You have announced that the UN. 's budget committee has significantly reduced the 

annual peacekeeping budget by over half a billion dollars as a result of a U.S.-led effort. What 

elements have been eliminated from the budget? How much of the cuts were tied to mission 

closures or reductions that predated your tenure (i.e., Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, and Darfur)? 

How much money will the US be saving from the half a billion dollar reduction? 

The reduction of over $500 million in current UN peacekeeping budgets includes the 

drawdown of peacekeeping missions in Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, and Haiti. Additional reductions 

in budget levels for peacekeeping missions in the Central African Republic, Democratic 

Republic of the Congo, and Darfur. Following rigorous analysis, the reductions in these 

missions' budget proposals came primarily from our efforts aimed at addressing the UN's pattern 

of over budgeting, in areas such as official travel, logistics and information technology. These 

reductions will not negatively impact mandate delivery. This does not impact funding for critical 

oversight activities, including vetting, training, monitoring, and reporting of sexual exploitation 

and abuse. These reductions reduce the US assessed share approximately $140 million. 

Question: 

What are you and other State Department officials doing to wind down and close the 

lJNMIK mission? 

Answer: 

The Department assesses that the previous role of the UN Interim Administration in 

Kosovo (UNMIK) has been fulfilled and UNMIK's original mandate is no longer relevant to a 

sovereign, independent Kosovo. The United States advocates phasing out and subsequently 

closing the mission. 

The United States has pushed for the reduction ofUNMIK's budget and sta±Iin Fifth 

Committee negotiations and consistently calls for winding down the mission in the quarterly UN 

Security Council briefings on UNMIK Over the years, UNMIK has been progressively reduced 

from its peak of over 4,500 unifonned personnel and 4,600 civilian personnel in 2002, to 16 

uniformed personnel and 308 civilian sta±I as of May 2017. The United States will continue to 

push for further reductions in the mission, particular! y in the area of ci viii an staff, in order to 

ensure that limited resources are diverted to more critical operations. 

Question: 
74


26046e-2.eps

The Trump Administration has called for a review of all UN peacekeeping operations to 

ensure that they are "fit for purpose" and more eft'icient and etTective in fultilling their 

mandates. 

Who is undertaking this review, how is it being carried out, and when do you expect it to 

be completed? What are the operational criteria that are being used to assess the etTectiveness of 

U.N. peacekeeping operations? What methodology is being used to gather evidence to assess the 

etTectiveness of UN. peacekeeping operations? How are you assessing UN support to regional 

peace operations, such as those undertaken by the African Union, which are authorized by the 

UN. Security Council? 

In April, I called on UN Security Council members to join the United States in evaluating 

each UN peacekeeping mission as its mandate comes up for renewal to ensure it is appropriate to 

the situation in the country and that it is advancing the Security Council's objectives. To help 

guide these mission reviews, we developed five peacekeeping principles: I) missions must 

support political solutions, 2) host country strategic consent is critical, 3) mandates must be 

realistic and achievable, 4) clear transition plans and exit strategies are required at all stages, and 

5) missions and mandates must be adjusted where Security Council objectives are not achieved. 

Our reviews of peacekeeping missions, as well as peace operations conducted by the 

Atrican Union that are authorized by the UN. Security Council, are informed by a number of 

sources, including 1.) meetings with the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, the 

Force Commanders, other members of the peacekeeping missions, and UN Secretariat ot1icials, 

2.) international partners, including troop-and police-contributing countries, regarding the 

implementation of the mandates, 3.) strategic reviews of the missions conducted by the UN to 

ensure optimal structure, staffing and footprint of the mission and, 4.) rigorous assessments of 

missions resource requirements in the UN General Assembly's Fifth Committee (Administrative 

and Budgetary). This includes analyses of historical data, including performance reports as well 

as projections based on the most recent information on stat1ing and operations. 

Question: 

When compared with other forms of military intervention, UN. peacekeeping operations 

are quite cost-effective. In fact, a report by the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office 

found that UN peacekeeping missions are eight times less expensive for American taxpayers 

than fielding a comparable US. force. Indeed, while the US. pays 25% of the peacekeeping 

budget, the rest if the world pays 75% and provides 99% of the personneL 

By proposing that the US. pay less towards the global cost of peacekeeping, are you then 

advocating that we put American lives at risk at a greater cost to the American taxpayer? 
75


26046e-3.eps

UN peacekeeping is a powerful tool to share the burden of addressing global challenges 

to international peace and security and provides a collective benefit to the entire international 

community. However, we believe all nations should share equitably in the costs. Currently, the 

US. pays a disproportionate share of the burden for UN peacekeeping. By advocating the US. 

pay less toward the global cost of peacekeeping, we are advocating for greater burden sharing by 

other countries-a positive outcome for the American taxpayer. Congress agreed and recently 

appropriated peacekeeping below the assessed rate 

Additionally, the absence or reduction of peacekeeping missions does not equate to the 

deployment of US. troops. Any decision to do so would be based national security 

considerations. 

Question: 

In April 2017, the Administration issued a Kemp-Kasten Determination on UNFPA, 

resulting in the withholding of US. tunds. 

Please detail the China program visits and conversations that led to this determination. What 

resources have been dedicated to directly investigating these allegations? Is the U.S. Embassy 

intervening in China? Is the State Department sending any staff to investigate and take 

corrective action? 

Answer: 

The State Department did not send a team to China in advance of its determination. The 

determination was made consistent with the requirements of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment and in 

furtherance of the January 23,2017 Presidential Memorandum "to take all necessary actions, to the 

extent permitted by law, to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs 

that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary 

sterilization." 

I refer you to the State Department for the information related to the Embassy in China and 

other State Department investigations. 

Question: 

Please provide timelines and transition plans for US -funded work through UNFPA, with 

a focus on humanitarian efforts in places like Syria, South Sudan and Yemen. 

Answer: 

Since the determination to cease all U.S Government funding to UNFPA, it is my 

understanding that USATD's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USATD/OFDA) has 

been able to reprogram all funding intended for UNFPA except inside of Syria. Ongoing conflict 

there has created access constraints that make it difficult for NGO partners to implement all of 

the programs previously supported by UNFPA (as a public international organization UNFPA 

has the ability to get supplies and services into hard-to-reach areas that other entities are unable 
76


26046e-4.eps

to access). The State Department is working with humanitarian partners to find alternative ways 

to meet these needs, including through organizations such as UNHCR and UNICEF, or ways to 

use the tunds to support related needs in other areas. 

Question: 

The US. has spoken out on human rights violations and in recent months has been in many 

direct conversations with China. 

In these recent conversations, was the Chinese fertility policy and relationship with UNFPA 

addressed? What was China's response? 

Answer: 

At the annual meeting of the cJNFPA Executive Board meeting in June 2017, the US. 

delegation delivered an intervention addressing the March 2017 Kemp-Kasten determination and 

highlighting our long-standing policy to oppose programs that support coercive abortion and 

involuntary sterilization, specifically that UNFPA continues to partner on family planning 

activities with the Chinese government agency responsible for implementing China's coercive 

family planning policies. In response, the Deputy Director General of China's Ministry of 

Commerce called these "groundless accusations" and argued the US. was looking for "an excuse 

to distract from its decision to deviate from multilateralism." The official defended UNFPA's 

work in China, noting that it aligns with the international community's common interests. She 

further declared China's resolve to strengthen cooperation with UNFPA and appealed to other 

countries to do so as well. 

Question: 

Given that UNFPA isn't the only organization partnering with the National Health and 

Family Planning Commission in China, what other organizations are being investigated for 

potential violations of the Kemp-Kasten amendment? 

Answer: 

We are not aware of any information regarding other organizations that would raise 

concerns under the Kemp-Kasten Amendment. 

Question: 

How specifically will the US. replace the role ofUNFPA in places like the Berm, the noman's land between Syria and Jordan, where alternative facilities are nonexistent and NGOs and 

USAID aren't present? 

Answer: 

UN'FPA continues to implemem humanitarian programs in Jordan. In January 2017, 

prior to the Presidential Memorandum issued January 23, 2017, the State Department provided a 

contribution of $2 million to U"''FPA for programming in Jordan that the agency can utilize for 

activities at the berm. 1.JN'FPA has informed us that other donors have already made up any 
77


26046e-5.eps

anticipated shortfall in Jordan resulting from the Kemp-Kasten detem1ination this year. 

Additionally_ we are working to identify other partners we can work with to implement maternal 

and reproductive health programs in crisis settings_ 

Question: 

Have you looked at how defunding UNFPA will impact access to, or education on, birth 

control or the impact on UNFPA' s work in humanitarian crises? How will you work to ensure 

that the US_ is not erecting barriers to sexual and reproductive health and rights globally? 

Answer: 

Preventing maternal and child deaths is a priority for this administration_ As we work to 

streamline efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of US_ taxpayer dollars, we 

acknowledge that we must prioritize and make some difficult choices. By focusing our efforts 

on global health programs in maternal and child health, nutrition, and malaria, we will continue 

to save the lives of women and children. In humanitarian settings, the Department and USAID 

are working to identify other partners we can work with to implement critical humanitarian 

assistance activities. 

The U.S. is by far the largest overall global health donor. While the United States will 

continue significant funding for global health programs, other stakeholders must do more to 

contribute their fair share to global health initiatives. We will continue to work with our 

international and host-country partners to support communities in need and welcome the 

contributions already provided by other international donors. 

Question: 

What do you see as the top global health priorities facing the UN. in the near future? 

Answer: 

More than anything else, global health priorities for the United Nations should focus on 

saving lives. Therefore, it is critical that UN agencies continue to prioritize combatting 

communicable diseases, which so easily spread and needlessly take lives. When the world has a 

cure, it is a tragedy that so many should go untreated. Beyond the loss of life, infectious diseases 

can destabilize development, exacerbate conflict, and cross borders, turning a national 

emergency into a pandemic. 

ln Yemen, one of four countries on the brink of famine, we are seeing the world's largest 

outbreak of cholera with 500,000 cases and counting. We will continue to implore parties to 

provide open and unfettered humanitarian access, not just for food but also for medical supplies 

to enable treatment Humanitarian crises, such as these, are man-made, and in that senselessness 

there is also a solution-to prevent what can be prevented and to treat what can be treated. 

As a global player, the United Nations also has a responsibility to ensure its actors do not 

spread disease, such as the devastating spread of cholera in Haiti from Nepalese UN 

Peacekeepers. When populations are at their most vulnerable, that's when the UN system should 

be at its best, rather than be the cause of greater suffering. 
78


26046e-6.eps

Question: 

According to the President's FY 2018 budget request, the State Department will1ead an 

interagency strategic review of funding through the International Organizations account to 

determine funding levels. Who is conducting the review1 What criteria will be used in the 

review, and what is the estimated date of completion1 Why is the Administration proposing to 

slash U.S. contributions to the United Nations before undertaking this review? Will you commit 

to working with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as you undertake the review1 

The Department of State is conducting a prioritization review with affected interagency 

stakeholders to detennine how best to arrive at the proposed reductions in the Contributions to 

International Organizations account, should the final appropriation so require. The review is 

being guided by the broader political and strategic priorities of the Administration and an 

assessment of the organizations' efficiency and effectiveness. 

The President's budget proposal for FY 2018 re±1ects the U.S. commitment to remain 

engaged with the UN and reinforces the expectation that the United Nations and other 

international organizations must become more eflicient and etl'ecti ve and that Member States 

must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

The Department is fully committed to staying in close communication with the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs on the impacts of potential funding reductions in the 

Contributions to International Organizations account. 

Question: 

There are currently 20 million people in four countries (South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, 

and Yemen) facing famine and a historic number- 65 million- of displaced people around the 

world, the largest number since World War II. 

How do you anticipate that the Administration's proposed cuts to International Disaster 

Assistance (34 percent) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (10 percent) will affect the U.S.' 

voluntary contributions to U.N. organizations to help respond to these crises1 

Answer: 

The United States is committed to doing our fair share to respond to humanitarian crises 

and providing lifesaving assistance to those who need it most. With our FY 2018 budget request, 

we will remain the leading contributor of humanitarian assistance. This request would focus 

funding on the highest priority areas while asking our international partners to step up their 

efforts and contribute more. This past year, the United States provided an additional $990 million 

for the areas facing famine, enabling us to scale up critical operations in South Sudan, Nigeria, 

Yemen, and Somalia. 

Question: 
79


26046e-7.eps

What are the administration's priorities for reforms to make the UN more efficient and 

effective? What is the administration's strategy to overcome disagreements on reform that have 

emerged in the General Assembly and other UN. fora-particularly between developing 

countries and developed countries? 

Answer: 

The United States is a champion for UN reform, and we strongly support the Secretary 

General's efforts in making the organization more effective and efficient. However, the UN, as 

well as Member States, has significant work to do to enable the UN, including the UN 

Development System, to realize its potential and become the effective, efficient, results-oriented 

organization that the world needs. 

During UN General Assembly High Level Week, President Trump hosted an extremely 

successful UN Reform event where 129 countries declared their support for UN Refonn by 

signing a US.-drafted political declaration, negotiated with 12 other member states from across 

regions. We will build off the momentum that this event created to urge the Secretary-General at 

every opportunity to execute his authority affirmatively in support of a reformed UN. 

The United States recognizes that steps must be taken to strengthen the UN' s oversight and 

evaluation mechanisms, improve the operational independence of its oversight functions, and 

expand credible measures to protect those who report wrongdoing tram retaliation. We must 

seize this opportunity to change the culture of the United Nations to focus more on advancing 

political solutions to crises and coordinate better among its many parts to eliminate duplication 

and overlap. This will require constructive engagement by the President of the General 

Assembly, outreach to key Member State blocs, and close cooperation with likeminded countries 

to overcome impasses on the path to reform. 

lJN Secretary-General Guterres has repeatedly indicated his determination to tackle these 

difficult challenges through transformational changes, and I look forward to working with him 

and other stakeholders to bring real urgency to the effort and hold the UN accountable if it falls 

short of the needed action. 

Question: 

We are outraged by the unlawful detention, torture and murder ofLGBT individuals in 

Chechnya. We were terribly disappointed that Secretary Tillerson said that he has not raised the 

issue with his counterparts. We understand the issue has been raised at the highest levels in other 

countries, yet President Trump and Secretary Tillerson have not discussed this issue with 

Russian officials. 

Please update our Committee on whether you or the president has raised the issue with your 

counterparts in Russia? What can you do to bring attention to this matter? 

Answer: 
80


26046e-8.eps

I remain deeply concerned about the ongoing violence targeting the LGBTI community 

in Chechnya. As you are aware, there have been reports of violence including mass detentions 

based on sexual orientation and the systematic torture of hundreds of gay men. There have also 

been reports of extrajudicial killings. 

I issued a statement in April expressing our deep concern over reports of these incidents. 

The Department Spokesperson in Washington has also released a statement, as has our 

representative to the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). We were also 

proud to join the Equal Rights Coalition in expressing concern through a public statement on 

April 24, and have encouraged and welcomed like-minded statements from the OSCE, the 

Council of Europe, experts at the United Nations, and our allies in Europe. 

We continue to demand accountability and a full investigation of these reports by the 

Russian authorities. Victims of the violence have urgent needs, including in many cases the need 

to relocate outside of Russia The US is working with likeminded countries and partners, 

including the UN. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as part of an international 

response that helps persons at risk get to safety as quickly as possible and ultimately enables 

them to find stable, and durable solutions. 

Question: 

The Administration has recently updated its Transnational Organized Crime Executive 

Order to include wildlife trafficking as a focal point of counter-trafficking. Wildlife Trafficking 

including elephant ivory, rhino horn, tiger parts, pangolins and illegal fish is estimated to be a 

$15-20 billion a year illicit industry. 

How would you describe the Administration's overall commitment and approach to 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking? 

Answer: 

The Administration is strongly committed to combating wildlife trafficking at home and 

abroad and all levels. Wildlife trafficking is one offour areas highlighted in President Trump's 

call for a comprehensive approach to disrupting and defeating transnational criminal 

organizations. The United States considers wildlife trafficking a serious transnational crime that 

threatens security, economic prosperity, the rule of law, long-standing conservation efforts, and 

human health. I would refer you to the Department of Justice, Department of Interior and 

Department of State for specifics on the implementation of the National Strategy for Combatting 

Wildlife Trafficking. At the United Nations, I will support serious efforts to combat wildlife 

trafficking. 

Question: 

In 2015 and 2016, the UN. General Assembly adopted resolutions on combating wildlife 

trafficking (resolution 69/314 of July 2015 and 70/301 of September 2016). We understand that 

the UNGA is now discussing a new resolution this year. 
81


26046e-9.eps

Is the US. supportive, and are you working with other like-minded countries at the 

UN.? How are you working to ensure that this resolution helps ensure that wildlife trafficking is 

seen as a serious crime? 

Answer: 

This year, the United States was actively engaged in negotiations on UN General 

Assembly resolutions addressing wildlife trafficking. On September 11, 2017, the United 

Nations adopted a resolution entitled, "Tackling illicit trafficking in wildlife," which urges 

Member States to take decisive steps at the national level to prevent, combat, and eradicate 

illegal wildlife trade, on both the supply and demand sides. The United States co-sponsored this 

resolution. In addition, the resolution calls for Governments to strengthen domestic legislation 

and regulations to prevent, investigate, and prosecute illegal trade as a serious crime. The United 

States continues to recognize the value that UN resolutions provide in showcasing vital political 

will, leadership, and momentum to address wildlife trafficking. Beyond the UN, we will also 

continue our bilateral efforts with key governments, such as China, as well as through 

international agreements that secure commitments to help end wildlife trafficking. 

Onestion: 

The U.S. has been a leader in stopping the illegal ivory trade, including closure of our 

domestic ivory market and support at CITES as well. 

What is the US. doing at the UNGA level to get governments to agree to close their 

domestic ivory markets? 

Answer: 

On September 11, 2017, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled, 

"Tackling illicit tratlicking in wildlife," which specifically urged all Governments to close legal 

domestic ivory markets if those markets contribute to poaching or illegal trade. The United 

States co-sponsored this resolution. In addition, the resolution called upon Member States to 

ensure that legal domestic markets for wildlife products are not used to mask the trade in illegal 

wildlife products. The United States continues to recognize the value that UN resolutions 

provide in showcasing vital political will, leadership, and momentum to address wildlife 

trail!cking. Beyond the UN, we will also continue our bilateral efforts with key governments, 

including China, which has agreed to close its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017, as well 

as through international agreements, such as the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species (CITES), to secure commitments to close domestic ivory markets. 

