tv U.N. Ambassador Nominee Governor Nikki Haley Testifies at Confirmation... CSPAN January 23, 2017 9:10pm-12:45am EST
playing at his level, top level in the country, when you win, you win big. when you lose, you lose big. >> sunday night on c-span's q & a. the senate foreign set to vote tomorrow to be u.s. ambassador to the united nation her confirmation hearing took place last week and include un peace keeping missions. this is 3 and a half hours.
they will be introducing our outstanding nominee. they going to stay brief kmemts. we'll make opening comments. i won't question at first i'll save my time for interjection but we welcome our nominee, we welcome distinguished friends, with that lindsey if you want to lead off. it's great honor to have you. >> thank you. i'm having hard enough time staying on the committees that's i'm assigned to. i may drop by more often. john mccain would be pleased: you're going to hear personal story that i think uniquely american. as nikki explain who shes where she comes from i think you're going to be proud of our
country. i will not get into story compelling stories in american politics all of us in south carolina are proud. as to the un, i consider myself internationalist. the chairman is working to national -- most americans are losing trust in the body. six against the world is a body that needs to refocus on the world at it really is. i think governor haley will talk about her desire to stand up for forcely for israel and i think it's time for america to stand up mother forcely for israel in the un. she'll talk about reform. we're in charge of the un budget. let tell you about the body. perhaps that un administers have
saved millions of lives. he was incharge of reechbl programs throughout the world. he understand the body, he has been out in the field. i think nikki haley and the secretary will form a partnership. i intend to reform this body to make you more proud of the way it functions. in that regard you'll have a good partner in governor haley. she has been governor of our state. a thousand year flood. massacre of nine neem in the church in charleston. determination, and dignity. trust me, it has been a tough year for south carolina. and governor haley has brought us together and gotten us to place we have sloo been a long
time ago. i think that skill set is exactly what the u.s. ambassador of the united nations need. you can learn the details but you have ability to persuade people, ability to transform organization or you don't. i have seen her persuade people who have dug in for sen tris. now is the time to move the confederate flag. i seen her bring international concerns to our state by engaging in a fashion to convince them that all of the place you could do business in the world, south carolina is where you need to be. bottom line, america's voice in the united nations need to be strong, and needs to be somebody what can be bring people together, it needs to be a voice that understands what america is all about. i think nikki haley, our
governor in south carolina is the right person at the right time. she represents a combination of intellect, determination and brace and understanding of the america that the world needs to hear. if she is ambassador for our country, the united would be bett better off and our country would be in good hands. >> thank you, so much. senator scott who is brief amount of time has brought gate consciousness to our body and clarity wee thank him for his services and unique services. we look forward to your commence. thank you mr. chairman. it's pleasure for me to be here. inter-deucing my friends who i have gotten to know over many years. her story really is the epitome
of the american dream coming to live. her parents migrated from india to canada and rural south carolina back in 1969. her father, college professor. her mother, entrepreneur started clothing boutique store where nikki figured out how to work. thank to my staff, she attend willing a school up state in south carolina was the number two football team in the country, this year they were number one team. they are also known at crimson tigers and her daughter is opportunity there as well. she learned how to be a student on things that matter in life.
i met nikki become when i started serve in the south carolina house of representatives in 2009. she had already been there when i was there. before she was in the house, lead the local chambers of commercial. and was elected in 2004 so the south carolina house. i was able to see firsthand the way she embodied american values in our leadership some we have grown to love and appreciate about her. in 2010 she became the first female governor of south carolina and second in the station indian american governor in our napgs nation. under her leadership unemployment rate hit 15-year low.
new job in every single county. representing the name industry to bmws to the attraction of more investment from mish lin to bridgestone. nikki haley created over 82,000 jobs in south carolina. nikki is also a champion of transparency and accountability in government two things that i and many of us hope to see more of at the unit nation. in 2015, as lindsey mentioned interest some of the darkness hours our state ever known, the church massacre. as the human being that was impacted but such an atrocity.
she led our state to come together with those types of leadership skills bringing people under the worse of time, under the most difficult conditions is something she's specializes in. the un would be better because nikki haley would be a part of it. >> thank you. we thank you for being here. and governor haley, we look ford to your comment in a moment. united nation security counsel -- united nation security council was created after warld war 2 to create stability and maintain security in the world as we look around the world today it's failing in
its cause of peace and security. we can only look to syria where over a half million people have been slaughtered. chemical weapons used against people. the united nation security council has been unable to do anything. russia remade the map invading -- united nation has been unable to deal with that issue. china is violating all forms in the china sea and united nation is unable to deal with that issue. it's own resolution. whether it's north korea in violations taking place and half hearted efforts taken place by members to push and enforce
strongs sanctions. in iran the same issue where an agreement has been reached and yet iran continues to violate especially on ba histic missiles. anti-sematic measures. the permanent five causing less to be -- russia and china. we have a build in issue any of the five members can very toe the action of the rest and keep united nation from deeping with issues it needs to deal with. the gap between kwha twhat the nation was meant to be -- u.s. largest contribute of 22% of the
norm normal dues, we pay 29% of the participation we give billions of dollars to other organization that are affiliated. and yet we see in the peace keeping mission violence of sexual exploitation and abuse. it seems no real action. yet i believe the united can and should play an important role i believe it is and can play an important role in conflict area in delivering humanitarian aide. we're at a pivotal point. while our former secretary general to me many many cases for me it was hard to determine if it he had a pulse when big issues were being dealt with by the world, i will say the new un secretary general seems to be
somebody that really wasn't the un to do what it was intend to do. i have strong conversation with him over the last several days as un was dealing with current business. you'll have a better pert ner when confirmed to this position. we -- i know that governor haley is a fierce advocate for u.s. interest all of us who met with her have seen that. i really do believe that she is a person that knows the un needs premen douse reform and change and i really believe that we have a right to demand that as the largest contributor as the greatest country on earth. i think that our nominee will infact demand that and will see positive changes when confirmed with that i turn it over to our
distinguished ranking member my friend ben cardin. >> thank you for the manner in which the hearing has been arrange. governor haley, thank you for being here. >> it's my pleasure. >> it's a difficult time to serve in government and difficult time to serve at un and serve critically important position national security and global affairs. thank you for willingness to serve your country. this is going to be family sacrifice. you're going to have to share your mother and wife with our country and can with the global community. chairman corker you're correct, the meeting i had with governor
haley was most impressive. i found -- i thank you for that opportunity. international security are under tremendous stress as the liberal international order of the last seven decades. un place role in the current order which served united states well since 1945. as ronald reagan said we must determine that the un should succeed and serve cause for human kinds for the stakes are high. i could not agree with our former president. we need a principaled voice committed to strengthening it. a world governened, a world where we champion our values.
the united nation is the premier forum to engage in such activities. much will be said about your experience today. i'm concerned about your lack of foreign policy experience. we'll talk more about that. one area where i whereas impress with your leadership whether you publicly called for removal of the confedera confederate flag,s successful. you're ability to build and work with colations which would be important if confirmed to be our united nation's ambassador. it's our hope that your sensibility colation and desire to undertake new challenges will help you in early weeks and months of you are tenure.
if confirmed you'll stand up against war crimes, crackdown on democracy and freedom of speech. you will face challenges like global crisis. people are fleeing their homes on scale not seen since world war ii. more scarcity are increasing tension and instability across the global. these cut across boarders that united states alone cannot meet. united nation is placed today address these problems. un and global community needs un citizens ship. are well-known, let's floknown what it gets right.
40% of the world children. assisting 55 million refugee fleeing famine. maternal health work that have saved the lives of 30 million women. many have travelled around the world and seen the faces of family here today but not for the work of united nation. they launched could have powerful -- in addition to reaching important benchmark. i wag particularly proud to promote u.s. leadership on gold number 16 international commitment to improving governance and important to security interests. the sgds are extraordinary and
goals that can be achieved in concert with diplomatic efforts. they represents the rest the what united nation can do. united nation framework prevention on climate change. for 25 years they have come together to threat to humanity climate change. i want to know about your role in diplomacy, leadership around the world. un must effective in deal with -- u.s. leadership is essential. i don't believe we strengthen funding cuts to united nation.
we agree un can do better. let me share with you where some area where i hope we can -- first un must be fair one of the persisten persistence weakness approach to issues relate to israel. this must end. responsibility for doing so starts with the states and endorse if confirmed with your voice. continue to use voice and vote to call out and push back against resolution and can other action that aim to isolate our allies in the east. it's absolutely unacceptable that tell that attendee
applauded after passage. second, russian cynical obstructionism must be addressed. the war in syria has resulted in 400,000 death and displace m the of millions. russ russia vetoed bills that could have reduced the violence. those responsibility must be held accountable. that's our role in the international community to make sure that takes place. third, un peace keeping must be strengthened. deployed to conflicts around the world, as a result united united states doesn't have to do it alone. un help protect war, secure
territory, but it must be increase and un must address sexual exploitation by peace keepers. where the confidence of international community. forty and -- it must be committed to building protection of whistle blower i'm confident that u.s. with the new secretary general, i think the secretary general presence a strong leader who takes this position with a secretary general of the un. i urge you to work closely with the new secretary general in accomplishing the purchases that we need to accomplish.
