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

95–125PDF 2015

ADVANCING UNITED STATES’ INTERESTS AT THE

UNITED NATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 16, 2015

Serial No. 114–59

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 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

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 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

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 Samantha Power, 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 Samantha Power: Prepared statement ........................................ 8

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 63

Written responses from the Honorable Samantha Power to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ......................................................... 64

(1)

ADVANCING UNITED STATES’ INTERESTS AT 

THE UNITED NATIONS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

This morning we look at the role of the United Nations and we 

look at the role of the U.S. there with Ambassador Samantha 

Power. 

She has spent 2 years as the U.S. Permanent Representative to 

the U.N. The Ambassador has approached her job with great energy, great determination, perhaps best shown during last year’s 

Ebola crisis in West Africa. And, in that case, the administration 

and Congress worked together to contain Ebola and to save lives. 

Ambassador, thank you for those efforts. Thank you for joining us 

today. 

The Ambassador’s testimony comes at an important time. If a 

final Iran nuclear agreement is reached, and the deadline is in 2 

weeks, then the Security Council will be expected to remove international sanctions while preserving the ability to react to Iranian 

cheating. And given all we know about the history of Iran’s nuclear 

program, cheating should be expected. 

The committee wants to know how, in a case of cheating, a proposed sanctions ‘‘snap-back’’ process would work. We know for sure 

that Russia and China wouldn’t make this easy. And I have never 

known any U.N. process described as taking place in a ‘‘snap.’’ Last 

week’s revelation by a panel of U.N. experts that there has been 

not a single report of Iran violating the U.N. arms embargo not 

only lacks any credibility, but calls into serious question the 

chances of the U.N. snapping back any sanctions. 

The committee is disturbed to watch the U.N.’S continuing antiIsraeli bias, especially in the Human Rights Council. More disturbing is that the Obama administration seems to be on the brink 

of discarding decades of bipartisan support of Israeli against the 

U.N. onslaught. President Obama has raised the dramatic step of 

allowing the Security Council to impose conditions related to a twostate solution rather than supporting negotiations between the parties themselves. Ambassador, as Ranking Member Engel and I 

2

wrote to you the other month, an imposed plan will not get us closer to peace. 

Nearby, Syrians are being slaughtered before the world’s eyes. 

Two years ago the United Nations called the crisis in Syria the 

worst humanitarian disaster since the Rwandan genocide. Yet, despite several U.N. resolutions, the Assad regime continues its indiscriminate barrel bombing and chemical weapons attacks. 

Those responsible for these war crimes must be held accountable. 

Ambassador, you have said this, to your credit. But when? When 

will that accountability come? The committee hears testimony tomorrow from some of the brave Syrians who have appeared in front 

of the Security Council to share their stories of responding to 

Assad’s abhorrent attacks, including chemical attacks. 

Elsewhere, religious minorities are under attack. Unable to claim 

citizenship in Burma or elsewhere, many have called the 

Rohingyas ‘‘the most persecuted minority in the world.’’ Burma’s 

persecution has led thousands to desperately flee to overloaded 

boats. Many are rightly bothered by the United Nation’s poor track 

record protecting Rohingyas. Young Rohingya Muslim girls can 

think that they are finding safe haven, but end up being trafficked, 

being sexually exploited, being led into a lifetime of misery. 

United Nation’s peacekeeping, by the way, despite many shortcomings, has managed to protect innocent civilians and minorities. 

In recent years, the missions in the Democratic Republican of 

Congo, in Mali and South Sudan have saved lives. The committee 

wants to continue working with the Ambassador to see that these 

missions are appropriately supported, and we hope that something 

can be done for the Rohingya people. That is easier if failing missions some decades old are closed and the horrendous sexual 

abuses are tackled head on. 

U.N. reforms shouldn’t be limited to peacekeeping. This summer, 

when the U.N.’S scale of assessments is reviewed, I trust the U.S. 

delegation will be working to spread the burden and give major donors greater say in management decisions. 

Ambassador Power, you will be wrestling with many critical 

issues in the coming months. To say you have a difficult and even 

hostile environment at the U.N. is an understatement, but you do 

not appear to be one to shy away from a challenge. I look forward 

to continuing to work with you on these pressing matters. We 

thank you again for being with us today. 

And I will now turn to Mr. Eliot Engel, the ranking member, of 

New York for his opening statement. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And, Ambassador Power, welcome. Thank you for your testimony 

today and, more importantly, for your distinguished service. As far 

as I am concerned, you are certainly the right person at the right 

time to be our U.N. Ambassador and we are lucky to have you. 

Across seven decades, the United Nations has done a great deal 

of good: Millions saved from starvation, diseases like smallpox 

wiped off the map, sanctions that have ended conflict and curbed 

terrorism, peacekeeping missions that have brought stability to 

war-torn regions. 

At the same time, however, we must acknowledge that the U.N. 

is far from perfect. We need to improve the organization’s manageVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061615\95125 SHIRL
3

ment, enhance transparency and strengthen internal oversight, and 

we must continue to speak out forcefully when member states use 

the U.N. as a platform to unfairly single out Israel. 

In my mind, the best way to address these problems and to advance American foreign policy priorities is to maintain our engagement with the organization. U.S. leadership at the U.N. has headed 

off deeply biased and one-sided resolutions targeting Israel. We 

cast a lone no vote against the Commission of Inquiry into the situation in Gaza. 

We have helped scale back the number of anti-Israel efforts in 

the Human Rights Council overall. And the Human Rights Council 

has really been a joke, as far as I am concerned. 

We pushed back against the resolution recognizing Palestinian 

statehood, and we have rejected efforts by the Palestinians to use 

the U.N. to gain concessions from Israel outside of the context of 

negotiations. 

I want to thank you, Madam Ambassador, because you have been 

such a champion to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. said 

last week that, if it weren’t for the help of the United States and 

you personally, Israel—and I quote him—‘‘would be in real trouble.’’ When the United Nations continues to attack Israel, it really 

undermines the credibility of the United Nations. 

I am confident that you will continue to make clear, Madam Ambassador, that the United States will continue to oppose any biased 

or one-sided resolutions at the U.N. and that we will not shy away 

from using our veto at the Security Council, if necessary, despite 

some of the rhetoric we have heard from President Obama. 

But even with strong American involvement, the U.N. has been 

virtually paralyzed when it comes to a range of challenges around 

the world because other members of the Security Council continue 

to block meaningful action. I would like to mention just a few. I 

am eager to hear your views on these topics. 

I will start with the civil war in Syria. Half the population of 

that country has been displaced. An entire generation is growing 

up in refugee camps. To be sure, the U.N. has done a lot for refugee families in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, and most of the assistance for Syrian people inside Syria has flowed through the U.N. 

But Russia’s intransigence has prevented the U.N. from playing 

a more active role in helping the Syrian people chart a better future for their country. And that is only the tip of the iceberg with 

Russia. 

Under Vladimir Putin’s leadership or lack of leadership, Russia 

has walked away from democracy, the rule of law, and human 

rights. Their ongoing intervention in Ukraine threatens stability 

and democracy across Europe. This war has left thousands dead, 

tens of thousands wounded, and more than 1 million displaced. We 

need to expose the Kremlin’s lies wherever and whenever we can. 

So I commend you for shining a light on the hard facts in the U.N. 

With regard to Iran, we are all eager to see what a comprehensive nuclear deal will look like. I am particularly concerned about 

who will determine if Iran is in violation of the agreement. What 

happens if we think Iran has stepped over the line, but Russia and 

China disagree? I am also concerned about how and when U.N. 

sanctions against Iran will be lifted. The U.N. is going to have a 

4

big role to play, and I am eager to hear your views about how this 

process will move forward. 

Finally, in our own neighborhood, I am very pleased that the 

mandate for the U.N. International Commission Against Impunity 

in Guatemala was recently renewed. Creating similar conditions in 

Honduras and El Salvador would make a big difference in fighting 

corruption and impunity, and I hope we can work together urging 

our partners to take this step. 

Ambassador Power, thank you again for appearing today. I look 

forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

So this morning we are pleased to be joined by Ambassador 

Samantha Power. She is the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a member of the President’s cabinet. 

Prior to her appointment to the U.N., Ambassador Power served 

as special assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security staff at 

the White House. Ambassador Power is the Pulitzer Prize winning 

author of ‘‘A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.’’

We thank you for being with us today. 

And, without objection, the witness’ full prepared statement will 

be made part of the record and members will have 5 calendar days 

to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for 

the record. 

Ambassador Power, I would ask you if you could please summarize your remarks and then we will go to questions. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SAMANTHA POWER, U.S. 

PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STATES MISSION 

TO THE UNITED NATIONS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Congressman Engel. 

Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you for being here. Thank you, 

also, for your leadership in advancing America’s national security 

interests and our values in the world. 

Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see 

up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. 

At a shelter for displaced families in Kiev, I met a mother who 

told me how her husband and 2-year-old child had been killed in 

February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern 

Ukraine. 

The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by 

combined Russian separatist forces and the victims, just two of the 

more than 6,300 people who had been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. 

Shortly after the attack the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. 

Her plea, one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I 

met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea, was for the fighting to stop and for their basic rights to be respected. 

As the members of this committee know, we are living in a time 

of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued 

5

to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine. 

A deadly epidemic spread across West Africa, and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa committing unspeakable atrocities. 

These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to 

prevent and address. Yet, it is precisely at the moment when we 

need the U.N. most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already. 

This is true for the conflict in Ukraine in which a permanent 

member of the U.N. Security Council is violating the sovereignty 

and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. 

It is true of the global health system that, despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own 

CDC, was slow to respond to the epidemic. 

And it is true of U.N. peacekeepers who too often stand down or 

stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come 

under attack, thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes 

open to radicalization. 

Representing our Nation before the United Nations, I have to 

confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet, though I am 

clear-eyed about the U.N.’S vulnerabilities, the central point I want 

to make to this committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. 

The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history 

to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world 

stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to 

meet our objectives. 

Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the U.N. 

First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address 

transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with 

Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian Government, in 2010 the Obama administration galvanized 

the U.N. Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. 

The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table and ultimately to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework 

agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off 

every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon. 

Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as 

people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that 

had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, 

the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the 

U.N. Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. 

We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped 

bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. 

America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, 

thanks, also, very much to the support of this Congress deploying 

more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel 

to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May. 

Second, we are reforming U.N. peacekeeping to help address the 

threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st 

6

century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the U.N.’S 16 peacekeeping missions around the 

world. That is a higher number than in any time in history, with 

more complex responsibilities also than ever before. 

The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving 

the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups as we have seen in 

Mali. Yet, while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and 

professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating 

environments, we have also seen chronic problems too often, as 

mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians. 

We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give 

just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to 

step up and contribute soldiers and police to U.N. peacekeeping. 

That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened 

at the U.N. last September where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia, 

and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments. 

And it is the message I took directly to European leaders in 

March when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a 

critical way for militaries to do their fair share in protecting our 

common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. 

This coming September, President Obama will convene another 

summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for U.N. peacekeeping. 

Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the U.N. 

day in and day out we push back against efforts to de-legitimize 

Israel at the U.N. and we fight for its right to be treated like any 

other nation, from mounting a full-court diplomatic press, to heap 

secure Israel’s permanent membership into two U.N. groups from 

which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and 

firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. 

In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the 

Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security 

Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us 

in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve 

the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. 

We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it. 

Fourth, we are working to use U.N. tools to promote human 

rights and affirm human dignity as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the 

human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that 

session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors, a light we kept 

shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April with escaped 

victims of the regime. 

One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow 

prisoners who committed the ‘‘crime’’ of daring to ask why they had 

been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from 

three generations of her family—her grandmother, her father, and 

her younger brother—had starved to death. This is important for 

U.N. member states to hear. 