Onestion: 

Pursuant to existing UN mandates, to what extent has the UN implemented and mobilized 

UN peacekeeping forces in response to illegal natural resource exploitation, including timber, 

gold, ivory, and charcoal in the Central African Republic? To what extent has existing UN 

mandates called for action by the UN to stop and deter illegal natural resource exploitation, 

including ivory, gold, charcoal, and timber by armed groups in South Sudan? If the current UN 

mandate is insufficient, how can it be extended to include illegal natural resource exploitation by 

arrned groups? 
82


26046e-10.eps

Answer: 

The United States is committed to combatting illegal exploitation of natural resources. 

These activities- such as wildlife and timber trafficking and illegal gold or diamond mining 

make billions for transnational organized criminal networks and threaten security, undermine the 

rule oflaw, and hinder economic prosperity. This is certainly the case in the Central African 

Republic (CAR), where such criminal activities continue to threaten its peace and stability. 

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 2301 (2016) mandates the UN Integrated 

Multidimensional Mission in CAR (MTNUSCA) to support the CAR authorities to develop a 

nationally-owned strategy to tackle the illicit exploitation and trafficking networks of natural 

resources, which continue to fund and supply armed groups, with the aim of extending state 

authority over the entire territory and its resources. Pursuant to its mandate, MINUSCA provides 

some logistical and security support for national authorities during their field inspection and 

monitoring missions related to the Kimberley Process (KP), with the aim of assessing the extent 

of armed group presence, improving security to enable the free movement of goods and persons, 

and maintaining state authority in the KP-approved diamond mining zones in the southwest of 

the country. 

The UN Special Representative for CAR and Head ofMINUSCA, Parfait OnangaAnyanga, has emphasized that MINUSCA' s efforts to gain control of mining sites around the 

country are critical for the extension of State authority. The Security Council has mandated that 

MINUSCA' s assistance to the CAR authorities in the development of a plan to combat illicit 

exploitation and trafficking should be an essential task that is secondary to the Mission fulfilling 

"immediate priority" tasks such as protection of civilians. While the current mandate provides 

MIN USCA with sufficient latitude to support CAR in addressing trafficking issues, the current 

violence in CAR makes the complete fulfillment of this task challenging. 

The UN does not have a specific mandate to deter illegal natural resource exploitation by 

armed groups in South Sudan. Since the civil conflict began in 2013, the mandate of the UN 

Mission in South Sudan (UNMTSS) has been focused on the protection of civilians, support for 

the delivery of humanitarian assistance, monitoring and reporting on human rights violations, 

and support for implementation of the August 2015 peace agreement The review of the 

mission's mandate, scheduled for December 15, will provide an opportunity for discussion and 

authorization of its future tasks. 

Question: 

Please explain how the Shayrat airfield strike was consistent with America's obligations 

under Article 2(4) of the UN. Charter and United States domestic law. Tn your view, what limits 

does America's commitment to abide by Article 2(4) of the UN. Charter impose on our lawful 

use of force for both humanitarian intervention and other purposes? 

Answer: 

The United States carefully considered the domestic and international legal issues related 

to US military action in Syria prior to conducting airstrikes against the Shayrat airfield 

The President has authority pursuant to Article 11 of the Constitution as Commander in 

Chief to take military action that in nature, scope, and duration does not amount to war and that 
83


26046e-11.eps

furthers sufficiently important national interests. The President provided a report to Congress 

regarding the use afforce in a letter dated April 8, 2017, consistent with the War Powers 

Resolution (Public Law 93-148). 

Question: 

Please explain how the Shayrat airfield strike was consistent with America's obligations 

under Article 2( 4) of the UN. Charter and United States domestic law. In your view, what limits 

does America's commitment to abide by Article 2(4) of the UN. Charter impose on our lawful 

use of force for both humanitarian intervention and other purposes? 

Answer: 

The United States carefully considered the domestic and international legal issues related 

to US military action in Syria prior to conducting airs trikes against the Shayrat airfield. 

The President has authority pursuant to Article II of the Constitution as Commander in 

Chief to take military action that in nature, scope, and duration does not amount to war and that 

furthers sufficiently important national interests. The President provided a report to Congress 

regarding the use afforce in a letter dated April 8, 2017, consistent with the War Powers 

Resolution (Public Law 93-148). 

Question: 

Do you believe that the Qatari government has been funding Ham as? If the Qatari 

government has been funding Ham as, why has the State Department not designated them as a 

State Sponsor of Terrorism? Has the Qatari government funding ofHamas ceased? If the Qatari 

government has not been funding Ham as, to what were you referring? 

Answer: 

While the Qatari government does not fund Hamas, it does allow Hamas political 

representatives to be based in Qatar, which Qatar believes limits Iran's influence and pressure 

over Hamas. Senior Qatari officials have stated that Hamas' presence in Qatar does not imply 

support for the group and the Qatari government recently expelled some Ham as members. We 

do not expect Hamas' new Political Bureau Chieflsmail Haniyeh to be based in Qatar, unlike his 

predecessor. Qatar has committed to take action against terrorist financing, including shutting 

down Hamas bank accounts. 

Qatar has provided significant assistance in Gaza. In coordination with Israel and the 

UN, Qatar has spent more than $225 million to date on reconstruction e±Iorts, large! y in housing 

and health care facilities for the people of Gaza. This assistance partially fulfills Qatar's $407 

million pledge in 2012 and $1 billion pledge announced during the 2014 Cairo Conference on 

reconstructing Gaza, following the July-August 2014 war. 

Question: 

In the hearing, you said that the US. funds the Palestinian Authority. You said "we give 

a lot of money to the Palestinian Authority." This has not been true since 2014. What did you 

mean by US. funding for the Palestinian Authority? 
84


26046e-12.eps

Answer: 

Since 2014, the U.S. has not provided direct budget assistance to the Palestinian 

Authority (PA). In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the U.S. provided approximately $544 million to 

support development and humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Of 

this amount, approximately $145 million supported debt payments for fuel and for hospital 

referrals to the East Jerusalem Hospital Network paid directly to PA creditors. U.S. support 

improves the lives of Palestinians in the areas of democracy and governance, education, water 

and sanitation, and economic growth and private enterprise. 

Question: 

U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which governs the implementation of the 

JCPOA, includes a travel ban on certain Iranians. One of the individuals on the travel ban list is 

IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. Qassem Soleimani is responsible for the 

deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Syrians 

that he has helped annihilate as part of his support for the Assad regime While he is prohibited 

from traveling under international law, he has reportedly been able to travel to Yemen, Syria and 

Russia in furtherance of the IRGC Quds Force's agenda. 

Will you seek enforcement of the U.N. Security Council travel ban? What are you doing 

to ensure that there are consequences for those countries that violate UN Security Council 2231 

and facilitate his travel? 

Answer: 

We are aware of the media reports about travel by the IRGC' s General Qassem Soleimani 

to Yemen, Syria, and Russia. These reports have been referenced in the UN Secretary-General's 

biannual reports on UNSCR 2231 implementation. We are not in a position to confirm the travel 

ourselves at this time, but if confirmed, such travel would be a matter of serious concern to the 

United States and other members of the UN Security Council as it would indicate a failure by 

l)N member states to meet their obligations under Resolution 2231 to deny Soleimani entry into 

their borders unless the UN Security Council approves an exemption. The United States 

maintains primary sanctions on the IRGC, the Quds Force, its leadership-including 

Soleimani-and its network of front companies due to their ties to terrorism. Our partners in the 

European Union maintain similar sanctions against Soleimani alongside those of the UN and the 

United States. Such sanctions are only effectively if rigorously enforced We need to look into 

Soleimani' s travel, along with the travel of others who have been said to have violated the ban, 

and if confirmed, respond accordingly. All elements of Resolution 2231 must be enforced, not 

simply the nuclear provisions. And unfortunately, we see time and time again references to 

violations of the travel ban, asset freeze, ban on ballistic missiles advancement, and the arms 

embargo. This is unacceptable, and we will do everything we can to continue to draw attention to 

Iran's violations of 2231 and work to ensure our partners enforce it as it was intended. 

Question: 
85


26046e-13.eps

UN. Security Council resolution 2231, which governs the implementation of the JCPOA, 

includes a five-year arms embargo to Iran, unless the Security Council votes to allow the arms 

transfer. 

Will you commit to voting against arms transfers to Iran? Would the transfer of arms to 

Iran without permission from the Security Council violate UN Security Council Resolution 

2231? 

Answer: 

Yes, I commit to voting against arms transfers to Iran. The United States has made it 

clear that it will not approve any request submitted to the Security Council in support of an arms 

transfer into Iran. Any such transfer conducted without the express approval of the Security 

Council would constitute a violation ofUNSCR 2231. 

Question: 

What specifically do you think the UN Secretary General, the UN Security Council and 

other UN bodies should do with respect to Venezuela? Do you believe that the UN should offer 

to provide humanitarian assistance to Venezuela? How could/should this be done? 

Answer: 

The Maduro government has launched a campaign of violence and repression against the 

Venezuelan people, targeting human rights and democratic institutions, destabilizing the 

economy and creating a humanitarian crisis where basic food and medical needs are unavailable. 

I have used and will continue to use the convening power of the UN to draw attention to this 

situation, as I did when I called an emergency session of the UN Security Council in May. 

Through its convening power, the Security Council remains a crucial forum for addressing the 

situation in Venezuela, yet is hindered by member states ignoring the threat these human rights 

abuses pose to international peace and security. Unfortunately, these member states continue to 

block any meaningful discussion, limiting the etTectiveness of the Security Council and other UN 

bodies, including the Human Rights Council. 

I will continue, however, to explore options within the United Nations system, to include 

mediation efforts between the government and opposition as well as humanitarian assistance to 

the Venezuelan people. I believe that the UN Security Council and other UN bodies should 

press the Maduro government to uphold its obligations and commitments to human rights and 

democracy, and I will work toward that end. 

Question: 

Please describe what specifically has changed in Haiti to make MINUST AH no longer 

needed. How would the situation on the ground in Haiti have to change for the Trump 

Administration to support the return of the peacekeeping mission? 
86


26046e-14.eps

Answer: 

Following two years of political impasse, Haiti now has a democratic government in 

place with an elected president, confirmed cabinet, and a complete Parliament. Additionally, the 

Haitian National Police (HNP) has demonstrated its ability to maintain stability and guard 

against security threats, which typically arise from political and socio-economic protests or gang 

violence. By the end of2017, the HNP will have over 15,000 officers, achieving the goal 

outlined in its 2012-2016 development plan. MINUSTAH's military component has not been 

called upon to support Haitian security forces to quell violence in the recent past. The UN 

completed a strategic assessment of the mission in February 2017, which supports this action by 

recommending withdrawal of the entire military component and reducing UN police personnel 

by half 

On April 13, 2017, based on these recommendations, the UN Security Council extended 

MINUSTAH's mandate for a final six-month period, decided to withdraw the military 

component and reduce the UN' s police presence, and established the UN Mission for Justice 

Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), a follow-on successor mission which began on October 16, 

2017. MINUJUSTH will devote its efforts to where they are most needed: in support of the 

rule of law, developing the Haitian police force, and protecting human rights. With a reduced 

UN police presence, the HNP will have to assume greater responsibility for maintaining security 

throughout Haiti. This transition to local responsibility is an important achievement, and 

MINUSTAH has increasingly worked with the UN Country Team to transfer tasks from the 

peacekeeping mission to UN agencies and the Haitian government. We are supportive of this 

etiort and will continue to monitor the situation on the ground closely, though we do not expect a 

reversal of the positive trends. 

Question: 

On March 24, 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), with support 

from the U.S., agreed to send an international fact-finding mission into Burma to investigate 

possible crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. The mission was authorized following 

interviews with 220 Rohingya stating Bunna's security forces have committed mass killings and 

gang rapes. Burma Ambassador Htin Lynn immediately rejected the U.N.'s decision as "not 

acceptable," citing the state-authorized Kofi Annan Commission as tal<ing precedence. The Kofi 

Annan Commission is expected to release a final report later this year, but the interim findings 

underemphasized the human rights abuses in Burma which the UNHRC hopes to investigate. In 

May, Lynn again dismissed the fact-finding mission after the U.N. announced team leads. 

Given your pledge to "make the U.N. an effective instrument of peace, security and 

human rights of all people," how specifically will you press the Burmese government to accept a 

U.N. fact-finding mission to examine abuses by security forces, to allow unrestricted access for 

human rights officers within the country, and hold the Burmese government accountable for 

implementing the recommendations from Kofi Annan commission report? Would you consider 

a resolution on Burma in the U.N. J'·d Committee General Assembly resolution if the government 

is not responsive on these fronts? 

Answer: 
87


26046e-15.eps

We have issued public statements and continued to press the Government of Burma, both 

publicly and privately, to allow access to the Fact Finding Mission. The horrific events 

following the August 24, 2017 release of the Annan Commission's report have only exacerbated 

the need for an objective, independent accounting of the facts on the ground. We continue to 

insist to the Government of Burma that the UN's Fact Finding Mission is a critical element of 

this process and should be granted immediate and unrestricted access to not only northern 

Rakhine State but to the other areas where abuses are alleged such as northern Shan State and 

Kachin State. 

At this time, the Organization of the Islamic Conference grouping within the Third 

Committee is proposing a resolution condemning human rights abuses in Burma. We have not 

yet seen the text but, when circulated, will work to ensure that it is a constructive effort to 

address the situation. Tn addition, we are also working with our fellow UN Security Council 

members per the call of President Trump for the Council to take "strong and swift action" to end 

the crisis. 

Question: 

Does the Administration support maintaining the UN Military Observer Group in India 

and Pakistan? Why? 

Answer: 

The UN Military Observer Group in Indian and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) is a small mission 

of 41 military observers, 23 international civilian personnel, and 48 local staff 

UNMOGTP monitors the ceasefire between India and Pakistan to help avoid renewed 

conflict A peaceful region and positive relations between India and Pakistan remain U.S. 

interests. The mission is not currently slated for reduction of cost or scope. However, we are 

reviewing the effectiveness of the mission and the need for its continued mandate. 

Question: 

Will the Administration consider making increased Sri Lankan participation in U.N. 

Peacekeeping contingent upon the Sri Lankan government's commitment to provide a plan of 

how it will use peacekeeping operations as a catalyst to normalize its military presence 

throughout Sri Lanka? 

As part of our sustained effort to champion reform that leads to smarter, more efficient 

and effective peacekeeping operations, the United States continues to encourage the UN to 

evaluate decisions about contingent participation in UN peacekeeping missions based on 

readiness and performance criteria. To that end, we have supported the creation of a professional 

system for force generation at the lJN. Our objective is that this system will put information in 

the hands of decision-makers to help the UN make merit-based decisions about training needs 

and troop deployment The United States will continue to work with the Sri Lankan government, 

military, civil society, and our partners in the international community, including within the UN 

system, to encourage progress on transitional justice and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, which we 
88


26046e-16.eps

believe is vital to the stability of both Sri Lanka and the region. In addition, at the urging of the 

United States the UN has requested that Sri Lankan contingents submit rosters of peacekeepers 

prior to deployment in order to vet Sri Lankan soldiers for Human Rights Violations. 

Question: 

Please list each commitment the U.S. government believes the Sri Lankan government has made 

through UN Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/Ll tram March 2014, and an 

assessment defining how far along the government is in addressing each one. 

Answer: 

With assistance tram our Mission in Geneva and the State Department, we collected the 

following information. UN Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/25/Ll of March 2014 calls 

on the government of Sri Lanka to promote reconciliation, accountability, and human rights. 

The subsequent October 2015 resolution A/HRC/30/1, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored and which 

was renewed in March 2017, welcomes Sri Lanka's commitments to: 

address violations and abuses of human rights; 

engage in dialogue and consultation with stakeholders to ensure accountability, 

justice, and reconciliation; 

devolve political authority; 

take necessary constitutional measures to reach political settlement; 

strengthen processes of truth-seeking, justice, reparations, and guarantees of nonrecurrence; 

undertake a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past, incorporating 

judicial and non-judicial measures; 

review its witness and victim protection law; review the Public Security 

Ordinance Act; 

repeal and replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act; 

sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons 

from Enforced Disappearance and criminalize enforced disappearances; 

release publicly previous presidential commission reports; 

issue instructions to security forces that violations of international human rights 

and humanitarian law are prohibited and punishable. 

Resolution A/HRC/30/1 also welcomes the Sri Lankan government's proposals to 

establish a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation, and non-recurrence; an office of missing 

persons; an office for reparations; and a judicial mechanism to investigate allegations of 

violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that includes an independent 

special counsel and the participation of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defense 

lawyers, prosecutors and investigators. It further welcomes initial steps to return land from the 

military to rightful civilian owners. 

The government of Sri Lanka has made some progress toward implementation of its 

commitments since the adoption of resolution A/HRC/30/1. It has established a Secretariat for 

Coordinating Reconciliation Mechanisms (SCRM), an Otlice for National Unity and 

Reconciliation, and a number of working groups to draft legislation to institute transitional 
89


26046e-17.eps

justice mechanisms. The government also established a Consultation Task Force on 

Reconciliation Mechanisms that carried out national consultations with more than 7,300 

stakeholders and submitted a detailed report with tindings and recommendations to the Otlice for 

National Unity and Reconciliation in January 2017. However, neither President Sirisena nor 

Prime Minister Wickremesinghe have endorsed the report or agreed to implement its 

recommendations. 

In August 2016, Sri Lanka's parliament approved the Registration of Deaths Act, which 

provides for "certificates of absence" for families of the disappeared. Sri Lanka ratified the 

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance in May 

2016. The parliament also has given public notice of legislation to incorporate the convention 

into domestic law, but it has not yet passed the bill. 

To advance constitutional reform, the Sri Lankan parliament established itself as a 

constitutional assembly in March 2016. Six subcommittees presented recommendations to the 

assembly in November 2016. 

The Sri Lankan government launched a National Authority for the Protection of Crime 

Victims and Witnesses in January 2016 and began setting up victim and witness protection units 

in police stations beginning in November 2016. Tts cabinet approved a national human rights 

plan of action for 2017-2021 in January 2017. The Ministry for Women and Child Affairs issued 

a plan to combat sexual and gender-based violence in November 2016. The president issued a 

circular in June 2016 instructing security services to respect the rights of detainees when making 

arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Tn February 2017 the government 

confirmed it had instituted a moratorium on the use of the PTA. The government has sought 

international input on counterterrorism legislation and has prepared several initial drafts of a law 

to replace the PTA, but it has not repealed the law. 