finally, you must shore up un response system under extraordinary stress. brutal conflicts are devastating the lives of many people. south sudan example of the struggle in un, entrinch leders put their lives ahead of the people. millions of displaced hungry and vulnerable. as well as those working hard on the front line. you must do so not because it's right thing to do united states has pro found moral obligation to legal issue because it is squarely within our national interest do this. united states better serve when we address these issues through
united nation than to face it alone. it's impossible to imagine a world without un. our national security strengthen when we're at table with -- at a time where a world is in turmoil, it's interest for united states to maintain stability are more important today than ever before. we seen that instability being crisis to our own doors. in addition to un, there should be little debate about maintain peace in europe. in 20th century europe faces
challenges but the progress in creating a few europe with eu organization has contributed immeasurably to peace and to american strength and leadership of the world as well. the vitality of the institution to the united states. i was particularly disturbed by president trump about nato being obsolete. i'm anxious to hear your views on nato, with a strong and sustained leadership the un will continue to be indisexpenseble to the world. governor haley, i look forward
to hearing from you and learning more about your vision as un can better serve the community. >> thank you, senator cardin. as i listened to your analysis, i know that un ambassador is more about reform and causing something that's dysfunctional to function. in many ways a governor with your energy, could well be a very inspiring choice. i know you have number of family members here. i know members create family members are with them. if you would like to introduce them you're welcome to do so. we look forward to your comments and questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and
thank you senator card infor your support. i do have family behind me because i have not been able to do anything with without support of my family. to my left is my younger brother. i have my parent, doctor and mrs. ren dal la who remind us every day how blessed we were to live in this country. i have amazing husband but the coolest first many ever of the but he also a combat veteran, michael is behind me and next to him is one of pride and joy, kids, that's nay lon, who is wearing a suit today which he prefer not wearing but he has basketball shoes on. i pick and choose my battles as a mom. i have my in-laws here. as we have gone through strugs
el. then i have my favorite older brother, who is also a combat veteran and his wife. then i have lots and friends behind them as well. as i told them if i started to mess up one needed to act like a protesters so we'll see if that happens. >> i think she's going to do well at un. >> with that i would like to say chairman corker, i come before you humble to be considered to respect united states at united nation. just as other nominees for this position have done, i'm hear to outline vision and discuss my qualification. my store story is an american sto story. my parents have come to india
close to gulf up come for the with $8 because of the freedom this country offers. because it is one that has been repeated many times by many people in american history. growing up in a small rural community in the south our family was difficult. we were not white enough to be white, or black enough to be black. our nabts didn't know what to make of us so we did face challenge but those challenges pealed next to the abundance ahead of us. my mom social study teacher and -- when i was 13 i do the
books. when i got to college i realize it wasn't normal. in my family we worked. i was privileged to take advantage of the education that america affords. i aware that 13-year-old that does not exist in far too many words around the world today. serving the people of south carolina has been the greatest honor of my live. during the six years of my governorship our state faced many challenges, south carolina is stronger economicley and more united culturely than ever before. while south carolina will all be my home i'mee ger to beagain
this new chapter. this new area for me. there's much i'm learning about the intra-kacy of the un, i don't claim to know everything or that leadership at un is same as leading south carolina but diplomacy itself is not new to me. in fact there's nothing more important to a governor's success than her ability to united those. for six years that has been my work, day after day. in times of celebration and times of great tragedy. i have negotiated deals with some of the largest in the world and convince them to make south carolina their home. i have have been chief executive annual budget of more than 26
billion we have achieved real results. south carolina is a better place than it was six years ago. the united nation could benefit from the nice fresh of eyes. i will come to the un to work and to work smart. i will bring a firm message that u.s. leadership is essential to the world. it is essential for advancement of humanitarian goals and national interests. when america fails to lead, the world become a dangerous place. and the world become more dangerous the american people become vulnerable. at un at elsewhere united states the voice of freedom. it is time we find that voice. the job of un ambassador is
different from being governor but there's one that's the same and that's accountability. a leader must be accountable to the people she serves. she you confirm me ill will be accountable. first and foremost to the people of the united states. when we look at the un we see a checkered history. the un and specialized investigation have had numerous successes. it's health food programs saved millions of lives. weapons have -- peace keeping mission have at timeless performed valuable services. however, any honest assessment finds an institution that's at odds with the american national interests and american
taxpayers. nowhere has it been consistent than it's biassed against our close ally israel. in the general assemble just come pleepted un adopted 20 resolution against israel. and only six targeted rest of the world combined. in the past ten years the human rights counsel has passed 62 resolution condemning the reasonable actions israel takes to defend its security. meanwhile, the world's human rights abuser received far fewer condemnations. this cannot continue. it is in this content that the events of december 23 from so damaging. last most res louis 2334 was a
terrible mistakes. making peaceful agreement with the palestinian harder to agree. in light of un, history. i was -- combatting the anti-israel boycott or bds movement i will not go to new york and obtain when the un seeks to create an environment that encourages boycotts of israel. i will never obtain when un takes action that comes in direct conflict with the interest andville use of the united states. in the matter of human rights, whether love of my families and heritage or the removal of the
oppressive path i have a clear understanding it's not acceptable and american interests. even if that is not what other u.n. representatives want to hear. the time has come for american strength once again. there are other elements of accountability as well. as govern, the south carolina constitution required me to report annually to the people of my state on how their security and prosperity were being advanced by their government. in fact, i gave that state of the state address just one week ago. i was able to tell the citizens of south carolina that we now invest more dollars in public education than ever before, that our reserves have doubled while our debt service has been cut in half. and more south carolinians are working today than ever in the history of our state. without fundamental changes at the u.n., i cannot envision
making the same kind of report to the american people as their ambassador. we contribute 22% of the u.n.'s budget, far more than any other country. we are a generous nation. but we must ask ourselves what good is being accomplished by this disproportionate contribution? are we getting what we pay for? to your credit, the congress has already begun to explore ways the united states can use its leverage to make the united nations a better investment for the american people. i applaud your efforts. and i look forward to working with you to bring seriously needed change to the u.n. if i am confirmed, i will need you. and i hope to have your support. in short, mr. chairman, my goal for the united nations will be to create an international body that better serves the interests of the american people. after the passage of the infamous u.n. resolution equating zionism with racism in
1975, u.s. ambassador daniel patrick moynihan came to the unsettling realization that as he put it, quote, if there were no general assembly, this could never have happened. today over 40 years later, more and more americans are becoming convinced by actions like the passage of resolution 2334 that the united nations does more harm than good. the american people see the u.n.'s mistreatment of israel, its failure to prevent the north korean nuclear threat, its waste and corruption, and they are fed up. my job, our job is to reform the u.n. in ways that will rebuild the confidence of the american people. we must build an international institution that honors america's commitment to freedom, democracy, and human rights. i hope this can be done. i believe it is possible, and i know that if you confirm me, i
will do all i can to see that that happens. some say we live in cynical and distrustful times, but i believe we all carry in our hearts a bit of idealism that animated the creation of the united nations. i know i do. with your blessing, i will represent our great country in this international forum. i will do it in ways that i hope bring honor to our country, our values, and our national interests. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you for those comments. we'll begin a seven-minute round, including answers from the nominee, and we'll start with senator cardin and go to senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. governor haley, first of all, thank you for your presentation. i find it very encouraging, very refreshing. you have hit points that i strongly agree with about being what you say a clear
understanding that it's not acceptable to stay silent when our values are challenged. you indicated that to me when we were together in my office. your point about america being the indispensable voice of freedom. so i am very encouraged by your statements. let me get specific, if i might, and talk a little bit about russia. russia certainly has not been a voice for freedom under president putin. a free country has free and fair elections and doesn't interfere with other countries' free and fair elections. russia has not only interfered with our elections, they're interfering with other elections, including in europe. a country that believes in freedom allows civil societies to function. it allows opposition a fair opportunity. mr. putin imprisons opponents and kills them if need be. a free country does not invade another country and take over
territory. russia has invaded not just ukraine, but is in georgia and moldova and other countries. so my first question to you, when you say that you will -- that staying silent is not an option, speak to me about mr. putin and russia. >> well, thank you, senator cardin for that question. and i think that russia is going to continue to be at the forefront of a lot of issues that we have to deal with. what i'll tell you is russia is trying to show their muscle right now. it is what they do. and i think we always have to be cautious. i don't think that we can trust them. i think that we have to make sure that we try and see what we can get from them before we give to them. they certainly have done some terrible atrocities when you look at things in syria. and how they are working with iran. and i think that we have to continue to be very strong back and show them what this new administration is going to be. and it is going to be an america
that shows exactly where we stand, what we are for, what we are against, and how we're going to proceed. and i think that we need to let them know we are not okay with what happened in ukraine and crimea and what is happening in syria. but we're also going to tell them that we do need their help with isis and with some other threats that we all share that we have to move forward. >> does russia have legitimacy in crimea? >> i don't think -- i think what we saw with crimea and ukraine is a big concern, because i think it is russia trying to make sure that they are inserting themselves in places that they want to continue to insert themselves. the problem is there is no boundaries with russia. they don't have boundaries. they consider that whatever they want, they will. it's the same thing with nato. they don't want to see nato become stronger or more powerful. >> but eu and united states have made it clear they will never recognize russia's incursion into crimea. do you agree that russia, that
crimea is ukraine, it's not russia? >> i do. and i think that we have to make that very clear to them. i think that's what we have to show is our disappointment in those things. >> talk to me a little bit about we have sanctions currently against russia? >> we do. >> you have been able to get europe to go along with those sanctions. >> yes. >> you agree that those sanctions should not be reduced or eliminated until russia complies with the minsk agreement? >> i think that russia has to have positive actions before we lift any sanctions on russia. >> some of us have filed legislation to strengthen the sanction regime against russia, giving additional tools, additional power to impose additional sanction. do you support additional sanctions if russia does not change its behavior? >> i think that what i do believe is important is we get together with the national security council and the president-elect and we decide a plan for russia, what we expect from them, what we plan on looking at as we go forward, what violations will trigger additional sanctions, and when
we say it, we should do it and follow through with it. >> the philippines have been an ally of us for a long time. under their current president, they have sanctioned extra judicial killings. people have been killed that have not gone through court proceedings because of their suspected of using drugs. do you agree that that violates basic human rights? >> i'm sorry. i missed the first part of the question. >> the president duterte of philippines has sanctioned human killings. does that violate human rights? >> it does, yes. >> and you're prepared to speak up about that? >> i am. i am prepared to speak up against anything that goes against american values. american values is something we should talk loudly about all the time to all countries. because i think it's the values that we hold dear and it is the core of what the united states and american heart is all about. we have always been the moral
compass of the world, and we need to continue to act out and vocalize that as we go forward. >> i mentioned the sustainable goal 16 good governance. i talked to you about expanding that so that the united states leadership in good governance fighting corruption, we use the model that we have used in regards to fighting modern day slavery and trafficking. will you work with us in your role in the united nations to strengthen the u.s. role in fighting corruption globally? >> absolutely. i think that's who we are as americans. and i think that's what we need to do to make sure that we continue to fight corruption. because if we fight corruption, we will move closer to peace. >> there has been some suggestion of a national registry for subgroups of americans. it's been talked about in regards to muslim americans that perhaps there should be a registry. can you just tell us your view as to whether it's accept to believe have a registry for subgroups of americans? >> thank you, senator cardin, for that question. i think it goes to maybe some
discussions that had been had by president-elect trump early on. and this administration and i don't think there should be any registry based on religion. i think that we do need to do is make sure we know exactly which countries are a threat, which ones have terrorism, and those are the ones we need to watch and be careful and vet as with go forward in terms of who comes into the country. >> i understand vetting people who come to america. i'm talk about american citizens. is there any justification for any registry of subgroups of americans? >> no, there is not. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> good morning. >> governor haley, welcome. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for your willingness to serve. i know testimony from your state senators outlined in your own testimony here, you've been very effective leader in south carolina. so you're obviously going to be leaving a state you love, a job you have performed well in, taking on a pretty significant challenge. it's striking, quite honestly, to listen to the chairman lay
out point by point how ineffective the u.n. has been, how ranking member cardin says that the u.n. must change. it must be fair. people must be held accountable. in your testimony, you point out going back 40 years. then ambassador daniel patrick moynihan said if there was no general assembly, this could never happen. so you're taking on a challenge here to reform a u.n. that has been unreformable. do you have a game plan for doing so? >> it is what i have done all my life. i love to fix things. and i see a u.n. that can absolutely be fixed. there are reforms that need to be taken place in a lot of different areas. there are things that the u.n. does well, and we talked about the food and health organizations, what they've done with the aids epidemic, all those things have been very good. but we do have to look at certain issues. if you look at we have 16 peacekeeping operations. some are very successful. some are not. and we need to go back and look at when we get into a mission,
what is the end goal. it is happening? do we need to shift and do things differently, or do we need to pull out? you look at sierra leone and you see it started off rocky but ended up very strong. if we look at south sudan, it's terrible. but you also have to look that we're not getting cooperation from their own government. and that requires us to go back and look at that and see what can be salvaged from that. so i see peacekeeping reform from the standpoint of not just those issue, also when it comes to the whistle-blower issues. we've seen fraud. we've seen sexual exploitation. we've seen corruption of all kinds. and the whistle-blower protections are not strong enough. people are still too afraid to speak up. well need to make sure that the countries that are contributing troops hold those troops accountable when they go and make these violations. that's not happening. and they need to understand that if we have to pull out their
country's troops altogether, we will do that. because many of the countries actually make money off the peacekeeping missions. i see lots of areas where reform can happen. that is where i thrive. that is where i look forward to making change at the u.n. >> so what you're describing is shining light on the situations, sexual exploitation, highlighting that to hopefully effect change and reform. in testimony, you also talk about leverage. and that would be the funding that u.s. provides. would you have a particular game plan in terms of how we would use u.s. funding to the u.n. to gain that leverage to actually enact some reforms that again, they have been pretty hard to enact over the last 40 years? >> absolutely. i think that we need to go into every part of the organizations of the u.n. but one in particular. you can look at the human rights council. and you have to really question what is the goal of the human rights council when they allow cuba and china to serve on
those? they basically are protecting their own interests while they're going after other countries to make sure that they give them a hard time. and so do we want to be a part of that? do we want to leverage funding for that? and say we don't want to the that. we've done that with unesco before. and we've got decisions to make on those types of organizations. and so i do think it can be leveraged. and i do think it's something that we should be open about and it's something i look forward to exploring further. >> so you won't shy away from threatening and actually enacting, withholding u.s. funding to get real reforms out of the u.n.? >> i won't shy away, and i need your help to do it. because i need to be able to say i have congress backing me up saying if this doesn't change, the fund willing stop. and i think that could be great leverage. >> i agree with your assessment of the real harm, the damage of the most recent anti-israel resolution. what can we do to repair the damage? have you given that any thought? >> i have given it a lot of
thought. and i think it's going to take time. and i think it's going the take effort by more than just me. at first we need to go and make sure that we let israel know that we are an ally, and that we will be an ally. and it is important. because what happened with resolution 2334, it basically said that being an ally to the united states doesn't mean anything. and if we are a strong ally, if we always stand with them, more countries will want to be our allies. and those that challenge us will think twice before they challenge us. what we saw with 2334 was it not only sent a bad signal to israel, it told the entire world that we don't stand with anyone. and i think that that was a terrible mistake. and we have to come out strong. we have to be incredibly vocal. we need to probably fight harder than we have fought before. and it won't be just me. it needs to be from this congress. it needs to be from the national security council. it needs to be from the president-elect, and we need to
speak with one voice. >> i was in israel the sunday before that resolution and i had about an hour-long meeting with prime minister netanyahu, and we talked about that. tried to push back on it. but i don't think there is anything we could have done to deter this administration from basically poking a stick in his eye and israel's eye. certainly saw the consulate there in jerusalem. have you taken a position, would you support from moving the embassy from tel aviv into that consulate? it's really a matter of changing a sign. would that be one of the actions we can take to repair the damage? >> absolutely. not only is that what israel wants, but this congress has also said that's what they support. >> so we talked about u.n. rorm reforms. we talked about repairing the damage of the u.n. resolution. what other reforms would you concentrate on? >> i think the biggest part is how we represent america going forward. we need to represent our country from a point of strength. we need to remind the rest of the world that we are the moral
compass of the world. and we need to express our values as we go forward. we need to let them know that we are not one that is going to be gray anymore. when we say something, that's where we stand. and when we say we're going to do something, we need to follow through and do that. i think that we -- the strength that we show from the beginning and the way we handle it through our actions, and my work with the security council and how we move forward with other countries is going to do that. >> again, governor haley, thank you for being to serve. we look forward to working with you to effect those changes. >> thank you, senator menendez. >> governor haley, congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you. good morning. >> and for stopping by to visit with me. i think everybody here is impressed by your personal and professional story and certainly nobody doubts your commitment to public service. >> thank you. >> however, the world in which we live in is complex, and the united nations is an enormous organization with a wide mandate in which we have to carefully
navigate our own interests, those of our allies, confront direct and indirect threats, and build consensus around some of the most confounding and complex problems. so with that in mind, i'd like to ask you a broad set of questions. i think some of these can be yes or no's. others may more of an answer and then move to some specific areas. do you believe it's in the national interest and security of the united states to continue to preserve and promote the international rules based order we created after world war ii? >> in terms of? >> of our national interests and security. to continue to promote and preserve the international order and rules-based structure we created after world war ii. >> yes, sir, i do. >> do you believe that as part of that rules-based structure, the viability of borders and territorial sovereignty is an essential part of that? >> i think that -- are you referencing israel and the palestinian authority or are you -- >> no, i'm just saying in
general, as part of the rules-based order. do you believe that the inviolability of borders and its territorial sovereignty is an essential element of that? >> i do. >> okay. do you believe that there should be serious consequences for violation of the international order? >> again, i believe it's up to the circumstance, but yes. >> okay. so when you say up to the circumstance, what circumstances, violations of the international order would you believe there aren't serious consequences for and which ones should be serious consequences? >> i think with every situation, it is important that we discuss wit the national security council, with the president-elect, and we have a plan. what we don't want is knee-jerk reactions. what we don't want is quick answers to things. we should have a plan on every situation so that we know what our end goal is and what our mission is. >> i would hope that there are some things that are so overarching that we don't have
to convene the national security council to say that's a violation of the international order. for example, do you believe that russia violated the international order when it annexed crimea and invaded ukraine? >> yes, i do. >> do you believe there should be serious consequences for such actions? >> i think there should be consequences that we say. but if we're doing that, we need to follow through on them and make sure they happen. >> i agree with you, we should always follow through. but you do believe there should be serious consequences for violating this. >> yes, yes. >> in that regard, we have a series of sanctions that have been leveed against russia. many members of this committee in a bipartisan basis have been promoting a new round of sanctions because of what they have continued to do in that regard. what they have done in syria, what they have done in our own elections. my question to you, do you believe that those sanctions that are there should be
preserved until there is a dramatic change by russia? do you believe that they should be enhanced knowing what we know today, forgetting about what may happen tomorrow. what is your view on sanctions as it relates to russia? >> i certainly think they should be preserved. and i don't think they should be lifted unless we've seen a strong change from the russian government. >> okay. do you believe that russia committed war crimes when it ultimately indiscriminately bombed civilians in aleppo and hospitals in aleppo? >> yes, i do. >> let me ask you this. when you sat with the president-elect, i assume that in taking this role that has a global magnitude to it, you had some discussions about what the role would be like and what not. did you discuss russia with him? >> we discussed basically the international situation. and i think that the president-elect is coming in, again, a fresh set of eyes. he wants to look at each and every country. he wants to look at all of the threats that face us.