7

Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the 

U.N. more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble, 

both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer 

dollars are spent wisely and because maximizing the efficiency of 

our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting 

the world’s most vulnerable people. 

Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost per 

peacekeeper by 18 percent and we are constantly looking for ways 

to rightsize missions in response to conditions on the ground as we 

will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Cote d’Ivoire, 

Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions. 

Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to 

Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met, from the mother 

who lost her husband and 2-year-old child in the assaults by combined Russian separatist forces, to the brave students who risked 

their lives to take part in the Maidan protesters against the 

kleptocratic Yanukovych government, to the young members of 

Parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency, 

what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights and the 

belief that the United States could lead other countries and the 

United Nations in helping make their aspirations a reality. 

I heard the same sentiment when visiting the U.N.-run camps of 

people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, in 

South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak. 

Some may view the expectation that America can help people 

overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as 

a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our Nation’s greatest 

strengths and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up 

to, daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. 

But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why 

it is more important than ever that we use the U.N. to rally the 

multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges. 

Thank you. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Power follows:]

8


95125a-1.eps
9


95125a-2.eps
10


95125a-3.eps
11


95125a-4.eps
12


95125a-5.eps
13


95125a-6.eps
14


95125a-7.eps
15


95125a-8.eps
16


95125a-9.eps
17


95125a-10.eps
18


95125a-11.eps
19


95125a-12.eps
20


95125a-13.eps
21


95125a-14.eps
22


95125a-15.eps
23


95125a-16.eps
24

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Myself and Eliot Engel have had frequent conversations on this 

issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, and I indicated several 

years ago that this was going to be the primary focus of this committee, was trying to prevent what I worry will be the undetectable 

nuclear breakout capability of Iran. 

Now, I want to ask you about this Iran agreement and U.N. 

snap-back sanctions. If we have cheating on the part of Iran, as 

they have cheated on every other agreement so far—and this, I 

would presume, is going to be a real problem if we go forward and 

we don’t get the verification in this agreement that has to be in the 

agreement—so now we take up this dispute resolution panel, as it 

is called, this issue, which would likely include the six powers and 

Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency would also continue 

reporting on Iran’s program under this suggestion here. 

But here is my question. You have got Russia and China playing 

a role. So it is not clear to me how U.N. sanctions realistically 

would snap back once the cheating is found. And I would just add 

the caveat that we would also probably see a situation where Russian, Chinese, French, German companies are back in Iran. Commerce is flowing. It is going to be very difficult stop, certainly not 

at a snap. So walk me through that, if you would. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First let me very much agree with the comment you made earlier 

that nothing that happens at the U.N. tends to happen in a snap. 

I have lived that firsthand. 

But let me also underscore that President Obama and the entire 

negotiating team and certainly I, as a member of the administration, also embrace your premise that we cannot trust on the basis 

of past Iranian actions, on the basis of current Iranian actions, outside the nuclear sphere. 

So I think there are two very important aspects, both of which 

you have touched upon, but just to elaborate on, that show that 

any agreement that we reach would be predicated, in fact, on a 

lack of trust. 

So the first is, in fact, one of the most intrusive inspection regimes imaginable, the ability to monitor what is happening along 

the nuclear supply chain to an unprecedented extent, forever commitments related to the additional protocol, and the modified code. 

I mean, these are things that are going to last well beyond the life 

of this agreement. 

And I think what is important about it is recognizing that there, 

of course, are dangers of covert capabilities being brought online. 

And that, again, is what this inspection regime is oriented around. 

But the second manifestation, I think, of the lack of trust is the 

snap-back mechanism. And one snap-back mechanism, of course, is 

within our own hands. There are many sanctions that the President of the United States just would be able to snap back with the 

stroke of a pen. 

But, in my world, President Obama has been very clear from the 

very beginning that we cannot allow a procedure for snap-back to 

be left in the hands of Russia or China for the very reason that you 

indicate. 

25

While it is true that we were able to get the multilateral sanctions regime through the Security Council, again, the toughest, I 

think, in the 70-year history of the United Nations, it does not 

therefore follow that, in the event of breach, that we would be able 

to get that same resolution through a second time. 

And so, while I can’t get into the specifics of the mechanism right 

now because we are at a very delicate stage in the negotiation and 

all of this is being worked through to the finest detail, I can say, 

number one, Congress will be briefed as soon as the deal is done, 

if it gets done, and, number two, we will not support a snap-back 

mechanism or an agreement that includes a snap-back mechanism 

that leaves us vulnerable in the manner that you are fearful of. In 

other words, we will retain the ability to snap that multilateral 

sanctions architecture back in place without Russian or Chinese 

support. 

Chairman ROYCE. I think that has to be the focus because it took 

so many years for the international sanctions to be put in place so 

that those companies terminated their business with Iran. And 

now we have a situation as a result of the way this is being negotiated where they are all waiting to position themselves to get back 

into the country. 

Now, the other aspect of this, as you say, we are going to have 

an effective sanctions regime. That would imply, then, that what 

the Iranians are telling the world, which is that there is not going 

to be any investigation on their military bases, that the international inspectors are not going to be able to have access to those 

types of sites—and, as you know, that is where they have done a 

lot of their testing, is on those military sites—that would put us 

in the precarious position of an agreement that would be like the 

1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea, where without the 

ability of the international inspectors to actually go into those 

types of sites, the cheating would be, in a case like that, not even 

detectable. 

So, again, this is why 367 Members of this body, the majority of 

our colleagues on one side of the aisle and a vast majority on the 

other side of the aisle, in other words, an overwhelming majority 

of this institution, have written a letter to the President saying, 

‘‘We do have to have the international inspectors have this ability 

to go onto those military bases and other sites anywhere, anytime. 

That has to be in this negotiation.’’

Let me raise another issue, too, and that is an issue that I know 

you have spent a lot of time on at the United Nations. Despite the 

deal with Russia to remove Assad’s chemical weapons, it is clear 

he still has some of them. It is clear he is still using them, especially having them dropped on Aleppo. 

And, Madam Ambassador, given Russia’s clear desire to protect 

the Assad regime, what can the U.N. do, and particularly the Security Council here, to effectively confront the crisis in Syria? 

And I will just ask you for your thoughts, but also mention that 

last month Ranking Member Engel and I offered a successful 

amendment to the defense policy bill directing the Pentagon to 

closely examine a no-fly zone over Syria’s skies. This would especially relate to Aleppo and the other civilian areas which are routinely, routinely, bombarded. 

26

And, you know, of course, the United States can’t do this on its 

own. It would need strong support and participation from our allies 

and partners in the region. And many of them have been asking 

and offering, by the way, their support, asking for this kind of a 

step, a no-fly zone that would protect the civilian population there. 

And tell me about your engagement on that issue and where that 

might stand at the United Nations. 

Ambassador POWER. Okay, Mr. Chairman. Let me, if I could, just 

a quick comment on your additional comment on Iran to simply say 

that there has been a lot of rhetoric from the Supreme Leader, 

from the Iranian President, from many within Iran, and there is 

a lot of politics going on, and I think it is not helpful for us to get 

into the psychology of what any particular Iran leader is thinking 

or saying at a given time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, Ambassador, it is not difficult to interpret what he is trying to message when he routinely starts the 

mornings with rallies of ‘‘Death to America.’’

Ambassador POWER. I understand. 

Chairman ROYCE. I interpret that he means what he is saying 

in these cases. 

Ambassador POWER. Well, all I wanted to underscore before, 

turning to your important Syria question instead of comments, is 

President Obama will not accept a deal in which we do not get the 

access that we need in order to verify compliance. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. We want to hold the President to 

that. Thank you. 

Ambassador POWER. I am sure you will. 

So, on Syria, let me first address the chemical weapons issue. Because of the credible threat of military force back in 2013, we were 

able to forge an agreement with the Russians, one of the rare instances. 

As you know, they have used their veto four times on Syria-related issues, including a referral of some of the worst atrocities we 

have seen since the second World War, a referral of those crimes 

to the International Criminal Court. They vetoed that. They vetoed 

very mild condemnatory language. 

We live their alliance with the Syrian regime and the costs and 

consequences of that every day. I mentioned in my opening remarks Ukraine and the perverse consequences of a permanent 

member trying to lop off part of someone else’s country. To see a 

veto holder use its veto in this reckless, disgraceful way is extremely disturbing. 

However, in this one instance, we were able to team up in order 

to get this dismantling regime put in place. The OPCW and the 

U.N. stepped up together, really, in an unprecedented way, building the airplane as they flew it. And, as a result, we have the removal and/or destruction of 100 percent of the declared Syrian 

chemical weapons program. 

But you are absolutely right. We also have alarming and grave 

reports that the Syrians, seemingly incapable of fighting without 

drawing on chemical weapons, have now found a new way, even 

with the dismantlement of their declared chemical weapons regime, 

which is to turn chlorine into a chemical weapon. 

27

We are pushing at the Security Council. We have just in the last 

few months secured another resolution again, somehow getting 

Russia’s support to make it very clear to the world that just because chlorine is a household product doesn’t make it not a chemical weapon when it is put in a barrel bomb and dropped on civilians. So we made that clear in the hopes that that would be a deterrent, threatened further measures. 

We are now at the point in which we need accountability for 

these crimes. And we are pushing—I don’t want to get ahead of 

diplomatic discussions—but pushing Russia to take ownership of 

this, to use their influence with the regime behind the scenes and 

to move forward and get something through the Security Council 

that would actually establish accountability. 

Separate from that, in terms of the U.N., of course, Staffan de 

Mistura is the U.N. envoy. We need a big political push in terms 

of negotiations. Those negotiations have not really progressed since 

the last Geneva Conference. It has really been a period of protracted stalemate. 

But the regime, of course, has suffered a series of military setbacks. Russia and Iran themselves, of course, share at least one additional concern with us, which is the growth of ISIL in Syria. 

And so we are pushing Russia on the Security Council and outside of it to join with us here and make a serious political push so 

that we can get a kind of peaceful transition, one that brings about 

an end to the Assad regime, which would gas its people and has 

committed such unspeakable atrocities, but one also that would not 

leave Syria vulnerable to ISIL actually coming in and filling the 

breach. 

On the no-fly zone, finally, I don’t have a lot to add.You know 

that every day we are looking into the toolbox and trying to ascertain which tool is appropriate in which circumstances. On the humanitarian, on the sanctions, on the support for the train and 

equip program, we have done an awful lot, again, to try to influence the situation inside Syria. 

A no-fly zone, if implemented and executed, would entail using 

military force against the Syrian regime. And our judgment is that, 

at this point, the risks of doing so would exceed the potential benefits, not least because of the number of extremists, again, who 

could conceivably benefit from such a——

Chairman ROYCE. Well, remember, the main beneficiary right 

now, Ambassador, as the regime drops those chemical bombs on 

Aleppo, it is the ISIS fighters that, you know, the middle class, the 

Free Syrian Army, are battling on the outskirts. So here is the case 

in this instance of the regime working in tandem with ISIS in 

order to collapse, basically, the resistance to ISIS up in the north. 

But, anyway, tomorrow this committee will hear from the brave 

responders who are recently back from their efforts to save—these 

are physicians who were out there to save civilians from these 

chemical attacks—on the nature of the chemical attacks. 

But thank you for your good work. I need to go to Mr. Engel. Ambassador, thank you very much. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, sir. 

28

Mr. ENGEL. Ambassador, as I said in my opening remarks, let me 

acknowledge the very strong work you have done in defending 

Israel at the U.N. 

You listed several instances in your written testimony, and I 

want to acknowledge your personal commitment to pushing back 

against efforts to de-legitimize Israel at the U.N. 

The ridiculous nonsense from the U.N. Human Rights Council, 

which consists of some of the worst offenders of human rights, really makes that Council, in my opinion, a joke and undermines the 

credibility of the U.N. itself. 

