Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  March 7, 2016 5:00pm-7:01pm EST

5:00 pm
violation of human rights, particularly when they kill people for the so-called crime of waging war on god. you mention -- as to the missile sanctions, you indicate we sanctioned a few companies. we sanctioned a few individuals. those companies don't do business in the united states. those individuals do not want to visit disneyland. and i hope that you would sanction the iranian government for its violation with sanctions that actually affect the iranian economy. otherwise, to say certain individuals who have no intention of coming to the united states, will not be allowed in the united states, indicates an acceptance of iranian violations. and under the u.n. security council resolution 2231, russia can't sell fighter planes to iran unless the security council specifically approves that.
5:01 pm
i'll ask you, will we use our veto to prevent fighter planes being sold to iran from russia? >> i don't think you have to use a veto. i think it's a matter of a committee. there's a committee and it's in approval in the committee, but we would not approve it. >> and would we -- would we use our veto if necessary to prevent -- >> best of my knowledge, congressman, i haven't looked at the specifics of the transaction, et cetera. in principle, we are very concerned about the transfer of weapons. so, you know, we would approach it with great skepticism. i haven't seen the specific transfer, what the request is. we have a committee that will authorize anything that happened. i assure you, we'll stay in touch with you. >> chair recognizes mr. poe from texas. >> thank you, gentlemen.
5:02 pm
thank you, mr. secretary, for being here. i want to say amen to what our friend from california has said regarding the folks in iran that have been murdered by the regime. 2,300 have been executed. in my opinion, mostly for religious reasons or political reasons. i would hope the state department would condemn this action by rouhani and the iranian government. couple questions, dealing with georgia and ukraine. the russians occupy a third of georgian territory. they occupy crimea and they occupy parts of ukraine's eastern property territory. is it the u.s. position or not -- tell me what the u.s. position is -- that the georgia occupation is unlawful, crimea occupation unlawful and the eastern ukraine possession unlawful or not? >> that's correct, they are.
5:03 pm
>> it's our possession russians are unlawfully holding territory belonging to somebody else in those specific instances? >> in one case, not holding but engaged in intrusions which are assisting in the holding. >> that would be in eastern ukraine? >> correct. >> also, your predecessor, if you have time this year, it would be great for our relationship if you could go to georgia. >> i'm hoping to. >> specifically, i'd like to talk about piece of legislation that has passed the house, unanimously. and that's the foreign aid transparency accountability act that i have authored along with mr. connolly from virginia. it basically requires accountability for foreign assistance, whether transparency and also evaluations of our aid to other
5:04 pm
countries. i think transparency and evaluations are good. american public needs to know how american money is being spent and if it's being spent well. maybe keep up, if not be maybe we should stop it. the state department though has resisted this legislation, even though it's passed the house. it's passed your former committee unanimously over in the senate. and rashau, when he testified in this committee, he supported it when he was usaid director. do you support this type of legislation or this specific legislation of transparency and accountability, evaluations of our foreign assistance? >> congressman, of course. we share the goal completely. yes, we support transparency and accountability. we have huge transparency and accountability. it's one of our problems. i think -- i don't -- i'm trying
5:05 pm
to get the numbers pinned down. the person hours and the numbers of people assigned just to provide the transparency and accountability to all of you and to others is staggering. we lose an enormous amount of our implementing productivity to simply providing the transparency, accountability. we have 51 investigations going on, with an unprecedented number, hundreds of thousands of pages of foa we're responding to. i've had to cannibalize bureaus to ask capable lawyers to come out of one and work on this so we can meet the demands. we're overburdened. i've appointed -- actually appointed a senior ambassador to be our coordinator to make sure we're able to do this. so our concern is, you know,
5:06 pm
doing this in a way that is smart, efficient, efficient for you, efficient for us. we don't resist the go in the least. the american people have a right to absolute accountability and transparency. we think there's a lot of ways in which it's already provided. there are ways we may be able to streamline some of that. we'd like to work with you on this legislation so it isn't, you know, another moment where we're having to transfer a lot people away from doing what we're supposed to do. you can't to give us the budget enough. >> you have different departments in state department doing transparency. this makes it simpler for all of us. >> right, but we want to have a little more say -- >> it's passed the house unanimously. it's passed the senate -- foreign relations committee unanimously. we're getting pushback from the state department on the legislation.
5:07 pm
just a side note, just a side note -- >> we want to make sure it worked for us in terms of our process. who can resist a piece of legislation, foreign aid accountability transparency act? >> we want it to work for the american people. as you know, reclaiming my time, if i have one last comment, you and i and many -- most of the members of the congress, you mentioned the concept of foreign aid out there in the country to citizens. they kind of get their backs bowed because people have been cynical for years. even though it's a little bit of money, about foreign aid. and this legislation, i think, tells folks in the community, citizens, taxpayers, who send this aid all over the world, that it's working. and we can have transparency evaluation for it so they can feel better about sending that aid. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm with you, i support that 100%. president obama does and he has
5:08 pm
instructed all of us to try to make sure we're streamlining, as transparent as we can be. >> we're moving on. mr. grayson from florida. >> secretary kerry, i'm going to ask you a question that has yes or no with an explanation. has iran adhered to the nuclear deal? >> i'm sorry, has what? >> has iran adhered to the nuclear deal? yes or no. >> yes, to the best of our judgment. >> okay, thank you for that. now, there was concern iran's money would be used to increase terrorism in the region after the deal was entered into. has iran's support for terrorism increased, decreased or remained the same since the deal was enacted? >> i think the best of our judgment would be it has remained the same. >> all right. is there any evidence that the money that iran received as a result of the deal has been diverted to use to support terrorism?
5:09 pm
>> we'd need to get into classified session to discuss that. >> all right. >> a little more complicated. >> we heard the phrase used at the time the deal was under negotiation and discussion, that iran would become a nuclear threshold state and that it would push the limits of the agreement and get as close as it could to developing the nuclear weapon during the term of the agreement so in 8 or 10 or 12 years it would actually have a nuclear weapon. is there any evidence to support that at this point? >> no. >> what is your inference regarding that? regarding the behavior. >> well, the fact is, iran was a threshold nation when we began this discussion. iran had 12,000 kilograms of 5% enriched. it had, i forget how much, 20% enriched uranian. it was one step away from being able to produce highly enriched uranium for bomb manufacturing. it had enough enriched uranium to make 10 to 12 bombs.
5:10 pm
it has technology and know-how. it has already mastered the fuel cycle. in effect it already was at the threshold. that's one of the reasons why we felt such urgency to try to close off these paths for actual movement to that. and iran has accepted increased transparency and accountability beyond anything anybody else is engaged in. they've accepted the additional protocol. they accepted higher standards for 25 years of tracking all uranian. manufacturing. they accepted 20 years of television intrusion on their centrifuge production. and limited levels of enriched uranium in stockpile and limited levels of enrichment itself. so they don't have the ability to be able to make one today. just don't have it physically in that regard.