The government says that it has issued internal instructions to all branches of the security 

forces that violations of international human rights and humanitarian law are prohibited and will 

be investigated and punished. Despite this measure, human rights organizations allege that 

torture, abuse, and sexual violence by the military and police continue. The Human Rights 

Commission of Sri Lanka reported that it received over 400 complaints of torture in 2016. 

Since 2015, the Sri Lankan military has returned more than 4,700 acres of state and 

private land to civilian authorities and land owners. 

The United States continues to press Sri Lanka to fulfill all of its commitments in 

resolution A/HRC/30/1, including establishing an office of missing persons, a truth-seeking 

commission, an otlice of reparations, and a judicial mechanism to investigate allegations of past 

violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. 

Question: 

Given your stated concerns about the increase in instability and threats to civilians in 

DRC, and your calls for greater U.N. action to address these concerns, will you continue to call 

for the mission to be downsized? What are your findings so far in the Administration's ongoing 

strategic review ofMONUSCO and other U.N. peacekeeping operations" 
90


26046e-18.eps

Answer: 

We conduct a review of each UN peacekeeping mission as its mandate comes up for 

renewal to ensure it is appropriate to the situation in the country and that it is advancing U.S. 

objectives. The mandate for the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic 

Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) will be up for renewal in March 2018, before this 1 am 

travelling to the DRC to review MONUSCO in order to inform our decision making as we 

review how the mission is perfonning and whether further downsizing is warranted. When the 

U.S. advocates for a drawdown of forces in a mission, we work with the UN to ensure that the 

changes are implemented in a responsible manner that maintains the most crucial and impactful 

aspects of the mission. To date, we have some indications that our pressure to improve 

perfonnance in MONUSCO has worked. The UN has made the decision to implement the troop 

reduction by drawing down underperfonning troops, which we believe has sent an important 

signal to other poor performers that they must improve. The UN has also begun to make the 

force more mobile and flexible. 

In addition to MONUSCO's vital work protecting civilians, it provides important support 

to the electoral process, including through supporting implementation of the December 31 

political agreement and voter registration. Credible elections will not be possible without the 

logistical and technical support of MONUSCO given the DRC' s vast territory and extremely 

limited physical infrastructure. Credible, inclusive elections and a peaceful transfer of power are 

essential to the DRC's stability and thus directly linked to MONUSCO's exit strategy. 

Additionally, the United States relies on MONUSCO's monitoring and reporting on human 

rights, which has proven to be helpful in preventing violence against civilians. This is 

particularly important in the Kasal regions, where instability and inaccessibility can severely 

limit information. To that end, we remain committed to ensuring that MONUSCO is responsive, 

flexible, and able to actively and effectively fulfill its mandated tasks and address the ongoing 

violence in the DRC. 

Question: 

To what extent do you attribute the security downturn in various regions of DRC to the 

political stand-off over whether President Kabila is entitled to remain in otiice? What is the 

Administration's position on the political crisis in DRC, to what extent does it represent a change 

from the past Administration, and what actions are you and other Cabinet otlicials pursuing- in 

Kinshasa, New York, and Washington- in response to the situation? What role can or should 

MONUSCO play in electoral preparations and under what conditions? 

Answer: 

The political impasse resulting from the DRC government's continued delays in 

organizing elections and President Kabila' s remaining in power beyond his mandate has 

exacerbated tensions within the DRC and serves as a trigger for increased unrest and insecurity 

in the country. While the recent violence in eastern DRC and the Kasais can be attributed to a 

number of complex factors, we believe that various groups are taking advantage of a void in state 

authority and an increasingly politicized and tense environment. 
91


26046e-19.eps

Our immediate focus is to ensure credible, inclusive elections and a peaceful, democratic 

transfer of power. While elections are clearly not sufficient to address the DRC's many 

challenges, we believe they are essential to averting more widespread violence and unrest. To 

this end, the United States is actively pushing both the DRC government and the opposition to 

make greater progress on the implementation of the December 31 Saint Sylvestre agreement, and 

for the government to take concrete steps towards electoral planning, including completing the 

voter registration process and announcing an electoral calendar. We coordinate our response 

closely with the region, including the African Union, sub-regional organizations and key regional 

leaders; the European Union (EU) and our European partners; and the UN, including at the 

Security Council and through the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC, MONUSCO, thus 

increasing the impact of our etl'orts. We have also called on the DRC government both publicly 

and privately to protect political space for civil society, to allow the political opposition to 

operate without harassment, and to cease violence by the security forces, including extrajudicial 

arrests and detention. We have condemned the excessive use of force by security forces against 

civilians and continuously urge the DRC government to hold individuals responsible for such 

human rights violations and abuses accountable. We regularly engage with stakeholders, 

including trom the DRC government, opposition, and ci vii society groups, in Kinshasa, 

Washington, and New York 

We imposed U.S. targeted sanctions on June 1, 2017, against a DRC government official, 

Fran.;ois Olenga, responsible for undermining democratic processes and institutions in the DRC, 

and his business. 

The United States commends MONUSCO's etl'orts to support the electoral process. 

Quite simply, elections cannot be organized in the DRC without MONUSCO, given the DRC's 

vast territory, which covers an area the size of the United States east of the Mississippi River, 

and its almost non-existent infrastructure. Recognizing that elections are essential for 

MONUSCO eventual departure from the DRC, UN Security Council resolution 2348 (20 17) 

clearly outlines MONUSCO's two priority tasks as protection of civilians and supporting 

implementation of the December 31 agreement and the electoral process. In addition to 

coordinating with both the DRC government and the opposition to encourage implementation of 

the December 31 agreement, MONUSCO provides technical and logistical support to the 

Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI) for the completion of the revision of the 

voter register. To that end, MONUSCO has utilized its strengthened presence in the Kasai 

provinces to better support voter registration efforts, and has called on the CENI to publish an 

electoral calendar without further delay. MONUSCO is also mandated to monitor and report on 

restrictions of political space and on violence in the context of elections, as well as to provide a 

report to the Security Council every three months on progress made by the DRC on the 

implementation of the December 31 agreement and the electoral process. MONUSCO thus 

provides the international community with vital information that would otherwise not be 

available. The United States remains committed to ensuring that MONUSCO becomes 

increasingly responsive, flexible, and able to actively and etl'ectively fult111 its mandated tasks. 

I will be traveling to the DRC at the end of October to review recent changes to MONUSCO and 

survey the conditions in eastern DRC, with a particular concern for how instability impacts 

children in the Kivus. I also intend to meet with President Kabila in Kinshasa and clearly 

communicate the US position on elections, as outlined above. The country is at a pivotal point, 
92


26046e-20.eps

and President Kabila's choices could bring about DRC's tirst peaceful transition of power or 

could spark the widespread conflict that has marked past transitions ofDRC leadership, 

compromising US humanitarian and strategic interests in the region. 

Question: 

What role can or should MONUSCO play in protecting civilians in Kasai? Do you 

believe that the abuses in Kasai are grounds for additional sanctions designations, including 

potentially of additional government officials, under E. 0. 13671? 

Answer: 

The UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

(MONUSCO) plays an important role in protecting civilians in the Kasal provinces, as mandated 

by the UN Security Council (UNSC) in resolution 2348 (2017), which clearly outlines protecting 

civilians and supporting implementation of the December 31,2016, political agreement as 

MONUSCO's two priority tasks. To that end, MONUSCO is adjusting its posture and has 

deployed additional troops to the Kasal provinces to provide assistance to the Mission's civilian 

components and humanitarian actors. MONUSCO has helped to prompt the gradual return of 

some local populations to their villages, the resumption of activities in local market places, and 

the reopening of some schools and churches. Specifically, the deployment of MONUSCO to 

Tshimbulu contributed to the return of over 65 percent of the population and the reopening of all 

36 schools and churches. The Mission has also supported mediation efforts with a view to 

protect civilians. 

MONUSCO currently provides the only reporting on the horrific human rights abuses 

and violations in the Kasal provinces, including documenting numerous cases of child abuse, 

kidnapping, and widespread sexual violence against underage girls. Since September 2016, 

MONUSCO has documented 646 attacks on schools in the Kasal provinces by Kamuina Nsapu 

militia. MONUSCO has also provided critical support, through its Prosecution Support Cells, to 

ongoing investigations in the Kasals, including into the more than 80 mass graves and the 

murders of UN experts Michael Sharp and Zaida Catalan. Without the presence of MONUSCO 

in the Kasals to protect civilians, the violence and instability would be far worse. We are 

hopeful that the Human Rights Council mandated international investigation into allegations of 

gross violations and abuses in the Kasai regions will also provide additional insight into the 

crimes occurring in the DRC. 

The United States is prepared to consider additional U.S. or UN targeted sanctions 

against those responsible for threatening the peace, security, or stability of the DRC or for the 

targeting of civilians through the commission of acts of violence, whether members of the 

government or of armed groups, including for activities in the Kasals. To this end, we are 

coordinating closely with our European Union and UN partners. 

Question: 

What is the current status ofMONUSCO logistical support for and joint operations with 

the DRC military (F ARDC)? What is your view on the extent to which the U.N.'s human rights 

due diligence policy should preclude MONUSCO support for operations to counter destabilizing 
93


26046e-21.eps

militias such as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and the Allied 

Democratic Forces (ADF)? 

Answer: 

The UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

(MONUSCO) is neither involved with, nor providing support to, operations conducted by units 

of the DRC anned forces (FARDC) in the Kasal provinces. MONUSCO does continue to 

support the F ARDC in eastern DRC. This support consists of reconnaissance flights, 

information sharing, and logistics assistance, including providing fuel and rations. In addition, 

MONUSCO continues to conduct joint operations with the F ARDC in eastern DRC in 

accordance with its mandate to protect civilians and neutralize armed groups. 

While we are confident that the UN is only working with vetted, approved F ARDC units, 

it remains essential that we continue to review whether and to the extent that joint operations 

benetit non-vetted or problematic F ARDC units or commanders. We continue to engage the UN 

Secretariat and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on whether 

MONUSCO' s provision of support to the F ARDC in eastern DRC is consistent with the UN' s 

Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. 

Onestion: 

What is the Administration doing to encourage more urgent implementation by all parties 

of the 2015 Mali peace accord? What were the concrete outcomes of the May 2017 MINUSMA 

force generation conference? 

Answer: 

We continue to work closely with our international partners to consistently press the 

signatory parties to fully implement the Algiers Peace Accord. We are an active participant in 

the Agreement Monitoring Committee. Our embassy in Bamako seizes every opportunity, both 

in public and in private, to urge the parties to live up to the obligations they took on under the 

Accord. Conversations at the UN Security Council (lJNSC) on implementation of the Accord 

are ongoing, including the adoption ofUNSC resolution 2364 (2017) on June 21. The resolution 

renewed focus on the good offices' role of Special Representative to the Secretary-General 

Mahamat Annadif and was designed to encourage further implementation. The United States has 

every intention to work closely with the UN to ensure the strategic plan reflects the approach 

envisioned in UNSC resolution 2364 (2017) and pursues U.S peacekeeping principles, 

particularly supporting political solutions through an achievable mandate with a clear exit 

strategy. 

In June, the government and the signatory armed groups committed to prioritizing the 

implementation of the agreement beyond the expiration of its two year interim period that 

expired June 20. They also reached an agreement on a revised roadmap for its implementation 

and to establish the Operational Coordination Mechanism in Kidal on July 20, which did not 

materialize due to the violent clashes between the CMA and Platfonn that same month. Due to 

the prevailing insecurity there was no progress with regard to the redeployment of civil 

administration to the country's north and center. Low deployment rates continued to adversely 
94


26046e-22.eps

impact the delivery of basic social services and undermine citizen confidence in the state. On 

June 21, the Council of Ministers postponed the constitutional referendum planned for July 9 to 

allow the Constitutional Court to consider a petition tiled by opposition members of Parliament 

challenging the legality of the review process. A group opposed to the referendum, consisting of 

opposition members, civil society and trade union representatives, issued an ultimatum to 

President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita to withdraw the draft constitution. ffiK announced August 18 

the referendum was delayed, a stay he claimed was in the national interest to preserve a social 

climate and avoid confrontations. 

As of early September, 11,273 personnel out ofM1NUSMA's ceiling of 13,289 had been 

deployed. MTNUSMA has begun a mission-wide strategic plan mandated by Resolution 2364, to 

establish a phased approach to mandate implementation, a transition strategy and an exit 

strategy. Little progress was made in force generation, although important steps were taken in 

preparation for the deployment of key assets. The lack of armored personnel carriers remained a 

major obstacle to the mission's operations, although some troop contributing countries made 

progress to reduce their shortage. Bangladesh's medium helicopter unit in Kidal, unable to fly 

since an October 2016 attack, is scheduled to be repatriated starting this month. 

Since June the security situation deteriorated significantly. Violent extremist groups and 

terrorist elements carried out 75 attacks compared with 37 in the prior quarter. 15 MINUSMA 

peacekeepers and staff were killed, another 34 injured. Most asymmetric attacks were claimed 

by the Group for the Support oflslam and Muslims (Jama'a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin'-

JNIM), the merged entity of mostly AQ-affiliated groups who combined efforts last March. 

Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, currently operating on the Mali-Niger border, has sought to 

exploit intercommunal fissures. Most extremist attacks were on convoys, initiated by lED 

followed by ambush, while mortar attacks dominated those against MINUSMA installations. 

MIN USMA continued to support the government's integrated strategy for the central region of 

the country, where the security situation has rapidly deteriorated over the last year. In July, 

armed clashes erupted between two signatories to Mali's peace agreement, as they vied for 

control of the northern town ofKidal. The CMA and Platform continued sporadic fighting until 

signing a temporary ceasefire in mid-August and a renewed "commitment" document in late 

September to maintain a permanent ceasefire and fully implement the peace agreement. 

Question: 

Under what conditions would you support authorizing a G5 counterterrorism role within 

MINUSMA as part of that mission's mandate renewal- perhaps along the lines ofMONUSCO's 

Intervention Brigade? Under what conditions, if any, would you view UNSOA- which provides 

logistical support to AMISOM in Somalia- as a potential model for future U.N. support to a G5 

or African Union-led operation in Mali or the wider Sahel? 

Answer: 

Though we support a G5 Sahel joint force in principle as a potentially important example 

of African ownership of regional security and stabilization efforts, we do not support Chapter 

VII authority for the force at the UN Security Council (UNSC). The G5 Sahel joint force already 

has the consent of the participating states that would constitute the force to deploy within their 

respective territorial borders, and those states have provided "hot pursuit" authorization across 
95


26046e-23.eps

their borders. As such, there is no compelling reason for the UNSC to grant the force Chapter 

VII authorization. Furthermore, the precedent of seeking UN authorization for a force that has 

consent by host governments to deploy with their respective borders could complicate military 

engagements in regions where we have willing and capable partners and with whom we 

cooperate on shared security goals. 

While engagement related to UN support for the G5 force will undoubtedly continue, we 

remain committed first and foremost to the success ofMINUSMA. The results of the May 

MINUSMA force generation conference promise to add capabilities that have been absent for the 

last year. It would be irresponsible to stress the mission further by requiring it to support 

additional tasks at this time. Furthermore, there are many lessons from both MONUSCO's 

Intervention Brigade and the logistical support model in Somalia which require serious 

examination before we would consider replicating either in support of the G5 force. 

Question: 

What are your team and your colleagues at State doing to convince holdouts on the 

Council, particularly Ethiopia, which is influential given its role as a neighboring country and a 

mediator, to support the embargo? 

Answer: 

We support the imposition of a South Sudan arms embargo by the UN and are working to 

build support for one in the Security Council. 

In May, we engaged the members of the Security Council and regional governments, 

including Ethiopia, to ask for their support for a UN anns embargo given the continuing conflict 

and humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. I also met with my Ethiopian and other African 

counterparts on the Security Council to urge that the Security Council take concrete action on 

South Sudan. There was not sufficient support for an arms embargo resolution at that time. 

Ethiopia is the Chair of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (TGAD), which 

in the past opposed an arms embargo or targeted sanctions in South Sudan. On June 12, and as a 

result of sustained U.S., UK, Norwegian, and EU pressure, Ethiopian Prime Minister 

Hailemariam Desalegn convened an extraordinary IGAD summit on South Sudan. The resulting 

communique announced that TGAD would host a High-level Revitalization Forum (RVF) by 

October to discuss implementation of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in 

South Sudan (ARCSS). Subsequently, the communique released following an TGAD Council of 

Ministers meeting in Addis Ababa on July 2 indicated members committed "to collaborate with 

AU and UN to take all necessary measures to hold accountable individuals and groups causing 

humanitarian crises and committing human rights violations" 

In this context, we have engaged with I GAD member states, including Ethiopia, to 

request they uphold this commitment and- should the R VF not produce its intended results of a 

cessation of hostilities and revitalization of the ARCSS- support a UN arms embargo in South 

Sudan as a necessary measure to reduce the conflict. In concert with our international partners, 

we will continue to engage Security Council members and regional governments in an effort to 

build the necessary support for a UN arms embargo. I will be traveling to Ethiopia at the end of 

October. 
96


26046e-24.eps

Question: 

What is your view on the RPF and what its role should be in light of the current conflict 

and political dynamics in the country~ 

Answer: 

We continue to evaluate all peacekeeping operations against the five principles l outlined 

early in my tenure: peacekeeping missions must support political solutions, host governments 

must cooperate with the UN, peacekeeping mandates must be realistic and achievable, 

peacekeeping mandates must have an exit strategy, and mandates must be adjusted, both when 

situations improve and when they fail to improve. With the upcoming renewal of the United 

Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMlSS) peacekeeping mandate in 

December, we will take all of these factors into account and evaluate the UNMlSS mandate, 

which includes the Regional Protection Force (RPF). We will carefully review the role of the 

RPF in light of the current conflict in the country as well as the political dynamics which are 

driving the conflict, and its role in creating a peace-enabling environment. 

Question: 

Amid reports of rising violence, ongoing militia attacks on civilians, what will a major 

drawdown ofUNAMID mean for civilians in Darfur? How has the US.-Sudan engagement 

strategy atl'ected access and movement for UN AMID troops~ How many civilians are the UN 

and NGOs able to access now that they weren't able to access last year? 