The President recently gave an interview with Israeli Channel 2 

news in which he said that the U.S. was reevaluating—and I quote 

him—‘‘how we approach defending Israel on the international stage 

around the Palestinian issue.’’

I understand that this reevaluation will not affect our security 

relationship with Israel. The President made that clear. But, frankly, his remarks were troubling, as were other remarks he has made 

on the same subject. 

Reevaluating the ways that we defend Israel on the international 

stage could have ominous consequences and it is obviously very 

concerning for those of us who seek to strengthen the U.S.-Israel 

relationship. 

If the U.S. priority is achieving a permanent two-state solution, 

giving Israel another reason for unease will not help that goal. So 

I want to ask you: What is the status of this reevaluation? And 

what is it based on? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congressman Engel. 

First, as you yourself have noted, the President was very clear, 

I think, in that interview and has consistently been clear that we 

are not reevaluating our bond with Israel, our security and military 

relationship, the tremendous friendships that exist between the 

American people and the Israeli people. 

I think what we are engaging right now is a moment in which 

it is not exactly clear how progress toward a two-state solution is 

likely to be made. And so we are in daily touch, as you know, with 

the Israeli Government. The Israeli national security advisor is 

here in Washington, I believe, still as we speak, meeting with our 

national security advisor. 

With a government now formed, we are deepening those discussions again about how we find a path forward toward a two-state 

solution, recognizing, as I know we all do, that that is the way in 

which Israelis and Palestinians can live durably side by side in security and in dignity. 

With regard to the area of concern that you have flagged, the 

United States—the Obama administration—has consistently opposed the de-legitimization of Israel. We have also pushed consistently for the the legitimation of Israel across the U.N. system. And 

I can give lots of examples of that. 

We uniformly oppose one-sided actions designed to punish Israel, 

and we will continue to do so. I want to be very clear. In most 

cases, in many cases, at least, we are actually able to build coalitions and prevent things from coming up to a vote, as we did in 

December, again, when I cast a no vote. But we were able to deny 

the Palestinians—when a resolution was brought forward and it 

29

was biased, it was one-sided, it was hastily sort of jammed upon 

the Council, we were able to forge a blocking coalition. 

I also want to note that there are occasions in which we work 

with our Israeli counterparts up in New York on affirmative U.N. 

resolutions, on things that Israel thinks can advance its interests. 

And so I think it is hard to speak about hypotheticals, and I would 

caution against doing so. 

During the Gaza crisis last summer, where I know you were very 

engaged, we came very, very close, working with Israel on a U.N. 

Security Council resolution, that we thought potentially could be 

additive as that crisis was winding down. In the end, it didn’t come 

to pass. But, again, the text and the content of what we are talking 

about I think would really matter. 

And suffice it to say, again, I want to underscore that the United 

States would oppose any resolution that we believe is biased or 

would undermine Israel’s security. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, thank you for that answer. And it goes in line 

with your written testimony—and I quote—‘‘We have consistently 

and firmly opposed one-sided actions in international bodies and 

will continue to do so.’’ So it is a welcome message. 

But how do you anticipate this pledge manifesting at the U.N. 

as the French and others pursue a Security Council resolution that 

could set artificial timetables for negotiations? 

Ambassador POWER. Again, we have not seen—or I have not 

seen—a French resolution. We read in the press the same things 

you read, and we have certainly heard about various texts that are 

flying about. 

But I will say, since I have gotten to New York, there have always been texts circulating relating to this set of issues. So I think, 

again, I am not going to speculate on hypotheticals beyond saying 

we are not negotiating any U.N. Security Council resolution. 

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just say, in conclusion, what is disturbing 

about some of the remarks that the President has made is that 

there is the hint—or maybe not even a hint—that perhaps next 

time around on some of these resolutions, rather than vetoing 

them, the anti-Israel biased resolutions we might just abstain. And 

that, of course, would allow it to pass. 

When some of us hear that, we cringe because, if we can’t count 

on the United States to stand firmly behind Israel against these ridiculous one-sided, biased resolutions, then I think it makes the 

U.N. almost worthless in terms of trying to be a group moving the 

process along rather than beating up on Israel with the built-in 

bias at the U.N. 

So when we hear those remarks from the President, it disturbs 

many of us that have supported a two-state solution, that support 

Israel’s right to exist, and that fight against the legitimization of 

Israel all the time. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We now move to Representative Ileana RosLehtinen, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and 

North Africa. 

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

30

And, Madam Ambassador, thank you for being so kind to my interns before this session. 

Following up on the excellent remarks made by Ranking Member 

Engel, as we know, President Obama issued a not-so-veiled threat 

to Israel that the U.S. might not be able to support a veto of the 

French resolution at the U.N. Security Council on Palestinian 

statehood. 

Now, you use the word ‘‘oppose,’’ ‘‘We will oppose.’’ But will the 

United States—yes or no—veto any resolution at the U.N. that 

forces, imposes, this two-state solution on Israel? What will our position be? Will we veto? You say we oppose. But will we veto? That 

would send a strong message. 

Ambassador POWER. Again, given that we worked last summer 

on a U.N. Security Council resolution with Israel that we were potentially prepared to support and we weren’t able to get everybody 

on the Council to rally around, I think it is perilous to make blanket statements. 

But I want to underscore we have consistently opposed. We will 

oppose anything that is biased, anything that would undermine 

Israel’s security. And I think our track record is very solid here. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. I think it is that track record 

that worries Israel. I applaud you for saying that you are going to 

root out the anti-Israel bias that exists. And sometimes we don’t 

have to look too far to find that bias. 

Moving on to U.N. reform, can you provide to this committee 

later in written form a breakdown of exactly how much money 

across the entire U.S. Government have we contributed annually to 

the U.N. since 2011? I would appreciate that, Madam Ambassador. 

And regarding the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran and the sanctions we have on Iran, recent reports indicate that the administration will not only seek to lift sanctions at the U.N. on Iran’s nuclear program, but also lift sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile 

program, its conventional military support for terror, and its abysmal human rights record. 

Will the administration lump all of these actions against Iran as 

nuclear-related? When we tried to bring it up, we said they are not 

nuclear-related, but it seems like, to lift sanctions, everything is 

nuclear-related. 

Ambassador POWER. First, on your first question, thank you for 

not asking me to do that math here on the spot. It would have been 

deeply humiliating. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It is tough for me to chew on that, too. 

Ambassador POWER. And then, second, on Iran, absolutely not, I 

think is the answer to your questions. The sanctions that we, the 

United States, have put in place that are so important on human 

rights, given the deplorable human rights record which has not improved, their support for egregious atrocities in Syria, support for 

terrorism, all of those things——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It is a long list. 

Ambassador POWER [continuing]. From the administration’s 

standpoint, should remain in place. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. They won’t lump them together. Thank you. 

31

If I could continue, last week a U.N. panel stated that the U.S. 

has neglected to report Iranian sanctions violations, which the administration has denied. 

Has the administration deliberately failed to report or refer violations of Security Council resolutions to the sanctions committee? 

And has there been a formal or informal directive from the White 

House to not fully implement or report on violations of Security 

Council sanctions? 

Ambassador POWER. Absolutely not. And I myself am involved 

often in raising sanctions violations that Iran has carried out. 

We have also, even over the life of this last delicate phase of negotiations, instituted more sanctions designations under the existing bilateral sanctions framework that Congress has been such a 

critical part of. So there is no pulling of our punches, even during 

these negotiations or ever. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

And, lastly, I remain concerned about the security situation in 

Haiti. Just last week this committee sent staff to Haiti to report 

back to us on the status of its elections. 

According to our staff, several people in the security and diplomatic sector expressed concerns that pulling U.N. troops out during 

an election year was a huge mistake and that the Haitian National 

Police may not be ready to ensure stability and security. 

What is the justification for the troop withdrawal at this critical 

juncture? And why were those concerns ignored? And will you commit to keep the few troops that will remain in Haiti after the elections are finished, we hope, in 2016? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

I myself was in Haiti in January asking many of the same questions that you have just posed. I think what is very important is 

that the environment now in Haiti is different from the environment post-earthquake. We had huge engineering battalions who 

were part of MINUSTAH, the U.N. mission in Haiti, who were removing rubble. Now almost all of the rubble in the country has 

been removed. 

So what we have really seen is, yes, a drawdown in terms of the 

authorized number of troops. And that is something the United 

States has helped spearhead, in part, back to the chairman’s comment at the beginning, recognizing that the system is massively 

stretched around the world, recognizing we have to answer up 

here, also, in terms of the budgetary demands that U.N. peacekeeping makes on the American people as well as on other member 

states, but mainly, in this instance, recognizing that police, foreign 

police units, mobility, more mobility, fewer engineering battalions, 

that, basically, you needed a recalibration of the mission according 

to new circumstances. 

So it is true that there has been a significant drawdown, but 

there is still a substantial infantry presence. There is still the ability to do rapid response. We have introduced more helicopters to 

allow troops and police to move more quickly across the country. 

And a lot of the functions that the U.N. peacekeeping mission 

had been performing are now migrating to the so-called U.N. Country Team, the development professionals, the election experts, and 

so forth. That is not really a job for the military in many cases. 

32

I also would note that you are right that the Haitian National 

Police have a long way to go, but the strides that they have made, 

I think, over the last 2 or 3 years are really extraordinary and very 

much the product of U.S. and other member state bilateral support 

as well as the U.N. training that has gone on there. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

Haitian Americans have greatly enriched our south Florida community, and we pay such close attention to Haiti. Thank you so 

much. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Brad Sherman of California, ranking 

member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ambassador, thank you for your service not only 

in government, but before you joined the government. Thank you 

for your work in opposing and exposing genocide, particularly the 

Armenian genocide. 

I want to echo the ranking member on the protection of Israel 

at the United Nations. We were all concerned by some indication 

that the administration would cut back that support. It is good to 

support Israel. It is even better when it is difficult. 

And I want to praise the administration for standing with Israel 

at the NPT consensus review process where, in order to prevent actions inimical to Israel, we not only opposed the inimical actions, 

but we opposed—because we had to—the entire agreement. 

So, hopefully, that answers the question as you have here when 

you committed to the ranking member that it is our position to veto 

one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N. 

The President has recognized that involving the U.N. in the details of the peace process is not a way to advance peace. Obviously, 

the U.N. might adopt a resolution that had a few noncontroversial 

provisions: Two-state solution, peace and security for all. 

But would we veto any U.N. resolution that tried to codify the 

parameters of a peace deal and included controversial elements in 

that codification? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congressman Sherman. 

I think that is a reprise of the Congresswoman’s question with 

a slight shift. I really am going to resist making blanket declarations on hypothetical resolutions. 

Our position, again, I think has been very clear for some time. 

I have said, again, we would oppose anything that was designed to 

punish Israel, that would undermine Israel’s security. But I think, 

again, it is perilous. There is no resolution in front of us. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will move on to less hypothetical questions. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. First, under current U.S. law, the administration 

is required to cut off Palestinian aid if the Palestinians pursue or 

support charges against Israel at the ICC, and I am confident that 

you will follow the law on that one spirit and letter. I won’t even 

ask that as a question because I know of your dedication to law. 

The United States Constitution vests specifically power over all 

international commerce, particularly sanctions, in the United 

States Congress. The administration has in the area of trade recognized that the Congress is the primary arbiter and has asked us 

to pass a statute providing limitations and structure, but I want 

33

to make sure that the administration will follow Article I of the 

Constitution when it comes to sanctions on Iran. 

We have got this review process. I would hope that you negotiate 

a deal in Switzerland so good that Congress universally supports 

it, but that may not be the case. Imagine a situation in which there 

is a deal that is cut, the administration supports it, but less than 

one-third of either House has indicated support for the deal. 