5:11 pm
we're confident in our ability to know what they're doing. >> has the administration tried to interdict iranian shipments? >> we have successfully interdicted. >> is it likely that effort will continue? >> not likely, it will for certain. >> can you give us one example? >> recently we turned around the convoy. we didn't know exactly what was on it. we thought it was headeded to yemen and we made sure it went back to iran. >> i'd like to ask you a couple questions about isis. what is your own personal or agency assessment regarding the necessity to have ground troops involved in the fighting against isis? not american ground troops but -- >> american ground troops in the sense -- american special forces are engaged as enablers on the ground in syria today and in iraq. i am 100% supporter of that. i strongly advocate that is a powerful way to have an impact. i am for trying to get rid of
5:12 pm
daesh as fast as is feasible without a major american, quote, invasion. by enabling, by using our special forces, by augmenting the syrian arab and other presence on the ground. i believe it is imperative for us to try to terminate this threat as rapidly as we can. >> has america, has the american government had discussions with saudi arabia, uae, amman or considering whether they would lend ground troops to fight isis? >> we are engaged in discussions with them regarding their offers to do so at this time. >> can you tell us anything about that? >> not -- no, i think it's in a preliminary -- it's in discussion. they've indicated a willingness to be helpful. this is in the fight against daesh. let me emphasize. and as part of our effort, part of the president's effort to
5:13 pm
explore every possibility that is reasonable of ways in which to have an impact on ending the scourge of daesh, that is being evaluated. >> what about other countries in the region, pakistan, turkey, egypt, algeria, morocco, have you had discussions to send ground troops against isis? >> there have been broad discussions with various mill to mill discussions and intel discussions regarding possible people in certain circumstances. >> can i ask unanimous consent request? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that letter dated december 13, 2012, addressed to then-secretary hillary rodham clinton be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> and i further ask that the response from the state department dated march 27, 2013,
5:14 pm
to then-chairman darrell issa be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> lastly, i would ask the news articles from the daily caller dated january 30, 2016 and the hill, dated 2/2/2016 be placed in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. mr. issa is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, first of all, i want to congratulate you on naming ambassador jacobs as your czar, if you will, for foa request. i share with you the sympathy that the american people's desire to know things has outpaced the automation and process for foa from the state department. as a former businessman, i might suggest, as good as the ambassador is, perhaps you need to turn it over to somebody who is much better at getting data out rather than evaluating the details of state department communication. having said that, the information i put in the record
5:15 pm
is for a reason. in the last days of secretary clinton's administration, i sent her a letter specifically related to use of personal e-mails, and i did so not because of benghazi, not because of any other investigations you might be familiar with, but because in the investigation of the solyndra scandal at department of energy we discovered that a political appointee, jonathan silver, had been using personal e-mails to circumvent foa and the scrutiny. he went so far as to say -- this is in the letter to secretary clinton -- don't ever send an e-mail to doa e-mail with a personal e-mail address. that makes it subpoenaable. the letter went on to go through a number of those things. it specifically asked then- secretary clinton whether or not she had an e-mail and whether or
5:16 pm
not any senior agency officials ever used personal e-mail account to conduct official business, have any senior agency officials ever used alias e-mails -- that was a different investigation -- and it went on. i know by now you must have been made familiar with this letter. approximately two months into your administration as the secretary, your agency responded to that letter by not responding. your agency sent a response that basically said here's the title and the rules. now, since it's been reported in those two articles that you personally communicated with secretary clinton, your personal e-mail to her personal e-mail, is it true that you were aware that she had a personal e-mail and that she used it regularly? >> i have no knowledge of what kind of e-mail she had. i was given an e-mail address
5:17 pm
and i sent it to her. >> did you look at the e-mail address? i mean, was it a dot gov? would have you noticed if it wasn't a dot gov? >> i didn't think about it. i didn't know if she had an account or what the department gave her at that point in time or what she was operating with. i have no knowledge. >> that's a responsive answer that you didn't know you were sending to her personal e-mail from her personal e-mail. do you know -- at least one of those documents now has been classified secret -- do you know when that could be made available in camera to this committee so we can appreciate what it was about? >> i don't know specifically. >> you're aware it's been classified secret, is that correct? >> i am aware. >> okay. the letter which did not respond to the specific questions occurred on your watch. you've now had your watch for three years. are you prepared to answer the questions in that letter, including who all is using e-mail and what you're doing
5:18 pm
about it? >> well, congressman, in principle, i'm prepared to have total accountability, and i think we do. >> let me just say to you, my direction from day one to the entire department has been clear -- get the clinton e-mails out of here, into the -- >> i appreciate that, although it is amazing that we have -- we're still waiting for -- let me just ask a couple more quick questions, and then you can have the remaining time. in the case of the use of personal e-mail, we've discovered that additionally many individuals appear to be using text as a method of communication. do you use text as a means of communication, or do you know of any of your senior staff who use text as a method of communication? >> congressman, let me answer your question by saying this to you. in march of last year, i wrote a letter to the inspector general that i hired for the department. >> i appreciate that you hired
5:19 pm
one and that your predecessor never had one. >> i asked the inspector general to look at all of the e-mail practices, communications practices, of the department. in order to deliver a review. we are working with the ig's observations which have been helpful to make sure that the department is living up to the highest -- >> i appreciate that. there's a pending question, mr. secretary -- >> i don't want to -- >> would you answer the text question please. >> congressman, i'm not going to get into an e-mail discussion with you here on the budget of our department, with -- >> mr. secretary this committee is entitled to know the communication -- >> and our communications process is thoroughly being analyzes by the inspector general. >> i have pending -- >> and we have -- >> i appreciate that. it's a simple pending question. do you text or do you know of
5:20 pm
other individuals in your senior staff who use texts? >> i have no idea whether they do or don't. i occasionally text some of the people. >> and the final question, how are you seeing that that text, which by definition is required to be saved under foa requirements under the federal records act, how are you seeing those texts are preserved? >> that's precisely what we're work on. by the way, i don't text anything regarding policy. i only text my top -- i only text my logistical administrative staff with respect to whether i'm arriving somewhere or going something. there's nothing substantive ever texted. >> i would certainly assume your private e-mail to hillary's private e-mail also was intended -- >> yes, that's secured. all e-mails are on the server
5:21 pm
that is the state department and it's all preserved, it's all part of the national records -- >> i appreciate that, mr. secretary, but hillary clinton's were your -- >> -- i don't know how many investigations there are. i think people are really getting bored with it, congressman. there's an awful lot of important discussions, policies and other things. that's what i'm here -- >> mr. secretary, i appreciate that. as i said earlier, this is not about any of the investigations. this is about the work that was being done related to the federal records act and compliance. it absolutely is more about whether the american people can get what they're entitled to under a law that you quite frankly -- >> mr. chairman, i would note that the gentleman's time has expired. >> i have taken unprecedented steps, including with the inspector general to make certain that is fully adhered to. i stand by the steps -- >> thank you -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. appreciate the promotion.
5:22 pm
chair recognizes the ranking member. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the memo of the inspector general, february 23, 2016, where he noted that secretary powell and secretary rice's staff used private e-mails as well. i really think we should be consistent and not just have a political attack on hillary clinton. >> as long as we can enter into the record, mr. chairman, the -- >> well, let me just say -- >> i reserve a point. i mean, the chair has recognized -- >> may i -- tell the gentleman this is not the oversight committee, this is the foreign affairs. >> i appreciate that. the only thing i ask is -- >> gentleman's recognized. >> alongside that that the information that -- each of the former secretaries made their accompanying statements, including powell, saying they were not classified, i'm happy to have the record complete. >> mr. chairman, point of order. >> all right. >> mr. chairman, point of order.
5:23 pm
>> mr. keating's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i just wanted to know, for those of us waiting to ask questions, how much time is the secretary allocated to this meeting? >> he's here until 12:30 and so with that, chair recognized mrs. frankel for florida. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i want to just thank you for your service. i'm very proud to have you as our secretary of state. i just want to -- most respectful way really object to my colleague's litigating the 2016 presidential contest here in this foreign affairs meeting. and i think there's some more important things to discuss other than hillary clinton's e-mails. specifically, i'd like to talk about what's happening in syria. i would, first, ask you if you could very specifically detail
5:24 pm
the type of suffering that is going on and how many people are involved. >> congresswoman, thank you. syria represents the most significant humanitarian catastrophe in movement of people, deprivation of rights, slaughter, since world war ii. there are 12.5 million people or so who are displaced or are refugees. about 4.5 million refugees. more than 2 million in jordan. million something in lebanon. 2 million or so in turkey. massive numbers of people. sometimes 5,000, 10,000 a day, trying to move across the border. but what has happened in syria
5:25 pm
itself, the slaughter by assad of his own people. the barrel bombs that have been dropped on schools, on kids, on innocent civilians. the torture which has been documented in vivid photographs, grotesque -- >> is it still occurring as we speak? >> well, the slaughter is still occurring. the innocent people being killed. the bombs that have dropped on hospitals and on schools, that has obviously occurred. which is why we have pushed so hard to try to get a cessation of hostilities. the combination of torture, of not just the torture but of starvation, communities that have been laid under siege, people who haven't seen food supplies, medical supplies in years now. >> and children out of school. >> children out of school. people walking around looking like skeletons, like people in
5:26 pm
the liberation of the concentration camps of world war ii. this is horrendous beyond description. and the beheadings, the death by fire, and the elimination of certain people by virtue of who they are. this is really a sad, tragic moment for a world that hoped we were moving to a new -- new order of rule of law and possibilities for young people and so forth so it's really -- >> so let me -- just follow up on that. so if you could give us a prognosis. how long do you think it will be until these millions of people can either get back to a normal life in any way?