Answer: 

UN AMID continues to play an important role in the protection of civilians and the 

provision of critical support to UN and civil society organizations delivering humanitarian 

assistance. The situation in Darfur today is quite ditl'erent, however, than when the UN Security 

Council first authorized UN AMID. Fighting between government forces and rebel groups has 

subsided in most of the region. Currently, inter-ethnic tighting and militia activity present the 

greatest threat to civilians and internally displaced persons (lOPs). The most recent UN AMID 

mandate renewal therefore refocused the mission on governance capacity building tasks in 

relatively calm areas of Darfur, to include supporting local police forces and helping to build rule 

oflaw institutions, while still continuing to protect civilians. 

To address continued insecurity in the Jebel Marra area, UN AMID will remain focused 

on providing military protection, clearing explosive remnants of war, and addressing emergency 

relief The opening of a temporary operating base in Golo, which would significantly improve 

UNAMID's access and response in the Jebel Marra, is a key component of revised mission 

strategy. Accordingly, we will press the Government of Sudan to grant UN AMID permission to 

open the Golo base. We will also continue to stress that UNAMID must be able to operate 

unhindered throughout Darfur. 

The UN AMID drawdown could impact the mission's ability to protect civilians in areas 

of Darfur where UN AMID has closed team sites. In recognition of these concerns, we agreed to 

a phased reduction oflJNAMID forces over 12 months, with an interim review point in January 
97

f


26046e-25.eps

2018 to assess whether the mission's ability to tulfill its protection of civilians mandate has been 

adversely affected In addition, the l)N is taking a number of steps to mitigate the risks of 

military withdrawal from stable areas, principally through mobile quick-response capabilities 

and a system of early warnings. The United States will continue to press the Government of 

Sudan to maintain a cessation of hostilities in Darfur, to disarm militias, to improve humanitarian 

access, and to ensure UN AMID's ability to return to closed team sites if conditions worsen. 

The Five Track Engagement Plan (STEP) has led to heightened levels of cooperation 

between the U.S. and Sudanese governments. The overall security and humanitarian situation in 

Darfur has improved as a result of the STEP requirement that the government cease military 

offensives. The STEP framework has also enabled the United States to advocate on behalf of 

UN AMID, leading to fewer Sudanese government restrictions on UNAMID's access and 

movement throughout Darfur. 

Although substantial obstacles remain, the progress in UNAMID's freedom of movement 

has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian assistance to key areas of Darfur since December 

2016, including the Jebel Marra, which brought to light a severe nutritional crisis in the area. In 

response to that crisis, UN agencies and NGOs launched a nutrition outreach campaign, 

combined with targeted water, sanitation, and hygiene-focused interventions. The UN 

Children's Fund is working with federal and state-level authorities to assist approximately 

200,000 displaced or recently returned people, including approximately 120,000 children. 

The East African regional body that brokered South Sudan's 2015 peace deal appears to be at 

an impasse on how to proceed in the wake of the accord's collapse last year. South Sudan's 

president has recently reiterated to Members of Congress the critical role the US played in his 

country's formation- a legacy of the George W. Bush Administration. What are you doing to 

revive the peace process for the troubled country? Do you believe that that a Special Envoy 

should be appointed to help resolve this conflict in cooperation with other countries' special 

envoys? 

NOTE: The Committee did not receive responses to the above question prior to printing. 
98


26046f-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Representative Ted Poe 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

You have stated that you were going to fix the UN. What aspects of the UN have you seen 

need the most improvement? What have you been able to do? 

The United States is a champion for UN reform, and we strongly support the SecretaryGeneral's efforts in making the organization more effective and etlicient. The Secretary-General 

and member states have an important opportunity to institute long-overdue and transformational 

change at the United Nations. Big reforms are required. 

We must change the United Nations' culture to focus more on results and advancing 

political solutions to crises. The United Nations also must coordinate better among its many 

parts and eliminate duplication and overlap. 

The UN must tully implement existing reform initiatives, including modernization and 

transformation of its enterprise resources planning platform, global service delivery functions, 

mandate delivery, combatting sexual abuse and exploitation, and protecting whistle blowers. 

TheUS. Mission to the United Nations and the State Department will continue to 

engage at the highest levels on why UN reform is in the best interest of every member state, and 

to encourage member states to take on more responsibility for sharing the costs of the UN's 

activities. During UN General Assembly High Level Week, President Trump hosted an 

extremely successful UN Reform event where 129 countries declared their support for UN 

Reform by signing a U.S.-drafted political declaration, negotiated with 12 other member states 

from across regions. We will build otl' the momentum that this event created to urge the 

Secretary-General at every opportunity to execute his authority at1irmatively in support of a 

reformed UN. 

Question: 

How have you prioritized U.S interests in the UN? 

Answer: 

This Administration is deeply committed both to an effective United Nations and to the 

United States reasserting its leadership on the multilateral stage. Therefore, we will continue to 

focus on employing the United Nations and other international organizations in new ways to 
99


26046f-2.eps

advance key US. interests. To that end, I have used my platform to demonstrate renewed US. 

leadership on Syria, Iran, the DPRK, human rights, and UN reform, among other issues. In 

addition, the President's Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposal ret1ects the US. commitment to 

spurring long-needed reforms and more equitable burden-sharing among UN member states. By 

demanding fiscal discipline and a fair division of costs, we are forcing a rethink of the way that 

the United Nations operates and spends US. taxpayers' money. 

Question: 

You have called the UN a global bully against Israel. What do you think needs to be 

done to combat the anti-Israel bias in the UN? 

Answer: 

The United States remains committed to combatting anti-Israel bias and etTorts to 

delegitimize Israel in the UN system. Under my Ambassadorship, I have established combatting 

the chronic anti-Israel bias as a key priority. The United States strongly opposes anti-Israel 

resolutions throughout the UN system and regularly lobbies other countries to join us in voting 

against these biased resolutions. 

In June, I addressed the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), raising our concerns that 

body in particular consistently targets Israel more than any other single country. I called for the 

removal of Agenda Item Seven, the HRC' s only standing country-specific agenda item. It is not 

just a question of support for our allies, which is of course critical; it is a question of the values 

that underpin the creation of the HRC in the first place. 

In addition, we are working to prevent the publication of biased, anti-Israel reports. As 

we saw earlier this year with the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCW A) 

report accusing Israel of operating an apartheid state, there is no shortage of UN officials who 

attempt to use their position to bash Israel rather than focus on the facts. Fortunately, we have a 

Secretary General who is willing to work hard to root out bias. 

As part of combatting anti-Israel bias, we continue to reinforce Israel's at1irmative efforts 

to normalize its role in the international community. Specifically, we support Israel's efforts to 

contribute technical expertise in UN bodies, help Israeli nationals obtain official positions in 

various UN organizations, and encourage a greater role for Israel in UN peacekeeping 

operations. When appropriate, the United States co-sponsors Israeli-drafted resolutions, and we 

work to assist Israel in gaining membership in UN regional, consultative, and negotiating groups. 

Question: 

The UN Human Rights Council has passed more than 70 resolutions targeting Israel. 

That's more than Syria or Iran. Could you speak on the list of changes that you presented to the 

Council? If these changes are not made, should the US. stay on the Council? 
100


26046f-3.eps

Answer: 

We believe reforms are urgently needed to strent,>then the Human Rights Council's 

(HRC) membership and revise its agenda. Without them, we will have to reevaluate our 

participation in the HRC. 

Toward that end, we are calling on member states to join together in the months ahead to 

develop and enact much-needed reforms. Our ongoing engagement with member states is aimed 

at developing possible measures, including revision of the Council's election procedures, new 

accountability measures for members, changes to the HRC's standing agenda and its use, and 

procedural reforms to ensure the Council lives up to its mandate to promote and protect human 

rights. Our foremost goals are putting an end to the use of Agenda Item 7 on Israel and 

improving the membership on the HRC. We intend to work with partners and senior UN 

leadership to build support for these necessary changes. 

Question: 

The UN Security Council's most recent stunt targeted Israel with a one sided resolution 

on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The U.S. failed our long standing ally by not vetoing the 

resolution. What do you think the U.S. needs to do to stand up for Israel in the UN? 

Answer: 

It is unfortunate that member states of the United Nations spend a disproportionate 

amount of their time criticizing Israel, especially when compared to other countries with terrible 

human rights records and even those who are state sponsors of terrorism. More work is needed 

to end the unfair treatment of Israel in this organization, and to draw more attention to the real 

human rights violators across the world. 

The United States consistently uses its seats on the Security Council, the General 

Assembly, and other UN bodies to raise the issue of bias against Israel by member states and 

some UN bodies. As I stressed in my first remarks on Middle East Peace in the UN chambers in 

February, the United States will not allow another one-sided Security Council resolution to 

condemn IsraeL As a more recent example, when the United Nation's Economic and Social 

Commission for Western Asia (UNESCW A) published a report accusing the Israeli government 

of installing an apartheid regime, I publicly lambasted the anti-Israeli bias in the report and put 

the United Nations on notice that it should do a better job in eliminating false and biased reports. 

Consequently, Secretary-General Guterres not only withdrew the report from UN web sites but 

also accepted the resignation of the head ofUNESCWA for failing to follow proper clearance 

procedures when publishing ot1icial UN reports. Further, this Administration has taken new 

steps to expand the subject matter discussed at the Security Council's monthly meetings on 

Middle East Peace. Through our etiorts, we have successfully convinced the United Nations and 

some member states to recognize the disruptive role Iran, Syria, and terrorist groups like 

Hezbollah and Hamas play in preventing Israeli -Palestinian peace. 
101


26046f-4.eps

In addition to our work in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and other UN 

bodies, we also lobby for the support of other countries across the globe to join us in opposing 

anti-Israel resolutions. Every year during the United Nations General Assembly when anti-Israel 

resolutions are introduced, the Department of State, the US. Mission to the United Nations, and 

our embassies abroad explain to other nations how anti-Israeli resolutions delegitimize the UN 

and could derail efforts to secure a lasting peace agreement. In my tenure, I have also worked to 

better coordinate our outreach with the Israelis so that our lobbying efforts can be more effective. 

I raised our concerns about the anti-Israel bias of the Human Rights Council in person when I 

addressed that body in June. Similarly, I wrote and spoke out publicly against anti-Israel bias in 

recent items adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in July. By continuing and 

strent,>thening these efforts, the United States can stand up for Israel not only with the United 

Nations as an organization, but also with its member states. 

Question: 

Over the past 12 years, there have been over 2,000 formal allegations of sexual 

exploitation and assault by peacekeepers and other UN civilian personnel globally. What should 

the UN be doing to prevent sexual assault by its personnel? As the top financial contributor to 

UN peacekeeping, what can the US. do? 

Answer: 

The United States takes sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers seriously. 

UN personnel who commit these acts damage the credibility of UN peacekeeping operations and 

the UN system. 

For years we have pressed the UN to be more transparent in reporting sexual exploitation 

and abuse. As a result of our efforts, in 2016 the UN began identifying the nationalities of 

uniformed peacekeepers accused of sexual exploitation and abuse and the status of actions taken 

by the United Nations and the relevant troop or police contributing country. The UN's publicly 

available data also includes updates on the status of ongoing investigations by the UN and troopor police-contributing country, and more information than previously available about the alleged 

offenses. We now have solid information to back up our bilateral pressure on troop- and policecontributing countries to investigate thoroughly and hold perpetrators accountable. 

The UN has increased its public information campaigns in host countries and improved 

screening to prevent prior ofl'enders from rejoining the UN. The UN also now withholds 

payments to troop and police contributors for uniformed personnel accused of sexual exploitation 

and abuse, diverting the payments to the UN's trust fund for support to victims. US. leadership 

has played a large role in these measures. 

In her statement before the United Nations Security Council last April, I emphasized that 

"countries that refuse to hold their soldiers accountable must recognize that this either stops or 

their troops will go home and their financial compensation will end." As the largest financial 

donor to UN peacekeeping, the United States has been able to negotiate on peacekeeping budgets 

and programs, which has helped to get agreement on such measures as withholding payment for 
102


26046f-5.eps

personnel sent home for misconduct. The US.-drafted Security Council resolution 2272 gave 

the UN political support for repatriating individual units and entire contingents, as well as 

individuals, when there is credible evidence of widespread or systematic sexual exploitation and 

abuse, or when troop- and police-contributing countries fail to investigate allegations or hold 

those responsible to account. In June, following reports of the Republic of Congo's blatant 

misconduct and lack of discipline, to include widespread sexual exploitation and abuse, in the 

Central African Republic, I sent a letter to the Secretary-General. In it, I called on SecretaryGeneral Guterres to use his executive authority under Security Council Resolution 2272 to 

repatriate the entire Congolese military contingent. Days later, the United Nations announced 

the Congolese troops would be sent home. 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, in your testimony, you noted that UNICEF and UNFP A ''need to smartly 

spend and they need to look at their budgets as well as we're all kind oflooking at how we can 

be smarter about what we do." Did your otlice make recommendations to the Otlice of 

Management and Budget on funding levels for the FY 2018 budget proposal? 

The President's FY 2018 Budget Request reinforces the expectation that the UN and 

other international organizations must become more etlicient and etTective and that member 

states must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. My ofllce did not 

make any specitic UN agency recommendations to OMB. 

The elimination of the International Organizations and Programs account does not 

necessarily mean the elimination offunding for the organizations and programs funded through 

this account in previous years. Many of these organizations and programs may receive funding 

as implementing partners through programs and activities funded through other appropriations 

accounts. 

Question: 

How can the UN counter terrorism when its own member countries, like Pakistan and 

Iran, support and harbor terrorists? What can the UN do to pressure these countries? 

Answer: 

The UN counters terrorism by instituting and promoting collaborative frameworks and by 

building the political will and capacities of countries around the world to implement international 

commitments and adopt best practices. UN Security Council resolutions obligate UN Member 

States to prevent the financing of terrorist acts, refrain from providing any form of support to 

entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, and deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, 

support, or commit terrorist acts. We also have an UN sanction regime speci±ic to Al- Qaida and 

ISIS. We must continuously strive to mal<e sure the UN uses available mechanisms to press all 

member states, including Pakistan and Iran, to implement their obligations. 
103


26046f-6.eps

And we need to continue to press our allies on the Security Council to hold these 

countries responsible for their behavior. Iran, in particular, frequently gets away with violations 

of UN Resolution 2231, which expressly prohibits a ballistic missile program, the travel of 

certain Iranian individuals, the shipping of weapons/arms to and from Iran, and the release of 

certain Iranian assets. Despite this, Iran continues to arm Hezbollah, a US-designated terrorist 

entity, and has been the top state sponsor of terrorism. They frequently are caught with arms 

shipments heading to conflict-ridden areas in the Middle East, including Syria and Yemen. The 

Security Council members need to hold Iran accountable, and we will continue to press them to 

enforce these measures. 

Question: 

UNIFIL, tasked to prevent Hezbollah's rearming, has clearly failed to do so. UNIFIL 

posts in Southern Lebanon sit side-by-side with Hezbollah outposts. UNIFIL forces do not patrol 

certain areas that are known to be Hezbollah controlled and do not tully report on Hezbollah's 

activities out offear of retaliation. How can UNIFIL become more etTective? Should the U.S. 

continue supporting UNIFIL if they are unable or unwilling to confront Hezbollah? 

Answer: 

I agree that UNIFIL has not lived up to the expectations of its original mandate, and we 

are demanding changes to the way UNIFIL operates so it can be a more etTective deterrent to 

hostile activity in southern Lebanon, including Hizballah. As I have said, we will no longer 

accept business as usual tram UNIFIL, especially when Hizballah is increasing its weapons 

capabilities at such an alarming rate. 

In Aub'l!St, we pushed the Security Council to address our concerns during the yearly 

renewal ofUNIFIL's mandate, and we secured important changes. The renewal expressly 

highlighted that UNIFIL has the mandate to take all necessary action to stop its area of 

operations ±rom being used for hostile activities. It called on UNIFIL to establish a more visible 

presence and step up its patrols and inspections to disrupt Hizballah's illicit activities. For the 

±lrst time since 2006, the resolution emphasized that UNIFIL can assist the Lebanese government 

in securing its borders to stop the tlow of illegal weapons into the country. And, very critically, it 

told UNIFIL to give the Security Council clear reports on what it is prevented from seeing For 

too long, when UNIFIL has hit a road block, it has turned away. Council members never learned 

what was behind those roadblocks. UNIFIL now needs to tell the Council the details of where, 

when, and why it got stopped Our goal is for UNIFIL to use all the tools it has in its robust 

mandate, and for UNIFIL to give the international community as detailed and as accurate a 

picture as possible of what is happening in southern Lebanon. 

Question: 

The United Nations Mission in Iraq assured residents of Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty 

that they would be allowed to sell their property in the camps so that they could meet the 

associated costs of relocating outside Iraq. But the government oflraq has since seized their 
104

f


26046f-7.eps

property- valued at over $500 million. What is the UN doing to ensure that the Iraqi government 

lives up to its commitments? How can the UN help these Iranian dissidents now that they can 

hardly make ends meet due to this situation? 

Answer: 

The members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), who have now resettled in Albania and 

other countries, claim to retain hundreds of millions of dollars of property and other assets in 

Iraq, and have demanded that the United States and UNHCR press the Iraqi government to 

compensate them for this property. 

The United States government has consistently refused to serve as the guarantor of 

financial dealings between the MEK and the Government of Iraq. We are unaware of any such 

assurances made by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UN AMI), UNHCR, or any 

other UN entity with regard to the MEK claims. We did, however, urge the Iraqi government to 

establish a judicial process for reaching a property settlement with the MEK, and we urged the 

MEK to follow that process. The MEK chose not to cooperate. They refused to participate with 

the Iraqis in conducting a joint inventory of their property at Camp Ashraf and refused to name 

an Iraqi lawyer to represent them in the compensation process. As a result, when the MEK 

departed from Camp Ashraf in 2013 there was no agreed-upon list of the property they left 

behind. In 2014, when ISIS surged across Iraq and threatened Baghdad, Iranian-supported 

militias occupied Camp Ashraf and looted it thoroughly. 

MEK property in Iraq is probably beyond recovery, but we would continue to urge the 

MEK to address the problem of restitution directly with the Iraqi government. The United States 

would be reluctant to suggest that the United Nations should insert itself into a financial dispute 

between the MEK and the Iraqi government. UNHCR will continue its efforts in support of the 

MEK's resettlement in Albania through the end of December. 
105


26046g-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US. Mission to the United Nations, Ambassador Nikki Haley by 

Representative Albia Sires, Question 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

For months we've been hearing about a so called 'blacklist' being created at the UN that 

will name and shame companies that do business with Israel. This list is nothing more than a 

push to legitimize the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement. How are you using your 

voice at the UN to push back on the publication and validity of this list? 