There are news reports that you will prevent a lifting of U.N. 

sanctions at least for a month to give Congress a chance to go 

through the process of review. Will you be allowing a lifting of U.N. 

sanctions during the statutory review process? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. I thought you were going to another hypothetical, but you went directly to an issue I know that 

is in the news. 

It is useful and appropriate, needless to say, for Congress’ voice 

to be heard. And I think the bills that have come now through both 

Houses provide——

Mr. SHERMAN. And signed by the President. 

Ambassador POWER. Pardon me? 

Mr. SHERMAN. And signed by the President. 

Ambassador POWER. [continuing]. And signed by the President—

provide a structure for that voice, and there is some predictability 

to it, I think, at least in terms of process. 

As you indicated, our view is that we will be able to defend any 

deal that is good enough for us, and we will come up here and seek 

to do so. 

On the precise sequence, it is clear that there are now two bodies 

whose voices will need to be heard. And how that will all work I 

think is, again, one of those details——

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are saying it is possible that, if the United 

States Congress declares by over a two-thirds majority in both 

Houses, that we reject the deal, if we establish U.S. policy on this 

deal pursuant to Article I of the Constitution, you might still be at 

the United Nations undermining that policy declared by Congress 

pursuant to the Constitution? 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN [presiding]. If the gentleman will suspend, we 

will have the Ambassador answer the question, but we are going 

to try to get everybody in with their 5 minutes. 

Ambassador POWER. Okay. Just simply to say, again, that is a 

hypothetical about what the vote in Congress would be. 

Again, we feel this will be a deal that we can defend where we 

can convince Congress also to support the deal. All I am getting at 

is the precise choreography of how the sequencing works through, 

that is just a matter still for the negotiation. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. 

And now we turn to Mr. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human 

Rights, and International Organizations. 

And we will try to do those in 5 minutes so everyone will have 

a chance. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And welcome, Madam Ambassador, and thank you for your testimony and for your work. 

34

More than a decade ago, Madam Ambassador, sex trafficking and 

sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping was exposed in the 

Democratic Republic of the Congo. I chaired a series of hearings beginning in 2005. I went to Goma. I spent a better part of a week 

meeting with peacekeepers and trying to get, you know, a real plan 

to try to mitigate and, hopefully, eradicate that horrific abuse. 

I chaired, like I said, a number of hearings. Jane Holl Lute sat 

where you sit. She is my third cousin. She did a magnificent job 

at the U.N. trying to get zero tolerance for the Secretary General’s 

policy. Unfortunately, some of our witnesses then—and some would 

say still—there is a lack of compliance with that blue helmet bulletin. 

Last year the Advisory Committee on Administration and Budget 

said nearly half of the allegations reported in peacekeeping issues 

involved the most egregious form of sexual exploitation, abuse of 

minors. They cited Haiti, DR Congo, Liberia, Sudan, and South 

Sudan as the chief offending deployments. 

On May 15, as you know, the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight 

Services evaluated efforts to combat sexual exploitation and abuse 

by U.N. peacekeepers. They found that, pursuant to the 2007 

MOU, truth-contributing countries who retain the primary responsibility to investigate misconduct apparently are not doing a very 

good job. 

Questions about the quality of the investigative standards, wide 

variations in sanctions that weaken the commitment to zero tolerance—and get this—the penalty is often simple repatriation and 

disbarment from any future U.N. peacekeeping deployment, not 

prosecution and jail. 

OIOS made some recommendations—six of them—that I think 

bear consideration on an expedited basis. Perhaps you could speak 

to that. They also noted that there was a real lack of helping victims, particularly little girls, who have been abused. 

Secondly, let me ask you about a Syria war crimes tribunal. In 

2013, I wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post and then held, 

again, a series of hearings. We had David Crane, the former prosecutor from the Sierra Leone Special Court, and he and so many 

others made it clear, the ICC is not up to the task. 

We need a regional court like Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, and 

Rwanda, take all of the lessons learned from that and prosecute 

both in Iraq and Syria those on either side that are committing—

or any side—these terrible atrocities. Your thoughts on that. 

And, finally, the committee on NGOs for ECOSOC recently voted 

down the application for consultative status from an American 

NGO known as Freedom Now. The no votes came from China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Iran, Nicaragua, Azerbaijan, among 

others. 

I have worked with Freedom Now for 15 years. They have 

worked on Gao Zhisheng, Liu Xiaobo, Father Ly in Vietnam, Aung 

San Suu Kyi in Burma. A great organization. On the same day the 

Palestinian Refugee Center, which works with Hamas and 

Hezbollah, was approved. 

What are we doing to try to help Freedom Now get their accreditation? 

35

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congressman. I will try to move 

quickly through each of these three very important issues. I will 

work backwards. 

First, on Freedom Now, I couldn’t agree more. They are doing 

some of the most important work to highlight the plights of political prisoners around the world. I know I personally use their work, 

try to reinforce whatever they are campaigning on. I know Members of Congress also have teamed up with them. 

And the just very sad fact is that the NGO Committee, in which 

members are elected by the U.N. membership often by their regions, is stacked with a group of countries who don’t themselves 

tolerate NGOs in their own countries. 

And so, you know, every frustration that one feels about who 

gets elected to this or that in the U.N. body stems from the same 

issue, which is that regions are not taking sufficient responsibility 

for the integrity of who they are putting forward on behalf of their 

continent. 

And this is a classic example, but we are not giving up. We are 

working behind the scenes with Freedom Now, and now that it 

goes to the full Economic and Social Council from this subset or 

this smaller NGO committee, we have a chance to overturn the 

vote. 

It is going to be challenging because, again, recall that, in the 

United Nations as a whole, a body of 193 countries, more than half 

are not democratic. So we always have our work cut out for us. 

But, again, we have been able to score a number of very important victories for political prisoners and human rights in civil societies and other bodies, and we are going to dedicate ourselves to 

that and welcome the support of Congress also leveraging relationships in capitals and so forth. 

Second, again, working backwards, on Syria, I remember very 

well your op ed, and I think it is a very, very important idea that 

you have put out there. 

The issue with the ICC—it may well not prove up to the task, 

but the bigger issue with the ICC is there is no way to get ICC jurisdiction that doesn’t go through either the Syrian Government, 

which hardly wants to hold itself accountable for monstrous atrocities, or through Russia, which, by supplying and supporting the 

Syrian regime, is implicated in some of those atrocities. 

The same challenge, as you know well, would apply if we were 

to try to replicate the Yugoslav or the Rwanda Tribunal. Both of 

those came about through votes in the Security Council. And that 

goes back to the first point I made in my remarks at the outset, 

which is just this deformity, in a way, where a permanent member 

of the Security Council can block the creation—whether an ICC referral or the creation of an international criminal tribunal of the 

kind you are describing. 

You know, again, somebody—I think it was Chairman Royce—

raised this issue before on accountability, saying, ‘‘Yeah. You always say they are going to be held accountable. The question is 

when.’’ You know, we just in the last 6 months have seen perpetrators of the crimes carried out 20 years ago in Srebrenica held accountable not only at the ICTY, where they had been held accountable, but, also, in Serbia proper, in Bosnia, et cetera. 

36

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much. Thank you. I apologize. 

But we are 11⁄2 minutes——

Ambassador POWER. I will find a way to get the sex trafficking 

in somewhere else. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I am now pleased to turn to Congressman 

Albio Sires of New Jersey, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ambassador, welcome. 

During last year’s Gaza crisis, five Latin America countries 

pulled their Ambassadors from Israel. I am talking about Chile, 

Peru, El Salvador, Ecuador, and Brazil. 

I am wondering. What efforts are we making to urge those countries to send the Ambassadors back? I know that we have sent letters to those countries urging them to be engaged again. Are we 

making any efforts to urge them to send the Ambassadors back? 

Ambassador POWER. You know, I think I am going to take that 

question—all I can really speak to is what I do every day in New 

York, which is lobby those very countries not to take the positions 

they usually take in the General Assembly or with the Human 

Rights Council and so forth. 

On the very specific issue of their level of representation, I actually don’t have an answer for that, but will get back to you quickly. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Well, that is going to bring me into the U.N. 

Human Rights Commission. I personally feel that they are not effective when you have a Cuban sometimes leading the Human 

Rights Commission. 

Since the President made his announcement, the abuses have increased. People are put in jail. Women are beaten just to go to 

church. And this Human Rights Commission—I never hear anything regarding the abuses on the island. And I know, at one time, 

Cuba was in charge of this Commission. I mean, that is the biggest 

joke I ever heard. 

So what can we do to get them to speak up about the abuses on 

the island? I mean, this is a crackdown on the very people that we 

are trying to help, supposedly. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

Again, let me just say that, on the question of the conditions inside Cuba, I couldn’t agree more. There have been—I just looked 

up these numbers on the way over here—600 arbitrary detentions 

just in the month of May alone and 2,300 over the course of this 

year, in 2015. 

So there remains a significant human rights crisis inside Cuba. 

And I want to underscore, again, that the effort at normalization 

is aimed at getting at some of these issues. Now, clearly, it is not 

having an overnight effect. I don’t think anybody could have expected it would. 

But the bet that we are making is that, over time, more access 

to information, more Internet, more exposure to Americans and 

American values, is going to actually, you know, help ensure that 

Cuba, again, over time, liberalizes. But, in the meantime, we have 

to spoke out about these abuses. 

Mr. SIRES. I was just going to add, if nobody speaks up about 

it——

37

Ambassador POWER. Well, I certainly do. 

Mr. SIRES [continuing]. It is not going to help the Cuban people, 

no matter what efforts we make. 

Ambassador POWER. Well, if I could, again, in addition to the 

earlier followup that I owe you, I will send you the public statements made by senior U.S. officials, you know, even since the 

changes in our relationship with Cuba were announced because I 

don’t think we have, again, held our tongues at all. 

I myself also make a point of meeting with dissidents like Yoani 

Sanchez, like the daughter of Oswaldo Paya, and the people who, 

you know, may well have been murdered by the regime. I mean, 

we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is extremely 

important. 

But if I could distinguish that from the Human Rights Council 

issue you raise. They are related. The Human Rights Council is 

vulnerable to the flaws that you and Congressman Engel and others have pointed to already in this hearing and that others have 

made clear their views on. It is, again, a body in which a country 

that does not have a good human rights record can end up in a 

leadership position. That is officially true. 

It is also a body that the United States, by virtue of being a 

member, has used to create Commissions of Inquiry for Syria that 

otherwise would not exist because of Russia’s veto on the Security 

Council. That has moved the ball very substantially on LGBT 

rights. It is the first time the U.N. has said LGBT rights are 

human rights. 

It created a Commission of Inquiry for North Korea that documented the systematic horror that the gulags are inflicting on the 

people of North Korea every day in a way that in the entire history 

of that regime had not been done before. We have a special 

rapporteur for Iran that would not exist if not, again, for the 

Human Rights Council. 

So like a lot that exists at the U.N., it is not us. It is not the 

body——

Mr. SIRES. So do we expect that maybe this would also happen 

with Cuba? 

Ambassador POWER. I think one of——

Mr. SIRES. If the abuse——

Ambassador POWER. I think one of the effects over time in the 

U.N. system of the steps that the President has taken vis-a`-vis 

Cuba—my prediction will be that people will be focusing less on the 

embargo and on U.S. policy, which has been a diversion from the 

human rights situation inside Cuba, and now we will have a better 

chance of drawing people’s attention to human rights crisis inside 

Cuba. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Sires. 

We turn to Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of California, chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And, Madam Ambassador, thank you very much for your service. 

You are much respected, your energy and your commitment. 

38

And although there are some things that we obviously disagree 

on, I want to associate myself with my colleagues’ concern about 

the blackout of reporting of human rights abuses in Cuba. 

And let me just note this idea that—well, it is offset in some way 

by the fact that there is going to be more Internet connection between people and more communication with people in the United 

States. 