and i think he wants to work with the national security team to come up with a plan with each and every one. >> did you specifically discuss russia with him as part of that? >> russia came up, yes, it did. just from the standpoint of that we were going to have issues with russia. >> uh-huh. no greater specificity than that? >> no, sir. >> did you discuss china? >> yes, we did. >> and what context was that discussion? >> the same thing. >> was more about the issues we had but it didn't go into detail as to what those were going to be. >> these two countries obviously are security council member. >> yes, they risks and part of your challenge is getting them getting them not to use their vetoes in ways that actually have undermined in my view the international order versus promote it. you know, i totally agree with you in your opening statement. you said u.s. leadership is essential in the world, essential for the advancement of humanitarian goals, advancement of america's national interests. and when we fail to lead, the world becomes a more dangerous
place. but i read some of the president-elect's comments that seem nothing short of denigrating towards our international commitments and international organizations like the u.n. i could read a litany of tweet, but i'll just choose two. when do you see the united nations solving problems? they don't. they cause problems. then the flip side of that he says china is filling the vacuum left by obama at the u.n. so it's either an entity that is worthy of being used to help promote u.s. national interests and security interests or it's not. and if you're worried about quote/unquote china filling the vacuum, it's because there is something worthwhile to pursue because you don't care about losing and having a vacuum filled if the entity is of no value. so my question is how do you reconcile those comments with concerns that if the united states pulls back at the u.n., that china will fill the void?
you talked to the president-elect about the value and the effort that you are willing to undertake, leave your governorship and go to undertake in terms of making the u.n. as a strong institution that will promote our national security. >> i have talked to the president-elect about that. and when this position came up, he said that he wanted me to have a very strong voice in the u.n., and he wanted us to have a higher profile in the u.n. and to really use to it work. i do think that obviously any comments that the president-elect has made, those are his comments. what i will tell you from my standpoint is i think that we need to go back to what the u.n. was intended to be. and we host the u.n. and that should give us great leverage in the way we handle that. we are going to be dealing with some tough partners on the security council. whether it's china, whether it's russia, those that do veto. but we also have to remember we have a veto. so we can keep bad things from happening.
the other side of that is we still need both those countries. we're going to need their help. we need china's help when it comes to north korea. we need russia's help when it comes to isis. we've got to find ways to let them know when we disagree with them, we should not be afraid to say when we disagree with them. when we need to work with them, we should tell them exactly what the end goal is and how we need to work with them. and the way we will get those vetoes not to happen is to show how it's in their best interests for their country to make sure they do that. you see china right now pulling away from north korea. because they see the missiles that are being built. they know what's happening. and we just have to encourage them that this is not good for china. and then when you do that, that's when we can start seeing more pressure put on north korea. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator gardner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor haley. >> thank you. >> for your willingness to seven. and thank you to your family for being here today. and thank you for your leadership during a time of shame in this country and tragedy. in south carolina, you made
america proud by your actions. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> last week we had an opportunity to hear from rex tillerson nominee for secretary of state. he talked about the importance of u.s. global leadership. >> yes. >> we had a great interaction for the need for the u.s. to share our values around the globe because nobody else will do it. he talked about security. he talked about liberty. he talked about prosperity and the great need the share those values because in his words, quote, we are the only country able to project those values with authority. in 1950, in the observance of the fifth anniversary of the creation of the united nations, president truman stated, quote, the united nations represents the idea of a universal morality superior to the interests of individual nations. its foundation does not rest upon power or privilege, it rests upon faith. they rest upon the faith of men and human values, upon the belief that men in every land hold the same high ideals and strive for the same goals for peace and justice. this faith is deeply held by the people of the united states of
america and i believe by the peoples of all other countries. it seems like we have a united nations today composed of people that are pretty far from the idea and the vision that president truman outlined. it's this idea of faith of men and human values. the faith of men and human values in russia is illegal annexation of crimea. human values to north korea means torturing its own people, 200,000 people in political concentration camps. values in iran means being the leading sponsor of terrorism around the globe. the united nations recently as we have talked about here, passage of resolution 2334. i encourage here to watch the video of the reaction of the security council after the united states abstained from our leadership. raucous applause broke out in the security council. contrast that with the passage of resolution 2270 at the security council. passage of a sanction against north korea that has hundreds of thousands of people in political concentration camps killing its own people, torturing its own
people, starving its own people, and there was silence. the world apparently applauds when we attack our ally, but sits by silently when we condemn dictators. so to you, governor haley, how does the united states continue to project our values in the absence we've shown the last eight years to assure that we are going to be indeed working with the world on those ideas that rex tillerson laid out of security, prosperity, and liberty? >> you know, i think that so much of this goes back to the fact that the world has seen us gray. they haven't seen a black and white of where we stand and where we don't stand. we need to stand and we need to stand strong. the world wants to see a strong america. that's what they were used to. that has faded. and it hit the ultimate low with resolution 2334, because when it shows that we won't even stand with our allies, that's a sad day in america. and it's a sad day for news the
world. i do think that what we will now start to do is show our strength. we will not be afraid to stand up. when we decide to make an action, we're going to follow through with it. and we're going to make sure that that's known. and i don't think we will be shy about the values of america and about what we're trying to achieve in bringing peace to the world. and we have to be loud and strong about that. and i intend to do that. >> thank you, governor haley. we talked about the importance of projecting that strength of leadership. >> yes. >> i want to talk a little bit about alliances. your role is particularly important to be the face and voice of the united states and that commitment to our allies. organizations and alliances such as nato matter. it matters greatly. it is your commitment to strength global alliances, alliances like carry on at the united nations? >> absolutely. we need as many alliances as we can possibly get. at this point it is about addition. if we do and do sanction, sanctions just by the u.s. doesn't work. sanctions when we combine and work with alliances, that makes progress.
so much of what i look forward to doing is not just expressing the ideals of the united states and where we stand and the agreements and disagreements that we have. it's also building coalitions so that we look so strong, everyone wants to be our ally. >> and when it comes to calling out in public forums at the united nations, no matter what country they are in, no matter where they are in the globe, when a dictator is corrupt, when a dictator abuses human rights, we will call it as we see it? you won't be afraid to do that, correct? >> you should ask the people of my general assembly in south carolina. i have no problem calling people out. >> very good. thank you, governor haley. last comment. senator menendez and i worked together on the north korea sanctions policy enhancement act. it's the first mandated sanctions signed into law on north korea's act to proliferate sanctions human rights violations and abuses. just last week a sanction first time mandatory cybersanctions
requiring them to be put in place. in 2016, the obama administration led and helped with those two security resolutions through addresses north korea. have we effectively enforced the north korea sanctions? have we effectively made sure that they're effective as well as united nations sanctions, the 2270 resolution? have they been effectively enforced? >> sanctions are only as good as if you enforce them. and clearly there is more to do in north korea. and when a line is crossed, to not say anything is going to be a problem. so i think north korea is definitely one to watch. i think we're going to have to work closely with china to throw the threat of what is happening. and we can't let up on north korea. what we are seeing right now is production of nuclear weapons and he does not care. he is going to continue to do it. and we have to continue to make sure that we are making our voices loud. that we are talking about north
korea, and that we continue to put the pressure on china and other countries to make sure that north korea does start to slow down. >> and what should we do with china in order to get them more active and enforcing the sanctions against north korea and their ability to help denuclearize the korean peninsula? >> i think that north korea is starting to do that themselves because china is now nervous. and china has already started to pull back economically. and china has the greatest threat to north korea, and they know that. so what we have to do is let china know this affects china. this affects their region of the world. this affects us. not talk about it with in our -- from our results and what it will do to the united states. talk about it in terms of china. and really encourage them to say you are the one that can make a difference here. and i think that we just push them in that direction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> absolutely. senator shane? >> thank you, mr. chairman and governor shaley. congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for spending some time with me yesterday. >> i enjoyed it. thank you.