Answer: 

The administration shares the concern regarding this list. In March 2016, the UN Human 

Rights Council (HRC) adopted resolution 31/36 entitled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied 

Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan" that called for 

the creation of a database of all business enterprises engaged in certain activities related to Israeli 

settlements. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was tasked 

with compiling this list. At this time, OHCHR has not released to the public the company names 

it has collected and we are working closely with partner nations, especially Israel, to ask 

OHCHR to keep confidential any information it has gathered, to be shared only with the country 

where each company is domiciled. 

The United States was on a mandatory year off the HRC when this resolution was passed, 

but actively opposed the creation of the database nonetheless. The United States will not provide 

any specific information related to the listed companies or otherwise assist in the creation of the 

database. We will continue to forcefully voice opposition to its publication, as well as to push 

back against other anti-Israel initiatives at the HRC and other UN bodies. 

Question: 

The situation in Venezuela worsens each day with protestors getting shot in the street and 

Madura showing no signs of relinquishing power. I know you brought up the issue of Venezuela 

at the UN. Can you characterize how those conversations went? What other actions do you plan 

on taking at the UN to bring international attention to the growing humanitarian crisis and 

violence being used against the Venezuelan people? 

Answer: 

The crisis in Venezuela calls for action, a message that Twill continue to press at the 

United Nations. We will continue to explore options within the United Nations, including 

mediation efforts between the government and opposition that can resolve the terrible crisis and 

ensure the Venezuelan people are not forgotten. It is immoral for the international community to 
106

f


26046g-2.eps

look away as the Madura government continues to launch a campaign of violence against the 

Venezuelan people, targeting human rights and democratic institutions, most recently by holding 

sham elections that have turned the country into a dictatorship. 

In May 2017 I called an emergency session of the Security Council to spotlight the 

human rights situation in Venezuela. In the midst of these conversations, some of my 

counterparts disagreed with me, arguing that the Security Council is a place to discuss peace and 

security, not human rights. I completely disagree. The protection of human rights is deeply 

intertwined with international peace and security. Unfortunately, we are seeing just how 

entwined they are with the continued deteriorating of the situation in Venezuela today. 

Through its convening power, the Security Council remains a crucial forum for 

addressing the situation in Venezuela, yet is hindered by member states ignoring the threat these 

human rights abuses pose to international peace and security. We have also raised the crisis in 

Venezuela on the margins of the Human Rights Council. Yet Venezuela, along with other 

human rights abusers, is a member in good standing on the Human Rights Council and continues 

to use that membership to block any meaningful discussion of its human rights violations. That 

said, we will not stop pushing, and will continue to evaluate ways in which we can use the l)N 

system to give further voice to the Venezuelans suffering under Madura's dictatorship. 

Question: 

The conflict in Syria is one of the worst crises of our lifetime. It is no secret that Russia 

has spent years propping up the Assad regime and participating in the targeting of innocent 

civilians, including children. How come the Administration is so reluctant to hold Russia 

accountable both for its international transgressions and their deliberate attempts to tamper with 

our US. elections? 

Answer: 

The United States is appalled by atrocities in Syria, and despite our consistent messaging 

to Russia that their support for Assad brings with it the responsibility to curb his regime's 

egregious excesses. Moscow has so far been unable or unwilling to effectively restrain their 

Syrian partners. We have made clear our concerns to the Russian government, including that 

Russia must urgently exercise its inf1uence over the Syrian regime to guarantee that these 

atrocities stop now. 

The United States is open to working with Russia, where we can find areas of practical 

cooperation that will benefit the American people and serve our national security interests, such 

as the de-escalation zone in Southern Syria. Where we do not see eye-to-eye with Russia, the 

United States will continue to stand up for the interests and values of America, our allies, and our 

partners. Separately, in response to Russia's ongoing, destabilizing role in the Ukraine conf1ict, 

the United States has increased pressure by adding new sanctions this year against Russia, proRussia separatists in Ukraine, and individuals and companies supporting them. 
107


26046h-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

By Representative Jeff Duncan 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

The United Nations has been overseeing the demobilization ofF ARC rebels as part of the 

peace accords with the Colombian government. At this point the UN. has reported that 

disarmament was completed one day ahead of schedule. However, work remains to find all 900 

arms caches hidden in remote areas throughout the country 

I. Can you provide an overview on the status of UN. field operations to retrieve weapons 

caches hidden in the jungles? 

2. There are reports of dissident F ARC rebels joining with other guerilla groups and continuing 

their illicit operations. Can you tell us if this is impacting the UN' s ongoing demobilization 

and disarmament efforts? 

3. Can you tell us how local governments in the municipalities surrounding the camps have 

responded and if they are prepared to take in demobilized guerillas? 

Answer: 

The mandate for the UN special political mission, the United Nations Mission in 

Colombia, to oversee the bilateral ceasefire, cessation of hostilities, and the F ARC disarmament 

expired on September 25. On July 10, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 

2366 authorizing a follow-on UN special political mission, the United Nations Verification 

Mission in Colombia, which began operations on September 26. This second mission will focus 

on monitoring and verifying the political, economic, and social reincorporation of the F ARC into 

civilian life and the implementation of security guarantees. 

Since November 2016, 7,000 FARC rebels have disarmed. The first mission listed the 

weapons collected in the FARC disarmament: 8,994 arms, 1,765,862 rounds of ammunition, 

38,255 kg of explosives, 11,015 grenades, 3,528 anti-personnel mines, 46,288 electric detonation 

caps, 4,3 70 mortar rounds, and 51.911 meters of detonating cord/fuses. 

The peace implementation process is not without challenges, particularly as coca 

cultivation and cocaine production have surged as non-state armed groups outside the peace 

process are continuing their illicit operations and seeking to take over territory previously 

occupied by the FARC The United States, alongside the UN, is monitoring these risks to the 

implementation of the peace accord and is working with the Colombian government to 

implement a whole-of-government counter-narcotics plan to help reverse the trend in coca 

cultivation and weaken illegal and armed groups operating in Colombia. 

The reintegration process of ex-combatants into local municipalities is also complex, but 

it is crucial to ensuring successful implementation of the peace accord. The UN is assisting the 

Colombian government in the reintegration of ex-combatants, the expansion of state institutions 
108


26046h-2.eps

across the country, and increasing the government's presence in formal rebel areas, including 

rural economic development, justice services, and humanitarian demining. 

On October 5, the UN Security Council authorized the UN Verification Mission to 

oversee the implementation of the temporary, bilateral, national ceasefire between the 

Government of Colombia and the National Liberation Army (ELN) until January 9, 2018; 

another step towards a peaceful, stable Colombia. This additional task to the UN mission's 

mandate will help preserve a more comprehensive peace with the last armed guerilla movement 

and help keep criminal networks and paramilitary groups from filling the security vacuum left by 

theFARC. 

Qnestion: 

Of the money allocated for l\1INUSTAH, what programs have been most effective in 

delivering positive results? Which ones have not delivered? 

Answer: 

Democratic processes and stability in Haiti have significantly improved since 

MINUSTAH was first deployed in 2004 to address the country's chronic instability caused by 

deficiencies in governance and the rule oflaw. One of the most effective parts ofl\1INUSTAH's 

mandate was its role in helping monitor, restructure, and reform the Haitian National Police 

(HNP) and develop it into one of the most effective government institutions. MINUS TAR has 

helped contribute to the significant improvements the HNP has made over the last 12 years 

towards its goal of becoming a professional police service; it has enhanced and reinforced public 

safety and public order while taking steps to develop internal accountability mechanisms. From 

6,300 poorly trained ofticers in 2004, HNP is now on track to reach 15,000 ofticers by the end of 

2017. The HNP presence throughout the country has expanded through the reconstruction of 

approximately 225 police facilities, and the national police now function in all 140 communes 

and in 261 out of 571 communal sections. 

Since 2012, the Secretary-General's reports to the Security Council have included a 

consolidation plan for MINUS TAR, which is based on specific benchmarks on strengthening 

security, the rule of law, elections administration, and institutional modernization, to be pursued 

and achieved by the mission in cooperation with the Government of Haiti. 

At the same time, noteworthy efforts have also been made since then to strengthen the 

justice sector and the rule oflaw. Yet progress in the justice area lags significantly behind that 

of the police. Haiti's justice institutions continue to suffer significant problems as impunity 

within the judiciary system is high, credibility of the system is low, and additional work is 

needed to promote victims' access to truth, justice, and an efl'ective remedy. Chronic, 

unreasonably prolonged pre-trial detention remains a problem. The UN Mission for Justice 

Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), the follow on mission to MINUS TAR that began operations on 

October 16, will focus on strengthening rule of law, police development, and respect for human 

rights and fundamental freedoms. 
109

f


26046h-3.eps

Question: 

What mechanisms have you implemented to track etiectiveness of the remaining 

personnel in the region as the mission phases out? 

Answer: 

Lessons learned from MINUSTAH indicate the need for closer links between the UN's 

political strategies and its support for rule of law reform to elicit better results. As a result, one 

of the core objectives of its successor mission, the UN Mission for Justice Support in Haiti 

(MINUJUSTH), will be the progressive transition to the UN Country Team, as well as to other 

partners, of its tasks in support of the rule oflaw. This strong partnership and full integration 

with the UN Country Team and other international and national partners will be crucial to 

ensuring a smooth transition and the progressive withdrawal of the peacekeeping presence. The 

mandate renewal including a stat1ing review as well. 

Question: 

Following the end ofMTNUSTAH in October, what mechanisms will be in place to 

promote an independent judiciary as well as a professionalized police force? 

Answer: 

The UN Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), the follow on mission to 

MINUSTAH, is mandated to assist the Government of Haiti to further support and develop the 

Haitian National Police (HNP); strengthen rule of law institutions, including the justice and 

corrections sectors; and advance the promotion and protection of human tights including through 

monitoring, reporting, and analysis. In particular, MINUJUSTH will support and strengthen the 

Conseil Superieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire (CSPJ) and the Inspection Unit of the Ministry of 

Justice, the main oversight and accountability mechanisms in the justice sector, so that they play 

more effectively their legal and constitutional role of providing recommendations for the 

appointment and extension of judges and prosecutors or for their discipline/sanctioning on the 

basis of poor performance, misconduct, or human rights violations. The MINUJUSTH police 

component will be oriented towards the transfer of its expertise to senior-level officers of the 

HNP, providing supervisory mentoring and strategic advice. In coordination with other 

international partners, the focus will be on the training and institutional development of the HNP 

to strengthen its et1icient and independent functioning at the time ofMINUJUSTH's departure. 
110


26046i-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Representative Gerry Connolly 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 28, 2017 

The Administration's FY 2018 budget calls for a 37 percent reduction in US 

contributions to UN. peacekeeping operations- from $1.9 to $1.2 billion. What analysis did the 

Administration rely upon to warrant cuts of this magnitude~ Reducing US. support by more 

than 1/3 will likely require the closure of certain peacekeeping missions, unless other countries 

dramatically increase their contributions. In the Administration's view, which current missions 

do not serve US. national and economic interests~ Is the Administration willing to send U.S. 

service members to protect US. interests in places where the U.N. will no longer be able to fund 

peacekeeping missions? Conversely, if the Administration is assuming that other countries will 

increase their contributions to UN. peacekeeping operations, which countries have committed to 

do so~ 

With over 100,000 uniformed and civilian peacekeeping personnel and an annual budget 

of over $7 billion, UN peacekeeping is one of the most important things the UN does. We are 

reviewing each of our peacekeeping missions with an eye towards ensuring that they have clear 

and achievable mandates. We are also working to ensure that troops are ready, professional, and 

committed to the safety of civilians on the ground. As President Trump told UN Security Council 

ambassadors on April 24, "the United Nations has tremendous potential,'' but "for the United 

Nations to play an etl'ective role in solving security challenges, big reforms will be 

required." By demanding fiscal discipline, the United States is leading the United Nations to 

rethink the way peacekeeping missions are designed and implemented. 

Question: 

The Trump Administration has called for a review of all UN. peacekeeping operations to 

ensure that they are "fit for purpose" and more eft'icient and etl'ective in fultilling their mandates. 

While the United States currently funds 28.5 percent of costs associated with the 16 ongoing 

UN. peacekeeping missions, we contribute only 0.06 percent of the troops (77 out of a global 

force of 120,000 peacekeepers). According to the Center for Global Development, the United 

States only pays $24,500 per year for each deployed peacekeeper, compared to $2.1 million per 

year for an American service member deployed to a war zone- about 86 times as much. Who is 

undertaking this review of UN. peacekeeping operations? How is it being carried out and what 

criteria are being used~ When do you expect it to be completed? 
111


26046i-2.eps

In April, I called on l)N Security Council members to join the United States in evaluating 

each UN peacekeeping mission as its mandate comes up for renewal to ensure it is appropriate to 

the situation in the country and that it is advancing the Security Council's objectives. To help 

b'llide these mission reviews, we developed five peacekeeping principles: 1) missions must 

support political solutions, 2) host country strategic consent is critical, 3) mandates must be 

realistic and achievable, 4) clear sequencing and exit strategies are required at all stages, and 5) 

missions and mandates must be adjusted where Security Council objectives are not achieved. 

Our reviews of peacekeeping missions, as well as peace operations conducted by the 

African Union that are authorized by the UN. Security Council, are informed by a number of 

sources. These include in-country meetings with the Special Representatives of the SecretaryGeneral, the Force Commanders, other members of the peacekeeping missions, UN Secretariat 

officials and with international partners, including troop-and police-contributing countries, 

regarding the implementation of the mandates. We also consider the strategic reviews of the 

missions conducted by the UN and assessments of missions in the UN General Assembly's Fifth 

Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). 

Question: 

According to the President's FY 2018 budget request, the State Department will lead an 

interagency strategic review of funding through the International Organizations account to 

determine funding levels. Who is conducting the review? What criteria will be used in the 

review, and what is the estimated date of completion? Why is the Administration proposing to 

slash US contributions to the United Nations before undertaking this review? Will you commit 

to working with the House Committee on Foreign Afl'airs as you undertake the review? 

The Department of State is conducting a prioritization review with affected interagency 

stakeholders to detennine how best to arrive at the proposed reductions in the Contributions to 

International Organizations account, should the final appropriation so require. The review is 

being guided by the broader political and strategic priorities of the Administration and an 

assessment of the organizations' efficiency and effectiveness. 

The President's budget proposal for FY 2018 reflects the U.S. commitment to remain 

engaged with the UN and reinforces the expectation that the United Nations and other 

international organizations must become more efficient and effective and that Member States 

must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

The Department is fully committed to staying in close communication with the House 

Committee on Foreign Affairs on the impacts of potential funding reductions in the 

Contributions to International Organizations account 

Question: 

How does the elimination of contributions for UN. entities, including the UN. 

Children's Fund (UNICEF), UN. Development Program (UNDP), UN. Women, UN. Office for 

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), UN. Population Fund (UNFPA), UN. High 
112

f


26046i-3.eps

Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, serve U.S. interests? 

The President's FY 2018 Budget Request reinforces the expectation that the UN and 

other international organizations must become more efllcient and etl'ective and that member 

states must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

The elimination of the International Organizations and Programs account does not 

necessarily mean the elimination of funding for the organizations and programs funded through 

this account in previous years. Many of these organizations and programs may receive funding 

as implementing partners through programs and activities funded through other appropriations 

accounts 
113


26046j-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

By Representative Ann Wagner 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

The UN has played a leading role in exposing the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya 

minority in Burma. My heart aches for the Rohingya, Kachin, Karen, and Chin who have been 

killed in cold blood with impunity because of their ethnicity and religion. Unfortunately, even 

under new leadership in Burm~ these crimes rage on. The UN Human Rights Council finally 

decided in March to send an international team to investigate mass atrocities. But this was after 

we originally called for a commission of inquiry that was met with push back from Burma. 

America has said "Never Again" far too many times, and I'm curious to hear about the progress 

of the UN fact-finding team and how the US. will ensure that there is a full independent 

investigation into mass atrocity crimes against Rohingya Muslims. 

Answer: 

No one should face discrimination or violence because of their ethnic background or 

religious beliefs, which is why the abuses in Burma must be investigated. The violence against 

the Rohyint,>ya in the Rakhine State continues to claim lives and spur allegations of sexual 

violence against women and children. Reports also indicate that human rights abuses were 

caused by Burma's military and security forces More than 582,000 people have t1ed their 

homes due to the violence, but the total number of victims may never be known, which is why it 

is so important for the fact-finding mission to be allowed to do its job. As a co-sponsor of the 

enabling Human Rights Council resolution, the United States has continued to lead efforts to 

implore the Burmese government to fully cooperate with the fact-finding mission. I issued a 

public call for cooperation following reports that the Burmese government would deny visas to 

members of the fact-finding mission, which the international community absolutely cannot 

allow. We are exploring all options to keep the violence in Burma on the UN' s human rights 

agenda and hope that Congress will continue to support efforts to address these challenges. 

Question: 

This year, China blocked Taiwan from participating in the World Health Assembly. This 

behavior is patently absurd. Taiwan must be allowed to participate fully in international 

organizations, particularly organizations that are critical to health and safety. How will the US 

promote Taiwan's inclusion in the World Health Assembly and other UN bodies and ensure that 

China cannot use coercion and threats to damage these key interests of the US. and Taiwan? 
114

f


26046j-2.eps

Answer: 

We are disappointed that Taiwan has been excluded tram international events such as this 

year's World Health Assembly (WHA) due to pressure from the People's Republic of China. In 

keeping with the practice of the past eight years, the United States was engaged with all sides in 

support of an invitation to Taiwan to observe the WHA and publicly made clear our strong 

support for Taiwan's participation during the Assembly. The United States remains committed 

to supporting Taiwan as it seeks to expand its already significant contributions to addressing 

global challenges. 

We will engage UN leadership and other Member States as we continue to support 

Taiwan's membership in international organizations that do not require statehood. In 

organizations that require statehood for membership, the United States will continue to support 

Taiwan's meaningful participation. We will do this through bilateral and multilateral advocacy. 

Question: 

I read the State Department's Trafficking in Persons Report yesterday, and saw that 

Secretary Tillerson removed Burma and Iraq tram the list of countries that use or recruit child 

soldiers. Many in the anti-tratlicking community are disappointed that the delisting contradicts 

evidence on the ground. Ambassador Haley, under your leadership, how does the U.S. intend to 

hold countries accountable for human tratlicking and the use of child soldiers? 