The people of Cuba know when their neighbor has been arrested 

or beaten up in front of them. They don’t need to see it over the 

Internet. And the people who are beating them up and throwing 

them in jail, they know, too. And, in fact, what they know is we 

have given up a huge amount of leverage over them and gotten 

nothing in return as they continue to oppress their own people. 

And I believe perhaps this travesty that we are discussing and 

describing there really reflects why some of us don’t have faith that 

the United Nations—considering that there is a Cuban head of the 

Human Rights Commission. That we don’t have faith that the U.N. 

is going to be doing the right thing to create a better world, that 

the United States has to play perhaps a more active, direct role 

rather than trying to spend our time maneuvering through the 

United Nations all kinds of different resolutions and policies that 

could have the opposite impact of what we are looking for. 

With that said, I would like to ask you a little bit about Ukraine. 

You were mentioning the people that were shelled, a family that 

you know that—or you described being shelled by the Soviet—or—

excuse me—Russian allies there in Ukraine. 

How many civilians have died since this whole incident began? 

Do you know? 

Ambassador POWER. Sixty-three hundred is the official number, 

but we think there is underreporting because the separatists don’t 

allow access. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, of that 6,300, how many were separatists in separatist towns and villages? 

Ambassador POWER. That I don’t know offhand. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know, I want to tell you, when I ask that 

question, almost nobody knows. But it was my understanding—I 

went over to Europe and met with some people involved in intelligence agencies in various countries. 

They were telling me that, actually, in the Ukrainian military, 

which was one-third made up of people who were not in their military, but were instead on the payroll of some oligarch, they had 

heavy artillery and were indiscriminately shelling these separatist 

villages. 

Do you know anything about that? 

Ambassador POWER. First, let me actually correct what I said 

earlier. You asked how many civilians had been killed. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Ambassador POWER. To my knowledge, the 6,300 figure that we 

have is both civilian and soldiers. So let me also get you the breakdown on the actual civilians, if it exists. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Fine. 

Ambassador POWER. One of the issues that I raised in Ukraine 

in my visit was how critical it is for the Ukrainians to abide by 

international humanitarian law. It is absolutely critical. 

39

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah. Okay. 

Ambassador POWER. And it is critical for hearts and minds as 

well as for the law. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is it possible that the majority of the civilian 

casualties that you are talking about were actually civilian casualties that were the victims of the Ukrainian Army and the oligarch 

that financed one-third of their Army at one point? Is that possible? 

Ambassador POWER. If I could say two things. 

First, I think it is highly unlikely on the basis of the reports that 

we received from the United Nations and from the OSCE. 

Second, I want to underscore again why this conflict started. It 

started because Russia moved troops and weapons and so forth into 

the——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Just so you know, Madam Secretary, the 

Russians would suggest it started when there was a violent overthrow of an elected government. 

Ambassador POWER. Right. I don’t make it a point of listening to 

President Putin’s claims, as a general rule. I don’t find them credible. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I think that you are our representative 

and you should pay attention to everybody’s claims and you should 

refute them if they can be refuted rather than dismissing them. 

Because I happen to believe that, if that coup, meaning violent 

overthrow of an elected——

Ambassador POWER. Violent. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. Violent overthrow of an elected 

government, had not happened, we would not be in this situation 

and the Ukrainians would have been spared this. 

But our—and you can go beyond that to where our European allies didn’t offer Yanukovych the deal that he wanted and the response that most people in the Ukraine have. They don’t like Russia and they didn’t want to be in agreement with Russia. 

There are a lot of things that led up to this. It didn’t start with 

Russia going into the separatist areas. That is not where it started. 

At least that is what they explain. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. 

And now we turn to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida, the ranking 

member on the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Ambassador, thanks for appearing today. Thanks for 

standing up for the human rights of the people of the Ukraine. 

I also want to thank you and commend you for the outstanding 

work that you have done representing this country and our values 

at the United Nations. Your efforts at the Security Council on the 

Syrian conflict, your continued willingness to speak out in support 

of human rights, your efforts to get the U.N. to act on Iran’s abysmal human rights record, and your unrelenting pushback against 

unfair and biased attempts to de-legitimize Israel deserve to be 

commended. 

40

In Syria, we cannot succumb to a condition that you taught me, 

psychic numbing, despite the ongoing slaughter. And I thank you 

for pointing out today that the use of chlorine against one’s people 

is the use of chemical weapons against one’s people. 

I also want to especially thank you for your recent efforts at the 

NPT Review Conference to block language that would have jeopardized Israel security and for preventing anti-Israel efforts to 

place Israel on the list of children’s rights abusers. 

I know that, going forward, you will continue to use your platform to prevent all efforts to use the United Nations to de-legitimize Israel or, importantly, to impose any outside solution on the 

Israeli-Palestinian conflict when only a negotiated settlement can 

ultimately bring peace. 

I appreciate your efforts as well you described at the Human 

Rights Council. But I would suggest that the Human Rights Council cannot be taken seriously. And I am someone who believes in 

engagement at the U.N., but I am repeatedly shocked by the decisions of the Council, including how some of the world’s absolute 

worst human rights abusers are allowed to sit on the Council. 

My colleague from New Jersey talked about Cuba. Cuba is ally 

to Venezuela, plays a prominent role as well. And I expect the 

same bias will apply when the investigation into last summer’s conflict in Gaza comes out, which we expect will be equally one-sided. 

I find it absurd that the Council has only one standing agenda 

item, the Agenda Item 7 that relates to a specific country. And that 

country is Israel. 

And my question is: While it says at the Human Rights Council’s 

Web site that—it describes the election process, but it says, ‘‘The 

General Assembly takes into account the candidate state’s contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights as well 

as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard.’’

Under your leadership, Madam Ambassador, has the United 

States suggested that any reforms can be made to the Council so 

that the members of the Council perhaps have to recognize the importance of human rights as well? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congressman. 

I mean, let me say the language that you have just read out was 

hard-thought language negotiated by our predecessors, by the Bush 

administration, by the United States. Unfortunately, simply putting that language in the kind of founding ethos of the Human 

Rights Council doesn’t make it such. 

Fundamentally, as I was saying earlier, regional groups put forward the candidates they seek to put forward and sometimes there 

are a whole set of back-room arrangements and, you know, all 

kinds of bilateral issues that are at stake in which people agree to 

give votes to certain countries on the basis of things that have 

nothing to do with human rights, so just stipulate. 

There are two reasons that I would like to at least appeal to you 

to still consider the United States’ membership in the Human 

Rights Council very worthwhile. 

The first is the very reason that you point to, which is the absurdity of having a single standing agenda item on Israel and not 

on North Korea and not on Syria, which is gassing its people, not 

on ISIL. You know, it is ridiculous. 

41

However, by the United States being on the Council, we are in 

the room and we are calling it out. In fact, since we joined the 

Council, the number of Human Rights Council resolutions on Israel 

has gone from a half of the Human Rights Council products to a 

quarter. Now, a quarter is still absurd, given the state of the world. 

Chairman ROYCE [presiding]. Ambassador. 

Ambassador POWER. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE. If I could interrupt, we are going to have to 

recess the committee for 15 minutes. And then we will commence 

again. 

Ambassador POWER. Okay. 

Chairman ROYCE. But I am going to have to ask the members, 

also, to—we will be clearing the room. We will be leaving the dais. 

And afterwards we will reconvene at that time. 

Thank you very much, Ambassador. 

Ambassador POWER. Okay. Thank you, Congressman. 

[Recess due to police activity.] 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will reconvene. 

And let me say we appreciate the work of the Capitol Police to 

make us aware of a security situation and to ensure that the hearing here is safe to reconvene. 

And I appreciate the cooperation of our witness. Thank you very 

much, Ambassador. We will now go to Mr. Chabot, Ambassador 

Power, for the questions he was going to ask. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome back, Ambassador Power. 

I first of all would like to associate myself with my colleagues on 

both sides of the aisle with respect to Cuba. There is a great 

amount of skepticism there. I won’t go into that great of detail because others already did, but I share that skepticism. 

The topic I would first like to go into in a little detail is the fact 

that Russia, as we all know, by force has taken Crimea and much 

of eastern Ukraine. Yet, this administration still hasn’t supplied 

Ukraine with weaponry that is going to be necessary for it to defend itself. And, our U.N. allies have done very little to help, but 

that is not really surprising. 

Secretary Kerry met with Putin last month and, in effect, told 

Putin that we would lift sanctions on them if they would promise 

not to take even more territory, not that they would abandon Crimea, but that they not take any more territory. 

Earlier this year, my Democratic colleague, Mr. Connolly, and I 

introduced the Crimea Annexation Non-Recognition Action, H.R. 

93, which states that it is U.S. policy not to recognize the sovereignty of Russia over Crimea or its waters or its airspace. 

What is the U.S. and what is the U.N. doing to get Russia out 

of Crimea? It is no secret that some believe that this administration wants Russia’s support in the Iran deal so badly that it is willing to cut Russia some slack on Ukraine and especially with respect to Crimea. What would you respond to that, please? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, sir. 

Well, having, again, just returned from Ukraine, these issues are 

particularly fresh in my mind as is the suffering of the people of 

Crimea, many of whom have been displaced to Kiev, the Tartar 

42

community there, unable to exercise its rights, independent media 

completely shut down, disappearances, detentions. 

So there are two issues, in a way. One is the fact that Russia, 

a permanent member of the Security Council, has attempted to lop 

off part of someone else’s country. The second is the conditions in 

which people in that territory are now living or the displacement 

that has arisen from the abuses being carried out. 

At the United Nations, as we discussed earlier, because Russia 

is a permanent member and a veto holder, a privilege that all of 

us really should exercise great responsibility in having, but Russia 

is not, our ability to get the Security Council to sanction a permanent member or a veto holder, of course, is blunted. 

However, in the U.N. General Assembly—and this is unheralded, 

not widely known—we were able to galvanize 100 countries to vote 

against what Russia was attempting to do in Crimea, to stand for 

Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, to reject the phony 

referendum which gave the people of Crimea a choice between 

independence from Ukraine and joining Russia. Didn’t even give 

them, as you recall, the choice of remaining part of the country 

that they were a part of. 

The consequence of that resolution, which may sound symbolic, 

is that the maps at the United Nations, the maps under international law, will not change. And so it is still the case that all the 

maps at the United Nations, again, show Crimea where it belongs, 

which is part of Ukraine. As you know, U.S. sanctions that were 

put in place by virtue of Crimea will not be lifted until Crimea is 

restored to Ukraine. 

And with regard to Secretary Kerry’s meeting, I don’t know if 

there has been misreporting, but the U.S. position has been very, 

very clear, which is Minsk implementation is required in order for 

there to be any off-ramp on the eastern Ukraine-related sanctions. 

Minsk implementation, as you know, would result in the restoration of the international border to Ukrainian sovereign control. 

So that is our position. That is the position also that the Europeans agreed to at the G7 meeting. 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. Thank you. 

I am getting close to the end of my time. I have two questions, 

but I am just going to get in one. 

I think, as we all know, pretty horrific things have been happening to Christians especially, but to Muslims as well under ISIS 

control. 

We have seen dozens of people taken out to beaches and beheaded in Libya. We have seen people kidnapped, and God only 

knows what has happened. There have been crucifixions. There 

have been a whole range of things that have happened. 

What is the U.N. doing to help protect Christians in places like 

Syria and parts of Iraq and Libya? And what can we do to push 

them, get them off the dime, to get involved there? 

Ambassador POWER. Several things. I mean, first, part of ensuring protection for civilians who are vulnerable is being able to shelter them when they flee their homes and making sure that they 

are not vulnerable then to secondary attacks. 

Because of the horrors carried out by ISIL, you are seeing a lot 

of advanced flight. If people even hear that ISIL is en route, they 

43

are picking up their families and their kids and getting in the car 

and moving forward. 