5:27 pm
>> it will be when russia, iran, the parties at the table at the international syria support group, including the united states and our european allies and our gulf state friends and turkey and egypt and others, come to the table ready to implement the geneva communique, which requires a transitional government, which is precisely what we are trying to do. >> so let me -- >> that is the moment where things could begin to turn conceivably for the better. but it's going to be very difficult. >> and once you get to that point, is that where you then envision a -- trying to go after isil or daesh, as you call them? >> well, no, we're going after daesh now as powerfully as possible given the difficult circumstances of the country. it would be much better if we were able to get a transition government in place, according
5:28 pm
to the geneva structure, and then have the united states and russia and all of the parties focus on daesh and nusra and be able to join together. the difficulty with that is with asad there and the suspicion about intent by some countries simply to shore up assad, it's very -- it's impossible to be able to do that sufficiently until you have resolved this process or at least sufficiently engaged in that process and are far enough down the road that you then can license the ability to have a kind of cooperative effort on daesh. the cooperative effort could end daesh very, very quickly. >> but that will require ground forces you believe? >> well, the ground forces are there. yes, the syrian army. if you have an ability to be able to bring people together around a transition government, you have plenty of people on the ground who can then join together, and together the
5:29 pm
forces from the air and the ground can quickly deal with the problem of daesh. that's why dealing with the question of assad is so critical. people aren't sitting around caught up in this notion that just because people said assad has to go, that's why we're sticking with the policy. it's because if assad is there, you cannot end the war. as long as assad is there, the people supporting the opposition, countries that are defending their right not to live under a dictator are going to continue to support those people. >> thank you. >> mr. scott perry of pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for your time today. i'd like to try to take it back to something regarding the budget. my question, first question, deal also with the united states relief in work agency. regard to our support of the palestinians. to my knowledge, the american taxpayer
5:30 pm
$277 million between 2009 and 2015 to support these programs. meanwhile, unrwa staff unions you including the teachers union are frequently controlled by members affiliated with hamas. the curriculum has long contained materials that are anti-israel, anti-semitic and supportive of violence extremism. now despite unrwa activities that compromise its strictly humanitarian mandate, its strictly humanitarian mandate, unrwa continues to receive united states contributions including $408 million in 2014. just wondering, if you could quickly, sum up for us how your department is using this funding and your budget to discourage these activities.
5:31 pm
taxpayers are loathe paying for terrorism, terrorist activities and support of terrorism. i know you know this. >> absolutely. not only loathe it, just bottom line is it's disgraceful. it's unacceptable. we've made that clear. so have the leadership by the way of anra and -- and the united nations. there is now -- has been very strict policy and procedure in place in order to prevent this kind of activity, to ensure neutrality, to prevent the funds and programs from benefiting any terrorist activity, obviously. and we -- >> how does -- with all due respect, how is that manifested? we have policies in place, yet they continue to do it. the american taxpayer continues to fund this organization, so how -- >> well, yes, and the people who have done it need to be fired
5:32 pm
and -- >> but are they, sir? >> they should be. >> how do we ensure accountability? how do you take that money and say to these folks you're not getting the money? how do you use the leverage -- >> we have pushed anra as a result of what happened to condemn racism and to assess every allegation that has been brought to the agency about this misbehavior and misconduct. in those investigations where it occurred, that eve promised us that it's taking place. >> is it ever considered to just withdraw the funding until we so a good faith effort? >> yeah, it's been considered and in a couple of cases it's been mandated, and the problem is we don't get back. i mean we've lost our vote at unesco, as i think you know, because of activities beyond our control, which the palestinians engaged in by going to the u.n.
5:33 pm
and seeking membership. and as a result of that, we are hurt. we don't have a vote. we didn't control their action. it wasn't a deterrent. but we've lost our ability to be able to protect israel and stand up and fight within the mechanisms. being draconian about it is not the best way to do it. we're being successful in being able to hold people accountable and i think that's the best way to proceed. >> i appreciate the effort. i see it differently. i don't think anybody is being held accountable, and i would beseech you that the federal government is $19 trillion in debt, the taxpayers are under siege, and we don't have money to waste on organizations that support terrorism. and that's just how i see it. but i would ask you to consider that more than maybe you have. moving on, looking at your budget, it looks like last year we spent about $300 million on the united nations high commissioner for refugees and associated programs.
5:34 pm
and with what we see in syria, it seems to me that the american taxpayer is rightly -- i mean we want to do our part. we don't want to see anything -- we don't want to see the horrific things happen to these people, the women and the children and we want to do our part to be good neighbors and stewards in the world. that having been said, these folks are coming to our shores and school districts and hospitals and taxpayers pay doubly. i sent a letter to the administration asking why we haven't pursued a safe zone in the border region of syria and turkey as some sort of a program or a strategy to make sure that that they're not refugees far from their country. can you enlighten us? i haven't gotten a response. is that even a consideration? >> it's been very much a consideration, congressman, and it's a lot more complicated than it obviously sounds. if you're going to have a safe zone within syria itself, it has to be exactly that. it has to be safe. how do you make it safe?