>> me too. and as i said to you then, i've been impressed by your work as the governor of south carolina. >> thank you. >> and i very much appreciate in your statement your commitment to the u.s. leadership in the world and to your comments about your conversation with the president-elect about being a strong voice at the u.n. for the united states. but i have to say that unfortunately, as strong as i believe our ambassador to the u.n. can be, the president's words are often taken with much more weight. and i am disturbed by some of the president-elect's comments that are different than those positions you have enunciated here about the institutions that the united states helped create after world war ii, about the u.n. he recently called it in a tweet just a club for people to get together and talk and have a good time.
in interviews this weekend, he criticized nato. he was amazingly nonchalant about the future of the european union and the transatlantic alliance. and i see the potential for real negative consequences because of that failure to recognize those institutions that have helped promote the security of the united states and have helped -- have helped us as we have tried to lead in the world. so i appreciate that you have said that you have the ear of the president and that you will be part of the national security apparatus. i think that's very important. but how will you avoid the conflict between your efforts at the u.n. and the security council and the president-elect's tweets, the positions that he has taken on many of the issues that will come before the united nations? >> you know, i think that what
the president-elect has put out there are his opinions as they stand now. what i do think is going to happen is i look forward to communicating to him how i feel as i know the rest of the national security council does as well. it is important that we have alliances. i know the president-elect realizes that. it is important that we create coalitions, and i know that he realizes that as well. so his comments are really coming from the fact that he does have a fresh set of eyes. he is looking at those things. but my job is not just at the u.n. my job is to come back to the national security council and let them know what i know, which is i want to bring back faith to the u.n. i want to show that we can be a strong voice in the u.n. i want to show that we can make progress and have action in the u.n. that's going to happen from my actions and from the things that i do. and that's how will i show him that the u.n. matters. nato obviously has been an alliance that we value and an alliance that we need to keep. and i think that as we continue to talk to him about these
alliances and how they can be helpful and strategic in the way that we move forward, i do anticipate that he will listen to all of us and hopefully that we can get him to see it the way we see it. >> so do you agree with his suggestion that vladimir putin has been a stronger, better leader than angela merkel? >> i think that what he is looking at, just like he is looking at associations, he is looking at opportunities. and he is trying to find opportunities where he can relate to different leaders and work with different leaders. that's not a bad thing. >> it's not a very good way to relate to angela merkel. >> no, it's not. and i agree with you on that. but i do think that's where he is trying to go is see what relationship he can have with a lot of different leaders. and i think our goal is pull out the best we can in who we can deal with without having to talk negatively about someone else. >> i appreciated your comments about disagreeing with the idea of a registry for any particular
group in the united states, for muslims. in the past you have criticized then candidate trump for proposing a ban on all muslims traveling to the united states. do you continue to believe that that's unconstitutional? >> yes, i do. and i made that clear during that time, just as i always speak up when i think something is wrong. but i do want to add that the president-elect has corrected his statement and said that he does not believe there should be a full ban on muslims. he does believe that we should be conscious as we're looking at the refugee crisis and otherwise that we do not take people from any areas of threat. >> today about 60% of all maternal deaths take place in humanitarian situations like refugee camps or areas that have been affected by conflict. and in these settings, women and girls are often cut off from health care. you pointed that out in your statement that you appreciate the challenges so many young
women and girls face around the world in terms of access to the advantages we have in the united states. many of those lives have been saved and can be saved with access to proper care, including prenatal care, voluntary family planning, and skilled birth tenants. and the united nation's population fund is the world's leading provider of life-saving care for mothers and their babies in humanitarian settings. they work with the world food program, with unicef. if confirmed would you continue to support those efforts by unfpa? >> i would support any efforts that help educate, help plan, help let them know what contraceptions are in place so that we can avoid any other further action. i am strongly pro-life. and so anything that we can do to keep from having abortions or to keep them from not knowing what is available, i will absolutely support.
>> while i very much appreciate that, because i think sometimes the idea of access to family planning services is conflated with abortion. and it's a very different issue. >> right. >> and this is a way to avoid abortions, unplanned pregnancies. >> that's exactly right. >> thank you very much for that comment. as governor of south carolina, you took the position that syrian refugees were not being properly vetted. and so you questioned whether they should be allowed to settle in south carolina. as ambassador to the u.n., the u.s. has had a role in galvanizing global support for refugees. do you see that the position -- how will you be able to resolve the position that you have taken in south carolina with your new role as ambassador when it comes to refugees? and i'm out of time.
>> very briefly. >> it's hard to give a brief answer to. but i will say that first of all, our refugee program in this country is one that is valued and has done a lot of good. and when it comes to refugees, we have to remember those that we have always tried to help. those that have been persecuted for any reason. i will give a personal story in that my husband when he was deployed to afghanistan, there were two interpreters that kept his unit safe, and they kept them without harm. when it was time for that unit to leave, those two interpreters staying, they would have been killed. and so what the refugee program rightly does is it allowed them to go through and vet those interpreters, those interpreters are now in the united states. they're now having jobs and contributing members of society. the issue with the refugees in terms of the syrians, as governor of south carolina, we
always welcomed the refugee program. it changed when it came time to the syrian refugees, and that was at a time where i did have a conversation with director comey. and i said tell me if this is any different than the way we've handled it before. and that is when director comey said we don't have enough information to vet these refugees. and i said so you can't vet them the same way you vet others? and he said we don't have the information. and that's when i said we can't take refugees from syria until i know that i can protect the people of south carolina. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> before moving to senator young, senator rubio asked me a question a minute ago. i know this has nothing to do with today's hearing. but a lot of committees swear nominees and witnesses in and have them stand up and do that, and some don't. whether they do that or not, they're bound by the exactly same obligations to congress in that you have to tell the truth when you're in front of a committee. i know it came relative to the
last hearing we had. and i just wanted to make sure everyone understood that. senator? >> thank you, chairman can. and thank you, governor. good morning. for your service, in your past and your continuing interest to serve. article section 18 of the constitution grants to congress the power to declare war. going to war of course is one of the most serious decisions a nation can make. and the founders explicitly gave that authority to make the decision to the american people through their elected representatives. the u.s. hasn't declared war since world war ii, and instead periodically relied on authorizes of the use of military force. two and a half years after we started bombing isis in iraq, congress still sits on the sidelines in terms of exercising this most important responsibility, where instead we're relying on a 2001 authorization for the use of military force that strains credibility at best, and i think sets a dangerous precedent. perhaps some are concerned about going on the record in support
of or in opposition to the war against isis. our war fighters and their families like your husband have demonstrated incredible courage in taking the fight to terrorists. i believe if members of congress showed just a fraction of their courage, we can fulfill our constitutional duty to vote on an aumf focused on isis. friends and foes alike should know that our nation is all in when it comes to taking the fight to isis and other groups. so i know senator cain has actively engaged on these issues. others have been involved for some time. i understand the details and wording matter of such an authorization or declaration as it were. i just want to gone to record early and clearly here in the senate that i'm in favor of congress showing courage in exercising its constitutional responsibility with respect to naumf focused on isis. do you believe with that long
lead-in that congress should pass an aumf, an authorization for the use of military force against isis? >> well, understand that any time -- first of all, congress does have that authority. and that's an authority that should be respected always. i think that when you talk about any sort of war or any sort of military interference, it's important to have a plan, and it's important to have an end goal. i say that as the wife of a military combat veteran. i say that as a sister. because families, once they send their loved ones into harm's way, they want to know that congress and the president-elect has a plan. so with that, isis is an extreme threat to america and the rest of the world. i do think they have to be dealt with. i just think it needs to be done responsibly, knowing that we have measurables on what we are looking for, where the end goal, and knowing exactly where the start and the stop is it. >> okay.
i wanted to see how you thought through that issue. i agree with measurables. that takes me to another topic. with the understanding that we can't defeat or take on the world's ills through hard power alone. >> agreed. >> it's a mix of hard and soft power in order to count whatever has been called violent extremism by the u.n. and by the united states, we're going to have to certainly defeat the perverse, perverted ideology of radical islam and do so by engaging in and winning the war of ideas. so based on your preparation for this hearing, what is your assessment of the u.s. government and the united nations' current performance in the war of ideas abroad against the islamic terrorist ideology? and what do you specifically think needs to be improved? back to measuring success, how do we measure success in the war
of ideas? >> i think that first of all we need to speak with one voice. and that's something that hasn't happened. i think it needs to be the president-elect. i think it needs to be the national security council. and i think it needs to be congress along with the u.n. that when we say this is a problem, then we follow through with it and we finish what we start. i think that's incredibly important. an that way when we're automatic speaking with one voice, the rest of the world knows this is serious to us. we mean business, and we're not going to stop until it's resolved. >> how will you divine what that one voice is? will it be based on legislative sort of resolutions coming out of congress? will it -- and legislations signed into law by the president, directives of the executive branch that you'll take with you to the united nations? is that how you'll determine? what that voice is? >> my hope is that the president-elect, the national security council and congress work together to decide what
that looks like. because i think that's very important. if in any way any country in the world or isis sees a break in any of us, that will show us weak. and i think we all need to stand together and be very strong if we're going to go take this on and finish it. >> and then to measure success, how do we measure success in the war of ideas? >> when they are no longer a threat and when they are no longer causing harm to americans. >> are there any incremental success measures, public opinion polling surveys? those come to mind for me. but i'm sure there are probably some other sophisticated tools. >> it's hard to find anyone in america today that does not understand the threat of isis. >> okay. in your prepared statement, you cite some of the failures of the nations. and they're multifaceted. mistreatment of israel, preventing the north korean nuclear threat. i think the third act on syria also belongs on the long list of u.n. failures.
hundreds of thousands of syrians have been killed. half the country's population has been uprooted. much of the infrastructure lay in ruins. this is a genocide. >> absolutely. >> i don't think we remind the american people and the international community frequently enough that a genocide has occurred here. would you agree the u.n. security council has failed with respect to the assad regime and the catastrophe in syria? yes or no? >> yes. >> why did the u.n. security council fail to act more forcibly with respect to the assad regime and the catastrophe in syria? >> i look forward to getting into the u.n. and find out why they think hitting says so much more important. >> i think it's because russia consistently employed a veto. russia vetoed at least six u.n. security resolutions focusing on the assad regime. you indicated russia committed war crimes in syria i believe in the hearing here today. i'm glad you acknowledged that. do you agree that both at the u.n. in new york and on the
streets of aleppo, moscow has acted as an active accomplice in assad's murder of his own people? >> yes, i do. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. if i could, i can't let this pass. it would be my observation, and everybody has their own that the amf issue has nothing whatsoever to do with courage. nothing. that if there was an authorization for the use of force that gave the president all means to fight isis, and that was it, it was 12 words, you would have 11 votes. and if you had one that said he can use all means but you can't do this, you can't do this, you can't do this, and you can only go into x countries, it would have 10 votes. and so the fact is that there is a divide. and we have an authorization that is legal that everybody has come before our committee has said is legal. and at a time when we did not
want to show division as it related to isis, it just seemed it was better instead of getting to a hung place here, it was better to stand behind what most people believed to be a perfectly legal basis upon which to fight isis. but i'm more than willing to take it up there. is a divide about whether the commander in chief should have all means available to him to fight isis. it's a philosophical divide. an i would just say one more time, i say it strongly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with courage. >> could i -- mr. chairman, if i could -- i agree with everything the chairman said there. i just want to go on record saying that, except for one point. and that is there is serious concern as to whether the current authorization used by the obama administration and potentially be used by the trump administration covers the military actions that they have pursued. there is a serious challenge about that.
>> there is. and the administration has made their point. i happen to have agreed with that point. i do want to say that senator cain and senator flake have brought this issue up several times. i am more than willing to engage in a discussion. i just think that when you're going to authorize the president to do something, it's best for congress not to micromanage what is being authorized in that regard. there is disagreement there. and that's something that we might flesh out. i just want to say one more time the courage issue hits a nerve. nothing whatsoever. as a matter of fact, sometimes it takes courage to do the things that make sure that people see our country as being unified and not divided over something that i though we're unified on. everybody on this panel wants to see us defeat isis. there is some issues we may want to resolve. but we're unified in that regard. and showing division is not something that i feel is particularly good for our country to do it this time. but i'm more than willing to debate it.
you might want to say one other thing. >> yes. to the extent that i offended or impugned the courage of any of my colleagues, i of course want to go on record and say that wasn't the intent. i do think we'll have to lay into this issue, continue to very publicly exchange views on it. and i do think that that requires courage. because it's an uncomfortable topic to broach. so thank you. with that, i yield back. >> thank you so much. senator udall? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and governor haley, thank you very much for coming to my office and sharing your views. and it's great to have you here today, and great to have your family here. i want to thank your husband and your older bring for their service in the military. you obviously have an impressive story here to tell and we appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> i'm a very strong supporter of the united nations, and i
believe that strong u.s. leadership is needed to ensure that the united nations remains a viable institution in the future. i've been extremely alarmed by some of the president-elect trump's dericive comments about the u.n., and i'm very concerned that his statements have harmed the efforts in that body. and it's good to see that you're clarifying some of those. the most discouraging is that he has insinuated or allowed the perception that the united states will no longer take a leadership role. and you're saying today i think that you're going to assert that role. i -- that he would have cut off funding and would end our participation in important aspects of the u.n. this is not a formula for success. u.s. leadership is paramount. if we left a political vacuum, it would likely be filled by countries that might not necessarily share our interests, such as russia and china. i hope that i am mistaken, and i
hope that you will be an advocate for u.s. participation in the united nations. and i believe you have stated that here today. it's very clear that russia attempted to influence our election. if you're a confirmed to serve as ambassador to the u.n., will you stand up to vladimir putin and against russia's attempt to interfere with our electoral system? >> we should stand up to any country that attempts to interfere with our system. >> and what will your message to your russian counterpart on the security council be with regard to their attempts to influence the u.s. elections? >> that we are aware that it has happened, that we don't find it acceptable, and that we are going to fight back every time we see something like that happening. i don't think russia is going to be the only one. i think we're going to start to see this around the world with other countries. and i think that we need to take a firm stand that when we see that happens, we are not going to take that softly. we are going to be very hard on that. >> and -- it sounds like you're
going to stand strong and tough on this? >> without question. >> now last september, the world passed a milestone in carbon emissions, reaching 400 parts per million. 2016 i think was also the hottest on record in terms of our climate. we're moving closer to more -- a more unstable climate future, a future that could threaten my home state in new mexico with heatwaves and dangerous droughts, and your state with increased coastal flooding and perilous storms. and that threatens stability i think across the globe. and a lot of people talk about climate refugees. we've talked about other kinds of refugees here. do you agree that the united states is indispensable and must maintain its leadership in the paris agreement in order to ensure the countries abide by their climate obligations? >> i think that the climate change situation should always be on the table. it should always be one of the issues that we look at. but i do think when we look at
the paris agreement, we should acknowledge what we do believe is right, but we don't want to do it at the peril of our industries and our businesses along the way. as governor of south carolina, what you would see is we would work really hard to recruit a company from an country, and then by the time they saw the regulations and the burdens that were put down on them, they started to pull back. we don't ever want it to interfere with our economy. but i absolutely think that climate change should always be on the table of one of the factors that we talk about. >> but you're not one to say you're going to tear up the paris agreement? and the united states, which has helped to bring all these countries together, and for the first time in a generation we have countries together that you're going to walk away from that? >> i think that we want to work on the things that we believe work in the world and the united states. but if we do see burdens that are costing our businesses, then i do think that that's something i wouldn't agree with. >> well, are you -- are you
committed to stay a part of the paris agreement and work towards climate change objectives and goal? >> climate change will always be on the table for me. >> now we talked earlier about u.n. resolution 2334. this was a resolution about israeli settlements. these settlements have been greatly expanded in recent years. the settlement dispute goes way, way back many, many years. in fact, ronald reagan said in 1982, and this is his statement. "the united states will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transitional period. indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by israel more than any other action could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks." that position on settlements has been a bipartisan policy of the united states going back to president johnson.