It is the U.N. working with the Iraqi Government and, indeed, 

even in parts of Syria with the Syrian Government and with Syrian opposition groups that are providing humanitarian assistance 

through the World Food Programme. UNHCR is sheltering refugees, the International Organization for Migration. That is on the 

humanitarian side. 

But the U.N. is also the venue where President Obama chaired 

a Security Council meeting on foreign terrorist fighters where we 

have tried now to create an international framework where people 

share information, stop the flow of these, you know, many thousands of individuals from neighboring countries who have staffed 

ISIL, who are helping them replenish their numbers even as the 

coalition degrades the organization. 

So the U.N. has become a venue in which we measure compliance and hold countries accountable when they are not doing what 

they should be, again, to prevent people from either leaving their 

territory or from crossing borders into Syria and Iraq to actually 

staff ISIL. 

The coalition effort also has gotten a lot of legitimacy at the 

United Nations. We have 60 countries that are a part of it. Iraq 

came to the U.N. Security Council with a letter and asked, in fact, 

for the United States and the rest of the international community 

to step up militarily and through using diplomatic, political, and 

other means against ISIL. 

So it is also a venue in which coalition countries come together 

to kind of compare notes and figure out what more we can be doing 

because, obviously, this is a long campaign that has a lot of ups 

and downs and it is going to be critical that we keep the military 

line of effort moving at the same time some of the governance 

issues get addressed so that people are not attracted at all to ISIL. 

At the same time, we counter violent extremism in our own countries as people are getting alienated and radicalized. At the same 

time, we work the social media piece, the foreign terrorist financing, which can be done through oil revenue or other resource 

streams that we have sought to degrade, again, building on international cooperation. 

But so much of the ISIL equation is the product of things crossing borders. And this is where, again, the United Nations, for all 

of its flaws, show its indispensability because it is the one organization that can impose standards that can hold people accountable 

globally, that can be a venue for naming and shaming, but, also, 

for mobilizing resources. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Representative Karen Bass of 

California, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Operations. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for calling today’s meeting. 

Ambassador Power, in your opening statement, you really demonstrated in a few minutes the complexity of what is happening in 

the world today, the unprecedented number of conflicts. 

And, in this context, I really wanted to commend your leadership 

for focusing on conflicts and crises, especially in Africa, that often 

44

don’t rise to the attention of the world. And I wanted to discuss a 

couple of examples and then end with asking you a couple of questions. 

You mentioned Ebola, but I really want to highlight the fact that 

you led the effort in the U.N. to push the international community 

to take action. You chaired the first emergency meeting to gather 

momentum for international support, and I really think it is a 

source of pride for all of us, the role that our Nation played in 

stamping out Ebola in Liberia. And I do want to ask you about this 

in a minute because we have some new cases. 

In terms of Boko Haram, in October of last year, the Security 

Council took an important step to help the Nigerian Government 

defeat Boko Haram and assisted in an effort to return the girls. 

And you may know of a weekly campaign that goes on here that 

is led by Representative Wilson where members come together and 

make sure that Members of Congress do not forget the girls that 

have been missing over the last year. So I appreciate your support 

for U.S. funding to directly support the AU’s effort to eliminate 

Boko Haram. 

And in terms of the Central African Republic in Burundi, I had 

the privilege of traveling to both those countries with you. You 

were first in pushing our response, in part, because of your leadership in forming the Atrocities Prevention Board. And my understanding is the Board was informed and responded to the crisis at 

its onset and delivered $11 million in humanitarian support, $60 

million in military assistance to the international effort. 

In Burundi, when we traveled there, U.N. Ambassador ThomasGreenfield met with the President and encouraged him not to try 

to run for a third term, and he did just that. And there was the 

attempted coup and now there is chaos. 

And so a couple of the questions I had—I wanted to know if you 

could provide an update about the U.N. response to the crisis in 

Burundi, CAR, and then also the new cases of Ebola that have 

emerged. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Just to your opening point about the extent of the crises, the 

gravity of the crises, one of the lines I have been drawing on lately 

is Shakespeare’s line from ‘‘The Tempest,’’ which is, ‘‘Hell is empty. 

All the devils are here.’’

Ms. BASS. I will remember that. Sometimes it feels that way. 

Ambassador POWER. And just to underscore also the pride I 

think all of us—and it really was a massive bipartisan—you know, 

a shining example of what a significant bipartisan effort can—the 

impact it can make in the real world on Ebola. 

I mean, you know, people really stepped up in this country and, 

of course, the Congress providing the resources that we needed and 

drawing attention to the crisis, President Obama sending nearly 

3,000 troops as well as a couple thousand civilians and then the 

American people. 

I mean, ultimately, this effort was staffed by sanitization workers, health workers, doctors who left their families and took tremendous risks, recognizing, again, a kind of core axiom of the 

international system, which is, ‘‘It won’t come here if we can neutralize it there.’’

45

And just on that score, where we are right now, you know, when 

that meeting at the Security Council that you mentioned occurred 

and when President Obama made his announcement, which we 

then used to leverage to get commitments from other countries, you 

had the CDC and others projecting as many as 1 million infections 

by January 2015. 

We are now down to around 25 cases a week——

Ms. BASS. Incredible. 

Ambassador POWER [continuing]. In Sierra Leone and Guinea, 

and in Liberia, of course, we have been down to zero since May. 

It is tricky, the last stage, and as long as there is one case, it is 

a case that can quickly exponentially multiply. 

The systems are now in place. So again, the risk of a massive 

spike has been mitigated substantially by the investments that we 

have already made. But, you know, sort of kicking it and not just 

bending the curve, but ending the curve, it is a very, very challenging last phase. 

The World Food Programme is there, you know, providing food 

to people who go to clinics. Because part of the challenge has been 

ensuring that individuals will step up and allow themselves to be 

isolated. They were often worried initially that, if they left their 

families, there would be nobody to take care of their kids or their 

families. So it really has had to be a comprehensive effort. 

And I would say the biggest challenge outstanding is in Guinea 

still. The level of community resistance to outsiders and to messages from the center has been an impediment, but that is what 

we have to overcome here in the next phase and get this down to 

zero and then concentrate on building back better so that these societies are not only less vulnerable to an Ebola outbreak, but, also, 

to other forms of infectious disease and other health crises. 

Very briefly, if I may, just on Burundi, you are right. I think, 

when we look back at the last year, we can, on the one hand, take 

some satisfaction that we really did go all in on preventive diplomacy. 

We recognized that a decision to choose to seek a third term by 

the President of Burundi would be a violation of the letter and the 

spirit of the Arusha Agreement because the Arusha Agreement had 

been the social compact on which so many of the ethnic and political tensions had been, if not laid to rest, at least neutralized. 

Violating that agreement was bound to have severe destabilizing 

effects, and we got ahead of it. The message was sent. The Security 

Council also traveled in the wake of our visit, a huge and sustained 

high-level engagement by the United States. 

But at a certain point, you can deliver that message. You can 

say, ‘‘Put your country first. Please, Mr. President, be your country’s George Washington. Be prepared to walk away.’’ And certain 

leaders will put their own self-interests above the risk of severe destabilization. 

Right now there is a U.N. envoy who is attempting to broker a 

way forward between the opposition and the leadership. But the 

third-term issue remains the central sticking point, and it has now 

been compounded by the fact that, in the wake of an attempted 

coup, which we condemned, the government has now attempted to 

46

shut down almost all of the independent media, deny freedom of 

association. 

So once people’s rights are violated, then, again, you know, it is 

a further destabilizing phenomenon. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go now to Mr. Michael McCaul, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ambassador, for being here. 

Let me first—I led a delegation to the Middle East and Europe. 

Let me commend you—and, also, working in concert with Lisa 

Monaco, we met the Turkish officials. And the information-sharing 

on travel and watch lists is a huge breakthrough, and I commend 

you for that. I also encourage you to keep the pressure up on the 

foreign fighter issue. 

As you know, the EU—if you are a citizen of the European Union 

and coming out of the region through Turkey, you are not going to 

be screened past a watch list, which I thought was a sort of glaring 

security gap. I know the EU Parliament is getting ready to address 

this issue. Many of the countries we met with, they understand the 

threat that that poses. And I hope that you can continue to apply 

that pressure. 

Let me turn to foreign aid. We give a lot of money to countries 

that vote against us in the United Nations. And President Reagan’s 

Ambassador, your predecessor, Jeane Kirkpatrick, testified before 

Congress and said we need to communicate to nations that their 

attitudes and actions inside the U.N. must have consequences for 

their relations with the United States outside of the U.N. system. 

And in response to her testimony, Congress passed legislation 

that would tie their voting patterns at the U.N. to the amount of 

foreign assistance provided. However, unfortunately, in 1990, this 

provision was repealed. 

But the State Department continued this practice of reporting to 

Congress on voting included in its report voting at the U.N. and 

listed foreign assistance alongside countries voting both with, for 

and against, the United States. 

The Obama administration ended this practice in 2010, and I 

wanted to see if you could explain to me why the administration 

ended that practice. 

Ambassador POWER. Well, I am actually not aware that we 

ended that practice because we still retain very, very careful 

records of voting coincidence with the United States. It is extremely important. 

I study these, pore over these, look at ebbs and flows, you know, 

try to explain why a country goes from a yes vote to a no vote or 

an abstain to a yes. 

So it is extremely important. And we believe very much in transparency, and I am sure that this is something we can look at and 

maybe we can take offline. 

If I could get, though, at the—I think the harder issue that you 

raise is not can we share our assessment of how countries are 

aligning with us on a range of issues. It is this question of then 

what do you do about it. 

47

So my view is that we should call countries out. We should press 

them publicly and privately. It needs to be raised in capital. 

One of the advantages of being a member of the President’s Cabinet is the close working relationship I get to have with Secretary 

Kerry and Ambassador Rice, and it puts us in a position, again, to 

elevate what often their Ambassadors are doing sometimes without 

even capitals knowing and making sure that there is an accountability chain back to the capital. 

Depending on the vote, I mean, it is conceivable that you could 

look at more robust steps along the lines you describe. But let’s recall, I think, that often countries that may vote against us, let’s 

say, on a resolution in the General Assembly—or I shouldn’t say 

against us, but against a resolution that we vote for—those same 

countries may be providing peacekeepers to northern Mali, preventing a resurgence of extremism—or seeking to. 

They may be countries that we are providing very generous contributions, thanks to the American people and Congress, on 

PEPFAR and on combating HIV/AIDS. We are all part of now trying to ensure that girls get educated around the world. A lot of that 

foreign aid can be dedicated to that. Ebola we have described, you 

know, the investments in the global health security architecture we 

have to make that is in our interest over time. 

So, usually, the decisions around who we provide assistance to 

are overdetermined by a set of factors and a set of interests that 

are also very, very important to us. And so I just think——

Mr. MCCAUL. And I know my time is——

Ambassador POWER. Yes. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And it is very complex, ordinarily complex, but I 

do think Congress has to look at this issue. And I know you are 

required to submit an annual report on the voting practices in the 

U.N. 

It was due on March 31, and it is June. Are you planning to submit this report? 

Ambassador POWER. We meet our obligations to Congress. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. 

Ambassador POWER. So, yes, I will again look into where it is. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay. 

Ambassador POWER. It may be on my desk. 

Mr. MCCAUL. All right. Well, I would like to see that. And I recognize the complexity, but it is important to us. So thank you very 

much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ambassador Power, for being here today and for offering your expert testimony on many of the issues before this committee. 

I want to begin by commending you for your tremendous work 

and your leadership at the U.N. as Congresswoman Bass said, in 

a very complicated world, you have provided some extraordinary 

leadership and have been able to lead an effort to accomplish quite 

a lot at the U.N. So I want to thank you for your service. 