5:35 pm
how do you prevent a syrian air force barrel bomber from flying over it? well, you've got to have aircraft in the air. take away their air defenses as a result. how do you prevent daesh from coming in and attacking or the syrian army from coming in and attacking? it has to be safe. that means somewhere between 15,000 to 30,000 troops have to be on the ground in order to make it safe. that's the judgment of the defense department. are we prepared to put that on the ground? >> i mean, i've heard calls for safe zones -- >> i'm not calling for american troops to be in the ground. we're already flying in the area as you know. >> who is going to make it safe? right now safety is found by going to jordan or getting to the berm where there are 15,000 people trying to get into jordan and trying to make them safe there or getting to turkey or lebanon. that's safety. or trying to get to europe. we're trying to make it safe by getting a cessation of
5:36 pm
hostilities in place, getting humanitarian assistance delivered and a political process to end the violence. that's the safest thing of all. >> thank you, chairman. i yield. >> it doesn't require we hope thousands of troops on the ground to be able to provide a safe zone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. obviously, this is a difficult time in the world. multiple complexities and challenges in the world. i'm going to shift to south asia where we certainly have opportunities but also some challenges. it is a time of unprecedented increasing relationships between the united states and india. so lots of positive movement there. one area of complexity is the pending sale of f-16 fighter to pakistan. and you know, given pakistan's given support of terrorism
5:37 pm
throughout the region -- certainly we saw recent terrorists attacks in india in january at the air force base. at a time where we're seeing progress in u.s.-india relationships, understanding the complexity of the region, understanding that we do have vested interest in helping pakistan fight terrorists. i would be curious from your perspective if pakistan is doing enough separating good terrorists versus bad terrorists enough domestically to fight the terrorist threats that not just threaten to destabilize india but also our interest in afghanistan as well. >> well, congressman, thank you. first of all, thank you for your thoughts about india and the sensitivity there and we acknowledge that. we've been really working hard building the relationship and trying to advance even the
5:38 pm
reprashma between india and pakistan. i think it's required courage by both leaders to engage in the dialogue that they've engaged in. needless to say, we don't want to do things that upset the balance. but we do believe that pakistan is engaged legitimately in a very tough fight against identifiable terrorists in their country that threaten pakistan. and they've got about 150 to 180,000 troops out in the western part of their country. they've been engaged in a long struggle to clear the area and move people out. and they've made some progress in that. is it enough in our judgment? no. we think that more could be done. we're particularly concerned about the sanctuary components of pakistan and we're particularly concerned about some individual entities in pakistan that have been
5:39 pm
supportive of relationships with some of the people that we consider extremely dangerous to our interests in afghanistan elsewhere. haqqani network, prime example of that. so there's a balance. the f-16s have been a critical part of the pakistani fight against the terrorists in the western part of their country and have been effective in that fight. and pakistan has lost some 50,000 people in the last years, including troops, to the terrorists that are threatening pakistan itself. so it's always complicated. we try to be sensitive to the balance, obviously, with respect to india. but we think the f-16s are an important part. >> as one of the few physicians in congress, i do have a real interest in global health and looking at the current threat of zika virus. we were grateful to have the dr. friedan and dr. fauchy and
5:40 pm
representatives of the usaid in committee a few weeks ago. as we're looking at zika and gathering, you know, information, i know the president requested $1.8 billion. the one thing, as a physician, you know, we know and very much so are recommending, if you're pregnant, if you're of reproductive age, to take all precautions. obviously the one thing that we do know is making access to full family planning services available in areas where we know there's endemic zika. and, you know, within usid's purview, within the $1.8 billion request, i'd be curious again the one thing is empowering women of child bearing age to have full family planning support services, whether that's birth control, whether that's -- we're seeing increasing cases of sexually transmitted zika virus as well. i'd be curious and i would want
5:41 pm
to make sure we are providing the full resources in these endemic countries. >> we are doing an enormous amount, congressman. i appreciate the expertise you bring as a physician and your concern about this. the president is extremely focused on the zika virus challenge. the white house national security council is actually coordinating the all of government response on this. and together with the world health organization with whom we are working very closely in its regional offices for the americas, for the pan american health organization, we're working with relevant international organizations and others. the president emphasized a need to accelerate researcher efforts to make better diagnostic tests available to develop vaccines, medicines, improve mosquito
5:42 pm
control measures, and ensure that all citizens have the information they need to be able to deal with the virus. we are using multiple lines of effort, an all-out effort. we do not want this obviously to become as challenging as ebola was. as you know, we mounted a response to that and the same kind of effort is being put into this. >> morning, mr. secretary. congress recently passed a trade authority bill that among other provisions instructed our trade negotiators to oppose any boycotts of israel, including persons doing business in israel or in israel-controlled areas. and yet your spokesman recently said that the state department rejects that provision and does not believe that congress can conflate israel with disputed territories. so my question is, is why won't the administration honor congress' enactment? >> well, i'm not sure exactly
5:43 pm
what statement you're referring to or what happened with respect to that. i think we do honor legislation. but -- >> so you would say your negotiators, if a european country was saying they wanted to boycott people or businesses that are doing business over the green line, you think you would not fight against that? >> we do not support any boycott efforts. we've been openly opposed to them. we opposed them at the u.n. opposed them elsewhere. opposed labelling. >> so you don't -- well, good. maybe he was not -- >> that's why i said i don't know what the response is. >> okay. good. because i think that's great. the labelling, i would like to follow up on that. your spokesman, mr. kirby, said that the u.s. does not oppose labelling of israeli products from the disputed territories and said the state department does not view labelling as a boycott of israel. and the problem with that is, once you go down the road of doing the labelling, that's
5:44 pm
really a precondition for countries to be able to boycott israel. so he suggested that the state department is not opposed to european efforts to require israel to label goods that are outside of the green line. are you saying that's not the position? >> no. that kind of labelling actually -- we require a labelling of where people send goods from. we require a labelling of goods -- >> but if someone sends it from a jewish community outside of the green line and they said made in israel, the state department's position per him would be it's fine to force them to say that was produced in the west bank. >> yeah. labelling it from the west bank is not equivalent of a boycott. >> but it sets a precondition for a boycott. >> -- knowledge to people so that they can, you know, have information about where products come from, which we require also, by the way. you know, we have made in america. >> but these are disputed territories. and you have jewish communities where they're producing goods and label it as the being made in israel -- >> i understand that.
5:45 pm
which is why we're opposed to any boycotts or any efforts to isolate israel based on where something -- we're opposed to that. >> good. i appreciate you saying that forthrightly because i think we've been getting mixed signals from the state department. in terms of funding, over the last several years, about a million dollars has gone to this new israel fund, an organization that supports bds. do you think it's property that money that the state department is dispensing in grants be used for organizations that support bds? >> i'm not familiar with that. it's news to me. i'll talk it under advisement and review it. >> we'll get that. there's a movement to boycott israel on a lot of college campuses throughout the united states. do you view that as helpful and do you think it's appropriate that u.s. taxpayers are funding universities that take an official position in favor of bds?
5:46 pm
>> i believe in academic freedom, i believe in student freedom to take positions. it's a time-honored tradition in the united states of america that we don't punish positions people take at any -- >> what about -- >> we, as a government, make our position clear, that we do not believe it is helpful to be boycotting. but people have the right in america, thank god, to be able to make their own decisions and we as a government do not punish students for -- >> i don't think it would be punishing students. if a university adopted an official position that they were going to boycott israel. would we want to subsidize that with taxpayer dollars -- >> that's a debate for congress. i would not advocate or support any challenge to the freedom of the university to make its own decisions, and i think punishing them would be inappropriate. >> now, money that goes to the palestinian authority directly under federal law requires to state department to certify that
5:47 pm
the palestinian authority is acting to counter incitement violence against the israelis. the last several years the state department that has not made that certification. is that correct?? >> i wasn't aware that we haven't certified the last couple of years. but we're following constantly the incitement issue. i just met with president abase and raised the issue with him a couple of weeks ago, and we're working through our relationships and constant engagement on the west bank to make sure that the incitement is not taking place in any official ways. >> i think the worry is that certification has not been made so that would prohibit funds directly, but the state department has been directing funds to the israelis to pay down the palestinian debts. this question is, is that trying to get around the spirit of the law? >> no. it's trying to sustain the one entity in the west bank that is committed to a peaceful
5:48 pm
resolution and to nonviolence and to a two-state solution. the fact is that there are many, many difficulties financially in the p.a.'s ability to be able to meet its needs for education, for health, for this standard process of trying to govern the west bank. and these have been particularly difficult the last year and a half or so as you know, with violence that has risen. we condemn the violence completely. i might add, i was extroomly disturbed to read today that iran has agreed to pay the families of people who have engaged in violence and people who have been, quote, the martyrs of the violence that's taken place that's completely inappropriate and seems to lend some sort of credibility to that
5:49 pm
violence and to those choices. and i think it's the wrong choice by iran. and we strongly urge any kind of incitement of any kind. and that even in its own way can be a form of incitement. you've got to have internal support and the families will be fine and this is okay behavior. it's not okay behavior. but president abbas is committed to nonviolence. he's the one leader in the west bank who has consistently, even in the middle to have violence, even in the middle of the gaza war previously, condemned violence as a means of trying to achieve the two states. we believe trying to build the palestinian authority and give them greater capacity to be able to control their own security, be able to build their capacity is the way to ultimately move forward solve the problem of the violence itself. >> i'll remind the members we
5:50 pm
need to stick to five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for being here today. i'd like to follow up on dr. bera's questions with regard to the f-16s in pakistan. judge poe and i recently sent you a letter expressing grave concerns about the potential sale and asking to you consider stopping it. in our view, rewarding pakistan with such a sale when in fact they have not changed their harboring in support in pakistan. the 2011 statements talking about how the network is a mastermind of the 2008 mumbai
5:51 pm
attack. supporting these terrorists as well as well as important with india. is this something you would be willing to reconsider and given all of these factors. >> councilwoman, i would like to talk to you in a classified setting if we could. and there considerations that we can't go into. i would say to you that i share the concern as everybody does. the president and all of us are deeply concerned about isi relationships. dope deeply concerned about the networks and they operated and we had recent conversations with respect to that. i think in fairness because of the nature of those conversations, i will follow-up
5:52 pm
with you and definitely follow-up with you in a way we can discuss this. >> i would appreciate that. >> the last time i met with you in my district in hawaii we met at the east west center. a place you know has been instrumental in creating dialogues with leaders with the asia pacific nations at a time when we are facing potential destabilization and north korea and island nations in the pacific and the challenges we are facing. the funding has been reduced to this year for the east-west center. i wonder if you can talk about why that is.