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations (USUN) urges all governments to combat all 

forms of human trafficking including the unlawtul use and recruitment of child soldiers. We will 

use every tool at our disposal to hold governments accountable in addressing human trafficking 

and the use of child soldiers, as outlined under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVP A) 

and the Child Soldier Prevention Act (C SPA). The Administration considers these a top policy 

priority. For further clarification on the Trafficking IN Persons Report, we encourage you to 

contact the State Department. 

At the UN, we work alongside the UN Special Rapporteur on Tratlicking in Persons, 

Especially Women and Children, the relevant UN agencies and like-minded member states. We 

directly engage the UN representatives of nations where this practice is occurring or has occurred 

in the past, including Iraq and Burma, and press all complicit governments to end this practice. 
115


26046k-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Representative Keating 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

The President's budget request zeroed out the International Organizations and Programs 

(IO&P) account at the UN which includes funding for UNICEF and UN Women among other 

programs which are doing necessary work to make security and development more inclusive and 

more lasting. 

a. How long will the current review take before a recommendation is made to the President 

to tund these initiatives? 

b. What are the standards being applied in reviewing these and other UN programs? 

c. Will the Ambassador or the appropriate otlicials agree to meet the representatives tram 

organizations who can speak to the importance and relevance of the work carried out by 

these UN otlices and programs? 

The President's FY 2018 Budget Request reinforces the expectation that the UN and 

other international organizations must become more eflicient and etl'ective and that member 

states must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

The elimination of the International Organizations and Programs account does not necessarily 

mean the elimination of funding for the organizations and programs funded through this account 

in previous years. Many of these organizations and programs may receive tunding as 

implementing partners through programs and activities tunded through other appropriations 

accounts. My team at the US Mission and I meet often with colleab'lles from these organizations 

as well as other UN entities. 

Question: 

A number of contradictions within the federal government have emerged recently in 

terms of US foreign policy. While robust debate is critical for etiective foreign policy decisionmaking, these contradictions seem to reveal a lack of coordination among those responsible for 

shaping foreign policy for the United States. 

a. Have you experienced any challenges to your ability to be effective as U.S. 

Ambassador to the UN because of the conflicted messages coming from within 

the Administration? 
116


26046k-2.eps

Answer: 

b. Have these contradictions ever complicated efforts at the UN to deescalate 

conflict, build consensus with other countries on responding to conflict, or 

otherwise? 

I have a very close relationship with President Trump and work closely as a team with 

my counterparts on the National Security Council, such as General McMaster, Secretary 

Tillerson, and Secretary Mattis. We are tully coordinated on our approach to the most sensitive 

and pressing issues facing our country. With regard to building consensus with other countries, 

since this Administration took otlice, the world has taken notice of the United States at the 

United Nations. Other nations realize they can no longer take advantage of the United States, 

and this has been extremely helpful in our negotiations with partners to respond to conflict and 

build consensus. 

Question #3: 

Russia has been undermining US. and global etiorts to improve conditions on the ground 

and promote peaceful resolutions to conflicts in Syria, North Korea, and elsewhere. 

a. How often do you discuss these concerns and frustrations with your Russian counterparts? 

b. Have you seen any clear progress on their part to change their behavior? 

c. What leverage would be useful to the Ambassador in bringing about such change? 

d. Has the O±lice of the US. Ambassador to the UN recommended any action be taken by the 

President against Russia? 

• Tf so, what recommendations have been made and are there any plans by the 

Administration to carry out any of those recommendations? 

Answer: 

Our mission to the UN interacts regularly with members of the Security Council, 

including the Russians, across the full complement of issues featured on the Council's Program 

of Work. North Korea and Syria, two of the most challenging issues facing global peace and 

security today, feature frequently in those interactions. We are not shy about calling out the 

Russians when they are undermining our interests, including in Syria and Ukraine. 

On North Korea, we were able to work with our Russian counterparts to pass the two 

largest sanctions packages ever levied against North Korea. We will continue to look to Moscow 

to uphold its responsibility to enforce all UN sanctions against North Korea fully. 

The United States is also willing to work with Russia to defeat ISIS- our number one 

priority in Syria. We seek to work with Russia to deescalate violence throughout Syria and 
117

f


26046k-3.eps

create the conditions for a Syrian-led negotiated political process. But we also must hold Russia 

accountable for their part in the humanitarian crisis in Syria. 

As a member of the President's Cabinet, I enjoy a close working relationship with the 

White House and other members of the Administration. Considering the nature of the work we 

do at the United Nations, I am focused on advancing the unparalleled ability of the United States 

to lead the international community both by example and in partnership with other nation. 
118


26046l-1.eps

Question: 

Question for the Record Submitted to 

Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley by 

Representative Thomas Rooney 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations 

June 28, 2017 

Given the amount of discussion going on about human rights and the UN Human Rights 

Council, the ultimate oxymoron: What can you do with your "bully pulpit" at the UN to get it to 

abandon appeasement of terrorists and to call out clearly the evil inhumanity of the Islamists' 

pursuit of Dawa, Jihad and application of Shari a Law, and the enforcement of blasphemy law, all 

of which are inconsistent with modern values and morality? 

Answer: 

The United States works closely with a core group of partners each June to ensure 

adoption of an annual Human Rights Council resolution on the promotion and protection of 

human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. This resolution renews the 

mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as needed, and re-commits states to ensuring that their 

domestic counterterrorism measures comply with their obligations under international law, in 

particular human rights law. The Special Rapporteur works with states and other stakeholders to 

provide technical assistance and recommendations on measures to counter terrorism that respect 

human rights and ti.mdamental freedoms. 

After joining the Human Rights Council in 2009, the United States worked closely with a 

number of partners to defeat a resolution on ''defamation of religions," which certain member 

states have traditionally and forcefully used to justify violations and abuses of the human rights 

of members of religious minorities, including the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of 

expression. US diplomatic etTorts succeeded in 2011 at replacing that resolution with a new 

resolution, which is adopted by consensus, called "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping 

and stigmatization at: and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons 

based on religion or belief." This innovative resolution uses language drawn directly from US. 

law on protecting freedom of speech and reaffirms states' obligations to uphold the freedom of 

religion or belief, including for religious minorities. The freedom of religion or belief includes 

the freedom to practice and teach a religion. Importantly, the resolution calls on states to take a 

series of specific actions to foster an environment of religious tolerance, peace, and respect. 

These actions are largely ret1ective of steps taken by the United States. Since adoption of the 

resolution, the United States has assisted states in implementing this resolution by providing 

workshops, jointly facilitated by the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security, to 

train law enforcement officers and government officials on best practices for combating 

discrimination and religious intolerance while protecting the freedoms of religion or belief and 

expression. 
119

f


26046l-2.eps

Is there a role for Russia parallel to that of China in dealing with North Korea since they 

share the same economics and geography which China does with them? 

Russia has long-term economic interests and political relations with the Democratic 

People's Republic of North Korea (DPRK), but Beijing exerts significantly more leverage over 

Pyongyang than Moscow does, particularly given the disparities in size between Russia and 

China's trade relationships with the DPRK 

Russia's long-term economic engagement in Northeast Asia includes plans to link the 

Trans-Siberian and Trans-Korean railroads and to construct a natural gas pipeline through the 

DPRK to South Korea. Moscow believes each project could generate billions of dollars in new 

revenue, and Russian willingness to sign economic deals, invest in the North Korean economy, 

and promote the survival of the Kim Jong Un regime is premised in part on this long term 

economic strategy. 

But these are plans. The reality is that in virtually every sector Chinese economic 

engagement with the DPRK far exceeds that of Russia. Moscow's bilateral trade with 

Pyongyang has averaged $100 million a year for over 20 years, for example, while China's 

imports from North Korea averaged $2.65 billion over the past three years. 

Russia has sought to soften pressure on the DPRK to protect its own interests, such as 

through the carve-out in UN Security Council Resolution 2270 and subsequent resolutions for 

Russian coal shipped through the DPRK en route to other markets. Russia has consistently 

art,>ued that sanctions should not target the economic stability of the DPRK, for fear of triggering 

a socioeconomic collapse in Northeast Asia or a return to open hostilities. It has, however, 

joined consensus on Security Council resolutions to impose restrictive sanctions against the 

North Korean regime in response to nuclear and ballistic missile tests, including the two most 

recent resolutions imposing the largest sanctions ever on North Korea. 

We continue to discuss the DPRK's illegal development of its nuclear and ballistic 

missile programs with China and Russia, to press Russia and other member states to live up to 

their obligations to fully enforce sanctions, and to urge both China and Russia to pressure the 

DPRK to return to the negotiating table and move towards denuclearization. 
120


26046o-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Representative David N. Cicilline 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 28, 2017 

As you know, UN peacekeeping operations are quite cost-effective compared to other 

forms of military intervention. An investigation by the GAO found that UN peacekeeping 

missions are eight times less expensive for American taxpayers than fielding a comparable US. 

force. I absolutely agree that there are reforms that need to be undertaken to improve 

Peacekeeping and ensure that troops are well-trained and behave according to the law. But I 

wonder if in your experience so far, you have seen how supporting Peacekeeping operations is in 

the U.S.'s interests. 

Yes, peacekeeping operations are in the US.'s interests. UN peacekeeping has proven to 

be a powerful tool to address challenges to international peace and security and an important 

mechanism for sharing costs of collective security. Today's peacekeepers are addressing some 

of the most challenging confEcts across the globe through missions that seek to protect civilians, 

prevent atrocities, and create space for political solutions to take hold. However, as you note, 

reform is needed to achieve better, smarter peacekeeping operations that are able to more 

etiectively and efficiently address conflicts, support political solutions, and meet the needs of 

people on the ground. 

Question: 

The current budget proposal includes a 37% cut to the CIPA account, which funds UN. 

peacekeeping operations. Can you explain why it's in our national interest to slash funding that 

helps preserve peace and stability in Africa and other parts of the world - at a fraction of the cost 

of deploying US troops? 

With over 100,000 uniformed and civilian peacekeeping personnel and an annual budget 

of over $7 billion, UN peacekeeping is one of the most important things the UN does. We are 

reviewing each of our peacekeeping missions with an eye towards ensuring that they have clear 

and achievable mandates. We are also working to ensure that troops are ready, professional, and 

committed to the safety of civilians on the ground. As President Trump told UN Security Council 

ambassadors on April 24, "the United Nations has tremendous potential," but "for the United 

Nations to play an etl'ective role in solving security challenges, big reforms will be 

required." By demanding fiscal discipline, the United States is leading the United Nations to 

rethink tbe way peacekeeping missions are designed and implemented. 
121


26046o-2.eps

Question: 

How might the U.N. combat sexual exploitation and abuse more effectively? How might 

the UN. improve the possibility that governments will hold individual peacekeepers accountable 

once they return home? What further role, if any, might member states, including the US., take 

on this issue? 

Answer: 

The UN has taken significant steps over the past two years to address sexual exploitation 

and abuse. These steps include establishing Immediate Response Teams (IRTs) in peacekeeping 

missions to gather and preserve evidence, adopting a six-month timeline for completion of UN 

investigations, and creating a trust fund for assistance to victims of sexual exploitation and abuse 

by UN personnel, funded by donations and payments withheld for personnel sent home for 

misconduct. 

Since July 2016, the UN has required that troop- and police-contributing countries deploy 

National Investigative Otiicers (NIOs) for military contingents of 150 or more to investigate 

allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse against their troops. Units of300 or more must have 

at least two NIOs. Units with fewer than 150 members may deploy an NIO, use an NIO from 

one of their country's other units, or use an NIO deployed after an allegation is received. In 

addition, the UN's Otiice of Internal Oversight Services and the Otiice of Military Affairs in the 

Department of Peacekeeping Operations are jointly developing training modules for troop and 

police-contributing countries to use in NIO training. The UN is also developing standard 

procedures for investigations, including providing guidance on interviewing minors, collecting 

and preserving evidence, and other relevant technical skills. For its part, the United States is 

integrating NIO training into its bilateral training of military personnel from states that will be 

deploying to UN peacekeeping operations. 

The UN has set a six month timeline for the completion of its internal investigations of 

sexual exploitation and abuse. Troop- and police-contributing countries conduct their own 

investigations, and the UN has asked them to observe the same time frame. 

The United States launched an international effort in 2014 to increase support to peacekeeping 

that has led to a series of high-level summits and generated additional pledges of personnel and 

equipment. Generating additional troops provides an opportunity to pressure peacekeepers to 

improve their performance, since there is now a pool of troops and police to replace nonperformers. Conduct and discipline problems are among the factors that affect the performance 

of UN peacekeeping performance; ultimately, if current troop- and police-contributing countries 

are unable or unwilling to use the tools provided and follow the rules, the United States and UN 

have been clear that they will be replaced. 

Question: 

One of the individuals on the travel ban list is lRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem 

Soleimani. Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq, not to 

mention the hundreds of thousands of Syrians that he has helped annihilate as part of his support 

for the Assad regime. While he is prohibited from traveling under international law, he has been 
122


26046o-3.eps

able to travel to Yemen, Syria and Russia in furtherance of the IRGC Quds Force's 

agenda. What are you doing to ensure that there are consequences for those countries who 

violate UN. Security Council 2231 and facilitate his travel? 

Answer: 

We are aware of the media reports about travel by the IRGC's General Qassem Soleimani 

to Yemen, Syria, and Russia. These reports have been referenced in the UN Secretary-General's 

biannual reports on UNSCR 2231 implementation. We are not in a position to confirm the travel 

ourselves at this time, but if confirmed, such travel would be a matter of serious concern to the 

United States and other members of the UN Security Council as it would indicate a failure by 

l)N member states to meet their obligations under Resolution 2231 to deny Soleimani entry into 

their borders unless the UN Security Council approves an exemption. The United States 

maintains primary sanctions on the IRGC, the Quds Force, its leadership-including 

Soleimani-and its network of front companies due to their ties to terrorism. Our partners in the 

European Union maintain similar sanctions against Soleimani alongside those of the l)N and the 

United States. Such sanctions are only effective if rigorously enforced. We need to look into 

Soleimani' s travel, along with the travel of others who have been said to have violated the ban, 

and if confirmed, respond accordingly. All elements of Resolution 2231 must be enforced, not 

simply the nuclear provisions. And unfortunately, we see time and time again references to 

violations of the travel ban, asset freezes, ban on ballistic missiles advancement, and the arms 

embargo. This is unacceptable, and we will do everything we can to continue to draw attention to 

Iran's violations of 2231 and work to ensure our partners enforce this resolution as it was 

intended. 

Question: 

Some have argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. 

Over the past six years though, we have seen a number of positive outcomes from US. 

engagement. This record of success is markedly different than when the U.S. was not involved 

in the Council from 2007-2009. While the Council still has its flaws, the overwhelming view of 

human rights organizations is the U.S. should continue to engage with it. Why do you think that 

is? If we know that engagement works and abandoning the Council would lead to more criticism 

of Israel and less focus on our own human rights priorities- since that's exactly what happened 

from 2007-09- why would we repeat the mistake? 

Answer: 

When the Human Rights Council acts with clarity and integrity, it advances the cause of 

human rights, but when it fails to act properly- or when it fails to act at all- it undermines its 

own credibility and the cause of human rights. 

What was true of the Council's predecessor organization is still true today: Many of the 

world's worst human rights offenders are elected as members and use their positions to shield 

themselves or their allies from criticism. Countries that destroy civil society and violate their 

citizens' rights, like Venezuela, Cuba, China, and Burundi, sit on the Council for political 

manipulation, using the narrative of their membership to rewrite history, ignore current 

atrocities, and obscure their own abysmal human rights records. Most recently, the Democratic 
123


26046o-4.eps

Republic of Congo has been elected as a member. Because the Council lacks credibility, the 

cause for human rights lacks credibility. 

In addition, the Council is systemically and inherently biased against Israel, proving that 

it has been overwhelmed by a political agenda. Because of the Council's standing agenda item 

on Israel, the country-specific agenda item, the Council has passed more than 70 resolutions on 

Israel and only seven on Iran. Having such an obvious bias against one country- especially a 

democracy with a good human rights record -is a fundamental flaw that makes a mockery of the 

Council and its credibility. 

Because the Council has failed, the cause for human rights risks failing as violations and 

abuses go unaddressed. How a government treats its people and respects their human rights is a 

bellwether for violence and conflict, and therefore, advancing human rights is not only the right 

thing to do but the smart thing to do for international peace and security. When so much is at 

stake, we cannot depend on an organization that lacks credibility and fails to take action. 

Ultimately, defending the Council, as is, damages the cause of human rights, which is 

why we have called for reform. By improving membership and removing Agenda Item 7, we 

can reestablish the Council's legitimacy as an organization capable of being the world's 

protector of human rights. 

Question: 

Earlier this month you outlined two refonns the Council must undertake - competitive 

elections and eliminating Agenda Item 7. Are these reforms a prerequisite of continued U.S. 

engagement with the Council? If so, what steps are you taking to ensure these refonns are 

instituted? 

Answer: 

Our intentions to reform the Human Rights Council are to reestablish its legitimacy as a 

protector of human rights. Improving its membership and removing Agenda Item 7 are the 

minimum changes necessary to resuscitate the organization as a respected advocate of universal 

human rights. We want to see progress towards these efforts and believe they are achievable, 

and when appropriate, we will evaluate U.S. membership accordingly. At this time, we are 

engaging likeminded and opposition states to determine the best path forward in packaging a 

meaningful but realistic reform plan. We also held a High Level Event during United Nations 

General Assembly co-hosted by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to rally support for 

these reforms Regardless of the outcome, the United States will never give up the cause of 

universal human rights, whether it is in the Human Rights Council or in other venues. 

Question: 

Without senior otlicials in place at the State Department, whom do you consult for policy 

guidance on specific regions and functional issue areas? 
124


26046o-5.eps

Answer: 

I have a close relationship with Secretary Tillerson and work closely as a team with my 

counterparts on the National Security Council, such as General McMaster and Secretary Mattis. 

We are fully coordinated on our approach to the most sensitive and pressing issues facing our 

country. 

Onestion: 

Do you consider the President's tweets to be the official policy of the United States~ 

When the President tweets about foreign policy, what follow-up procedures are in place to be 

sure you're conducting diplomacy in a way consistent with his tweets? How do you handle 

situations in which the White House contradicts or overrides something you've publicly said is 

US. policy? 