are the settlements that break up the possibility of a future contiguous palestinian state harmful to achieving a two-state solution, in your opinion? >> i think what was very harmful to achieving the two-state resolution was resolution 2334. because the whole goal has been to have israel and the palestinian authority at the table talking. that should be the role of the united nations. and as we go forward is to support that. when we basically abstained from 2334, we made israel more vulnerable. we made america more vulnerable in that we don't stand by our allies. we need to let the two bodies resolve this themselves. that is what has always taken place. and i think it's dangerous when the u.n. starts to tell two different bodies what should and shouldn't happen. >> well, you -- all those things you said were also in samantha powers' statements. but are you committed on settlements to the bipartisan policy that has stood for over 50 years in this country?
the u.n., the bipartisan policy, our country has taken on settlements? >> i do understand on the issue on settlements. i will continue to -- i do understand how they think that could hinder peace. but at the same time, he will always stand with israel and make sure that they know we're an ally and the rest of the world knows we're an ally. >> the question is are you committed to the bipartisan agreement on settlements and the expansion of settlements? >> yes. >> thank you very much. >> i think if i understand what she is saying she supports the two-state solution, but understands the parties themselves have got to resolve it. and the u.n. security council inserting themselves into that process as it has been can be very detrimental. >> yes, thank you. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, the statement, and i'd like to put the full statement of our u.n. ambassador samantha powers in the record at this point. she said specifically what you
have said. the united states supports the two-state solution. many of the things that are ambassadorial designates was about an expanded settlement policy. and she has committed to stand with that bipartisan policy. which i believe you answered the question yes, when i said you were going to stand with a bipartisan policy that has -- not only this administration, but every administration since president johnson has supported on the expansion of settlements. >> i want to clarify, because i don't want there to be any gray in this. what i think happened with 2334 was a kick in the gut to everyone. so we can think what we want to think on settlements. but you have to go back to the fact that the u.s. abstention, when that has not happened since 2011 at all, against israel was wrong. and i think the fact that we
have not allowed the palestinian authority and israel to resolve this themselves is wrong. and i think for the u.n., to have inserted themselves into that i believe is wrong. so i want to make sure i'm clear on record as saying what i think about resolution 2334. >> appreciate it. i think there may be some factual dispute about your last statement. i think we had some discussion about that in committee. i just want to -- i don't want to leave that last statement hanging without a retort. and with that, senator flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> good morning. >> good morning. thank you for your testimony. thank you for coming to my office, the visits you made, and appreciate also your family. >> thank you. >> great to have them here. and appreciate the sacrifices they have made in the past for your public service and will make in the future. as well as the military service for our country. i've seen examples of the u.n. working well. and obviously seen examples of dysfunction.
i happened to spend a year of my life and my family, we went to the country of namibia in 1989 to see u.n. resolution -- security council resolution 435 be implemented. april of '89 to april of '90. and watched where the u.n. can work and work well. that was a process by which namibia achieved their independence from south africa. that resolution was passed a decade earlier. that was finally implemented then. and namibia is a fine democracy today. much owing to the united nations and the role that the security council resolution played there. and so i've seen it work. but also, you've mentioned in your testimony, many examples of the dysfunction. a lot of that has to do with the general assembly, or unesco and other organizations. but also, plenty of dysfunction with the security council.
and the failure has been mentioned to take a position and take a stand with regard to syria will, i think, be judged harshly by history. >> that's right. >> let me talk just a bit about peacekeeping. we've seen examples where peacekeeping has worked as well. u.n. peacekeeping forces on the golan heights, for example, for years kept the peace there. a lot of peacekeeping now is done obviously in the continent of africa. i have a particular interest obviously there. the u.n. -- or the u.s. contributes 2.6 billion in peacekeeping activities. that's about 28% of the entire u.n. budget. peacekeeping, as you know, it's a more -- even more of a disproportionate number. next highest is china with just 10%. we talked a little bit earlier
on about south sudan, and the situation there. that's an area where peacekeeping is not working well. the focus of the mission there has been changed a bit. we're trying to make sure that -- i think the quote is "protection of civilians, human rights monitoring, support of deliver yif humanitarian assistance, and implementation of the cessation of hostilities agreement." that is not going well. what can we do to make the situation better there? that's a particular focus of our peacekeeping activities. >> with south sudan? >> yes. >> first of all, i think we should look at all 16 of them. secondly, i do want to point out that we're pushing on 29% for the peacekeeping budget. and according to the helms-biden act, it should really be at 25%. and we need to be conscious of that.
first of all, i think what's very important is we have to start encouraging other countries to have skin in the game. they have to start being part of the peacekeeping process because by doing that, they will want to see more transparency. they will want to see more accountability in the way the peacekeeping missions are handled. when you look at south sudan, i think there's something to be said that we have to make sure that the security is already in place when we go to do a peacekeeping mission. the peacekeeping officials are not meant to fight. they're not meant to get involved, or take sides on anything. they're there to keep the peace. and so our goal should be go in, keep the peace, get it settled, and get out. and what we're seeing in south sudan is the government doesn't agree with the fact that the peacekeepers are there. so that's a problem. we need to know that if we are doing good we want to stay. if we are not doing good, then we need to get out. and i think it's extremely hard to see that the government is against us, because it's kind of
going against what we're trying to do with the peacekeeping mission to start with. >> you mentioned 16 peacekeeping operations, 9 in africa. >> yes, they are. >> the last six that have been approved by the security council are in africa as well. i'm happy to hear that you want to delve in and see how we're doing with those. what other metrics can be used -- i know senator young mentioned that -- in terms of whether or not we're getting bang for the buck out of our involvement? >> it is one of those where you do have to decide before you even take on a peacekeeping mission if it is something that can see success, if we can get to a resolution. i think part of that is making sure there is a secure base to start with. making sure that we are taking care of things. if you look at the peace missions in africa, it has been devastating to see the sexual exploitation, the fraud, the abuse that's happening. and we have to acknowledge that
some countries are contributing troops because they're making money off of that. so if they are not willing to make sure that they are punishing the violators, then we actually need to pull that country's troops out, because they're harming the peace process. the last thing we want is for u.n. peacekeepers to go into a country and for people to be scared and for people to be vulnerable. and i think we are seeing that right now. and mostly in africa. and i think that's a problem. because once we have transparency of how this money is being spent, then we can bring accountability to the actions that are being taken, strengthen the whistleblowing process and make sure we're actually doing what was intended to do. i think this is extremely important. when we start to become more transparent and accountable, we will start to see the waste of the dollars. and you won't see u.s. putting 29% in. you'll see them putting in less than 25%. and we will see countries really start to have skin in the game which i think is hugely important if we're going to continue peacekeeping missions. >> thank you.
i'm glad to hear you acknowledge problems we've had with these peacekeeping missions, to see the sexual abuse and whatnot going on there is just devastating. >> it is. >> you're right. for those countries in which peacekeepers are there to not to have trust in the u.n. process there is devastating. i hope we're more proactive to make sure the offending countries with troops there are dealt with more quickly. more quickly. and i appreciate the testimony and look forward to further discussion. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. without objection, i'm going to ask that we go ahead and enter into the record u.n. security council resolution 2334 so everyone can discern for themselves what it actually said. senator murphy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, governor haley, for being willing to serve. thank you for your history of speaking truth to power. i enjoyed the time we spent together discussing some of the
issues you're going to face. appreciate you being here before the committee. >> absolutely. >> and so i say this respectfully, i sort of feel like the hearings we've had, this hearing and the hearing on secretary of state nominee tillerson have occurred in an alternate universe. i hear loud and clear what you're saying about needing for the united states to be clear about where we stand and strong in our values. and i think that mr. tillerson used the same phrasing over and over again. and i think we would all agree that those should be goals of u.s. foreign policy. but president-elect trump has downplayed russian attempts to influence our election. he's suggested that nato is obsolete. he's openly rooted for the break-up of the european union. he's lavished praise on vladimir putin and refused to commit to sanctions. he's criticized one of our most important allies in the world,
chancellor merkel. he's promised to bring back torture. and he's called for japan and south korea to take a look at obtaining nuclear weapons because they probably can't rely on our security guarantee any longer. so i hear what you're saying. but can you understand why right now the world perceives the trump administration's foreign policy to be the exact opposite of clear about where we stand and strong in our values? i hear what you're saying, but can you understand why the world perceives the foreign policy to be the exact opposite of what you're articulating it will be? >> i understand that anytime there's a new administration there is always nervousness and there's always concern. it happened with president obama, it's happened with presidents before that. that is something that is just natural. it's natural to the world to all watch the united states because we are such a leader, to see who's going to follow it.
it's also for a candidate or incoming president to look at everything and to say things. once you govern, it becomes very different. and i think that what we have seen is that once the president-elect gets to hear from his national security team i think what he says after that will be most important. i think those are the focuses that we're going to have with the national security council, and making sure that we educate, inform him of wa we know, inform him of strategies, and then go along with whatever decision he decides to make. >> i heard a version of this in your answer to senator shaheen. so you believe that after two years of suggesting radical changes regarding u.s. policy about conveying really muddled messages about where we stand, that's all going to change after friday? >> not all of it will change after friday. but what i know is i'm going to control the part that i can. and what i can control is the u.n. and so i am going to use the
power of my voice in the u.n. to talk about america's ideals and our values and our strengths and our freedoms. i'm going to talk to the president-elect about the u.n. and the opportunities for strategy in dealing with russia and china and north korea and syria as we go forward. and i think that we are going to have a lot of opportunities to make that better. and i do think that my counterparts as well are going to inform the president-elect on what they're seeing. and so, you know, that's how an administration works. you surround yourself with people who don't just say yes to what you think. they actually challenge you and they tell you of other opinions. and what i know about president-elect is he actually will listen. >> let me ask you about the future of the u.n. you have a lot of democrats in south carolina that don't get what they want all the time from the state legislature and from their governor. and so would you advise democrats in the state legislature in south carolina to boycott the state legislature if they don't get what they want or
for registered democrats in south carolina to stop paying their taxes if they don't get what they want from the state government? >> well, we have laws in place, so they just can't stop paying their taxes or they will deal with that. legislators have been known to do whatever they want. and as governor i've seen that happen. so it's two totally different things. >> i guess, you understand why i'm making the point. the reason we invest in the u.n. is not because we expect to win every fight. it's not because we expect to have our views prevail. but because we think it's important to have a deliberative body in which differences can be expressed out in the open rather than always dealt with behind closed doors. and the risk of pulling funding because the united states doesn't get its way is potentially catastrophic. the u.n. provides food for 90 million people in 80 countries around the world. it vaccinates 40% of the world's children. it assists 55 million refugees
and people fleeing wars, famine or persecution. and it provides maternal health care to 30 million vulnerable women. so i guess my question is, you're suggesting that we should pull funding from the united nations if we don't win votes in the general assembly. >> i've never suggested that, sir. if that's the way you took it, then that was not what i intended to say. i do not think we need to pull money from the u.n. we don't believe in slash and burn. it wasn't anything i considered as governor. it's not something i would consider as ambassador or anything i would suggest back to you for congress. i think what's important is we look at every organization, see if it's working for us, see if it's something we want to be a part of and i'll report back to you as well as the president-elect on whether that's something we need to be a part of. i know that he had made comments about the u.n. but those are not my feelings. and i don't think that's what's going to happen. >> i really thank you for that answer. i think it's an important answer.