5:53 pm
i think it reflects tough choices that we have with the budget that we have. not everybody is getting as m h much. it is not a reflection of the downward trend. it reflects the difficulties of the budget choices. we will maintain our consistent support for the east west center going forward. i can guarantee you that.
5:54 pm
>> thank you, mr. secretary. we have a lot more questions unfortunately. we don't have more time. one issue i would like to follow-up on is the budget request within your budget that goes towards train and equip programs with syria and iraq and the concern about how those funds are being used, who they are supporting and training as well as what coordination is occurring between state and the dod program and other agencies that are using this funding and towards what objective. the concern we raised overtime about whether or not these funds are being used.
5:55 pm
we look at the budget for the state department. >> we look forward to working with you. >> we will go to david from michigan. >> mr. secretary, they experienced some of the worst attacks in modern history. we sent a petition urging that they designate the muslim brotherhood as a terrorist organization and they have seen the decades long commitments. >> as a whole it's hard to wrap everyone. there clearly muslim brotherhood members. they do not recognize them as an
5:56 pm
organization and an official visit last year. >> no, there was a member or two as a part of the delegation that was attended and nobody knew what membership anybody had with respect to that. >> they're released a statement calling for a long uncompromising jihad and two years later there was an attack. what should i and how should i explain the policies and actions with respect to the muslim brotherhood to the 750 christian families in my district. how should i explain the actions taken to address the atrocities? >> we are leading the fight. there is no country doing as much to fight against violent extremism to counter as the united states. we are the ones who put together the global initiative on
5:57 pm
countering the extremism. he led it and all violent extremists are brought into the view of the efforts and we are leading the coalition in the fight against did she and al qaeda. as a violent broadly based organization. we continue to carefully assess the status of the brotherhood as to whether or not it meets the specific criteria as set forth in the terrorist organization designation requirements. while there individual members that engaged in violence and individual branches, the
5:58 pm
organization over the heading. we are looking at it. they do the construction necessary to move the detainees and hold them here. no spraination has been forth coming and how you resolve the conflict with the band to move the detainees under the act. one of the formy detainees was arrested in spain for plotting to carry out an isis attack in spain. at a high level, do you believe that closing the prison makes america and americans safer? >> yes, i do. i am convinced it makes us
5:59 pm
safer. it has been an incredible tool and i don't think it adheres to the values of our country. people held in a military prison 14 years after it was apprehended. >> you believe as far as the tool, and they are singularly motivated by this terrible situation. that's what drives someone to make that decision. >> you remember seeing somebody in orange jump suits having their heads cutoff. where do you think they came from? they came from guantanamo. that was the image. it is no accident. is guantanamo on the naval base and ending up like the panama
6:00 pm
canal? they moved it out of there and they call any plan to close that and give it to them? >> i would be opposed to that and there is no discussion i'm ark wear of. that is not what's at stake here. what is at stake is living up to our values. >> we can live up to the values without closing the prison. the mistakes are made and make sure they don't happen again. >> i think guantanamo now has such an imprint in the world and as i said, the jump suits didn't come out of the imagination of dash. they came out of the images of guantanamo. >> the last thing because i'm running out of time. >> the last questions could be in writing. brian higgins of new york. >> the continent of africa, 55
6:01 pm
countries, a population of 1 billion people. that is expected to double by the year 2050. a lot of failed states, particularly in central africa, we see the introduction of isis and libya. we see the terrorism in nigeria. we see the tearing apart of the newest country in the world in south sudan with a population of 11 million people. the un reported that the soldiers with the government uniforms were entering united nations mission in south sudan protection of civilian camps. the firing on civilians in killing many of them, creating great instability. when you look at particularly the activity of non-state
6:02 pm
terrorist actors, isis and that seemingly are moving towards away from traditional ways of gaining revenue and towards territorial control to tax and charge protection of people. the continent of africa poses great challenges to the united states. what in this budget and what is the vision for the department of state with respect to containing and rebuilding that continent that has a lot of troubled spots right now. >> that's a great question. i appreciate it. i would say just about everything we are doing with respect to our development policy and our countering violent extremism policy and aid policy and military to military assistance policy is all directed at this. we are deeply involved. the president was in africa and i was in africa. we had many of our cabinet
6:03 pm
secretaries traveling there and working on power africa. we are trying to get electricity into communities that don't have them. they can begin to develop and provide health capacity, provide education. and fill the void that exists for a lot of young people who otherwise get their heads filled in a very calculated strategy by extremists to reach them. i will give you an example. when i was in ethiopia and i met with them, i asked them how to manage the 30 to 35% population that is muslim. he said they were concerned about it. what happens is an extremist sell will target young poor kids. he pays them initially and they would pay them and bring them in and fill their heads with this distortion and they don't need to pay them anymore.
6:04 pm
they are willing to operate based on what has been washed in. they go out and start replicating this recruitment process. they are rate to keep building. we have to think about this. they are countering the strategy that we have to recognize that failing skills and can't build a school or provide health. they can't build their own structure to fight back against the radicals are going to require help. afterworld war 2 they must have the marshall plan. we rebuild the countries that have fallen into economic despairs for the war.
6:05 pm
japan and germany. look at the difference it made today. that is the greatest success story statement about why investment and engagement is critical. in africa we need to engage more. we need to be able to help them. we are fighting helping nigeria now. we are fighting to push back against somalia. we have a un mission. it needs more help. it needs more people and more assistance. now there is reductions and they push back. this is a long-term constant struggle. i believe that the security of the united states of america is absolutely in order to help fill the voids. not do it alone. the work through the global
6:06 pm
institutions against this potential vacuum that invites failure and violence and extremism to fill the void. i hope people will see the budge net that context. there so many different things. what we are doing on aids and ebola and in terms of our broad based entrepreneurial encouragement and what we do with them to bring them here and help them to train and learn. all of these things are good solid investments for the long-term future and security of our country. >> we go to mr. lee from new york. >> thank you for coming back in front of the committee. i wanted to discuss the iran nuclear agreement. the president has stated that the nuclear agreement is not based on trust, but it based on
6:07 pm
verification. this past monday i received a letter from your assistant secretary for legislative affairs and i wanted to discuss a couple of components of that. thank you for the response. in the letter it said that the nuclear agreement relies on the unprecedented monitoring and verification measures. the letter further refers to an unprecedented monitoring and surveillance. legally binding obligations to iran's safeguards with the iaea. my first question is have youer read the iran safeguard agreement? >> yes. >> and how can i access that? >> i have been briefed on it. it was read by our staff when we were there. i didn't read the entire thing, but i was briefed on what the contents are. >> has the president read it? >> i don't know.
6:08 pm
i don't think so because i think it's in there. >> if you visit the website, they have a link to access the iran safeguards agreement. it goes to the next page and said sorry. i would be interested in reading that agreement. would that be possible? >> we were briefed on and worked on. it's part of a confidential it is always with every country, we have an agreement. that's the way it works. we were briefed on what was included and what needed to be included and was satisfied
6:09 pm
because it was critical in the context. we don't possess it. >> members have read it and you haven't asked to read it yourself. >> i was in vienna and there on the last day. this was of high concern to us. i believe then under the secretary and others went over and met with the iaea. and they came back and briefed me out on it. i didn't feel it was imperative at that point. >> you feel comfortable stating that there is unprecedented monitoring and surveillance and verification measures? >> with one caveat. there is unprecedented allowance for that full measure of obtrusive oversight and excess. the key now will be to get the
6:10 pm
budget up. we have the license for 130 or so additional inspectors to be permanently in iran. there is a permanent office in iran. they are going to need resourcing to meet this. we always banked on the fact that it will happen. i want to signal that that is an imperative component. >> i am concerned when there reports that start coming out that said the iranians collect their own soil samples and they inspect some of their own nuclear sites and we had the opportunity to have the secretary here in front of the committee and the very concerning reports that we would like to get the confirmation.