I am going to first turn to the efforts being made to stem the flow 

of foreign fighters. You mentioned in your written testimony in a 

little more detail the President convened a summit of leaders at 

48

the U.N. in September, where a Security Council resolution was 

adopted requiring countries to have laws to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters and those who fund them and to prevent them from 

entering the country and crossing territories. 

What seems to be the greatest challenge in seeing those measures implemented? And are there things that we could be doing to 

support that effort? 

Because we have heard so much testimony over the last several 

months about this issue of foreign fighters and stemming the flow 

of foreign fighters. And this seemed like a positive step, but I 

would just like to hear your thoughts on that. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

It is not often how the question is posed, which is why, which 

I think is really important. And I think we have made substantial 

headway by putting the issue on the agenda, by identifying the 

kind of categories of action in which countries needed to step up, 

and we are not where we should be. And by ‘‘we’’ I mean the international community. 

And Secretary Johnson, our Secretary of Homeland Security, just 

got to make this point. We held about a month ago the first-ever 

U.N. Security Council meeting in which interior ministers sat in 

the chairs. And this was our logic of saying, you know, in the old 

days, if threats were one country crossing another country’s borders, it made sense for foreign ministry people to be talking to one 

another. 

But here, when the threats are deriving often from lapses in internal security or from a community’s failure to catch that somebody was drifting off and potentially even about to become a foreign terrorist fighter, we need to get people who actually are presiding over those programs together. 

And so I think it is where the U.N. needs to go in the 21st century, is have more of those technical discussions where people who 

are dealing with threats inside their own borders come together. 

But to your question on why, I think it is, of course, a combination. First, there are major issues of state capacity and state weakness. Many of the countries from which foreign terrorist fighters 

are coming are countries that have very poor border security, very 

weak intelligence services, to actually be able to track citizens and 

how they are moving. 

And that gets to the President’s West Point speech and, basically, his direction to all of us that we need to invest far more in 

partner capacity. Sometimes people focus on the military aspect of 

that, but the border security, the intelligence, you know, the kind 

of internal institution building, is extremely important. 

And then political will is an issue in some countries and, in others, privacy concerns. And some of the European countries have 

really held back the amount of information-sharing that could be 

done. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. 

With respect to the efforts of the U.N. to protect LGBT individuals around the world, I would like to speak a little bit to that because, as you know, we have seen terrible increases in violence 

against members of the LGBT community in places all around the 

world. 

49

And I know you have led some work at the U.N., and maybe it 

gives you an opportunity to talk about some of the successes as a 

result of our participation in the Human Rights Council, recognizing it is a flawed entity with a lot of criticism that you heard 

today at the hearing. 

But I know that there has been some good that has come from 

our participation. So maybe you could speak to that briefly. 

Ambassador POWER. Well, thank you. That is actually where I 

was going before we were interrupted before in response to Congressman Deutch’s question. So I appreciate that. 

You know, we have already discussed at length here some of the 

flaws or the structural issues with the U.N. Security Council. And 

time and again we find there or in the General Assembly, which 

is comprised—more than half of the U.N. member states are not 

democratic and are not necessarily rights-respecting. So the 

Human Rights Council can be a venue in which like-minded countries can come together to push the envelope on norms. 

And in the case of women’s rights, we all remember back in 1993 

the Beijing Conference on Women. Women rights are human 

rights. The same shift has now happened on LGBT rights, where 

the declarations have been made, where resolutions that ban 

extrajudicial killings against various persecuted groups—now we 

have managed to insert those killed on grounds of sexual orientation or sexual orientation status—I think that is an example, 

again, of finding the institution—forum shopping, in a sense, within the U.N., finding the institution where you can mobilize the 

votes and then pushing the envelope. 

What we have now just this month is the second report ever prepared by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the treatment of LGBT persons. So for the first time, again, you have a 

norm that is important, but not everything. Implementation is 

what matters. 

Then you have accountability to that norm: How are countries 

measuring up, actually documenting that for the first time? So people who have felt invisible in their societies and persecuted now 

know that the international community is watching and that we 

have their back. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired, but I might just submit a question and ask for a written response. 

I am proud to be the co-chair of the Congressional Peacekeeping 

Caucus, which we just recently formed along with my colleague, 

Adam Kinzinger, so that members could discuss the implication of 

regional peacekeeping operations and their impact on U.S. foreign 

policy and national security. 

So, if you could, Madam Ambassador, let us know what reforms 

you think are needed, what role the U.S. has played in supporting 

peacekeeping missions and what benefit do these international 

forces have to American strategic goals and national security and 

have U.N. peacekeeping missions been successful in carrying out 

their missions, it would certainly help guide the work of this new 

caucus and continue to hopefully be a supportive entity within the 

Congress for the work of the U.N. and its peacekeeping operations. 

And I thank you again. 

50

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida 

and then back to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Power, I appreciate you being here. 

You were talking earlier today about these are the kinds of conditions—we were talking about Syria and the Ukraine—kind of 

conditions and situations we see conflict in that the U.N. was created to prevent. You know, we look at Ukraine, Syria, over 200,000 

killed, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Africa.You know, you can 

go on and on and on. Why has the U.N. not been more effective 

in preventing these? 

I read a report today talking about the peacekeepers in Haiti, 

and there was over 220 examples of the peacekeepers trading 

phones and aid for sex, and, you know, they are supposed to be out 

there promoting this. Yet, this happens over and over and over and 

over again. Yet, we do a study to study it and there is no end in 

sight, it seems like. Why are they not more effective? 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. YOHO. And I think, more importantly, how to make them 

more effective. 

Ambassador POWER. Right. Right. No. That is a question I ask 

myself every day. 

I mean, first, the ‘‘they’’ is also us. Right? 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Ambassador POWER. We are part of the international system. So 

there are 193 countries, half of whom are not democratic. To some 

extent, the organization is going to reflect some of the dysfunction 

of member states who comprise the organization. 

On the issue of sexual abuse, of course, there is no justification. 

There is not one country that would raise its hand and say they 

are anything but revolted by what happens. But, then, as was said, 

I think, by—maybe it was Congressman Smith earlier—when a 

peacekeeper from a particular member state is found or is alleged 

to have committed crimes against young people or against women 

or against men or boys, they go back to their home State and the 

only punishment exacted upon them is often just not getting to be 

part of that mission, not getting to continue to carry out the practices that they were carrying out. 

So the reason I started my response to you by saying the U.N. 

is the sum of the efforts of the member states who comprise it is 

that, ultimately, our ability to change those horrific practices and 

that horrific lack of accountability is going to turn on what we 

achieve in the capital, in our strengthening of those institutions, in 

ensuring that those countries have the rule of law. 

In a democracy, if somebody was accused of that, they would 

come back and they would face—I think, if it was an European or 

an American peacekeeper, they would go through a formal justice 

system. That is not what happens in a lot of these developing countries where those systems are underdeveloped. 

So this is why investments, again, in the kind of institutions that 

we were talking about, also, in the context of foreign terrorist fighters is very important. But it is also why using our platform to denounce this, to never tolerate it, and to emphasize the one part of 

51

the U.N. that we fund, which is the Secretariat, that, on the one 

hand, gets instruction from the member states—so it suffers from 

the same issue that I have described already—but has autonomy. 

And for the Secretary General and his team to be investigating 

these abuses, to be sending people home, to be calling on those 

member states even publicly, if that is what is required, to investigate and to build on some of the internal—you mentioned studies. 

Nobody likes studies for their own sake. But when you find that 

a country has not actually prosecuted a person who has violated a 

child who has relied upon that individual for protection——

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Ambassador POWER [continuing]. You call that country out. You 

visit that country——

Mr. YOHO. I want to come back to that, you know, because that 

is where I think we need to go. 

I want to switch over to Iran. You said the Obama administration led unilateral, multinational sanctions against Iran to bring 

them to the negotiating table on the Iran nuclear agreement. 

What was the purpose of that whole negotiation? What we were 

trying to prevent? 

Ambassador POWER. The negotiation or the sanctions? 

Mr. YOHO. Well, the sanctions. What was the whole point of 

that? I know it was to bring them to the negotiation table. But 

with the Iran nuclear negotiation now, in your mind, what are we 

trying to accomplish? 

Ambassador POWER. We are trying to deny Iran a pathway to a 

nuclear weapon. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. That is what everybody says, but, yet, we are 

beyond that. Because, you know, I have had expert after expert 

over 2 years sitting right where you are at saying that Iran has 

enough material for nuclear bombs now. 

Henry Kissinger came out and said that. George Shultz said 

that. We had a retired general last week say they have enough 

right now. And I think we are beyond that. 

I just don’t see, you know, in good faith how we can support this 

agreement. I would think that sanctions should be back in place. 

And you said that President Obama has snap-back authority—with 

his pen is what you said. 

Do you really have the expectation that a snap-back would be effective? You know, I mean, they are not even coming clean now. So 

why would we go forward? 

And if we do find out, you know, and it is, you know, more evident that they have not held up to their end of the condition, do 

we really think that we are going to put these sanctions back in 

place with snap-back? 

Ambassador POWER. First of all, again, there is no deal. We are 

still negotiating a lot of the terms of the deal. And as you can see 

from some of the public commentary, there are significant differences that remain. 

And our red lines are red. And we are not going to take a deal 

where we can’t come to the American people and say that we have 

achieved the objective that those sanctions——

Mr. YOHO. I am out of time. 

52

But a red line is they can’t have nuclear weapons, but they already have. 

Ambassador POWER. They don’t have a nuclear weapon. 

Mr. YOHO. Well, the experts disagree with you. 

Ambassador POWER. I don’t think there is an expert who says 

Iran has a nuclear weapon. 

Mr. YOHO. No. They have the capacity right now to have that. 

So I think we are beyond that point, trying to prevent that which 

we can’t instead of preparing for that which will be. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida for 

his remaining 2 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ambassador Power, thank you again for being here. Thank 

you for staying to give all the members the opportunity to discuss 

these important issues with you. 

I just had two final points in my remaining time. 

First, you had said earlier in response to a question about the 

specifics of snap-back that Congress will be briefed if a deal is 

done. And I would just make the request of you and the administration that, rather than waiting until there is a deal that is done, 

that this is the time, over the next couple of weeks especially, when 

it is so important for the administration to brief Congress, to let 

us know what is happening, so that, one, we are aware of what is 

happening, two, we can chime in, we can have our questions answered and, most importantly, so that no one is surprised with the 

idea that a deal will simply be dropped upon us at some date on 

or after June 30. That is just a request. 

And, finally, I wanted to thank you for your efforts in working 

with the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations to put together 

the first General Assembly special session on anti-Semitism. I am 

grateful for your invitation to allow me to participate. 

Some of the important topics that we covered that day were the 

anti-Israel bias in some parts of the United Nations, the growing 

BDS movement, and thinly veiled anti-Semitism there, and the 

other forms of anti-Semitism that in recent months have manifested themselves in violent and deadly attacks in Brussels and 

Paris and Copenhagen and elsewhere. 

And my question is: After that special session on anti-Semitism, 

after that conference, when there were more than 60 countries who 

participated, what has been done? What have you done? What has 

the U.S. delegation done in order to move forward with some of 

those important discussions that took place then: How to combat 

anti-Semitism, how to help nations around the world understand 

that anti-Semitism in their countries isn’t just an issue as it affects 

the Jewish community, but, ultimately, when there is hatred, antiSemitism in the Jewish community is often just the canary in the 

coal mine? And if you could talk about what has happened since. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you 

for coming to that session. 

On that issue—and I will come back to your point about the Iran 

deal in just a second—it was truly a historic session. 

I mean, when you think about what the General Assembly not 

only has done historically in terms of its resolution equating Zionism and racism, but, also, what it does annually—this last year 

53

with 18 anti-Israel resolutions, all of which were voted against—

to be in that chamber I think was extremely important not only for 

the Government of Israel, but for the United States and for many 

of the countries that helped shepherd that session forward. It 

wasn’t easy. 