and so i want to just maybe ask you to make that answer a little bit clearer. so you don't believe that we should be threatening to pull funds based on outcomes in the general assembly that we don't agree with. you would pull funds if you don't think that programs are effective, but you wouldn't threaten to pull funds because we don't get the outcome that we want from the deliberative process? >> right. my job is to make sure we work to figure out how to get the outcomes and to negotiate and make sure i'm working with the leaders in doing that. if, for example, we see in the human rights council that cuba's there and china's there and we're not seeing the human rights move in the way the american values are supposed to, yes, i'm going to come back to you and i'm going to say this is a real problem, this doesn't follow our mission. i may go there and find out there's a way to resolve that. so with those i'll come back to you. but no, i do not think we should have a slash and burn of the u.n. >> i appreciate that. i'll just note that since
rejoining the human rights counsel council, we were out of it from 2007 to 2009, once we rejoined special sessions on israel dropped by 50% and resolutions on israel dropped by 30%. so engagement in these forums do matter. and i really appreciate your answer. >> i look forward to looking into that. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> senator portman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome to you and your family. >> thank you. good morning. >> your family story is the quintessential american story. >> thank you. >> in my view, it's a story that the rest of the world appreciates and respects when reminded of it. and i think your very presence at the united nations would be a reminder of that and what makes our country unique. i also think your management skills that you've shown as governor will be effective in encouraging the u.n. to be more efficient, which is a problem in my view. i was once a member of the u.n.
human rights subcommittee after the first bush administration. and after i left that administration, during that administration i served, and it was a very interesting experience. you had some positives, which is talking about human rights. you also had some negatives, which is the human rights abusers used it for their own political purposes. so i do think in response to your question to senator murphy, that the opportunity for reform is obvious. and when all of our taxpayers are paying roughly 22% of the budget, i think they do expect to see a more efficient and organization that's more objective and more in keeping to our values. and again, the values that so many other countries seek as well. when they look at america's story, that you will represent. we've talked about a lot of issues today. my view is we're in a more
dangerous world in part because america has not led, and if you look what's happening on the eastern border of ukraine, crimea, or the south china sea today, certainly what's happening in syria, part of this is a lack of leadership. and i do think that you also see a crumbling of the very foundation of the post-world war ii u.s.-led security umbrella that has kept the peace. so i guess my first question to you is, just about that. you know, how do you intend to support u.s. national security interests, but also ensure that the u.n. is a more effective body toward promoting a more peaceful and less volatile world? >> thank you for that question, senator. i think first of all, we need to really have a conversation with other countries on the importance of them having skin in the game. because when they have skin in the game, they will care more about how those dollars are spent. i think that's where we can really bring more efficiencies to the u.n., more effectiveness to the u.n. when we get more involved. that's something i'm going to try to work on and see if we can
get them to understand that being present is not enough. being invested is what's going to make the u.n. stronger for everyone. so that is the first thing. i think the second thing is we have to have a very strong voice. we have to be very strong on -- if there are resolutions coming up and we're not seeing resolutions that deal with syria and we're not seeing resolutions that deal with north korea and not calling out the violators that are there, that is up to us to bring up that conversation. for us to start it. >> israel's been talked about today. obviously a big issue at the u.n. and i would agree with what was said today about the fact that this relationship is a cornerstone of our strategy in the middle east. they are our best ally in the region. they are the one democracy in the middle east. let me focus on one specific issue, which is the boycotts, divestments and sanctions movement, bds. this is something i worked on over the years, actually with ben cardin, the ranking member.
we've come up with a number of legislative resolutions. one of which is the law of the land now, passed as part of the trade priority bill that requires us to look at the bds as part of the trade negotiating objective in our trade agreements, which is a historic change in the way the u.s. has dealt with this. can you talk a little bit about that? what do you think should be done with regard to countering boycott divestment and sanctions efforts against israel? really the sense of trying to delegitimize israel. and a little bit about your experience in south carolina with regard to this issue. >> well, first of all, very proud to say as governor of south carolina that we were the first state in the country to pass an anti-bds law in our state. and so that was trying to really make the point of how important we think it is. i think as we go to the u.n., that is a point that has to be made. we have to look at the fact and call out the fact, why is it that the security council is so concerned with israel. it is an obsession that they have with israel, where they
don't have with north korea, where they don't have with syria, where they don't have with other things that are going on. and so it is up to us to talk about the fact that you can't have boycotts against a country that is just trying to protect its people. and i think you are finding an authority, not a state, that is actually leading the charge on this. and i think that that's wrong. i think we'll have to continue to really be more aggressive, call them out, let them know what's wrong, and then find out what their answers are. because there is no good fair honest answer on why they continue to pick on israel and why they continue to allow these things to happen. >> we talked briefly about the broader issue of russia, china, other countries using disinformation and propaganda. there's been a lot of discussion about the meddling in our election here, which is a great concern of all of us. publicly i've heard the uk and germany both express concerns even recently on this topic. certainly when i travel in
eastern europe every country in the region is very concerned about this issue of disinformation and specifically the effort to meddle in democracies, fledgling democracies. i wonder in your role as ambassador what you would intend to do about that? there's this new global center that was set up at the state department. senator murph and i and i worked on this as part of the national authorization bill to establish this. i think the u.s. is asleep at the switch. i think we've not kept up with the counterefforts that have come our way and to our allies, specifically with regard to technology and being online. can you comment on that and what you're willing to do as ambassador to push back against this disinformation? >> first of all, i applaud you for wanting to improve our technologies and the way we handle cybersecurity issues or other types of hackings and countries getting involved in our business.
because we are behind the curve on that. and we very much need to get in front of it because the rest of the countries are. having said that, we need to make it very clear that we do not accept any country that tries to meddle in any of the business of the united states. and that needs to be made loud and clear. it needs to be made loud of any of the violators. we need to be able to call them out by name and we need to let them know this is not something that we're going to allow going forward. i think this is going to be more of a conversation not just for the united states, but for our european allies, and other allies around the world, because they are feeling the same thing. and they are concerned about the same thing. and in some cases have witnessed the same thing. >> thank you, governor. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gronks it's very good to see you here. i want to thank you for bringing your family here. you add a proud layer of diversity to leadership of our country and i think it's needed and i think your record is something in south carolina that there are many aspects of it that i celebrate.
particularly what i think you showed especially in the wake of a horrific shooting. you showed grace and dignity in dealing with the tragedy. then you showed tremendous courage in removing the confederate flag from the state house. i've been in a state of gratitude about that in particular. so thank you very much for showing strength of leadership during very, very difficult times. >> thank you. >> you and i have had time to talk in the past and we've known each other for some years. you have to forgive me, i have three hearings going on at the same time -- >> so you're just here to say nice things about me. [ laughter ] >> touche, governor. let me just -- forgive me if some of these questions may have been covered before. >> understood. >> governor haley, do you support a two-state solution? >> i do. >> governor haley, do you believe that it advances u.s. interests to provide food, jobs, homes, and hope to the people of
the west bank and gaza by decreasing the pool of potential recruits or radicalized individuals to join terrorist organizations like hamas? >> yes. i think that we need to do whatever we can to protect the region and i think that we need to make sure we do all we can to go against the threats. >> yes. and i'm grateful for your very strong steadfast statements in terms of support of israel and pointing out what even former u.n. secretary-general has pointed out about the biased nature of the u.n. against israel. but security for israel is something that's of critical import to me. and there are serious issues around the security. but again, as a security guarantor does the aid that the u.n. provide save the governor of israel the expense of providing assistance to the people of the west bank? in other words, a lot of the work that the u.n. is doing providing humanitarian aid, uplifting the dig any of people, access to clean water, are these things critical as a larger part
of israeli security, and that of the beauty and dignity of the palestinian people? >> i think it is. it's something i want to get more information on. but i think anytime we can help mankind, regardless of where they are and what country they're in, the united states has always been there. so i do think that anytime we can create peace, we want to do that. so certainly any services that we're giving to that area right now will continue to look into and work on. >> and i hear sometimes, and i find it problematic that with the obvious realities of terrorism sometimes people's response to that is wanting to cut off that vital aid that provides basic human needs. is that something that those calls to cut off that kind of aid, does that concern you? >> you know, i haven't had anyone talk to me about cutting off the aid. but i also think it's like everything else i've said, we need to look at each and every mission, see what we're doing and see how we can make it more effective for the people in the area. >> i want to switch real quickly to something you and i discussed together. i think it's important to do it on the record.
we talked about the challenges of the lgbt community, even here in the united states. we see 40% of all homeless youth in the country are lgbt youth. 50% of lgbt youth miss school because of fear of bullying. on the international context, you see even more serious challenges to the basic human rights and dignity of lgbt citizens of the world. ambassador power has been a champion of lgbt human rights. she's really put it at the forefront of her work. she put the issue at the heart even of the security council which is a pretty important and bold step. she said in a speech that lgbt rights are human rights, human rights are lgbt rights. and human rights must be universal. if confirmed, can you just say a little bit about how you plan to continue the leadership of the united states on this issue, given the fact of really tragic realities going on around the
globe, not just of abuse or harassment, or but physical torture and imprisonment and killings of lgbt people. and do you pledge, can you pledge here that you'll maintain our country's positive voting record on critical human rights for all people, including lgbt and finally under your leadership of the united states continue to work behind the scenes to support the principle that lgbt rights are human rights? >> thank you, senator, for that question. i think it's very important that we talk about america's values. and when it comes to america's values, and opportunities, we do not allow for discrimination of any kind to anyone. and that is something i will always speak loudly about. it's something i'll always fight for. and i think it's important that we never have to deal with discrimination in this country and i don't want to see any other country have to deal with discrimination. >> specifically on the lgbt rights, will you be a champion of protecting their dignity,
security and safety in the global human rights context? >> i will make sure there is no one that is discriminated against for any reason whatsoever. and every person deserves decency and respect. >> thank you very much. i know senator shaheen asked a little about contraception. if i may just drill down on that a little bit more. the united nations announced in 2012 access to contraception is also a universal human right, and can dramatically affect the lives of women and children in some of the world's poorest countries. as you know, women who use contraception are generally healthier, better educated, more empowered in their households and communities, and economically often more productive. women's increased labor force participation that is a result often of having access to contraception boosts the nations' economies. giving women the power of contraception has a profound impact. can you just speak generally in
the remaining seconds that i have in how you will work with other countries of the benefits of safe and effective family planning methods and support politics and policy that's are supportive of family planning? >> as we discussed, i'm strongly pro life. i'll always be pro life. to me, education and contraception are important to those countries so that they know that they don't get put into a situation where we have to sacrifice a life in the process. so yes, absolutely when it comes to the education and the contraceptions, i think those are incredibly important, that we educate and we make sure those are provided to other countries. >> i want to say in closing, before the next round, as i said to you in private, i'm very grateful that you are -- that donald trump is including you in his security council in a significant role. i hope you will be one of the independent voices that you were during the campaign that will speak truth to power, no matter what the consequences. >> yes, i will. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you. senator rubio.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. governor haley, welcome. >> thank you. >> congratulations. of course i had the opportunity to get to know your family quite a bit about this time last year in another endeavor and came away incredibly impressed and excited now about this opportunity you'll have to represent our country. i wanted to summarize some of the testimony because it's going to lead to the question that i have to ask. first in your written statement you said "in the matter of human rights, i have a clear understanding it is not acceptable to stay silent when our values are challenged." you also said that in terms of reforming the u.n., we need to build an international institution that honors america's commitment to freedom, democracy, and human rights. in your testimony, you have said that you do not believe that sanctions should be removed from russia without positive actions regarding the actions that led to the sanctions in the first place. you testified as well that you believe that war crimes have been committed in aleppo by the russian military.