Answer: 

The President communicates to the American people and foreign leaders to motivate 

change and conduct his foreign and domestic policy. The Administration's procedures in place to 

conduct US. foreign policy are those that you would expect to see from the NSC and close, 

ongoing consultation among the senior leaders of his Administration. 

At the end of the day, the President makes decisions, and communicates them to his 

Cabinet and to the American people. The end state is to fully implement the Administration's 

foreign policy effectively and etliciently. 

Qnestion: 

In recent years, authoritarian countries have turned to the UN as another venue to conduct 

the global assault on civil society In particular, the work of the UN Committee on NGOs has 

become increasingly politicized. Countries such as China, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela have 

used the body to deny UN access to legitimate organizations and human rights watchdogs. For 

example, last May the body denied the Committee to Protect Journalists consultative status. 

What concrete steps will the Trump Administration take to ensure that civil society has a voice at 

the UN? 

Answer: 

The US Mission to the United Nations works to advance US. interests and values in all 

forums, especially and including the NGO Committee, where the United States has long stood as 

the sole voice of strent,>th for civil society support. In May, we secured a huge win by passing a 

resolution that requires all NGO Committee sessions to be webcast, in line with other ECOSOC 

subsidiary bodies, bringing full transparency and worldwide access to the Committee's work. 

Since then, we have already seen member states shift their rhetoric and change their voting 

behavior, but there is still much more work to be done. We need more voices for human rights 

and civil society, not less, so we will continue making the NGO Committee a priority. 
125


26046o-6.eps

With regard to the protection of journalists in particular, note that the U.S Mission is a 

member of the Group of Friends for the Protection of Journalists, a group of 17 member states 

committed to strengthening the protection of journalists and media workers and strenb>thening the 

accountability for crimes committed against them. 

Onestion: 

You said in a recent speech in Geneva, "We will never give up the cause of universal 

human rights. Whether it's here, or in other venues, we will continue this fight." You have also 

said that '"America First' is human rights and 'America First' is humanitarian issues." How will 

you continue to advance this philosophy at the UN and more broadly? Are you concerned that 

potential deep cuts to democracy, human rights, and governance programs could undermine 

these etiorts? 

Answer: 

Human rights are central to the mission of the United Nations. Not only is advancing 

human rights the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. For this reason, I dedicated the 

U.S. presidency of the Security Council to connecting human rights with peace and security, the 

tirst session of its kind in UN history. Beyond that, I announced that the U.S will support 

reforming the Human Rights Council and reestablish its legitimacy as a true protector of human 

rights. We will work with other countries to improve its membership and remove Agenda Item 

7, its anti-Israel standing agenda item. 

I have also used the Security Council to advance humanitarian issues. Recently, we led 

etiorts to link cont1ict with famine, highlighting the man-made nature of humanitarian crises in 

Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen and addressing access issues that hinder the delivery 

of aid. In addition, I have prioritized past and future travel to areas affected by refugees, 

displaced persons, famine, and other humanitarian crises. The United States is the world's top 

donor, and our generosity allows us to lead in calling for greater etliciency and accountability. 

I will also continue issuing clear and strong public statements that call out human rights 

violators and humanitarian obstructionists, such as in Venezuela, Democratic Republic of Congo, 

North Korea, Syria, South Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Burundi, China, Russia, Cuba, and Burma, 

among others. Regardless of the venue or forum, we have made it clear to the international 

community that we will stand for universal human rights and lead on improving humanitarian aid 

and access. 

Is the Administration lobbying House members to change the Congressional review 

provisions of the Senate-passed Iran/Russia sanctions bill? What is your opinion of these 

provisions? 

NOTE: The Committee did not receive responses to the above question prior to printing. 
126

f


26046o-7.eps

We continue to be greatly disturbed by the situation in Chechnya, where countless men 

are still being held in detention under horrifying conditions simply because of their sexual 

orientation - or even their perceived sexual orientation. Thank you for your statement 

condemning the atrocities back in April. We were terribly disappointed that Secretary Tillerson 

said that he has not raised the issue with his counterparts. Have you or the president raised the 

issue with your counterparts in Russia? What steps have you taken, or can you take, to bring 

further attention to it and to help put a stop to the human rights violations being committed 

there? 

NOTE: The Committee did not receive responses to the above question prior to printing. 
127


26046p-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Rep. Ami Bera 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

Ambassador Haley, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) does tremendous work 

providing healthcare and saving the lives of mothers and children around the world. The US 

played an important role in that work. For instance, in 2016, it's estimated that the US. 

contribution to UNFPA prevented an estimated 320,000 unintended pregnancies, averted 

100,000 unsafe abortions, and enabled about 800,000 people to have access to contraception. 

Can I get your commitment that you will either meet with UNFPA's acting executive director 

or visit a UNFPA project in the next six months? 

Answer: 

I have no pending meeting requests from UNFPA but will consider any meeting request 

from a UN entity. Additionally, the next time that I travel to the tield I am happy to consider 

visiting a UNFPA site, if it is in the area I am visiting. 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, the April 3, 2017 letter from the State Department to Chairman 

Corker, states that the US. decided to withdraw funding from the UNFPA under the KempKasten amendment, due to UNFPA's relationship with the Chinese National Health and Family 

Planning Commission (NHFPC), the equivalent of their Ministry of Health. 

Was there an in-person investigation completed by the State Department to determine if 

lJNFPA funds were being used in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment? 

If there was, could you please provide the report to the House Foreign Affairs Committee? 

Answer: 

An in-country assessment was not conducted prior to the March 30, 2017 Kemp-Kasten 

determination. 

Question: 
128


26046p-2.eps

Ambassador Haley, the April 3, 2017 letter from the State Department to Chairman Corker, 

states that the US. decided to withdraw funding from the UNFPA under the Kemp-Kasten 

amendment, due to lJNFPA's relationship with the Chinese National Health and Family 

Planning Commission (NHFPC), the equivalent of their Ministry of Health. 

What evidence did the State Department use to determine that UNFP A tunds were being 

used in violation of the Kemp-Kasten amendment? 

Answer: 

UNFPA first began its program in China in 1978. All of the organization's programs in 

China are subject to national laws and local regulations, including the Population and Family 

Planning Law and the corresponding provincial implementing regulations that provide the 

framework for the country's coercive birth policies. UNFPA's 8th Country Program (CPS) for 

China (2016-2020) notes that it was prepared in ''close consultation with the [Chinese] 

Government." As outlined in the Third Plenum of the 18th Central Committee of the 

Communist Party of China in November 2013, the program aligns with Chinese national 

priorities. Furthermore, like past UNFPA Country Programs for China, CPS calls for national 

execution models (i.e., implementation through government agencies). The NHFPC, which is 

responsible for implementing and enforcing China's program of coercive abortion and 

involuntary sterilization, appears in CPS as a UNFPA partner in anticipated family planningrelated outcomes. By implementing a portion of its family planning program in partnership with 

that government entity, UNFPA provides support for the NHFPC' s implementation of China's 

family planning policies, which includes coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, the April3, 2017letter from the State Department to Chainnan Corker, 

states that the US. decided to withdraw funding from the UNFPA under the Kemp-Kasten 

amendment, due to UNFPA's relationship with the Chinese National Health and Family 

Planning Commission (NHFPC), the equivalent of their Ministry of Health. 

The letter to Chairman Corker states that "there is no evidence that UNFPA directly engages 

in coercive abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China" but because UNFPA works with the 

NHFPC on family planning, it violated the Kemp-Kasten amendment. 

What specific activities does the administration find objectionable regarding UNFPA's work 

withNHFPC? 

Answer: 

UNFPA first began its program in China in 1978. All of the organization's programs in China arc 

subject to national laws and local regulations. including the Population and Family Planning Law and the 

corresponding provincial implementing regulations that provide the framework for the country's coercive 

birth policies. UNFPA"s 8th Country Program (CPS) for China (2016-2020) notes that it was prepared in 

"close consultation with the fChinesel Government." As outlined in the Third Plenum of the 18'1

' Central 

Committee of the Communist Party of China in November 2013, the program aligns with Chinese 
129


26046p-3.eps

national priorities. Furthennorc, like past UNFPA Country Programs for Chin~ CPS calls for national 

execution models (i.e .. implementation through govenunent agencies). T11e NHFPC "hich is responsible 

for implementing and enforcing China's program of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. 

appears in CPS as a UNFPA partner in anticipated family planning-related outcomes. By implementing a 

portion of its family planning program in partnership with that govemment entity, UNFP A provides 

support for the NHFPC" s implementation of China· s family planning policies, which includes coerciYe 

abortion and involunt:·uy sterilization. 

Questions on UNICEF Funding 

Ambassador Haley, you noted in your testimony that the global health of women and 

children is very important and stated that despite the withdrawal of funds from the UNFPA, 

funding for global health would be directed through USAID. 

The President's budget request cuts global health funding by 25%. Outside of fulfilling 

the previous administration's pledge to Gavi, it cuts maternal and child health funding by 15%. 

How do you expect the United States to continue its leadership in saving lives around the 

world with such steep cuts at US AID and the State Department to both global health and 

maternal and child health programs? 

Answer: 

We remain committed to promoting child and maternal health and addressing global 

health challenges. This is evidenced by our continued leadership in the UNICEF Executive 

Board and through our programs in country to address global health, including child and 

maternal health. The United States has been the largest donor to UNICEF for many years and 

we will continue to work with other donors to step in and support this important work 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, you noted in your testimony that the global health of women and 

children is very important and stated that despite the withdrawal of funds from the UNFP A, 

funding for global health would be directed through USAID. 

The President's budget request cuts global health funding by 25%. Outside of fulfilling 

the previous administration's pledge to Gavi, it cuts maternal and child health funding by 15%. 

What specific and tangible etTorts are you taking at the United Nations to engage other 

countries to fill the hole in global health funding that we have left as a result of these proposed 

budget cuts? 

Answer: 

Since the determination to cease all U.S Government funding to UNFP A, it is my 

understanding that USATD's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USATD/OFDA) has 

been able to reprogram all funding intended for UNFPA except inside of Syria. Ongoing conflict 

there has created access constraints that make it difficult for NGO partners to implement all of 

the programs previously supported by UNFPA (as a public international organization UNFPA 
130


26046p-4.eps

has the ability to get supplies and services into hard-to-reach areas that other entities are unable 

to access). The State Department is working with humanitarian partners to find alternative ways 

to meet these needs, including through organizations such as UNHCR and UNICEF, or ways to 

use the funds to support related needs in other areas. 

We are engaging at every level with other donor governments and the private sector to 

encourage additional partnerships and to promote greater burden sharing. Our continued 

engagement, support and leadership with UNICEF's Board and donor base and our bilateral aid 

programs through UNICEF will help us leverage resources from other donors. 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, in your testimony, you noted that UNICEF and UNFP A "need to smartly 

spend and they need to look at their budgets as well as we're all kind oflooking at how we can 

be smarter about what we don Did your office make recommendations to the Office of 

Management and Budget on funding levels for the FY 2018 budget proposal? 

My otl'ice did not make any specific recommendation to the Office of Management and 

Budget. The Otlice of Management and Budget's topline funding levels, as well as 

Administration policies and priorities as laid out in the President's FY 2018 Budget Blueprint, 

informed the Department's FY 2018 budget request formulation. 

While the President's Request did not include funding for the International Organizations 

and Programs (IO&P) account, which has been the source of funding for U.S. contributions to 

the core budgets of UN funds and programs such as UNICEF and UNFP A The IO&P account is 

one of numerous U.S. government sources of voluntary funding for international organizations, 

therefore this does not necessarily mean that funding for international funds and programmes, 

including UNICEF, will be eliminated. State Department and USAID funding may still be 

contributed to UN organizations and programs, such as UNICEF, if they are selected as 

implementing partners to execute specific foreign assistance programs that are funded through 

other accounts. 

Question: 

Are you aware that UNFPA and UNICEF both participate in the International Aid 

Transparency Initiative, which publishes data to improve transparency and accountability? And 

that UNICEF has 137 publicly available datasets and UNFPA has 254? 

If your office did make recommendations to OMB for the FY 18 budget proposal, how 

did your statl~ if at all, analyze data provided in the IATI to detennine the extent to which 

UNICEF, UNFPA, and other UN agencies appropriately spend their funds 7 

Answer: 
131

f


26046p-5.eps

My office did not make any specific l)N agency recommendations to OMB. Many donors 

and multilateral organizations publish information in the IATI standard, which lets users analyze 

and compare consistent, timely data and contributes to improved transparency in development 

cooperation. 

I am aware that the Department analyzes multiple sources of evidence and data in order 

to make recommendations to OMB and to determine that organizations spend funds 

appropriately. Data sources include evaluation, audit reports, financial programmatic 

performance reports, and monitoring and evaluation results data. This analysis allows for a 

comprehensive understanding of funding to and through multilateral organizations. 

Question: 

If your otlice did not use IATI to analyze the appropriateness of spending at UNICEF, 

lJNFPA and other agencies, can you pledge that your otlice will use sound data analysis 

techniques, such as pulling data from IATI, when making future recommendations on funding 

levels for UNICEF and other agencies? 

Answer: 

The United States considers the broadest range of available, credible information to 

determine appropriate use offunds, including an organization's etliciency and effectiveness, 

management practices, and programs of work. Humanitarian assistance funding specifically is 

provided on the basis of humanitarian need to those UN agencies and NGOs which have the 

access and ability to provide that assistance. The US also takes into consideration the funding 

provided from other donors through a variety of mechanisms such as field coordination, 

diplomatic engagements, the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and the Financial 

Tracking Service (FTS), which is utilized by the humanitarian community As a signatory to 

IATI ourselves, the US has also committed to publishing our own up-to-date information in this 

open fonnat, in order to make it easy for fellow stakeholders to find, use and compare donor 

information. 
132

f


26046q.eps

Qnestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

US Mission to the UN, Ambassador Nikki Haley 

by Rep. Robin Kelly 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

Ambassador Haley, last month, I had the honor of speaking directly with Dr. Babatunde 

Osotimehin, before he passed away, when I was on a Congressional trip to New York. We heard 

directly from him about UNFPA's work, what they are actually doing in China and their work in 

humanitarian emergencies around the world. I would like to know if you have gotten an 

opportunity to meet with UNFPA, Dr. Natalia Kanem, UNFPA's Acting Executive Director or 

other staff to hear first-hand about their work? When you go on your next trip to see the UN in 

the field, will you make an effort to see the work ofUNFPA? 

Answer: 

I have no pending meeting requests from UNFPA but will consider any meeting request 

from a UN entity. Additionally, the next time that I travel to the tield, I am happy to consider 

visiting a UNFPA site, if it is in the area I am visiting. 
133


26046r-1.eps

Onestion: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Ambassador. Nikki Haley by 

Representative Brad Schneider 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

UNRWA was created following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to assist a refugee population of 

approximately 750,000 people displaced by the conflict and in need of urgent humanitarian 

assistance for housing and basic services. The present situation, however, is such that UNRWA 

today provides services to 5.2 million people (roughly 50,000 of the original refugees, but 

primarily the children, grandchildren, and even great grandchildren of retugees from 1948). 

These people live in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and also Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. 

In particular, in Gaza, I am deeply troubled by UNRWA's destabilizing activities and 

unhelptul role in the Israeli-Palestinian contlict Namely, its facilities were proven to have 

housed Hamas rockets destined for Israeli civilian targets in July 2014. In addition, UNRWA 

schools have been repeatedly accused of propagating anti-Semitism and irresponsible rhetoric 

that delegitimizes the existence of the State oflsrael. 

I wholly appreciate the need to provide critical humanitarian, social services, education, and 

other forms of necessary assistance to Palestinians. However, I question whether the services 

provided by UNRWA could be more appropriately, efficiently and etTectively delivered under 

another UN agency or a Palestinian Authority government entity. 

a. Could such an approach-working through another UN agency or a Palestinian 

Authority government entity-maintain the positive benefits of the work UNWRA was 

originally chartered to do, while eliminating UNWRA as a vehicle for the unhelpful, even 

detrimental activities we have seen of late? 

b. In your opinion, what would be the most etl'ective way to provide services to Palestinians 

who currently rely on UNRWA for assistance? 

c. How can the US. lead in transitioning resources away from UNRWA to more practical 

and sustainable ways of providing needed services for Palestinians? 

Answer: 

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 

(UNRWA) operates under a General Assembly mandate, and General Assembly action would be 

required to tenninate UNRWA' s mandate and transfer its responsibilities to another United 

Nations agency. Given the nature of the General Assembly, this is highly unlikely. 

Any consideration with respect to changing UNRWA' s mandate, even if it were feasible, 

would need to appropriately consider the role UNRWA plays in providing vital social services. 

UNRWA's 692 schools educate more than 515,000 children and the Agency's 143 primary 
134


26046r-2.eps

health facilities serve 3.1 million Palestinians annually. UNRWA also provides life-saving 

emergency assistance for Palestinans refugees affected by conflict in Syria and Gaza, making the 

Agency a critical partner to key allies in the region. 

The United States is the largest single donor to UNRWA, with a contribution that 

surpassed $359 million in FY 2016. With that amount of taxpayer money going to the agency, 

we are constantly vigilant- and ensure that UNRWA is likewise vigilant- to t,>uard against any 

bias that can creep into the Agency. Consistent with our legal obligations, we track US. 

contributions to UNRWA for compliance with conditions on such contributions under section 

30l(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This year, the State Department found UNRWA 

compliant We can confirm that UNRWA has taken action to punish statf that do not abide by 

their neutrality commitments -up to and including termination of employment. This includes 

recent cases of UNRWA statfmembers elected to leadership positions in Hamas. It is outrageous 

that such individuals would have ever been employed by a UN agency. But membership in 

Hamas should not be the only standard. Any instances of anti -Semitic propaganda or incitement 

need to be treated with the seriousness the delicacy of the situation in the Middle East mandates. 

This is something we continue to raise with UNRWA otlicials. 

The enduring nature of the Palestinian refugee issue- and of UNRWA- is a result of a 

lack of a political solution. Ultimately, the solution for Palestinian refugees rests in a lasting 

peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians, which President Trump has made clear is 

a top US. priority. In the meantime, we are actively engaged in conversations and analysis to 

determine how to best allow UNRWA to fulfill its important humanitarian mandate by providing 

etlicient, etfective, and targeted services to Palestinian retugees while, at all times, upholding its 

neutrality. 