6:11 pm
that is the public document. the additional protocol was associated by the iaea and put in place as a consequence of what failed in the framework agreement with respect to north korea. and they have to be able to investigate. i will finish quickly. they have a right of access not to be collected by others. >> why didn't they ask for the schedule? why didn't you ask iran to sign? >> it's not a signed agreement. it states as a matter of fact.
6:12 pm
>> there was a sign. >> the vice president went over to the iaea and signed at the headquarters. they signed it the morning before the implementation before the agreement was announced. >> they said it is not a treaty or executive agreement. it's not a treaty. >> that is a political agreement.
6:13 pm
so that is why it has force of law. that is why the snap back is a forceful provision. >> that's william keating from massachusetts. >> this is a budget hearing. one thing i am aware of and most agree with. taxpayers get the most cost-effective for taxpayers and most experts will say the work that we do in the areas that terrorism is likely to incubate and maybe start incubating or moving up. it's a couple of things. number one, they are talking to
6:14 pm
the members from the committee and they identified 17 fronts. they are generally agreed upon. that's a great threat. they can comment on the areas where it's right. and they have what the geographic areas are. bangladesh and areas that we may not think of. number two, how we approach that is so important. it's important for the hearing this morning. i think the most effective things we can do in those areas are before things incubate and metastasize. what we can do with the resources to intervene. i think clearly the economic areas that we can do it. i think in terms of human rights. you can comment on how we are utilizing an increased role for women and mothers in trying to
6:15 pm
deal with the issue in those types of situations. and also in terms of the extremists and countered narrative that we want to pursue with the broadcast. something we are getting beaten on in some areas. those are the things that we get the most bang for the buck. those are the things that keep us the safest. they were the most effective. if you can take a few minutes and comment on geographically they said are areas of concentration. and how we can deal with it economically from human rights perspective and a counter extremist narrative. >> congressman, i really appreciate the question. i want to try to answer it carefully. i don't want the speculation or
6:16 pm
statement to be the father to the fact. >> i understand. >> i don't want to run through a bunch of potential incubator locations that some people may not have thought of yet. generically i would say to you that where you have a poor population and where you have a bad governance and corruption, where you have lack of opportunity and a lack of education and you have a population that may be susceptible to a religious extortion and distorted narrative, you have potential obviously. there plenty of places where unfortunately what i just described is the fact today.
6:17 pm
the key here is the latter part of your question dealing with the narrative. because of narrative left unattended can be very attractive. where you have corruption and where you have lack of opportunity. if a void gets filled with that narrative and without the truth, without facts to the contrary, it can start to take hold and it has and does. we see that in various places. we are now very, very focused. part of our strategy as part of the dash is to do a much better job with the counter narrative. they have been deeply involved with this working with other countries and the best young talented communicators in america. beginning to fight back on social media. there is a center that has
6:18 pm
opened in the center and the emirates engaged in supporting. they have a bunch of young folks and arabic speaking and other language speaking and they told the story of how they were exploit exploited. many of those have been executed when they were trying to leave. those who have made it out are powerful testimony to the contrary. saudi arabia is about to open a communication center. there lots of places as they are critical as anything in preventing future recruits and we are working hard with that.
6:19 pm
>> secretary kerry, you seem to have an affinity i don't share. they chant death to america and try to humiliate the sailors. they are the world's state sponsor of terrorism and we gave them billions of dollars upwards on 150 billion which they can possibly use. i hope that lesson to come from american lives backed by iran. and they have improvement and prevention act. there were three areas that were exceptions under the law. national security and law
6:20 pm
enforcement and exception for the visa waiver. as they pointed out, the state department asked for other exemptions. they were denied in the law signed by the president. in that, mr. secretary, there national security and law enforcement waivers. could you please define your interpretation of law enforcement. >> sure. let me just if i can with your indulgence. i want to make it clear. i will have affinity for any country engaged in activities that are countered to our values and put our people at risk and supporting terror. they have no affinity whatsoever. my job as a secretary of state and diplomat is to try to find
6:21 pm
solutions to problems. war is the failure of diplomacy to solve a problem. we looked at iran and saw them about to be putting us in a situation where they may have a nuclear weapon which will be bad for everyone in the world. particularly or friends closest. i want to make that clear. >> you sent it after the waiver program was passed. >> explaining that it didn't violate. >> explain to me about national security and law enforcement if you don't mind. >> sure. we have an interest obviously in being able to guarantee that
6:22 pm
iran may be able to change. may be able to move to a different posture and our belief is from the national security point of view that if people are able to do legitimate business that over a period of time that changes things. we look at what's happening in vietnam for instance or what's happening in burma and other countries, transformation takes place. we believe that is in the interest of our country and some of it comes from the activity being able to take place. people begin to feel better about life and are not threatened to do better and see the world and so forth. >> that's good answers, but let me reference. >> we have friends. >> let me reference a white paper that the state department was out for. as discussed in the legal paper which we asked for a copy of the
6:23 pm
legal paper referenced in this paper, as discussed in the legal firm, this is a lesser standard. the national security is a lesser standard. he then was imposed that require finding the waiver is vital to the national security interests to the united states. there no findings of fact and other determinations required to be made before the exercise of the waiver authority as discussed in the legal paper yet to be seen. the national security waiver cannot be exercised by category. you will broad then to the other categories that you asked for during the negotiations that were explicit. >> we are not doing a blanket waiver. we are doing an individual case by case basis. we are not doing a blanket
6:24 pm
waiver. it's in our interests. the principal threat that we are concerned about about terror from dash is not coming out of iran and other places. she said the ngo that happens too to travel to iran and the visa waiver with us. they have an extraordinarily rigorous standard. if we have greater insight on somebody with that than we do in other cases. >> i'm on homeland security. i followed this issue for a long time. what this paper looks like. >> you would provide to us a copy of the legal paper. this looks like y'all were
6:25 pm
trying to find wiggle room for the intent of congress and the wording of the law. my time has expired. i appreciate it. >> where did the white paper come from. it references in there twice a legal paper that helped you determine your findings here. she said please provide us a copy. i yield back. >> okay. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we will continue looking at your budget. your department has many good programs that need to be supported. as i said in my statement, many good programs may not get the level of support that we wish. we will work at doing the best job we can. i am particularly supportive of initiatives with women's education and social status in
6:26 pm
the developing world. on the iran deal, the dam has been broken with foreign investment rushing in. in the real world, it's a continuing discussion. for the world, that will be commitment without abduction. we all hope and want to see a doctor. thank you again for being there today. we stand adjourned. >> thank you mr. chairman.
6:27 pm
>> our road to the white house coverage continues with hillary clinton. live coverage at 7:45 p.m. eastern time. michigan has 147 delegates at stake in tomorrow's primary and the latest poll shows secretary clinton with a double-digit lead over bernie sanders. michigan and mississippi hold primaries tomorrow. a total of 99 republican and 188 democratic delegates are at stake. we will have results, candidate speeches and your calls starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. i'm a teacher and the most penitentiary thing is education. so i'm looking at the candidates
6:28 pm
very closely for their programs in education. i'm not happy in the last 15 years or so with the core standards and the common core happening. i would like to see it changed around. i'm going to vote for either bernie sanders or hillary clinton. i'm happy with both of those choices. >> i decided i am voting for ted cruz for the candidacy because he is a constitutional scholar and he is eloquent and he is principaled consistently out of all the candidates so far. >> tonight on the communicators, we will examine 1996 telecommunications act with two of the chief authors. jack fields with the house energy and house subcommittee and senator edward marky on the subcommittee on communications and technology.
6:29 pm
they will discuss whether it's outdated. >> words like google and humoree and you tube were part of the culture. they were impossible to be krealted before the act. we got a lot right. nothing is perfect. one thing we did do is move not only our own country, but the world from analog to digital. the goal was to take away the lines of demarcation that prevented competition and unleashing the forces that created investment needed to bring us to this world today. >> watch the communicationors on c-span 2. >> panelists talked about fighting warfare with an integrated force.
6:30 pm
our second panel will have a more practical application as 24r focus is on fighting the warfare with the integrated force. the focus is on gender integration that shapes the battlefield. with an ever changing threat environment and the integration into preoccupation provides the skill sets and must be considered in future strategic planning. fighting with an integrative force. we have three panelists and the first one immediately on stage right is mandy donohoe. she earned the doctorate at the
6:31 pm
12ds with the university of denver and specializes in the comparative politics conflict resolution and peace studies and gender. mandy is an internship coordinator for the bachelor of arts studies at the joseph kobele school. she received a masters category from american universities school of international service and will speak on women as stakeholders, the value of participation. our next panelist back with us again is kayly ann hunter. he found out last minute and we are graciously enough, she volunteered to jump on board and will replace him. speaking from the same topic with the role of the military and combatting terrorist threats.
6:32 pm
and final ly and domestic terrorist and inequality. >> ladies, please begin. >> just push a button. >> so i will be talking today about women as stakeholders and the value of participation from the lens of post conflict and peace building or formal peace processes. i would like to start introducing an organization from liberia. the woman of the mass action for peace, a group of women both muslim and christian who are organized to end the violence in the civil war.
6:33 pm
a great documentary on pray the devil back to health. they had the access to track that down. they called for peace talks and they had forced president charles taylor to sit down with rebel groups. and then led by a delegation of women sat in on or rather staged a sit in at the peace process and the process that would lead to the peace agreement signed august 18th, 2003, the women were not part of a formal delegation and did not formally participate and the role in that moment was to enforce the process itself. the women lined up around the building to keep the men from the rebel groups from climbing out of a window to escape
6:34 pm
participating in the process. we begin to see the role of women in formal processes. why their participation is necessary. they have a vested interest in the cessation of violence and in the resolution of conflict in their lives? at the peace table. not very often. that's in northern ireland. i will talk about why that is exceptional. the security states that often women are excluded because they are not. >> women are assumed to lack the appropriate expertise to negotiate or they are left out to discrimination or stereo typical thinking? they are walking the halls of
6:35 pm
power and understanding women's participation. she talks about five distinctive types of participation. the first is the role model argument in which women participate in role models. we can do it too. the second is the justice argument, participation as representation in which it is argued that it is fair and just that as 50% of the population that women have a right to participate in the processes. the third is the larger dream argument. participation as deliberation in which it is argued that they are process oriented that women contribute differently to the process of peace negotiations. the fourth is the expertise argument as expertise in which we need the expertise on issues that affect women's lives the
6:36 pm
way that the conflict has been gendered roles and the two-piece processes. i'm sorry. i skipped number four. the different agenda argument. the participation as inclusion. securing the participation of women as beneficiaries. the policies in the agreements. they argue that this participation fits on a spectrum ranging from participation that is representation by women in which women are physically a part of the process? on the other end, substantive representation of what we broadly characterize as women's issues. women's interests on the other hand. the agenda as focused on women's
6:37 pm
interest. substantive participation. rather than on women's distributive participation. i would like to introduce her to my second case study, the northern ireland women's coalition. in 1996, elections are announced to the peace forum. the formal peace talks and the three decades of violence in northern ireland. the civil society actors and women's organizations are putting in a phone call and said there will be women at the table. they get the answer they got back is sure. if they are elected. women engaged in the process of forming the political party. the women's coalition. what's interested in this peace
6:38 pm
process is the voting for the parties that would be represented in the process occurred in sort of two different levels. members of political parties would run the way we think of politi politics. it is comprehensive vote. the process was not designed to improve women. they benefitted them. as the coalition ran against the well-established parties and of the ten parties that were left to sit at the peace talks, the northern ireland coalition came in ninth out of ten? they had two women with monica
6:39 pm
williams. if they were a challenge to what they sort of laughingly referred to as normal politics of northern ireland that was decisive and focused on the violence. in the process or during it is peace process, the chair would assign papers. homework really for the delegates who had been elected. now, the members of the more well established parties didn't take this homework seriously. the women did. they met with their constituents with the party members. they hired legal experts and sought out academics in the field and took seriously the writing assignments. as a result peace agreements signed in 1998 has a lot of the language from the coalition because they took this process seriously. earlier on when the rest of the
6:40 pm
parties, otherwise the men at the table didn't. with the coalition, we can see all five of the arguments for women's participation in different ways. first of all the coalition as role models and women were proven capable of successfully organizing and managing a political party as well as getting elected to office. politics was synonymous with the violence and even at the peace talks, elected members and official leaders of parties really acted very violently and aggressively. the body language was aggressive. when the news or rather when men acted this way towards other men, it was not noteworthy. it was not on the news. suddenly seeing this aggressive behavior against women, these
6:41 pm
two elected women and constituents and the party became news worthy. these women not only showing themselves as role models as women are capable of became role models for what normal politics ought to look at. they showed in contrast with the childishness with the abusive behavior that the men were carrying out. the second argument and the justice argument, that was of women as well as a number of other constituents that wanted a cessation of the violence. they were not just being fair to representing women this this cause. they also served justice to other voices who had not been party to the violence and not been party to the conflict and just wanted an end to the troubles. the third argument is the larger
6:42 pm
dream argument. that's participation as deliberation. women proved through their very process oriented and deliberative political party style that there was an alternative to the violence of the conflict. there was a little way in which a party could be representative not just of one side or the other, but of a form of politics in which communities were accessed in which local voices were mobilized. and in which advice was sought for improving the situation of the larger community. the fourth argument, of the different agenda argument in which the patient is seen as a form of inclusion, one of the proudest moments for the coalition according to the members in the good friday
6:43 pm
agreement was what they called the civic forum. the civic forum was meant to be a body that would sit parallel to the new government. it would be made up of society members and organizations and community actors. it would serve as a via media in terms of translating local community voices and needs towards tell us in the new government as well as serving as a translator of new government policies and laws from the new government back into the community. today 78% of the community and voluntary sector in northern ireland is women. they make up this majority voice in a field that was developed largely as a counter response to politics which they saw as pure
6:44 pm
violence. including this civic voice was their method. i was going to call it their baby which is accurate considering how many of them really ran on issues of motherhood and wanting peace for their children. they wanted the access point. that's part of a different agenda. the pushing and pulling of power that was going on with the other parties. the other thing that coalition pushed was integrated education. still nearly 20 years after the violence ended in which catholic kids go to catholic schools. protestant kids go to those schools. that was part of this idea of a different agenda. women's participation including
6:45 pm
alternative issues. the final argument is the expertise argument. women in the coalition is able to engage with expertise rather than having it speak for them. they engaged with expertise in terms of seeking out legal expertise, academic advice contributing to the peace agreement. they spoke on behalf of the expertise. rather than as they caution us that expertise on what women's issues are and have a tendance tow speak for women. the coalition flips this form of participation in giving voice to the expertise and letting it speaking for it rather than leting it speak for them. there agents in that exporties. in the process of forming a party and participating in the process, they became
6:46 pm
professional experts in their own right. the formal processes bring together key stakeholders in conflict resolving tensions trying to end violence. they describe stakeholders characterized by the capacities or representatives if not participants in combat roles and parties. as such, women are regularly left out of such processes. women are particular category of categories and conflicts and participate in conflict differently. the participation in peace processes if all five of the firms are present. they can be achieved and distributively and substantively change processes for much more inclusive arrangements. thank you.