you testified that the russian government has helped assad murder his own people. in the philippines you acknowledged that the current president of the philippines has conducted human -- involved in extrajudicial killings that violate human rights. and of course you acknowledged that the human rights council of the united nations, you've called into question their legitimacy because of not just their membership but their pattern of behavior over the last -- forever. and therefore, i imagine by extension believe we should consider returning to the bush policy of not being a part of it. yet i know you also understand, as you said in your testimony, that you have to be able to work with countries all around the world at the security council and the general assembly on critical issues. so i take it and gather from both your -- from all of this testimony that if confirmed, as the ambassador to the united nations, you're going to have to deal with countries whose
behavior is -- violates human rights and international law and yet you believe it's possible to speak truth to those countries, and their horrendous human rights record and still negotiate with them on issues of importance of the security council when necessary? >> absolutely. i don't think we should ever apologize for the american values or ever shy away from talking about them. at the same time i think it's very important that when negotiating with other countries and when we're dealing with them they know exactly where we stand. they know where we support and agree. they know where we disagree and they also know what our intended goals are in terms of working together. and that's what i've had to do as governor. that's what you do when you deal with legislators and international officials. and i think that's what we'll be doing there. i don't think we have to compromise one to get the other. i think we make sure that we always stand firm and strong for what we believe in. >> and on another related topic,
in march of 2015 and many times afterwards, our current secretary of state told this senate that the iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding on the united states. yet the outgoing administration attempted to use the united nations, in particular the security council through resolution 2231 to go around congress on the joint comprehensive plan of action and attempt as they claim to create a binding legal obligation under what they claim to be international law related to a flawed iran nuclear deal. first off, what is your view of this use of the security council to go around congress, and in particular to go around the senate's constitutional role to provide advice and consent on treaties? >> i think i've been on record that i think that it was a huge disappointment. i think that it was created more of a threat. and i think that we are going to have to do a lot of things to fix what's happened. >> if confirmed would you advise the president-elect never to use the united nations to try to circumvent congress, especially the senate on international agreements? >> yes, i would. because i think congress, it's
important that we work together with the u.n. to make sure anything that's proposed is always supported by congress as we go forward. >> and this is related to one of your answers, but i think for a point of clarification, you were asked about the recent security council resolution with regards to israel and the palestinian question, i think you recognize that as part of that agreement it assumed, for example, that portions of jerusalem are occupied territory. that portions of jerusalem are, therefore, by definition settlements. i believe you would agree when i say jerusalem is not a settlement. >> right. i agree. >> and that -- so you continue to see -- it's important to understand, i think that's what the chairman was getting at when he talked about some dispute over the meaning of that resolution, that it in fact assumed and accepted as fact the notion that basically any israeli presence in judea and samaria constitutes a settlement.
so i think that's the key point. i also think it's not true to say that this is the long-standing policy of the u.s. to somehow try to organize and utilize international organisms to force a negotiation, what has in fact been a bipartisan commitment, and i think certainly what our partners in israel would like to see ais a negotiation between the two parties involved. with the assistance of the national community but certainly not by preimposing conditions and the like. i guess my question, you've already answered this, had you been u.n. ambassador and had been asked to abstain on a vote of this kind, would you have agreed to do so? >> i would never have abstained. i don't like when legislators abstain. i certainly think that it's -- it has to be a huge exception when you do abstain. i think that that was the moment that we should have told the world how we stand with israel. and it was a kick in the gut that we didn't. >> i thank you. i would just close by pointing out that the united nations
actually came about as a result of the work of someone from tennessee, the former senator from tennessee, cordell hall. so it's appropriate you're chairing this meeting today. it all comes back to tennessee. >> it always does. i thank you for reminding everyone who's tuned in that that is the case. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> and i would just say, i know y'all have a special relationship for lots of reasons. senator carden and i were talking earlier, and there's some things that you have very good instincts. and you've been a governor. and i think going into an organization that needs reform, having been a governor, someone who solves problems is something that's going to be very useful. i would also say that this committee at large has spent a lot of time in places all around the world and has an understanding of things that coming into this may be somewhat
new to you. and i think the committee as a whole, if you utilize it, can be very useful to you, as you undertake what you're going to be undertaking at the united nations. and i think everyone here, especially as they've seen you in operation today, would be more than glad to do so. >> well, i plan on using this committee quite a bit. and look forward to having you, if confirmed to the u.n., so that you can actually speak with the security council members. and they can hear from you. because i think that's hugely important that it's not just me speaking. that they hear from congress as well. i know how important all these issues are to the united states. >> thank you again. senator kaine? >> thank you, mr. chair. and thanks, governor haley. good visiting with you the other day. >> always nice to talk to a fellow governor. >> once a governor, always a governor. >> that's right. >> authoritarian nations around
the world are cracking down on freedom of the press. that is a freedom that is part of the 1947 u.n. declaration of human rights. even nations that are allies, for example, turkey and egypt, where we have significant alliances have seen real declines in press freedom. i think recently a study came out suggesting turkey may be the principal violator of press freedoms now in the world. what can be done in the u.n. to promote a free press around the world? >> well, you know, i think the united states has always promoted freedom of the press. and while those of us that have been in elected office may not always like it it is the way it's supposed to be. the press has a job to do and we should allow them to do it. that goes in with the american values we should talk about, and that's something i would be happy to express. >> you agree that efforts to restrict the press would be a clear violation of not just the u.n. charter, but american values? >> absolutely. >> and that would include blacklisting members of the press corps whose coverage, like ridiculing individual journalists -- >> are you trying to imply something? >> not about you. or imploring voters not to trust the media.
that's sort of a violation of our leadership role in trying to promote a free press, wouldn't you agree? >> we do always want to encourage free press. >> thank you. with respect to israel-palestine, you answered a very direct question from senator murphy about whether you believe the long-standing bipartisan u.s. policy with respect to the goal would be a two-state of solution between the jewish state of israel and an arab state of palestine. that was the phraseology of the original 1947 u.n. resolution. to the best of your knowledge, is the trump administration committed to maintaining that 70-year bipartisan commitment? >> i have not heard anything different. >> okay. if as u.s. ambassador to the u.n. there are actions taken by palestine, violence, incitement, rocket attacks from gaza, that threaten the prospects of peace, would you be firm in calling those out? >> i will be firm in calling out anyone that is trying to disrupt peace around the world.
>> and so if it's palestinian actions or israeli actions that you think threaten the bipartisan commitment toward a two-state solution, you wouldn't hesitate to speak out? >> i think we will always have those conversations. what forum we have those conversations in may be different. but yes, i will always have those conversations. >> okay. this committee forwarded a resolution to the floor last week stating that the u.s. should not allow security council action that's would either dictate peace terms or recognize unilateral palestinian actions but would instead encourage the parties to find a path forward. i think it was reported out unanimously. we've all been disappointed by the lack of progress on this issue. how could you use your role as u.n. ambassador to help find -- it may not seem like it's right around the corner, but we always have to be trying to help find a path toward achieving the goal that we've had for so very long? >> i think as important as it is for the united states to see israel as an ally, it's just as important for us to want peace
in that area. so i think it's important that we support coming to the table, that they continue to have those discussions, and that we encourage other security council members rather than putting forth or allowing resolutions like that to instead show their support for how they want the two to come together and have those discussions. >> senator young asked you a question about your having a discussion about syria, and about why there had been insufficient action in syria. and he pointed out that russia had over and over again vetoed security council resolutions about syria. and it wasn't really a surprise. it was probably understood that they would veto them. there's still a value in putting a resolution on the table, even if a security council member is going to veto it, just to point out who will stand up for principles and who won't. we had all this report about russian effort to influence the american election. it's not the first time. they did it with respect to the brexit election. there was significant discussion
about what they may be doing with respect to the french presidential elections, and with elections for the german chancellor as well. would you be willing to speak out for the integrity of nations' electoral processes and work with colleagues to present a security council resolution to counter russia for their activity to try to influence the elections of other nations? >> yes. russia or any other country that tried to commit that act. >> you indicated that you were an opponent of the iran deal. would you support the u.s. unilaterally backing out of the iran deal at this point? >> i think what would be more beneficial at this point is that we look at all the details of the iran deal. we see if they are actually in compliance, if we find that there are violations, we act on those violations. i think that -- in watching that very closely, it's important. what we did is we gave the state sponsor of terrorism a pass
that even after ten years they will not be held to any sort of prohibitions on building nuclear weapons. >> well -- >> and we gave them billions of dollars to do it. so i believe that if that has passed, and if that is where it is, we need to hold them accountable and watch them as they go forth. >> i would encourage you to read the agreement. because what you just stated about the agreement is quite inaccurate. there are many, many restrictions in the agreement, after ten years, specific restrictions in perpetuity. the first paragraph of the agreement says that iran pursuant to the agreement will never seek to develop, acquire, or otherwise construct a nuclear weapon. so the notion that there's no restrictions after ten years, i don't know where you got that from. the notion that we gave them money, we didn't give them anything. there was money that was iran's that had been frozen. we released access to it so they could get money that was theirs, in exchange for their agreement to restrict their nuclear
weapons program and guarantee in perpetuity not only to not have nuclear weapons but allow inspections by the international atomic energy agency that accurately reported to this body that iraq didn't have a nuclear weapons program, and we disbelieved them and started a war and found out that they were right. so i would encourage you to read the agreement. because if you think those things, i can see why you were against it. and i can see why you might want to back out of it. but actually, that is a completely inaccurate reflection of the agreement. i would also encourage you to speak to intelligence and military officials in israel. many of now whom say they think the agreement is working with respect to the nuclear aspect of iran's activity. there's other activity that's very troubling that we obviously need to be very aggressive in countering. that's all i have. thanks, mr. chair. >> thank you, senator. i would just say that while, yes, i will look into that what we all need to remember is a nuclear iran is very dangerous for the entire world. and it is important that we look at all the details of the
agreement, which i will do, and make sure that they are actually following through on the promises that were made. >> i appreciate that. >> i think your emphasis was on radically or strongly enforcing the agreement as it sits. and beginning in that place. senator paul. excuse me, senator rich. i'm sorry. >> thank you. governor haley, thank you so much for agreeing to take this on. my good friend senator kaine i agree with sometimes, and sometimes i don't. his description of the wonderfulness of this iran agreement in my judgment is 180 from what the facts are in real life. one of the primary objections that a lot of us had to the iran agreement was something that you alluded to. and that is, the fact that although a lot of us, both publicly and privately, urged the administration to take iran by the throat, and if you're
going to make them change their behavior, make them change their behavior. you can't take a bad kid in the classroom and say you've throwing spit balls, you've got to stop that. and the kid says okay, i'll do it. and not only do but you've been throwing erasers or what have you. the kid says, i'm not going to do that, but i will stop throwing the spitballs. you can't do that. these people needed to change their behavior. they have not changed their behavior. your characterization of us giving billions to them that they're going to be able to use to go out and finance terrorism is absolutely accurate. my friends on the other side have their eyes absolutely closed on that as we went forward. and they were financing -- they were the world's largest sponsor of terrorism when they were broke. what do you think's going to happen after we've given them billions of dollars? this is going to be awful. with all due respect to my friends on the other side, particularly senator kaine whom i admire, they're just dead wrong on that issue. having said that, as far as the
iran deal is concerned, we've got sanctions in place that deal with other things than just the nuclear agreement. and i know a lot of people are just ignoring that, including iran itself. it's complaining oh, they're not agreeing -- they're not doing what they're supposed to do on the sanctions but they forget, they're still sponsoring terrorism. the fact that they launched a missile in absolute contravention of the u.n. resolution that prohibited that within days after it was signed shows you how they feel about all of this. in any event, don't back down from where you are on that -- >> i have no intention. thank you. >> thank you. glad to hear your comments about the reputation and confidence of the u.n. in america. you know, people on the east coast don't have an understanding that there is that lack of confidence. there is a lot of disagreement as far as the u.n. is concerned. there are places in america where the -- where units of government have passed
resolutions that declare they're a u.n.-free zone. that's how strongly they feel about the lack of confidence in the u.n. i want to focus for a minute on something that i think is incredibly important. senator rubio talked about it with you. and i want to underscore that. and that is, this business of thinking that somehow the second branch of government can bind america. probably the poster child for that is the paris agreement. i keep -- you know, my good friends on the other side, the media and everybody keeps saying, it's in violation of the paris agreement. there is no america -- no american bound by one word in the paris agreement simply because the president signed it. and when you talk to -- particularly when you talk to the foreign media, their eyes just go round and round and say, well, the president signed it. they don't understand that we have three branches of government. and the head of the second branch of government is just that.
the first branch of government has the power of the purse strings and the job of the second branch of government is to execute the laws we pass and oversee the spending that we authorize. to somehow think that the second branch can create law and bind americans to a law that has not been approved by congress is outrageous. the provision in the constitution that says that all treaties before they can become effective have got to be approved by this body, is incredibly important. and i hope -- and i know that you'll take that with you when you go to the u.n. and underscore that whenever the second branch starts talking about going off on their own. we are much stronger, we are much stronger if we have our -- all of our branches of government in support of those kinds of things. i can't stress that enough. in the last administration, we've had really nothing but disdain for this provision in
the constitution, which says that we have the power to either ratify or not ratify an agreement with a foreign power. let me just close here with -- and i don't mean it to sound the way it does. you did make the statement that says, well, sanctions by us alone don't work. i want to -- our experience on this committee, and on the intelligence committee that i sit on, i can tell you that sanctions by us alone do work. now, i will agree with you, they don't work nearly as well unless we've got everybody on board. but because of our control over the financial and banking sectors on this earth, we can really have some substantial effect by ourselves. when you get right up against it, if we put sanctions on, other countries, other banking institutions are going to have to make a choice, are they going to deal with american
institutions or are they going to deal with iranian institutions or whatever country we're talking about. and that always resolves in our favor. it has to resolve in our favor. i would just ask you to modify that and say that indeed they will work better if everybody's on -- >> if i can clarify, sanctions obviously do work. i just think they work better if we have allies with us -- >> absolutely, no question about it. that was one of our objections, too. >> and then the second thing is that sanctions have to be enforced. >> absolutely. they have to be enforced aggressively. that was one of our objections also to the iran deal. they kept talking about the snap-back provisions. well, i want to see all these heroes try to put that genie back in the bottle and snap back. that's just flat not going to happen. we're going to have to rely on our own sanctions if we get to that point. i for one am ready to do that. thanks for agreeing to do this. i think you're going to be a great ambassador to the united nations. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you very much. senator markey?