Question: 

One of the most prominent roles of the UN. is that of supporting peacekeeping forces in 

areas of contlict around the globe. Indeed, in your testimony, you stated that, "Peacekeeping is 

one of the most important things the UN. does." While the vast majority of these troops perfonn 

admirably in reducing violence, the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse perpetrated by UN. 

peacekeeping forces against those they are sent to protect remains a continuing problem of deep 

concern to me. That is why, with my colleague Representative Claudia Tenney of New York, I 

recently introduced H.Con.Res. 62 condemning sexual abuse and exploitation by U.N. 

Peacekeepers and calling on the US. to contront this issue at the UN. and hold those countries 

who contribute troops accountable for preventing and prosecuting these crimes. 

During your testimony to the committee, you stated that you were proud of your team for 

cutting the peacekeeping budget by $500 million. I am concerned, however, that by reducing 

overall ±unding to peacekeeping missions, you may not only be reducing the capacity to 

constructively address conflicts and enhance security around the world, you will also limit the 

ability to promote safety, protect individuals, and hold U.N. forces to account when they act 

improperly. More vetting, better training, and reduced impunity are needed, not a reduction in 

funds. 
135


26046r-3.eps

a. How will such a deep funding cut to what you stated is one of the most important functions of 

the UN. help the UN. achieve its mission and reduce conflict and violence around the world? 

b. Where will these cuts be made- from which peacekeeping missions, and from which 

functions of peacekeeping operations? 

c. What will the impact of these cuts be on ensuring improved vetting, training, monitoring, and 

reporting of peacekeeping troops to reduce incidence of sexual exploitation and abuse? 

UN peacekeeping is a powerful tool to address global challenges to international peace 

and security. However, reform is needed to achieve better, smarter peacekeeping operations that 

are able to more effectively and efficiently address cont1icts, support political solutions, and 

meet the needs of people on the ground. By demanding tiscal discipline, the United States is 

leading the United Nations to rethink the way peacekeeping missions are designed and 

implemented. This budget reinforces the expectation that the UN must make peacekeeping more 

etiicient, and challenging the assumption that the answer to any problem is always more 

resources. This budget will encourage the UN to measure mandate implementation by the impact 

of its activities in the tield, rather than by allocated resource levels: rendering the UN more 

t1exible and innovative in achieving its mandates. 

The reduction of over $500 million in current UN peacekeeping budgets was the result of 

the winding down of three peacekeeping missions in Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, and Haiti and there 

are also relatively small reductions in the budget levels for peacekeeping missions in the Central 

Atrican Republic, Mali, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which the United States 

supported, based on analysis of each mission's mandate and circumstances, the situation on the 

ground, and past expenditure patterns. These reductions will not negatively impact mandate 

delivery, and were not targeted at critical oversight activities, such as vetting, training, 

monitoring, and reporting of sexual exploitation and abuse. The United States also successfully 

pushed for a General Assembly resolution focused on the zero tolerance policy for sexual 

exploitation and abuse, which will require the UN to conduct in-depth assessments aimed 

improving vetting, risk assessment, investigations, reporting of allegations, and victim support 

by June 2018. The United States will pressure the UN to till any identified gaps in prevention, 

accountability, and victims' assistance, and to continually evaluate its own performance in these 

areas. 

Addressing sexual exploitation and abuse is a critical part of the Secretary-General's 

overall strategy for UN reform, and maintaining these activities is a very high priority for the 

Administration. The United States continues to lead on this issue at the UN, as demonstrated in 

September when the United States became a signatory to the Secretary-General's Voluntary 

Compact on preventing and eliminating sexual exploitation and abuse. By signing this Compact, 

the United States committed to take strong action to combat impunity for perpetrators of sexual 

exploitation and abuse, and to work with the Secretary-General to address this scourge. 

President Trump also accepted the Secretary-General's invitation to join his Circle of Leadership 
136


26046r-4.eps

for heads of state and government, as a high level political statement of support for the 

Secretary-General's efforts. 

Question: 

During the hearing, with respect to the Administration's withdrawal from the Paris 

Agreement, you stated that we are being "independent," and that we will manage the climate in a 

way that is in the best interests of US businesses. However, our world is highly 

interconnected-as exemplified by the United Nations. The planet's atmosphere, water, 

changing temperatures, increasingly strong storms, and other environmental phenomena do not 

respect borders and national sovereignty. Climate change is an issue that absolutely cannot be 

addressed by countries acting independently of one another, as the nations of the world are 

inherently interdependent when it comes to mitigating the shared consequences of an 

increasingly industrialized society. Furthermore, in a letter to President Trump and Members of 

Congress, more than 1,000 companies and investors expressed support for United States 

participation in the Paris Agreement and for upholding our commitment to cut carbon emissions 

in order to create jobs and boost our economic competitiveness. 

a) Given the broad support for the Paris Agreement by over 1,000 US. businesses, what do 

you believe are the economic justifications for pulling out of the Agreement? 

b) What do you see as the potential economic risks of our withdrawal and how are those 

risks offset by the perceived benefits the Administration believes will accrue by not 

working with every other nation on earth, save Syria and Nicaragua? 

c) Did any representatives of other nations in the UN. react positively to the United States' 

withdrawal from the Paris Agreement? If so, which nations reacted positively, and what 

do you perceive to be their reasons for remaining in the agreement? 

d) What do you perceive to be the advantages to be achieved by relying on unilateral and 

bilateral initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases, versus seeking to work within the 

framework adopted by virtually every other nation on earth? 

Answer: 

The United States supports a balanced approach to climate policy that lowers emissions 

while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security. The President determined that 

the previous tenns of engagement in the Paris Agreement did not balance those factors, and he 

announced his intent to withdraw tram the Paris Agreement unless he identifies terms for 

participation that are more favorable to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, 

and its taxpayers. 

The United States will continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through 

innovation and technology breakthroughs, and will work with other countries to help them access 

and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently, and deploy renewable and other clean energy 

sources, given the importance of energy access and security in many nationally detennined 

contributions. 
137


26046r-5.eps

The President has made clear that the United States will remain engaged with other 

countries on the issue of climate change. We continue to work with our allies and partners to 

seek common ground and develop a way forv\iard on this important issue. 

Question: 

Under President Trump, the US has decided to withdraw all funding for UNFP A This 

funding to UNFPA provides critical services to women and girls around the world, including in 

crisis situations where obstetric and gynecological care is not readily available, and where 

women are at severe risk of sexual assault. UNFPA services ensure safe pregnancy and delivery, 

combat child marriage and female genital mutilation, provide women with resources to plan 

future pregnancies, and prevent gender-based violence. During the hearing, when asked about 

the consequences that withdrawing this funding will have on women and girls around the world, 

you stated that these funds will instead be put into USAID-funded programs that implement 

similar programming. However, in President Trump's FY 2018 foreign assistance budget 

proposal, the Family Planning and Reproductive Health program area has also been reduced to 

$0. In addition, Health funding in the FY 2018 budget proposal overall is $6.856 billion 

compared to $9.373 billion in FY 2016, representing a 27% reduction. 

a. How will the significantly reduced US AID health programming possibly make up for the 

concurrent elimination of funding for UNFPA? 

b. How will women and girls in need of reproductive health care services be impacted by 

both the withdrawal ofUNFPA funding and dramatic proposed cuts to USAID health 

funding, especially women and girls in areas of active conflict such as Syrian refugee 

camps, South Sudan, and Yemen? 

Answer: 

FY 2017 Department of State International Operations & Program (IO&P) funding 

earmarked for a contribution to UNFPA will be transferred, as required by current law, to 

USAID' s Global Health Programs account and reprogrammed for family planning, maternal, and 

reproductive health activities. 

Since the determination to cease all US Government funding to UNFP A, it is my 

understanding that USAID's Ot1ice of US. Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) has 

been able to reprogram all funding intended for UNFPA except inside of Syria. Ongoing conflict 

there has created access constraints that mal<e it dit1icult for NGO partners to implement all of 

the programs previously supported by UNFPA (as a public international organization UNFPA 

has the ability to get supplies and services into hard-to-reach areas that other entities are unable 

to access). The State Department is working with humanitarian partners to find alternative ways 

to meet these needs, including through organizations such as UNHCR and UNICEF, or ways to 

use the funds to support related needs in other areas. 
138

f


26046r-6.eps

Question: 

I am very concerned about the Administration's proposal in the FY 2018 budget to 

completely eliminate funding for the International Organizations and Programs account that 

includes US contributions to UN. programs and offices such as UNICEF, UN. Women, and 

the UN. Development Program. When asked during the hearing about the rationale for ending 

funding to UNICEF in particular, you stated that President Trump is making a point to build up 

the military. 

While I wholly support a fully resourced military, I firmly believe that the national security 

of the United States is dependent upon balanced investment across all three pillars of strategic 

international engagement: diplomacy, development, and defense. These pillars are like the legs 

of a stool, weakening one will certainly destabilize the others. Resources for defense, diplomacy, 

and development are not interchangeable, but rather are complementary and interdependent. Our 

armed forces are essential to our national security, but not sufficient. We need to continue to 

invest in robust diplomacy and development, thereby leveraging our investment in defense. 

a. How do you view the roles of diplomacy and development in ensuring the national security 

of the United States? 

b. What will be the impact of eliminating funding for UNICEF, and how will this impact be 

addressed through increased defense spending? 

Answer: 

Diplomacy and development are two of the three pillars of our national security policy, 

along with defense. All three are necessary and important. TheUS. government has deployed 

diplomacy and development around the world to ensure our country's security and prosperity. 

The President's FY 2018 Budget Request reinforces the expectation that the UN and 

other international organizations must become more efficient and etl'ective and that member 

states must agree to distribute the costs of collective action more equitably. 

The elimination of the International Organizations and Programs account does not 

necessarily mean the elimination of funding for the organizations and programs tunded through 

this account in previous years. Many of these organizations and programs may receive funding 

as implementing partners through programs and activities funded through other appropriations 

accounts. 
139


26046s-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Ambassador Nikki Haley by 

Representative Adriano Espaillat 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

June 28, 2017 

Ambassador Haley, how will cutting UN. peacekeeping operations by 3 7 percent impact 

your work abroad? 

UN peacekeeping is a powertul tool to address global challenges to international peace 

and security. However, reform is needed to achieve better, smarter peacekeeping operations that 

are able to more effectively and efficiently address contlicts, support political solutions, and 

meet the needs of people on the ground. By demanding tiscal discipline, the United States is 

seeking to spur long-needed reforms that will lead the United Nations to rethink the way 

peacekeeping missions are designed and implemented. This budget reinforces the expectation 

that the UN must make peacekeeping more efficient and etTective and that UN Member States 

must agree to distribute the costs of collective security more equitably. 

Question: 

There is obviously a humanitarian crisis taking place in Venezuela. Since April41", at least 

60 people have been killed, 1,000 injured and hundreds more unfairly imprisoned without any 

official charges against them. Old and young fear stepping out of their homes and speaking their 

mind for fear that they will be tear gassed, beaten, locked up, or even killed. The militarization of 

authorities in Venezuela is only creating more violence and promoting fear. 

Ambassador Haley, what steps are you currently taking to address this situation? What steps 

are you and the Administration taking to push for the release of political prisoners in Venezuela? 

Answer: 

We condemn the use of violence by the Madura dictatorship against citizens exercising 

their rights to freedom of expression, association, and peacetul assembly. We offer our 

condolences to the families of all who have died in the violence surrounding the imposition of 

the National Constituent Assembly, and during the past six months of unrest. The United States 

will not hesitate to use all appropriate diplomatic and economic tools, including sanctions, to 

address the growing threat posed to Venezuela's democratic institutions and human rights. 

Within the United Nations, the United States called for a closed door meeting on May 17'" to 

discuss the situation in Venezuela, which at that time had seen protests for six weeks. This was 
140

f


26046s-2.eps

the very first time the Security Council had taken up the issue, but depending on how it 

progresses, it may not be the last. 

In addition to the diplomatic engagement on a bilateral and multilateral basis, we have 

also taken direct action to pressure the Madura regime. These actions have become increasingly 

more severe. In February, Venezuela's Vice President was designated as a specially designated 

narcotics trafficker under the Kingpin Act Pursuant to E.O. 13692, in May the Treasury 

Department sanctioned eight members of the Venezuelan Supreme Court's constitutional 

chamber, and on July 26 we sanctioned 13 current and former government ofticials directly 

implicated in the political, economic, and social crises currently unfolding in Venezuela. The 

day after the Madura government held elections for a Constituent Assembly that aims to rewrite 

the constitution and illegitimately usurp the role of the democratically elected National 

Assembly, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Madura himself: and most recently, at 

the end of August, the United States imposed broad financial sanctions on Venezuela. 

The United States will continue to condemn the actions of the Madura dictatorship and 

call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners. This was one of four 

commitments the government of Venezuela agreed to during the Vatican-facilitated dialogue 

process in the fall of2016. Yet, the number of political prisoners only continues to climb. That 

number is more than the number of political prisoners currently in prison in the rest of the 

hemisphere combined. We hold Madura personally responsible for the health and safety of all 

political prisoners, including Leopolda Lopez and Antonio Ledezma. We will not stand by as 

President Madura seeks to silence dissident voices, and we will continue to take strong and swift 

actions against the architects of authoritarianism and repression in Venezuela. 
141


26046t-1.eps

Question: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Ambassador Nikki Haley by 

Congressman Ted W. Lieu 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

June 28, 2017 

In an interview on April 9, following the US cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield, 

you indicated that "getting Assad out" was one of, though not the only, US. priority in Syria. 

On the same day, Secretary Tillerson stated that, "Our priority in Syria . really hasn't 

changed." Is removing Bashar al-Assad from power a current US. priority in Syria? 

Answer: 

The United States maintains the consistent position that, ultimately, a lasting peace in 

Syria means a future without Bashar Al-Assad. The Assad regime's brutal atrocities and 

grievous violations of human rights over the past six years make Assad unable to be a credible 

Syrian leader. 

Question: 

On June 9, Secretary of State Tillerson stated, "We call on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 

the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt to ease the blockade on Qatar." Less than two 

hours later, President Trump referred to the decision to initiate the blockade as, "hard but 

necessary" and supported the characterization of Qatar as a ±under of terrorism. Does the United 

States support or oppose the actions by Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and others against Qatar? 

Answer: 

The United States is interested in a remedy to the Gulf crisis that preserves tbe unity of 

the GCC while simultaneously ensures that all of our Gulf partners do more to fight terrorism. 

The United States supports Kuwaiti mediation as we work to resolve this dispute, and botb the 

President and Secretary Tillerson continue to be in constant communication with senior Gulf 

leadership. 

Question: 

How does the Administration explain the sale of$12 billion worth ofF-15 aircrat1: to 

Qatar only days after President Trump expressed support for the Saudi-led actions against Qatar 

and concern over Qatar's role as a "funder of terrorism at a very high level?" 
142


26046t-2.eps

Answer: 

Qatar is an indispensable U.S. partner in the D-ISIS coalition through its ongoing support 

hosting more than 10,000 U.S. military personnel at Al-Udeid Air Base. The F-15 sale, and other 

sizeable military purchases, is an important demonstration of the U.S. commitment to support 

Qatar's military development as key partner to promote regional stability. The United States 

remains committed to work with each of its regional partners to further isolate terrorists tram 

international financial systems. 

Question: 

In January 2017, the Panel of Experts on Yemen presented a report to the United Nations 

Security Council in which it stated it, "has sutlicient grounds to believe that the coalition led by 

Saudi Arabia did not comply with international humanitarian law in at least 10 airstrikes that 

targeted houses, markets, factories and a hospital." Does the Administration agree with the 

report's conclusions? 

Answer: 

We take the findings of the Panel of Experts seriously. While we do not believe the 

Saudis are intentionally targeting civilians, we are deeply concerned about civilian casualties and 

damage to civilian infrastructure resulting tram Saudi-led coalition airstrikes. We continue to 

press the Saudi-led Coalition at the highest levels to take all appropriate measures to mitigate the 

impact of the conflict on the civilian population. 

We are proactively engaging on this issue. The Saudi Ministry of Defense has committed 

to receive training from U.S. forces on minimizing civilian casualties, including as part of a $750 

million, multi-year FMS training case. We have already delivered courses and planned future 

training events for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) that will specifically include turther 

training on international humanitarian law (IHL) and air-to-ground targeting processes. We are 

expanding professionalization training to improve RSAF targeting capabilities and reduce the 

risk of civilian casualties. Future bilateral and multi-lateral training is designed to improve the 

RSAF' s understanding of identifying, targeting, and engaging lawful targets while minimizing 

collateral damage and civilian casualties. 

Additionally, we intend to renew IHL and civilian casualties training at lower levels, send 

senior current or former U.S military officers to periodically consult with Saudi counterparts and 

encourage Saudi progress on their efforts, and review what intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) or other capabilities we can provide to the Saudis to strengthen their 

processes. We also will continue to emphasize at all levels of the Saudi government the 

importance of continued adherence to lliL, including through taking all feasible steps in 

planning and conducting attacks to reduce the risk of harm to civilians. 
143

Æ


26046t-3.eps

Question: 

What specific steps is the Administration taking at the United Nations to support the 

political process for a negotiated solution between the warring parties in Yemen? 

Answer: 

There is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen, and we remain supportive of a 

political process that leads to a negotiated resolution of the conflict We support UN Special 

Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed's efforts to bring the parties together with an eye to restart 

negotiations towards a comprehensive peace agreement and address urgent humanitarian issues. 

We worked at the Security Council to build consensus and consequently issued a Presidential 

Statement in June 2017 to support the Special Envoy's confidence-building measures. 

We continue to publicly and privately express our support for the Special Envoy's 

proposal to turn the port of Hudaydah over to neutral, local authorities. If successful, the 

proposal would enable further capacity improvements at the port. It could also serve as a 

confidence-building measure to help pave the way for the parties to return to the negotiating 

table. 

It will be important for all those with influence with the parties to encourage a political 

path leading to a sustained resolution of the conflict. We must also ensure that those who can act 

as spoilers, including terrorist groups or countries that might seek to benefit from the chaos, are 

kept at bay. In this regard, disrupting the flow of arms and money is essential. In February, the 

Security Council took action on this by unanimously adopting Resolution 2342 which renewed 

the United Nations' sanction measures in Yemen including a targeted arms embargo, travel ban, 

and asset freezes for designated individuals. 

Question: 

Ambassador Haley, were you asked by President or President-elect Trump to take a 

loyalty pledge before being offered your current position or at any time since you were otl'ered 

the job? 

Answer: 

No, I took an oath of otlice wherein I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the 

United States.