In terms of follow-through, I think we have to be careful not to 

confine discussions of anti-Semitism to meetings on anti-Semitism. 

So what we are doing at the Human Rights Council, in the General Assembly, when we talk about other human rights challenges 

that we are facing in the world, we are always, again, coming back 

to anti-Semitism, documenting what has been done, who has done 

what. 

We are still doing a lot of advocacy, including by our anti-Semitism envoy, Mr. Forman, in capitals to try to get governments to 

do what we have done, which is to appoint a special envoy also 

dedicated to this effort and somebody preferably very plugged in in 

the center and not somebody, again, you kind of throw off to the 

side and keep marginalized from the mainstream of decisionmaking because there are issues of prosecution, of education, again, 

of community outreach and so forth that are central to this and require real political will from the top. 

So a lot of our outreach has been in capital and at the United 

Nations. Again, we are seeking to mainstream this issue so people 

know you don’t get a clean bill of health on human rights when you 

are simultaneously encouraging anti-Semitism. 

On the Iran deal—and I know we are both out of time here—I 

would just note that what I really meant was that fundamentally 

this deal is going to come. Back here people are going to be studying it. They are going to be asking questions. 

But, as you know, we have been briefing this deal at every turn. 

And I believe specifically on the snap-back mechanism, if members 

have not received adequate, you know, insight into how we are 

looking at that and what the range of options are—and, again, any 

one of them I think would achieve the shared objective we have, 

which is to keep that within our authority—this is the one at the 

U.N. I am referring to—but, again, if there is any shortage of insight in terms of how we are looking at this, that is something I 

am eager to provide. I know Under Secretary Sherman or the Secretary would be as well. 

But absolutely I take your point. We have sought to engage Congress throughout this process. I think there have been more briefings on this issue than any other on Planet Earth. But, again, if 

there is more information that we need to provide at this delicate 

stage, we would be happy to do so. Just in an open hearing may 

be not ideal. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, I might take some exception, Ambassador. I mean, from the standpoint of Congress, we do not feel we 

have received the details on these negotiations, as you know. But 

we have a conflict of visions, I guess, on on that. 

We will go now to Mr. Curt Clawson of Florida. 

Mr. CLAWSON. You don’t have an easy job. 

Ambassador POWER. I love my job. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thank you for coming, and thank you for your 

service to our country. 

54

It sounds to me sometimes after listening today, which I did attentively both when I was in the room and when I was not, that 

the rest of the world gets a great deal here. 

The oil companies get to run great surpluses with us. We fund 

their economies. The manufacturing outsource in countries of the 

world, China being the top of the line, run great trade surpluses 

with us. 

Then they all go to the U.N. and they pound on us. They pound 

on Israel. As I heard earlier from Congressman Deutch and others, 

not objective with respect to Israel, not objective with respect to 

slavery, not objective with respect to Cuba, just overall not objective. 

And then, on top of all of that, we get to pay for it. So, in nominal terms, we are over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. But, as understand it, we are paying over 20 percent of the cost to the U.N. 

There is something wrong with this picture. It seems that we are 

not using our money at the U.N. to create leverage and nor are we 

using our markets to create leverage. So we fund everyone else’s 

economy. In the global economy, we are the engine, and then we 

turn around and tolerate the kind of things that you have been 

talking about today. 

Being Mr. and Mrs. Nice Guy doesn’t seem to be working here. 

It feels like, from an economic perspective, people only understand 

leverage. And so, therefore, I am not clear why we don’t use our 

economic and monetary leverage both at the U.N. and with respect 

to the global marketplace. 

Am I missing something here in my synopsis? I am sure you are 

going to tell me I am. 

Ambassador POWER. I would say a few things in response. 

First, I understand the frustration. And one of the priorities that 

we have had at the U.N. is to get more countries to pay their fair 

share. 

And I think you are going to see—you have seen over the last 

3 to 5 years China’s share, for instance, of U.N. peacekeeping, 

where the United States is the lead funder—but its share has gone 

up by more than 50 percent. And soon, in this next round of negotiations around the peacekeeping skills, you are going to see it go 

up another 50 percent, commensurate with its share of the global 

economy. 

And that is the kind of distribution of resource provision that we 

need to see at the U.N. and as people graduate from being underdeveloped countries, they need to step up and take their share of 

the burden. And that is something, again, that is constantly being 

reassessed. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Can I follow up on just that point? 

With respect to China, I mean, the American consumer, via 

Walmart, is funding the building of their military and their economic prowess. 

Do we ever talk not only about having them increase what they 

pay for at the U.N., but, also, do we ever want to use our marketplace to kind of level things out here? 

Ambassador POWER. Well, just to stick to what I know best, 

which is the place I work and how we engage the countries that 

you have expressed concerns about, you know, the fact of the matVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061615\95125 SHIRL
55

ter is we, as a Nation, as we saw with the Ebola crisis, have an 

interest in global health security, in part, because of the globalized 

economy, in part, because goods and people are crossing borders in 

the way that they are. 

And so the notion that we can kind of take our marbles and go 

home and wish everybody the best and say, ‘‘Well, good luck with 

that’’ I think doesn’t really get at the core national security linkages and human security linkages that exist in 2015. 

I also would note on peacekeeping, which is the place where, 

again, it is fair to ask shouldn’t other countries be stepping up 

more, that peacekeeping, while we are a major contribution, it is 

not our forces who are going into South Sudan and, you know, 

being on those bases and protecting civilians. It is not our forces 

in Northern Mali, more of whom have been killed this year than 

in any peacekeeping mission by IEDs and other things. 

We are taking advantage of the global system as well in order 

to ensure that issues of shared security are being patrolled and 

manned by individuals, other than Americans and American families, because we have done more than our fair share over this last 

decade. 

Indeed, the peacekeeping share that we pay still leaves the rest 

of the shares, even put to one side the fact that it is other countries’ troops and police that are going to those dangerous places. 

Other countries are also paying 72 percent of the burden. 

And if you look at NATO defense expenditures where Europeans 

really have not stepped up to allocate as much of their GDPs to defense as they should be, the figure is reversed. We are 80 percent 

of NATO’s defense expenditures. 

So I actually think, even though U.N. peacekeeping suffers from 

all of the flaws that we have described and that is why President 

Obama has launched this very aggressive initiative to try to enhance accountability and ensure that those missions have better 

capabilities to protect civilians and prevent sexual abuse and so 

forth, in terms of our interest and actually seeing atrocities be prevented, global epidemics stemmed at their source, radicalization 

prevented by virtue of actually having some stability, the rule of 

law advanced not least also because of corruption and some other 

things that we see, which don’t help American companies seeking 

to operate in these environments, there are a set of investments 

there that are good for us. 

And the United Nations helps us make them, but also helps us 

force multiply because what we invest we are able to leverage. It 

is still 72 percent on peacekeeping provided by others. In our regular budget, it is 78 percent provided by others. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Dr. Ami Bera of California. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Royce. 

And thank you, Ambassador Power, for both your service to our 

country, but your service over the years as a leading advocate on 

global human rights. 

I am going to turn my questioning a little bit to internal politics 

within the U.N. as a body, it certainly has served us well throughout its history. But if we look at the makeup of the U.N. Security 

Council, you know, it does seem like it is time to revamp the permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council, certainly to inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:23 Aug 03, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_FULL\061615\95125 SHIRL
56

clude the G4 countries, you know, India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany. 

If we take India, specifically, you know, soon to be the most populous nation on the planet, one of the fastest growing economies, 

certainly a critical ally of the United States, my understanding is 

President Obama has also publicly stated that he would be supportive of including India as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. 

Can you give us a sense of how this body working with the administration might be able to work within the political structure of 

the United Nations to move forward, including more nations as 

permanent members, again, and recognizing the world that we are 

in in the 21st century? 

Ambassador POWER. It is an excellent question. And because it 

is the 70th anniversary of the U.N., it is a question that many of 

my counterparts from around the world are asking this year specifically. 

And there is no question that, when you have a body whose permanent membership hasn’t changed in 70 years, you know, there 

are people on the outside who ask, ‘‘Well, is this the alignment of 

power and influence in 2015?’’ and it is hard to say that it is a perfect calibration. 

I think the challenge is, while almost everybody is supportive of 

Security Council reform in the abstract, there are quite bitter divisions within the U.N. membership about just who should get those 

seats. 

And while India has the support, the United States has made 

clear, President Obama made clear, as you know, on his trip that 

we can’t imagine a reformed Security Council that wouldn’t include 

India, there are other countries who are throwing everything they 

have at preventing that outcome. 

And so what has not happened is you have not seen one version 

of Security Council reform that has gathered a majority of countries. And even this year, when there has been more action on this 

issue, you really haven’t seen momentum, again, gather around 

any particular reform scenario. 

The U.S. position is very clear. We, again, recognize some of the 

legitimacy challenges that the current Council poses particularly in 

terms of its permanent membership. We recognize the growth and 

the influence of countries like India, who, incidentally, also are one 

of the leading contributors to peacekeeping, so do a huge amount 

within the U.N. family and have a huge amount to offer as the 

world’s largest democracy. 

But we also are very focused on the effectiveness of the U.N. and 

efficiencies. And so we are also looking beyond that case at how 

countries would likely perform on the Security Council. We are 

looking at issues related to voting coincidence, which was discussed 

earlier, because, of course, we are looking for countries that share 

our approach to promoting international peace and security, to promoting human rights, to seeing the linkages between the humanitarian and the human rights, on the one hand, and the peace and 

security, on the other. It is not clear that this is going to move forward quickly. 

57

Mr. BERA. As these discussions take place and the U.N. debates 

how to expand the Security Council, are there things that this 

body, Congress, can do that would be productive in helping move 

this along? 

Ambassador POWER. Well, I probably should have noted that, in 

order for Security Council reform to take hold, this Congress would 

also have to ratify any reform package. So in the past, while the 

permanent membership has not changed since 1945, the size of the 

Council has. And that has to come before this Congress. 

Maybe one thing that could be done as an intermediary step is 

to actually pass IMF reform because one of the things that these 

emerging powers look to is the Congress’ ability to ensure that 

international—to support measures that would ensure that international institutions actually reflect 2015 measures of influence, including economic influence, as distinct from those from a decade or 

more ago. 

And that has been stuck here, as you know, for some time, and 

I think would be a very important show of our attention to the rise 

of these countries, to the need for their voices to be exercised and, 

also, for the need for these countries to dedicate more resources to 

the comments because, just as they want more representation and 

more authority, we would also like to see them, per our last exchange, contribute more, you know, to everything from peacekeeping, to development, to humanitarian assistance, et cetera. 

Mr. BERA. Great. Thank you, Ambassador. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, thank you very much, Ambassador 

Power. We thank you for being with us this morning, and we also 

thank you for returning and for our brief interruption. 

I look forward to continuing to work with you on the pressing 

issues raised here today, including the plight of the Rohingya refugees, on issues like peacekeeping reforms and the ongoing crisis in 

Syria and, of course, with you and the administration on Iran’s 

sanctions. 

The committee trusts the administration will be in close touch 

with us on these negotiations. We don’t want to be surprised in the 

final agreement, given the position that Congress has taken on 

this, and especially the suggestion that the administration may be 

backing off its original demand that Iran submit to inspections of 

its nuclear sites at any time. This is important to us, as is this 

question of the lifting of sanctions not being on the front end as 

a signing bonus, but, instead, being over the long haul of what was 

supposed to be a 20-year agreement. 

But we thank you again, Ambassador. And see you soon in New 

York. 

Ambassador POWER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


95125n.eps
61


95125m-1.eps
62

f


95125m-2.eps
63

f


95125b.eps
64


95125c-1.eps
65

Æ


95125c-2.eps