6:47 pm
>> what it does to ensure a more lasting piece. that's a big part of it. the goal was to have a lasting piece. to bring this back to the counter insurgency and context, if you look at if the data from the correlative war or the ucdp conflict data set, the two biggest if you are not here, the collection of formally declared wars and irregular military conflicts that are out there found that the majority of warfare which is defined as either a state fighting a non-state actor of multiple actors fighting within a state are brought to an end by
6:48 pm
negotiated settlements. there rarely is a formal all out military victory or a formal surrender that is achieved in the contexts. a lot of people in this room have experience with trying to figure out what the ending is and what the end date state is. we are learning more and more through the past 15 years that some sort of negotiation and some sort of whether you call it a ceasefire or a peace process or state building or whatever term you want to put on that, what you need is multiple parties with multiple stakeholders to all sit down and talk to each other to get these things to finish. if you are looking for good analysis on this on both barbara walter and andrew kid have good analysis of the data that is out there as to how to get different
6:49 pm
parties to come together. that's not as much as what i will focus on, but what integration means for the process and what gender integration in the actual battle space of counter insurgency and the battle space of warfare means for getting the right people to come to the baseball and also ensuring that women are seen as viable stakeholders. as mandy pointed out in the northern ireland case where women were seen as legitimate and they were there for a reason rather as just a window dressing that we brought a woman to the table. you get a more lasting piece. my argument is that bringing women into the counter insurgency battle space matters. as we briefly discussed in the q&a from the last panel, it got brought in to what is the purpose of integrating women as
6:50 pm
opposed to doing what some of the other larger military powers as in china and russia are doing now. i think first thing to really highlight with this is that we need to fight the wars in counterinsurgency and what irregular warfare really looks like on the ground as you are fighting within and among populations. you're not having infantry troops lining up on other sides of trenches and shooting each other and whoever kills more people wins and then you surrender, any longer. you're fighting in people's towns. you're fighting in people's villages. you're fighting enemies that you're not exactly sure are enemies one day and your bread seller the next day. i mean, this is just the reality. even if you take it outside of iraq or afghanistan and you look at conflicts that are currently going on in africa and in other parts of south asia, what you're
6:51 pm
not seeing large infantry on infantry battles anymore, what you're seeing are small-scale non-state actors raising violence either against the state or against another group and ultimately you need a way to get them to the table. the most important factor in counterinsurgency or if you're an insurgent group is populous buy-in and civilian buy-in. if you look at the data from what we have done in afghanistan with the cultural support teams and ellen has probably much more antidotes on this of them just talking rather than the raw number data that i was able to collect, groups where women were involved side by side with men in the entire clear hold and build operation. they went in. they actually fought alongside men to get taliban out. they then re-enforced these villages and taught the women how to be stakeholders in their
6:52 pm
village, how to both ensure their own personal physical security, as well as their villages' economic security and then were very involved in the new leadership established in these communities. you have not seen a resurgence of taliban in those communities. similarly in a few case studies in sierra leone where you had norwegian peacekeepers and they brought women in and they taught women how to both fight physically and secure themselves economically, you did not see a resurgence of extremist violence. so, what you have here is a really three-pronged phenomenon. you have one where women are setting the example of being equals with men, where when you have western forces or stabilizing forces, even if it's from a neighboring country,
6:53 pm
stabilizing forces coming in, you have men and women fighting alongside each other from day one, you have the precedent set and the example set that there are expectations that tends to bring women into the community, brings women into the discussion of what does security and what does stability mean for me when you leave and how do we ensure the stable and security when we leave? what this does is you legitimize women as stakeholders. you legitimize women as stakeholders in their own security. you legitimize women has stakeholders in their economic running and you legitimize women as political stakeholders. so that's really number one. the second thing that happens with women as integrated forces is you end up with violent integration. work done by jason lyle, a professor at yale university, that's looking at counterinsurgency
6:54 pm
counterinsurgency, pure violent military violent tactics have an inverse strategy to counter insurgency. that going into an area that you were trying to win the hearts and minds is the overall doctor of coin is. if you go in and just start killing people and you go in with the goal of we're going to take over "x" terrain and now hold it and conquer it and essentially have that more imperialistic view of military from back in world war ii days, you end with strategic defeats. you may get tactical victories, yes, you may take a village, you may take a hill, you may take a building, however you want to say it that way. but you intend to enflame a population against you and against your principles. the goal is to get the population to not support the insurgency in sort of black and white terms.
6:55 pm
i know most people here are very familiar with counterinsurgency doctrine. to do that, you need a more holistic approach to you're even fighting tactics. you need as both sue and ellen brought up, you need the complex decision making that goes beyond just let's destroy this building because it may be used as an enemy stronghold to what are the long-term consequences. and what are the long-term effects of this military action? and it has been seen in the units that had either lioness programs attached to this them in iraq or cst's attached in afghanistan, you got this long-term tactical or this long-term thinking was brought in to the tactical level and so the tactics of how do we ensure both our own security, the security of the village was married up with the long-term strategic goals of we need to win the hearts and minds to very
6:56 pm
simplify it of this village. again, you see women as a constraining force for the use of excessive force and excessive violence. additionally on the side of the constraining force and to take it just out of the iraq and the afghanistan context, if you look at the data on excessive use of sexual violence and elizabeth wood and ragnald nordis actually put together a phenomenal data set that goes back to pre world war ii of all instances of rape during war, whether it was by soldiers -- again, there's documentation issues and we don't have to get into issues of actual data reliability because i'm sure there tends to be much more than that is actually reported, but at least reported whether it was soldiers using rape as a weapon during interrogation, during just when you conquer villages and against
6:57 pm
captured soldiers, you see the presence of women in units, whether they were in peace keeping units, whether there were women in rebel groups in this way, that the use of sexual violence as a tool diminishes quite a bit. and the use of sexual violence during war is definitely outside the scope of this panel, but very briefly, it creates a lot of cultural barriers to reintegration and post conflict settling. i'm happy to discuss more of that in the q&a if you want. but the really bottom line comes down to the fact that women serve as a mitigating factor which creates one less stumbling back to both reintegration, to post combat settlement, and to reestablishing legitimate and lasting peace. and then, to end on a note that
6:58 pm
kind of directly dovetails off this, there's a lot of popular stories. to play off this whole story of emotion that comes up that is always very, very prevalent in this, where you'll hear reports coming out of colombia now with women in the fark or in turkey or iraq or u.s. soldiers, how the females are the most brutal. like, you would never want to be captured by a woman because she's going to top chur you far worsen in any male would or you don't want to be killed by a woman because you're going the go to hell. again this really brings up a lot of these cultural constructs around what men and women should do. if you strip again and pull back again some of my own research and own data bringing into this that in the fark and the pkk at least where i've done some of this that women and men actually do the exact same thing. like, like they have a very, very strict, very coherent, this
6:59 pm
is how you interrogate a subject and there's no evidence that women deviate from that script. however, the perception is that if a woman is doing something like this, it must be far worse. it's more -- it brings out it's more insulting to me as a man that a woman could do this to me and i think this opens a larger cultural conversation about whether it's a pro or a con. i don't have an answer to, but i definitely want to throw that out there that again it plays to this emotion and this rhetoric that you see used on both sides that women must be so much worse because they are some sort of deviant in this role. but to again pull back to the counterinsurgency side why we see women being so important is that they are essential facilitators for bringing women as prominent stakeholders into lasting peace.
7:00 pm
i'll turn it over to jeannette. >> good morning. you have to bare with me for a minute here. as a marine officer, i felt a lot more comfortable hearing about and thinking about the info being shared on the first panel, but this is my research area. i've taken it into a slightly different direction than what was talked about on the first panel. we heard this morning about skill set and how diverse groups are more equipped to handle complex challenges and these are all true and these are all good things, but i'm taking it into a little bit of a different direction. so, little bit of background, i'm a cobra pilot. so i grew up being the only woman in my squadron and constantly hearing, i've never flown with a woman before. it was this separation like i was expected to be different. so in grad school when i first started a long time ago i decided as a joke to look at the impacts of gender inequality or different levels of female leadership at different state


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on