>> thank you, mr. chairman. governor, our negotiating strength at the u.n. depends on having our allies standing with us. this weekend president-elect trump gave an interview to european journalists in which he undermined that unity by yet again disparaging nato as obsolete and threatening to start a trade war with the european union. last week general james mattis, president-elect trump's nominee for secretary of defense, testified that president putin, quote, "is trying to break the north atlantic alliance." and noted that if we did not have nato today we would need to create it. do you agree with president-elect trump that nato is obsolete? or do you agree with general mattis that it is vital? >> i think nato is an important alliance for us to have. and now we need more allies than ever. and we need more alliances than we've ever had. i think it's one we need to strengthen.
>> so what would you say to our allies about the need for us to stay together in our resistance to especially the russian attempts to destroy that alliance? >> i think that's a great question. because you will see me, if confirmed, all over the u.n., making sure that they understand the importance of alliances and allies and working together where we can, for the greater good. >> there are some that wish to have the united states placating russia, you know, making concessions to russia that go right at the core of what the key alliance that nato represents has been providing security for the world, for generations. and from my perspective, but i think from the united states' perspective generally, nato is not only not obsolete, it's essential. it's the key to making sure that russia understands that there is
no room on a partisan basis that exists in our country, in terms of our commitment to resisting russian incursion. so from my perspective, i'm glad to hear your answer. and i thank you for it. on the question of global health, in haiti i talked to you about this in my office yesterday. the united nations peacekeeping force from nepal actually introduced cholera into a country that had never had cholera before in the year 2010, after the earthquake in haiti. 800,000 people have contracted cholera. 9,000 have died from it. it was created by a nepal peacekeeping u.n. mission that actually brought these to the
country by their introduction of it into the water system, with their own human waste. thus far there has been no real u.n. financial commitment to cleaning up the sanitation system in that country. so that they don't have to worry that every time a hurricane comes through like it did in october of 2016 that it just once again raises up this cholera issue. can you talk a little bit about what you feel the united nations' responsibility is to countries like haiti, where the peacekeeping mission has in fact wound up creating more harm than any that was ever reduced by the introduction of that peacekeeping mission? >> yes, senator, thank you for that question. i will tell you what happened in haiti is just nothing short of devastating. and it is the reason why i think every peacekeeping mission needs to be looked at thoroughly to make sure that things are moving
in the right direction. but it's also why i think it's so important that the contributing countries take responsibility and take actions against those violators that are doing anything to harm the people that they're supposed to be protecting. so i think that was a terrible problem. and so we have to acknowledge the fact that there were peacekeepers involved in that, that there were peacekeepers that contributed to that. and it is really that action that i think we can use to show that these contributing countries have to stand up and take responsibility and be accountable for those causes that they happen to do during peace missions. >> and you would argue for increased financial commitment from the countries around the world so that that funding could go into haiti in order to help with their sanitation system? >> those violating countries need to be held accountable. they need to have that responsibility of resolving that problem, yes. >> the problem is that nepal does not have the financial capacity to mediate the problem,
but they actually created the problem in the name of all of the countries of the world of the united nations. so it would be necessary to ensure that all of the other countries that use the nepalese military as their agent to then be held accountable as well financially. >> right. and there's two things. and i don't know if you were in the room when i said it. i think, one, it's very important that we get other countries to contribute to our peacekeeping missions because they have to have skin in the game. because when these things happen, they will help the united states be more accountable, hold these peacekeepers more accountable, hold these contributing countries more accountable, and we should decide, should we use their peacekeepers again. i think that's another conversation that needs to be had. we'll have to make this right with haiti, without question. the u.n. is going to have to take responsibility. i hope we can have peacekeeping reform in the process while we do that. >> thank you. 85% of the security council's peacekeeping personnel actually serve in africa. >> yes. >> and the u.n. is deeply
involved in ending conflict there. but much of the conflict is caused by poverty, is caused by disease. president bush initiated a program pepfar to deal with the hiv/aids epidemic in africa. mr. tillerson testified last week about his strong support for that program and pointed out that it should be continued and enhanced. could you talk a little bit about how you view the pepfar program in terms of going forward in the future and the funding levels that would be needed to make it the success it has been thus far? >> i think pepfar you can look at the results and see the success. you can look at the numbers and the lives that have been affected by that. i think it's one of the successful programs that happened at the united nations. i would certainly continue to support going forward. >> great. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, sir. senator paul? >> governor haley, congratulations on your nomination. >> thank you.
>> james madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch of government most prone to warn, so they vested that power in the legislature. in the days of our founding fathers it was very important who had that power, you know, distributed among the u.s. government. i don't think they conceived of an international body compelling the u.s. to go to war. i still think it's incredibly important today that we've lost a little bit of this. we let presidents go to war willy-nilly without much oversight at all. we've still not voted on the current war in the middle east. so my question to you is will you vote for any u.n. resolution that commits u.s. soldiers to war or to a war or to a battle zone that has not been authorized by congress? >> well, thank you, senator, for that question because i think it's an important one. first of all, i think as we go forward with the threats we have in the world, understand that
you're talking to a military wife and a military sister. where both of them have been in combat. and i think we have to really be careful if we decide to go to war. but i also think if we decide to go to war, it is important that we have the president-elect, the national security council, congress, everyone moving in the same direction in order to do that. it will show our strength in the world when we do that. it will also give confidence to those military families that everyone is in agreement that we're doing the right thing. i think it's in the best interests of us regardless of partisanship or anything else to make sure that we all stand in agreement if we decide to show military influence. >> you know, i agree with the sentiment. i'm not sure if we got to the specifics of would you vote for a resolution to send our soldiers, a u.n. resolution, to a war that hadn't been authorized by the u.s. >> and i think that probably the best answer i can give you is that as a member of the national security council, i would encourage them to make sure that
they had had these conversations with congress, and that they have congressing buy-in before we interfere in -- >> i would go one step farther in the sense that many say we should have the advice of congress and we ought to occasionally go down there and pat them on the back and talk to them. no, no, the rules are pretty specific. we don't go to war unless congress votes on war. the reason i bring up this is we may well be in a situation, we're in a war right now with -- primarily with isis in syria and iraq. that war has not been authorized. we've had no vote here on whether or not we should be involved in that war. some try to stretch a resolution that said we can go after those who attacked us on 9/11. isis did not attack us on 9/11. they're not related in any way to anybody who attacked us on 9/11. >> right. >> so we have had no vote. and one generation shouldn't bind another generation to war. but that could come before you. right now we're at war, you can say well, we're at war, you can send people in the u.n. banner.
we shouldn't. we should say to you you should not vote for that. you should come back to us and say i will vote for it gladly after congress does their job and authorizes, but no u.s. soldier should ever fight under any international banner without a vote here by congress. and i can't state that strong enough, because that is a check, that is a check and a balance to try to prevent unnecessary war. there's a bill floating around to try to withhold u.n. dues until the vote on the u.n. -- on israel settlements is reversed. without asking you specifically on that, what do you think of the concept of with holding u.n. dues based on u.n. behavior? >> senator, i don't believe in the slash and burn approach. as a governor, you could never do that. that's not effective. i know many legislators will put bills out out of frustration and i absolutely understand the
frustration over resolution 2334 but i think it's important that we are strategic in the way that we hold dues. yes, i do see a place where you can hold dues. i do think it needs to be strategic in nature. i would want to use congress as my heavy and leverage in terms of doing that so that i could get members of the council to do the things that we need it to do but yes, i do think there are times where you can withhold dues. i don't think you should slash and cut across the board. because i don't think that will accomplish the goal. >> and finally, the general concept of u.s. sovereignty is important to many of us. you heard from some of the other members about whether a u.n. resolution instructs us legally. i would say only if approved by congress that really there is no supersedence of u.n. resolutions over u.s. law. i think that's important because we can go to war through the u.n. but we can do a lot of things through the u.n. that really need to be approved by congress. not as a consultation, notes a here's what we're doing, guys.
no, it's coming to us and asking permission because we are directly responsible to the people as well and it is a check and balance. and i hope as you become the u.n. ambassador and i will support you, but as you become the u.n. ambassador i hope you will consider that and that some of these questions are simple questions but incredibly profound questions and whether or not when we go to war and when we don't, as you know, you have family members that will fight in these wars, war's the last resort. the founding fathers didn't want to make it easy to go to war. they wanted to make it difficult. then we go through consensus. but we don't go through consensus if the u.n. takes us to war. and i have a great deal of sympathy, there's a young man who is currently suing the u.s. military saying it's an unlawful order for him to take an order from the united nations because it's a war that's not been authorized here. i have some sympathy for that. so i hope you will continue to ponder that and how important it
is that we maintain the checks and balances of how we go to war. >> i strongly believe the importance of should i be confirmed the u.n. always working with congress and congress always having that sort of element to be able to make those decisions as we go forward. thank you. >> thank you for those sentiments. senator merkley? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, governor, for appearing today. it's a pleasure to hear you talk about these challenging issues in the world and what's ahead of us. i wanted to start out with a topic we conversed about in my office and that's the challenge of north korea, its nuclear weapon development program and its missile program, ballistic missile program. and specifically, what do you think that we should do more in regard to heading off the continued development of the missiles and the weapons? >> i actually think we need to have a lot of conversations with a lot of other countries and
that comes from the fact that north korea is trying to exercise their muscle right now and they are trying to show their strength, and i think that while we have seen china start to pull away, we need to talk to china and let them know of the threat. we need to talk to other countries within the area and let them know of how strong of a threat this is and we need to try and create a united front in approaching north korea, because north korea will feel it if china puts the pressure on them. and i think that's very very important because it is getting to a very dangerous situation. >> so governor, last year in january there was a fourth nuclear weapon test by north korea and then in february, a major ballistic missile test. and within less than a month of that, the united states was able to get china to agree to increased sanctions on north korea that included mandatory inspection of all cargo going to and from north korea and a requirement to terminate all banking relationships and it
lays out a whole -- and that came out of exactly the type of pressure you are talking about. that resolution 2270, you think that was a step forward in terms of that u.s., china and the world saying to north korea you've got to stop? >> absolutely. if followed. that's the thing, they're not following that. so actions need to happen from there. >> and then there was another nuclear test that followed that in september, the fifth nuclear test, and the u.s. again went to work to really try to get the international community and china to push on north korea, and what they did was put a hard binding cap on north korea's coal exports. this was considered to be the single most vulnerable point of pressure because it's their largest source of external revenue. and china did sign up and
america signed up and we have got this mandatory inspections in place and is that, too, a step forward in terms of pressuring north korea? >> absolutely. >> but as you pointed out, we have done this and north korea goes ahead anyway, so in terms of the conversation, china has said it's on board, it agreed to cut all the banking relationships, inspect every piece of cargo, cut their ability to generate revenue. is there -- should we specifically draw any sort of red line over the missile tests or nuclear weapon tests and if so, what would that be? >> obviously that was a conversation i need to have with the national security council as well as with the president-elect, but i do think this warrants very strong conversations with china to say that this is a slap in the face to china. this is a slap in the face to every country that told north korea not to proceed and the fact they are doing it anyway should be offensive to all countries involved in sanctions. and so i think we do need to see where do we go forward. >> i will be very interested in hearing more of your thoughts after you are at the u.n.
because we've been using the u.n. really aggressively on this particular topic. even as i went back after our conversation, i was surprised at the amount that had been done that i wasn't aware of when we talked in my office. turning to china, china has dramatically increased its dramatically increased its engagement in the u.n. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac