tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN April 13, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
against the dark forces of terrorism is waging war on injustice and inequality and and aggression, which provides to tourism. . . i believe that recent events have shown the bankruptcy of our policies, both within and beyond. and combating terrorism is not going to be done by simply introducing bold measures, it's making sure that we can clear the bases for social growth and unemployment, that's the best way. thank you very much. next for the greens, mr. lambert. >> thank you, president. colleagues, we cannot help but be disgusted to see the waste of human life as a result of
these terrorist attacks. mr. lamberts: planned in cold blood. we all stand by the victims and their families and loved ones. but how can we not be alarmed by the way these tngs can go on in the midst of normal life? and how can we not be outraged given that much has been planned for years. that these terrorists were allowed to move freely, how can we not feel scamized by the fact that our countries are continuing to trade with middle eastern countries promoting the most violent and extremist forms of islam? surely we have to ask ourselves, what's been going on in our society, which has promoted hate speech and people condoning violence? he ideology of exclusion and reduction of society to mere production and consumption.
if we respond by setting up police states, constantly monitoring our slightest moves, and stigmatizing our fellow more, adopting rhetoric of warfare, dividing the world between them and us, if we do all of that then the terrorists will have won. on the contrary, the best response we can give them is to reflect the mottos of belgium and europe. unity in diversity gives you strength. let's pool our strength in an intelligent way, to fight the mill tarrist project and let's ensure that at the heart of our projects we restore human dignity. lastly, with your indulgence, . president, i would like to -- briefly. excuse nothing. forget nothing. resist -- try and understand.
because otherwise you will maintain evil. you can't fight shadows with shadows. you can't fight hatred with hatred. eye for an eye will lead to a whole planet being blind. we have 130 reasons to fight, we have another 32 reasons after what happened in brussels to believe in this cause and to wage it. thank you. >> i have a question from someone. i had overlooked it. i hope that we can still have time for it. madam. >> yes. i seem to gather from what you were saying that you were acknowledging some sort of miracle before the attacks. are you saying that it's our fault that they're killing us? [applause]
>> first of all, let us not forget that terrorism promotes certain ideas and what i was saying, isis and other extremist islamist bodies have had support from the western countries, big countries, both economically, strategically and politically. and even today there are countries which are our allies, saudi arabia and turkey, they are also providing support and the european union is also involved in this. the path to lder blame. thank you very much. >> the fundamentally new principle of freedom movement, people, services or goods, may well have been well intentioned
but it can only remain so if his reactive and updated ideally integrating and responding to both ex tefrpbl and internal threats and pressures. ms. james: it's fund mental weak -- its fundamental weaknesses lie in an outdated processes required to address what are now fast-moving events, not merely on the european con nent, but also on a global scale -- continent but also on a global scale. but more fundamentally on the detection that it enjoys in the face of fundamental threats to civic society and citizens. trying to connect 28 member states, cultures and processes at a time of crisis, the e.u. sun able to anticipate events -- is unable to anticipate events or be able to react at adequate speed to these events. this is not an approach capable of countering or indeed beating terrorism. when there is a threat, it's
important to think like the adversary. not on mindless dialogue and consultation with the objective of protecting a sacred cow. the united nations endured some 30 years of conflict and terrorist activities before a resolution in northern ireland was found. the u.k. has much to offer the european and international community on how to counter terrorism. not least, money laundering, a key element in terrorist funding. and financing. but in contrast, the e.u. seems purely focused on unified border control and central intelligence agency. but these so far have been total failures. critical weaknesses only serving to facilitate the recent terrorist atrocities. now, again, the united nations has led the way in -- united kingdom has led the way in combating international ounterterrorist efforts.
and the u.k. will maintain those responsibilities, e.u. member or not. in contrast, the e.u. reaction to the migrant crisis has been unhelpful in extreme and its reactions unhelpful and just like those of a rabbit in the headlights. the e.u. has border control front text which consumes several hundred millions of euros but is nonoperational and little more than a data collection and analysis agency. reports and stats, fine. coordination nate the activities of member states -- coordinate the activities of member states and border control, according to its charter. but it has no operational capability and it has to rely on nato, individual member states, and other operational forces to do anything useful. indeed, we've got a basic conflict of interest here. in that the e.u. mantra is open
borders with no control. the e.u. properly never imagined that its open border mantra would encourage the movement of criminals, terrorists and weapons. the result has been that a number of countries have had to take unilateral action to defend their borders and actually as a result breaking their treaty obligations. but just look at a thing set up as a fledgling european intelligence agency. yet another failure. doing little more than gathering data. the collection of data such as fingerprints, mentioned already by others, at the borders within european has been a isastrous example, only 17% of migrants at key points of entry have been fingerprinted. and to make matters worse, even if their fingerprints have been taken, no one within member states has been allowed to share that data.
there could be no greater gift to terrorism than being invisible and untraceable, yet this is what the european union approach facilitates. e've talked about p.n.r. there are issues about privacy and human rights and i do wonder, having been criticized of frontier ts europe, are we not actually building that? too many in this parliament, the response is, we need more europe and we heard that this afternoon. would anyone pour more money into an approach and infrastructures that are broken , ill-conceived and ineeffective? but they can be addressed, just not by doing more of the same. that is the definition of an idiot. it could well be argued that the e.u. should stick to
matters that can usefully address and do well, but stay out of matters where it does not have the experience or capability. general michael hayden, ex head of n.s.a. in the u.s., said, security is a national issue. now, it's time the e.u. and the parliament opened its eyes to what's going on. >> play i -- ma'am, please conclude. ms. james: just bear in mind that the future is and should be recognized, bilateral agreements based on good data exchange, trusted data exchange and experience is the way forward. not trying to make 28 member states do one thing. >> thank you very much. ow for the -- [inaudible] >> mr. president, my sympathy goes to the victims of the recent attacks in brussels. mr. de graff: and it's
incredibly bitter and poignant that those attacks could have been avoided. national borders should have been closed long before. because these islamist heroes were traveling freely between the netherlands and belgium. and of course creating these ghettos, they've become heroes there as martyrs. i think everyone who has let led that to happen -- led that to happen shares the blame. whether they're members of this parliament or the commission or the member state governments who plea for opening the doors. opening the frontiers. and then -- and then people die as a result. how hypocritical was this, remembering the victims, grieving for the victims, when a part of this parliament itself cleared its conditions and creates conditions for . ose attacks and other
it cannot be integrated into our western cultures. to you and to the commission, recognize the folly and recognize we've got to change tack because the way to go is closing the national borders. it's stopping mass immigration and stopping islam nits tracks. thank you very much. -- islam in its tracks. thank you very much.
>> this type of terrorism? it's crazy listening to you saying that all muslims are terrorists. i think you need to reread your history books. it's war that is causing these people to flee. please be reasonable. [applause] >> yes. i think we're seeing denial here. permanent denial of the situation in belgium. in other neighborhoods of brussels as well. there were people dancing in the streets when the attacks took place. again and again we have these tupid questions. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> this month we showcase our student cam winners. see pan's annual have documentary competition for middle and high school students. this year's theme is road to
the white house. and students were asked, what issues do you want presidential candidates to discuss? one of our second prize middle school winners are from scranton, pennsylvania. heo and abbey, agent graders -- eighth graders want presidential candidates to discuss immigration. >> hi. we're currently standing in time square which is also known as the cross roads of the world. many immigrants have passed through here, not only went on to build time square, but also our entire nation. >> although we know this is a complex problem, we need to come up with a plan to resolve the current immigration issues. regardless of the financial and possible security risks, we believe all immigrants should have the opportunity to reach or the american dream. >> what is the greatest benefit that immigrants contributed to scranton? >> as i said earlier, the best
benefit i think is that we learn about their culture. their ways, the way they dress, the foods they eat. so it makes us better people. >> on a national level, what are your views about current immigration policies for immigrants coming to the united states of america? >> again, we should never, never roll up the welcome mat here to america. this is how this country was founded. the founded on hope that people can come here and have a better life, a better opportunity. >> as we began our research about immigration issues, it became clear to us that the problems surrounding immigration were complicated. it also became clear that most politicians in washington agree on the following point. there are problem areas regarding immigration matters that need to be addressed. >> that means we have to finally, once and for all, fix our immigration system. this is a family issue.
it's an economic issue too. but it is at heart a family issue. and if we claim that we are for families, we have to pull together and resolve the outstanding issues around our broken immigration system. >> chicagoans have been waiting for the congress to act and take action for over a decade. polish, ukrainian, irish and mexican have been waiting. gentleman make ans and filipinos, they've been waiting for family members to get visas and backlogs that stretch to 20 years. because congress refuses to act. >> fix the broken immigration system. both the illegal side and the legal side are broke. >> as all of you know, we have 11 million people in this country who are undocumented. 99% of whom came to this country to improve their lives. to escape oppression.
to flee desperate poverty and violence. >> if you have immigration -- immigration is complicated, emotional and raises many questions. for example, what should be done with illegal immigrant parents of children who are also legal? >> how can you tell if someone s here legally or illegally? inaudible] >> people might enter the country to do us harm. >> jeb bush with mexico said people come in, they come in, it's an act of love. ok? it's not an act of love. we need a wall. we need a wall. you see what's happening with illegal immigration. in all fairness, if it weren't
for me, they wouldn't even be talking about illegal immigration. >> it's very important that we enforce our immigration laws. that we encourage people to come here legally. to come through the vetting process, the inspection process. we want immigrants to come to america for that life. that's what america is. a beacon of hope. however, when we allow people o knowingly break our laws, to evade inspection, to bypass any type of medical screening, to live here in america and depress the wages of american workers, which we know for a fact illegal immigration depresses the wages for erican workers, we also know unfortunately that there are people around the world that want to do us harm. that hate our way of life. that want to come here and steal that way of life from us
through terrorism. >> [inaudible] we can't imagine our lifes without the values they ontribute. the haws has to keep our doors open to immigrants while also keep our country safe. [inaudible] we need to work together to figure it out. it must be done. >> the american people support comprehensive immigration reform. not just because it's the right thing to do, and it is, but because they know it strengthens families, strengthens our economy, and strengthens our country. >> this is what makes america exceptional. that we welcome strivers, we welcome dreamers, from all around the world. and it keeps us young and it keeps us invigorated and it
keeps us striving. anding the boundaries of -- and pushing the boundaries of what's possible. and then we all bind our siffs together around similar ideal -- ourselves together around similar ideals. a similar crede. and one generation in, suddenly those kids are already americans. like everybody elts. >> how is immigration important to the building of america? >> i think the best way i can answer that question was that in 1954, days after ellis island, they made the announcement that it was closing down, that an editorial appeared in "the new york times," i'll share part of it with you. in that editorial it said, immigrants have given to the united states artists, actors, doctors, writers, farmers, philosophers. immigrants have given this nation its teachers. immigrants and their descendents today erect our nation's laws. perhaps someday a monument that celebrates immigrants will rise upon and island called ellis.
>> and we're standing in front of the statue of liberty which was and still is a symbol for hope and freedom for immigrants coming to america. we feel the 2016 presidential candidates should discuss immigration issues. >> so we believe whoever is elected should make immigration issues one of their top priorities. >> to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries in this year's student cam competition, visit studentcam.org. >> the hill is reporting that hollywood's power brokers are almost exclusively siding with hillary clinton. studio players, big money agents and a-listers like orge clooney and jeffrey katzenberg are backing the democratic frontrunner. the story says bernie sanders does have star power but it's more on the margeness with left wing celebrities like susan sarandon or younger actors such as ezra miller.
on c-span's "washington journal," we talked about the blurred lines between politician and -- politics and entertainment. continues. host: up next, we are going to go to our spotlight on magazines segment we do every wednesday. today, we are talking to mark warren, the executive editor at "esquire magazine," about a piece in the latest issue called "the inevitable takeover of pop politics." thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. good morning. host: thank you for joining us from new york. this piece is talking about pop politics. what are pop politics and why did you think this was an important issue to explore in the magazine? guest: the rules of the political universe this year have been suspended. producing some of the worst presidential punditry that we've
ever seen. lastingaw donald trump as long as he has. no one saw bernie sanders coming at all. to the fact that pundits have been using the old rules or playing by a different understanding of the political landscape. somehow, 2016 has been the coleman nation of a process that has been long in the works of the insinuation of celebrity culture into political culture. -- culmination of a process. the line between those things is gone. we are seeing cheaply through the avatar of donald trump -- chiefly through the avatar of donald trump's years of celebrity in the political world. host: politics has always had
parliaments of entertainment and entertainment has always had a political dimension. means?lain what that guest: they've always drawn from each other. kennedyhe power of john , the hollywood glamour of the reagans. governor clinton playing a saxophone on arsenio hall. we have these political figures trended humanize themselves -- trying to humanize themselves by making us laugh, disarming us and making us think better of them. that is not new, exactly. we've seen element of that this year as well. larrdavid making a more perfect bernie sanders on snl, hillary clinton making fun of herself also on snl. taperuz and his audition for the simpsons.
the degree to which we are seeing it is perhaps new. pernicious and a bit , this very famous person that a lot of voters have known their entire adult lives or entire lives, sometimes, testing the value of his fame, his raw fame in the mark -- the political marketplace. $2 billion worth of free media attention based upon that fame. seencome it we have never before. host: we are talking with mark warren, the executive editor at "esquire magazine." we are talking about the article about pop politics in the latest issue as part of our spotlight on magazines, which we do every wednesday. republicans can call in 202-748-8001. democrats can call in at
202-748-8000. independents can call in at 202-748-8002. on that last point you talked about, the attention these candidates are getting, you think the changes in media, including social media come is one of the driving points behind this boom in pop politics? guest: no question about that. of democratization information by technology is historic, one of the great things about the increasing involvement in the political process. increased -- the , he wrote congress -- the future would
be dominated by events that exist only to be covered by the media. something be news was happened and a journalist would cover it. these events would exist only to be covered. his forecast has more than come true, i would say. enabled, in part, by the social media that we have now. it has me pining for a good event.shioned pseudo- they take the shape of a twitter at three clock and by a candidate or the re-tweaking of an unflattering picture of an opponent's spouse. to dominatehe power the media cycles and maybe even turn elections. it is not that they are not powerful. we've lost sight of the difference, sometimes. host: you are referring to a
republican presidential candidate, donald trump. we can take a look at what he himself said in his "art of the deal." "i played to people's fantasies. people may not always think big themselves, but they can still get excited by those who do. that's why a little hyperbole never hurts. people want to believe that something is the biggest and greatest and most spectacular. i call it truthful hyperbole. it is a very effective form of promotion." is that what he is doing in his presidential race? guest: i think we had the first presidential campaign -- the culmination of a long progression of celebrity culture leaping into political culture. we have the first presidential campaign, i would say, that has been run by a reality tv
producer where you introduce conflict -- once you do that on reality tv, you have to continually escalate it. that has to do with his hyperbole, i think that is consonant with who he is and who he has been. i think we will probably see more of this in the future. host: what factors do you think -- you talked a bit about media. what other factors are contributing to this era of pop politics, this convergence of politics and entertainment? not casting dispersionsi think it can incree participation in the system. a great deal of the interest and excitement around not just the
trunk campaign but that presidential campaign in general viewers and of consumers who have feasted on kind of a generation of reality television, who are looking for the same in the conduct of the campaign. hopefully, they will be informed and stay for better reasons than perhaps they came for. host: we are talking to mark warren, the executive editor at "esquire magazine," about the inevitable takeover of pop politics: the entertainers and politicians who are now selling the same thing." on our democratic line, we have a caller from austin, texas.
you are on with mark warren. caller: hi, mark warren. magazine, itthe supports the wealth. when you support the wealth, the little bitty guy gets kind of kicked out of the way. -- thisthis culture of culture attends to wealth. if you have plenty of money, like donald trump has plenty of gety, then the poor do not in on popo fall culture. host: let's give mark warren a chance to respond to that. what role do you think wealth plays in this phenomenon? mean, it is kind
of indivisible from fame, in this instance, i think. the caller's point is a good one, is a fair one. .nd it has been a paradox because of his fame, he came into the campaign. avatar of thishe phenomenon we are talking about. because of his fame, he comes into the political marketplace and immediately prospers and gets a terrific amount of free publicity. that benefits him in the polls. when someone is the front runner or a real contender for the nomination or one of the only two major political parties that we have, that must be covered. it is a paradox because fame begets more fame. faire caller's point is a one, that someone without means,
without fame, without those advantages coming into the political system does not get , and probably would not prosper as mr. trump has. fame and theth the notoriety, does it always automatically serve as a benefit? re piece itself points to apper kanye west, and it says -- host: he stood up at the video music awards and acknowledged that nobody had the courage to , andrupt, that he was high then announced his bid for the presidency in 2020. no one was entirely sure if he
was getting." is that part of the same phenomenon fueling donald trump? because think so, whenever the political marketplace is viewed as just another venue in which to play with the power of fame, then that is what we are seeing with kanye west, who may or may not be serious about running for president. i am assuming -- i do not know anything about him -- but i assume he does not know the first thing about governing or running for president or what that might even mean. fact, it could be said that donald trump is a fairly low-information candidate. it is not exactly what he is in it for either. i do think that sometimes it can be confusing.
it is not just the $2 billion of free media and counting that he has gotten so far. it is the power of 35 years of , to confuse people. ,s it his views on immigration or is this that he fired all those people on tv week after week for so many years, and that we have known him forever with best-selling books and all of that? it is confusing. it has the power to be pernicious in that way. host: we are talking to mark warren, the executive editor of "esquire magazine," about pop politics. ,p next on our republican line from california. what is your question for mark warren about pop politics? caller: there are a couple of things being missed here.
instead of referring to donald trump is a famous person and his entertainment part, i think a lot of what is being lost is his ability as an entrepreneur and a businessman, with the empire that he has built, that he is a very successful man. man, notnowledgeable some idiot on tv. the reason he is getting a lot of criticism that is negative, half the stuff they are saying about him is not even true. so it is really not to his advantage. but the point is it is not just about his popularity. look at the businesses he has been able to achieve all these years. he employs 10,000 people. some not just some icon or popular person, like mr. warren is saying. host: let's hit -- let's give him a chance to respond. caller.air enough,
i would say there are a great and successful businessman women who you never hear about. the reason for that is that they have not cultivated their fame and have not had interest in that. it is a fact -- and leaving aside any argument about how successful or not mr. trump has been in business -- i am not knowledgeable enough to argue that point and will not -- but he has meant to be famous, otherwise he would not be. he had fame before this political chapter of his life, culminated in a very successful reality television show. are a great many wonderful and successful men and women of business who you never hear of because they do not want to be famous. host: on the issue of -- go ahead. do you have more? guest: another part of this
phenomenon, you asked the question earlier about what else is this owed to. a great deal of this is owed to how long these campaigns are, and the total saturation of image that has turned american politics into a celebrity business. we are seeing the culmination of that this year. the question is, what happens ,fter this year, after trump when politics -- a cardinal rule is, just study what works. this has certainly worked. this court over by a lot of political professionals. we have gotten that he will see pored-- you will see this over by a lot of political professionals. in "theere was a piece washington post" by charles lane that points out this is not exactly a new phenomenon. he says the debate between
abraham lincoln and stephen douglas is remembered for the ,eriousness of its subjects slavery, king at the lincoln douglas debates were also a traveling circus. thousands of spectators, playing hooky from their monotonous farms, flocked to each small-town venue from this running countryside. bands played. what is so different about today? hasn't entertainment always become par for the course in politics? the lincoln douglas debates live tweeted, i am not sure. had somehas always very kind of commercial and celebrity appeal, there is no question about it. events that draw people. the politics of today has taken celebrityppings of and the affect of celebrity.
even the debate that we see on the networks, the introductions look like game shows. they even come with commercial breaks now. they did not used to do that. so it is just orders of magnitude different, i would say. and certainly since the arrival of the internet and the rise of twitter, that is where the major political battles and new cycles are turned. we will see if those either attacks or mistakes made on twitter can have the effect of actually turning elections for or against someone. t -- up next on our independent line, vivian, you are on with mark warren. caller: hello, mark. ism so happy that someone talking about pop culture, because i agree with you totally
. who started it was clinton, bill clinton. back to abraham lincoln because i can only go back to eisenhower. that was my first vote but i have seen clinton change pop happy whend i was so we got a black president and i said now it is going to change. but he also became -- people were calling him a rockstar because that is how he acted all the time. host: let's give him a chance to respond to that. do you think ill clinton was a major driver of this phenomenon, -- do you think bill clinton was a major driver of this phenomenon, mark? guest: he may terrible mistake in 1988 when he gave his speech for michael dukakis. he went on longer than he was supposed to and governor dukakis missed prime time, and was
roundly panned in the culture for doing so. how did he prepare himself? shownt on the "tonight" and apologized and made from himself -- and made fun of himself. during the 1992 campaign, he went and played his saxophone on the arsenio hall show. he was very comfortable in that setting. no one probably in our lifetime is as comfortable in that setting as bill clinton. but again, this is before the internet or twitter. orders of magnitude different, still. i think that pop politics plays in the realm of extreme love or extreme hate, kind of like a reality television show. that cannot be a good thing in the long term. republicanxt on our line is don calling from south carolina. your own with mark warren and our discussion about pop
politics. caller: i take my hat off to you for addressing this issue. i do not agree that it is so much the politicians driving it as it is the social news media. objectivity, the good of the country, the truth is all being put aside by the pundits just because they are trying to and it is making lots of money for the news media. i think the phenomenon of donald trump and bernie sanders is greatly supported by that social more because it causes coverage, people with jobs. an example would be, how many of your fellow newsman and reporters are trying to get on their own television shows now? i have really lost a lot of
pundits.or the i would tell you that that is cbs, the president said it all when he said that what is going on might not be good for the country, but it is certainly good for the bottom line of cbs. host: let's let mark warren respond to that. caller, right on -- bingo, caller, right on. saying, being in the media as well, we are all complicit. a realforces to play role here. there's no question about it. it is a vicious circle. but again, once you have something, a campaign like no , aer, when you have someone candidate like no other, trump entering into this realm, testing the value of his fame in
the marketplace, and becomes the front runner, what choice do you have but to cover him? of course it is the quality and nature of the coverage itself where you have a real point, because for the first several months, i would argue, and i think it is borne out by facts, that the covers -- that the coverage was very soft. you saw him as an entertainment figure rather than a candidate, until well into the fall when it started not being a joke anymore . as he is perilously close to candidate in one of the two parties, we must test his ideas to see what a from presidency would look like for the united states and the world. we are all complicit. after trump?t
i don't know. host: as part of our spotlight on magazine series, we are talking to mark warren, the executive editor at "esquire magazine," about this month's story on pop politics. we have a tweet from dana who says -- host: this echoes several folks on twitter, who pointed out that our current president has been a celebrity since his campaign. do you have to be part celebrity in order to launch an effective campaign now? probably. it seems as if that is the way, doesn't it yet go i think part of the -- doesn't it? inwas a very fresh face president obama seems to be leading some sort of movement, showing a new face of
the country to the world. a new sense of political ome confused bec with celebrity culture and can confuse the issues and maybe even drive interest in the candidate beyond even issues. i think we're seeing some of that was senator sanders and the enormous crowds that he has been getting. that has to do with that kind of system of popular movement, which can become confused in the celebrity culture. but they drive each other, i would say. host: up next on our republican line, we have peter calling in from spokane, washington. you are on with mark warren. go ahead. what is your question for mark warren? is, when isuestion our social security going to become important? and part of the spotlight of a magazine?
they say they need money terribly bad host:. wrong topic there. sandy is calling in from howard, kansas. you are on with mark warren, discussing pop politics. sandy, are you there? ok, it appears we have lost sandy. back to our discussion. politics,mes to pop how does that fit in, in terms of political ideology? have we seen more of the happen on the left or on the right? how does it fit into ideology? i think that we have almost a religious relationship, there is a religiosity to our idea of
fame. fame is almost its own ideology. -- i mean, when you have a candidate like donald trump coming into the political marketplace, testing his fame, then he has to adapt positions that would help him succeed. those positions have been extremely different from some of his earlier positions. he would say that that is just a matter of political evolution, which is fair enough. but i also think he has been responding to the marketplace. i do think that fame is its own ideology in a way. fame is more powerful than money sometimes, i think. think it is still a serious problem, but our great fear was that a system awash in would overwhelm and compromise our democracy, but if
you hate money in politics, wait until you see celebrity in politics. isause again, i think this likely a phenomenon that is not going to go away, because it has upended the establishment of both parties. it has upended the way our politics and our nominating processes normally work. so people are going to study it because it has worked. we are talking about pop politics with mark warren, executive editor of "esquire magazine." republicans can call in at 202-7 48-8001. 202-748-8000. , 202-7 48-8002.
"usa today" points out that facebook chief mark zuckerberg has stepped into the political fray. it says he has laid out a 10-year plan to connect the world that sounded as much like a political cause as a grab for potential billions of dollars. and in doing so he took direct aim at those who would limit free trade and immigration as well as donald trump. he says they plan to bring people together, with an ambitious strategy of technology, crossing borders, crossing cultures -- it sounded like a political statement. are we going to see more of that , celebrities using politics as opposed to just politicians becoming more like celebrities? great i think absolutely in mark zuckerberg's case, when you have established something that has not been done before, established a global network
that has instant connectivity from one point on the globe to another with one billion people involved, that is power. so i think that he is using that power and his increasing profile as he wants told see it. this seems as if he is taking direct aim at some of the higher profile positions taken by some of the candidates in this presidential cycle, especially on the republican side. so i think there is no question about that. again, it is not anything entirely new, that you see celebrities trying to parlay into a political profile as well. usually, i think that can be to good effect if they mean well and they act in good faith and
they look for issues that are worth the -- that are worthy. many of those types of -- it was written that when amy schumer is on , her cousin charles schumer is onstage talking about gun control. -- who has more power? i think it is the actual celebrity, who has more power in that moment. we will always begin to see the furtherance of that kind of -- the melding of political and civil liberty -- the political and celebrity culture. host: president reagan was an actor. al franken is in the senate now. might we see other politicians, other celebrities enter the fray
? who might they be? george clooney? he certainly has taken political positions. darfur, in work in africa. it is a very intoxicating kind of forum, and if you have a profile, by one means, you might want to use it in the political realm as well. kanye west, whether it is deranged or not, he is talking about it for a reason. though.teresting, when al franken entered the toate, he assiduously tried tamp down his celebrity profile, and to stop acting like a celebrity, like a comedian. he became studious and serious and took his place in the back of the line of the u.s. senate, which is a strict seniority system. i do not know that that is what
celebrities have in mind, to gain political power. i do not know that that is what they would be doing it for, to become someone other than themselves. draw, is a very powerful so i would not be surprised to see more going forward. on our republican line, we have lisa calling in from new york. you're on with mark warren. guest: i actually -- caller: good morning. i think it is the 24-hour news cycle that caused this. i was watching a movie yesterday with ronald reagan, and it hit me. he was very presidential and the all american boy. i did not know him as an actor, i only knew him as a politician, so for me it was and lightning about how people started to go towards this guy that they saw on the big screen. for me, i also feel that you are a little slanted with the donald trump attacks.
trump,rrified by donald but i think that what he is saying and doing he is doing for the country in a very strange way. is a lot to unpack. let's let mark warman respond to that. go ahead. guest: again, i do not mean to attack mr. trump. i am just saying there has never been a candidate like him before, and there is no one else like him in this field. there are not that many who have those skills. the 24-hour news cycle, i think absolutely that plays into it as well. the 24-hour news cycle can combined with a 24 month campaign, results in this total saturation of image. if you have money to do it -- which is what has turned american politics into a celebrity business -- i think you are absolutely right about that. with ronald reagan, he did not go directly from being a celebrity to parlay his
allywood celebrity into political profile. total of 20er a years. governor of-term california. he studied issues. compared to a lot of candidates that we talk about here, he was very studious of the issues and had some mastery. rationaleell-defined politically, compared to certainly mr. trump, i would say. host: on our independent line, we have mike calling in from lebanon, new jersey. good morning. very much.nk you sir, i do not think donald trump is a pop-culture type. he actually is serving the purpose of the middle class of being the billionaire that we usn't have representing against the billionaire establishment. the people that they call uneducated, who voted for him,
are people who are no longer fooled. he has defined the establishment as the billionaires who own the congress, who owned the government financially, who own the news media, and when he goes after megyn kelly, that is simply a case of being symbolic for the middle class. host: i want to make sure that mark warren has a chance to respond to you. go ahead. guest: a couple of things. i would say it is hard to argue that he is not a celebrity, or that that is what he is -- or that that is what he has been about before the political process. as far as your assertion that he is -- he describes the problems of the middle class well -- you are absolutely right about that. he has described the pain and uncertainty about the global economy, of a sense that their future is not in their hands anymore, to be determined by them. that they do not know where
their jobs are going, or if they will come back. i think you are absolutely correct about that. effective -- he is very, very effective at channel the anger, rage, uncertainty, fear, and less well-known is whether he has prescriptions for those problems , or ideas about how to solve those problems or to ease that pain. but, no, i agree with you completely. that is part of his power. that is why he has succeeded, because he has described real problems that real people and real pain that they are experiencing. host: mark warren, thank you for joining us. for this segment about pop politics. good morning to you. guest: thank you very much. good morning. host: that is all
residential candidate bernie sanders received the endorsement of new york transit workers union. and later a house hearing on the safety of washington dc's metro system. addressing allegations of sexual inse by human peacekeepers conflict zones around the world, the senate foreign relations lookttee held a hearing to into the allegations come and what the u.s. is doing about the issue. they heard from a former u.n. diplomat turned whistleblower and officials from the state department. this is two hours and 20 minutes.
>> the committee will come to order. i want to thank both of the panels for being here, and for your service. we as a courtesy, and i guess as protocol, the way these hearings go is that we have the government witnesses typically first. then we have other outside witnesses second. today, not to show any disrespect in any way to those panelists who are going first, we have a second panel going first. so that you can hear the testimony, especially because of its -- because of its nature. my staff generally prepares comments for me to make on the front and, and i generally, with a couple of alterations, stick
to them. today, i want to be very brief and just say that look, we understand the importance of the un's peacekeeping missions. we thank you for being here to tell us a little bit about some of the progress being made. all of usk i understand the terrible, horrible things that peacekeepers are doing to the people they are supposed to be protecting. , what they aree rendering to the populations that are in this helpless situation is beyond belief. and i think all of us on both sides of the aisle get very frustrated with the process of this that takes place at the u.n. but the lack of results that occur, and again i understand you guys are working hard, working in an environment that i find less than satisfying on every level, whether it is the security council in keeping
agreements intact, or this kind of thing. let me just make a statement. based on what i know, and maybe i do not know everything i should, if i knew right now that the u.n. peacekeeping mission was going to go into north chattanooga today, which is where my wife is, i would be on the first airplane out of here to go home and protect her from the u.n. peacekeepers, especially if they came from certain countries. i'm just telling you, here i am as chairman of the foreign relations committee, and if i knew that the u.n. was sending peacekeepers into my neighborhood, i would leave here immediately. i would drop what i was doing, catch the next flight home. and i would go home and credit protect my family from the abuse they put forth on the very people they try to protect.
and you think about that, that is in north chattanooga. think about these isolated places, where people are in camps, where young girls are subjected, young boys are subjected to sexual violence by people that we are paying, the united states of america is paying -- the largest contributor, and this is taking place. look, i know you are here today to share with us some of the progress that is being made. this is not you doing this. i got it. this is not directed at you. but i can just tell you, i am disgusted, disgusted by the reports. by the actions of the u.s. peacekeepers, that taxpayers are paying for. and i hope that through this hearing and other actions that we will somehow figure a way to real this in. el this in. if i knew they were going to chattanooga, i would leave here and medially to protect my family. with that being said, i look
forward to this hearing. i want to thank our ranking member for his desire and cooperation in having this. yournk you for ou service to this country. in suree as a nation some way that the very people that are sent to protect people are not doing the dastardly, terrible things they're doing to populations that are very portable. thank you again. i turn it over to the ranking member. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your passion on this issue. it is not the first time we have dealt with problems such as this. this committee has taken i think the right position on persons, or the u.s. has been instrumental in changing attitudes and 70 places of the world where young people are trafficked for sex and abuses. this committee came in very strong in oversight to make sure
the integrity and what we do it about doing the progress on trafficking is not compromised by politics. and when you look at the united nations, we will not tolerate the united nations, under the offices of the united nations, perpetrating the violence against young people. against anyone. so i agree with you completely. i first want to underscore the importance of the u.n. peacekeeping missions. 120,000 military and police numbersl, overwhelming performing professional responsibilities in the appropriate way. honor,mmitment and protecting the vulnerable citizens from the south sudan to the golan heights. the ambassador pointed out that the u.s. not only has a direct
security entrance in the peacekeeping missions, and we contribute as the chairman pointed out to these missions at a greater percentage than any other country the world, but the value is for the u.s. taxpayerss to u.s. to be able to use the international united nations peacekeepers rather than the u.s. having to fulfill that function. they are certainly very important benefits to the peacekeeping missions. and the overwhelming majority of those who are in there doing the work are doing it properly. but the sexual abuse by u.n. peacekeepers must end. must end. those who are perpetrators need to be held accountable. there can be no exception to this. zero tolerance. and i must tell you, mr. chairman, you are right to be outraged. young children, who are very
vulnerable, who are poor, subject to the most difficult lifestyles, being enticed by food or money to do horrible things, under the united nations. that cannot continue. so, there has to be accountability here. and the thing that gets chairman porker and me so concerned are the reports that, at least initially within the united nations, the response was fragmented and bureaucratic. that it was not treated with the seriousness that it should have been treated. that is hard for us to understand. the entity that is supposed to bring world peace and stability condoning, through their actions, those activities. the past security council resolution, last march, i read
it. looks like an appropriate response. will it be enforced? fact, toe prepared, in repatriate all of the uniform personnel from countries that are not doing what they need to do? in training the personnel before they are in the theater to deal with sexual abuse issues, holding those who violate accountable, including prison time. if not, they should not be part of the u.n. peacekeeping mission. are we prepared to lament that? i say that because, mr. chairman, there are shortages of personnel. there are more countries now participating in the missions, including those from developing countries, that may not have the same access to training. so, will the united nations
cover my the safety of young people, in order to meet the numbers in the peacekeeping mission? if they do, the chairman and i will do everything we can to make sure they do not have the resources to do that. we are not going to support that type of activity. so, there can be zero tolerance. and i really do look forward to the discussion we are going to have with our two panels today. and i do know that the people there in front of us are working every day to make sure that the united states leadership makes it clear that we will not allow, tolerate that type of conduct. and we will demand that particularly under the u.n. banner that there be total accountability. and no tolerance for this type of activity. >> thank you senator cardin. very much appreciate your service here, too. our first witness is the honorable ambassador isabel coleman.
our second business is the honorable tracey jacobson. our third witness is major general michael rothstein. it i've announce that correctly? assistant secretary for the state department of bureau and military affairs. we thank you all for the service to the country. i think all of you know that without objection your written testimony will be entered into the record. if you could summarize in five minutes, i would say that i know you all are very busy. to the extent that you can hear the testimony of the second panel, and might be beneficial to you. but we thank you here now, and if you could to start in the order that i introduce you. i would appreciate it. thanks for taking the time today. isobel: thank you, mr. chairman.
ranking member cardin and distinguished members of the committee for inviting me to testify today on the urgent, and shameful, issue of sexual exploitation and abuse by un peacekeepers. earlier this month, i had the opportunity to travel with ambassador power to the central african republic to witness the peaceful transfer of power to the country's newly-elected leader, president touadera. in many ways, the trip underscored both the best, and the very worst, of u.n. peacekeeping. the presence of un peacekeepers has been crucial in stanching the ethnic violence oft has led to the deaths of thousands of people and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. usca has beenw, min
praying on the very people they have been sent to protect. opportunity to travel and meet with the families of victims. their descriptions of the violence their loved ones have suffered at the hands of peacekeepers were really powerful personal accounts that, for me, cut the handwringing and frankly, the excuses about why this scourge has continued to persist for just too long. sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers is not a new problem. it has plagued missions from bosnia to haiti, to the democratic republic of the congo to the central african republic. let me read to you just one short passage from an internal un report documenting sexual abuse among peacekeepers.
of rapels talked disguised as prostitution, in which they said they were raped and given money or food afterwards to give the rape the appearance of a consensual transaction. these words, i'm sorry to say, come from the zeid report, in 2005. we know from the scope of current allegations that now, more than a decade later, these very same offenses are still occurring. despite years of un leaders insisting on "zero tolerance," a culture of impunity has been allowed to fester. when ambassador power asked me last year to lead our mission's efforts to establish a new paradigm for really tackling this scourge, it was clear that an unacceptable lack of transparency and accountability were at the heart of the problem. issue.
yes, the un published an annual report tallying the numbers and types of abuses by peacekeepers. but under pressure from the countries themselves, it withheld the nationality of alleged perpetrators. that made it difficult for member states to take collective action on tracking the status of investigations and the outcome of disciplinary action to hold perpetrators to account. and in short, without transparency, real accountability was at best, inconsistent. but that, finally, is changing. senator, i share your outrage on this. to look back over so many years that has nottoric resulted in true accountability is simply unacceptable. year, usun led negotiations
in the general assembly for a breakthrough finally on transparency, gaining consensus among member states to support the secretary general in his intent to name countries in his annual report. those countries with allegations against them, a long-overdue step. year, of early march this the u.n. is now reporting on its time, along with the nationality of the alleged perpetrators. with this information, we are pursuing a comprehensive approach to track individual cases and follow up with the appropriate authorities. the issuewe brought of the security council, which adopted un security council 2272 - another significant step forward
for accountability. the clear indication of insufficient command and control. the secretary-general is empowered to repatriate all troops from a mission from a particular country, if not taking the appropriate steps to investigate allegations of personnel or not being accountable. implemented asit -- that has persisted for too long. the other part of the strategy is to increase the overall supply of peacekeepers. such that when military units are repatriated, there are others are well-trained able to deploy quickly to take their place. the u.n. has come a long way and responding to this scourge of sexual abuse.
with strong support from the united states, it has built up the investigative capabilities, increased trading of troops, and limited greater immunity outreach to increase awareness about sexual abuse. executed in of these for clearly given is the shocking scale and gravity of incidents being reported from the central african republic and other missions, these actions by themselves are not sufficient to address the crisis. the recent commitment to greater transparency and accountability must, it absolutely must result in a long-overdue sea change that ends impunity. our work is not done. we continue to make it our highest priority both in new york and bilaterally to see perpetrators held to account and sorely lacking integrity restored to peacekeeping. thank you. senator corker: thank you. chairman, i am honored to
be here today to talk about this -- thismic issue horrific issue that demands urgent, meaningful, and sustained action. sexual exploitation and abuse by un peacekeepers is a cancer that demands the most comprehensive treatment. detailing a shocking number of allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by un civilian and uniformed personnel in 2015 alone. and while it is clear that the actions taken so far by the u.n. and member states have fallen far short of the mark of a recent actions taken by the secretary-general reflect the new seriousness and create important new avenues for member state engagement. some of these steps include new
reporting systems for the community, their creation of a media response team, withholding of payments to troops and police for theire missions staff that have been sent home under allegations of misconduct. and the creation on all sexual as flotation and abuse, i will also note that in february the secretary-general to the unprecedented step of sending home an entire contingent om the democratic republic of congo who had been working in central african republic based on credible allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. this was the first time that the secretary-general had taken such a step, it sets an important precedent and we believe it sends an important signal to other troop and police contributing countries. and we particularly welcome the
secretary-general's action to identify the nationality of military and police personnel accused of sexual abuse. including this information online and in real time. troop and police contributing countries are responsible for the discipline of their personnel. public identification states tolows member track performance, to recognize serious patterns of abuse, and to use diplomatic weight to urge the u.n. to repatriate units that have a systemic pattern of misconduct, and to ban countries from these keeping where appropriate. this new level of information is also allowed us to direct our bilateral engagement where it is most needed. last month, we launched an effort to reach out to every , to ay on the u.n. list
comment three goals. first book on bush they were aware of the report, and the allegations concerning the troops. credibleo demand action in terms of investigation and holding those responsible to account, including through prosecution. where crimes have been committed, and thirdly, to the defined as areas where the u.s. might provide capacity building assistance to better investigate and prosecute crimes involving sexual exploitation and abuse. the secretary-general's report identified different agencies, and based on that information we are following up directly with those agencies to make sure they take all necessary actions. mr. chairman, any instance of sexual explication and abuse does very real damage to the ability of the institution of peacekeeping. a tool that is the written more
important for global peace and security, one in which i wish the united states relies to stabilize conflict that could spiral out of control. last year from the president hosted the leaders' summit on peacekeeping. issuing a memorandum reaffirming our strong support for un peace operations to modernize. these efforts are well-timed to bolster action on sexual exploitation and abuse. for example, new commitments last year included 40,000 troops and police. this should send a message to these countries that piece keeping is no longer a seller's market. new capacities should allow the un to prioritize better performing troops for deployment, and to replace contingents potentially withdrawn for misconduct.
my colleagues are well-placed to speak specifically to issues of the reforms we have pursued at the u.n. and the training that we provide to peacekeeping troops in the field. i will conclude by saying that by the very mandate for the vast majority of u.n. peacekeeping troops are serving under a mandate to protect civilians under threat of physical violence. exploiting or abusing these same vulnerable people is appalling and and unconscionable breach of trust, and we greatly appreciate this committee's attention to the issue. and share your outrage at what has occurred. general?orker: >> good afternoon. thank you for letting me speak today. like my colleagues, i am very deeply troubled by what brings us here today, and the things we
have to discuss about these instances. among my duties at the state department, i am responsible for providing executive leadership and guidance. gpoi is our flagship security program.e for the most part, it is a training mission, although we also focus on building self-sufficiency and important to know, one of our key program objectives is to promote the role of women and to promote better gender integration into their operations. athave been very successful helping other countries step up to their responsibilities for security. it also allows us to focus our
military and other priorities besides peacekeeping. to date, the program has facilitated the deployment of more than 200,000 personnel to 29 operations around the world. and today, partners, although they only comprise 40% of the intruding countries, well above the way class by providing more than 70% of the troops performing of mission street through our diplomatic engagement of as my colleague mentioned earlier, we are working to expand the base on the number of countries the number of troops available for the u.n. to support these missions. and i would at a what my colleague said, we think this will help by having more troops out there raise the standard only for mission performance, but also for conduct and discipline. now let me be clear for the record. i think i share the sentiment of everyone in here. each and every instance of sexual exploitation and abuse by any peacekeeper is actually on acceptable.
not only for the harm it causes directly, but also fundamentally undermines the mission and legitimacy of what is trying to occur. very deliberate restructured to address exportation and abuse. , we directed all permit individual unit training, it has elements of academics and things that go against built into the training. we start in the classroom, move on to scenario-based training, and then we move on to the exercise-related training, about the individual unit and leader levels. we pay particular attention to training leaders. because we are keenly aware of the very important role that leadership plays, and how the positive impact of effective leadership can have down mission. gpoi also most women and integration.
we specifically seek out women because we understand the positive impact that can have. over the past five years, the 50 active countries that are our partners, they have nearly double the number of women for you in peacekeeping. and to give you a point of contrast, 71 countries that are not partners and do not participate, they have had a the onesof 60% of being deployed. i'm very comfortable that gpoi is having a positive impact in this area. while we are proud of the effort to address the issue, and i do believe we are shipping the outcome positively, no amount of training, no integration is a panacea. we know there are far too many serious incidents that still occur. and like colleagues, i'm hopeful that recent policy changes to promote transparency will help.
they have to continue to follow through. partner fails to follow up, failing to take responsibility in the jurisprudence system, we have to be ready to suspend security assistance. we have to take a deliberate decision and how we do that. in the end, well-trained and well disciplined and well-equipped units, they are the very building blocks to effective peacekeeping. and while there are many success stories out there, we are well aware of the track record is not perfect by any means. whether it is indirectly or directly, through ongoing training, through expanding the role of women, we remain committed to improvement overseas with the u.n. and our partner countries. scourges of the of abuse. thank you for your time. senator corker: we thank you for
the testimony. look, my guess is that you all as upset as we are. you work in an organization, state, it is at certainly at the u.n. making something happen. my sense is that you do welcome hearing to highlight the problems that exist. my understanding is that the level of violence, sexual abuse, the kinds of things are happening to horrible people that we are supposed to be protecting, is actually much higher than reported. because the very people out populationsecting" are many cases protecting the human rights workers who may be reporting this. with that assumption,
coleman, be far lower than they otherwise would be? people out in the field, peacekeeping folks are there to protect them, too. there are concerns about the making report. isobel: thank you for the question, senator. i think you're absolutely correct to make the assumption that levels of reporting are below what they actually are. i think it is for a variety of reasons. i think that what we are seeing in the central african republic, with a lot of the allegations coming to light now, in particular parts of the country, are because the security situation is improving. and we are now able to send more people out to some of these remote areas, where you have had a single country contingent, which in and of itself is a risk
factor, which the u.n. is now recognizing, where we should not have single country contingents. i think you are seeing an improvement in security, allowing people in the community to feel more safe and comfortable in coming forward to report abuses. what i can tell you mr. chairman, in the coming months, we're going to see more allegations coming to light. i don't think we have nearly seen the end of this problem. the u.n. shines a spotlight on this issue, and we are going to see more allegations, not fewer. senator corker: which countries are the ones that are the worst, namely? thatl: i wish i could say this is just a couple of countries. but what we are seeing is that it runs the full gamut of countries, from countries with seemingly very well-trained and equipped disciplined troops. the french forces have been
named. burundi and the drc troops themselves. the moroccans, there are many countries that have these allegations. so i cannot point a finger at one being particularly bad. we do know that in the central african republic, the contingents that have been repatriated, where troops from the republic of congo and the democratic republic of congo were repatriated -- senator corker: i apologize. i have a whole list of countries here. that it is beyond belief that some of them -- germany? other countries, let me ask you this, if i can ask some personal questions, have you all had
kids? mission waseping going to your neighborhood right now, would you not have the same response i had, that you would rush home to protect your family from the peacekeepers? would that be a response? honestly, would you please tell me? chairman, i have five kids. and when i was preparing for the testimony today, last night, and i had to talk with my daughters about what i was doing and what i would be talking about, it was a very difficult conversation. what i can also tell you is that, having just recently returned from the central african republic, i'm so thankful that my children are being raised in the united states. and in an environment where rule of law is primary. and in the central african
republic, i met people were the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. their families have suffered it directly. i asked that question, would you prefer that there are no peacekeepers here? and i did not know what the answer would be. ambassador power and i sat with them. prefer, given what you have experienced on the peacekeepers returned home? they all said no. what we want is accountability can we want justice to be served. senator corker: let me ask you this, what is wrong with the secretary-general of the u.n.? this report for the one that you afford to, it is 10 years old. what is wrong with him? what is wrong with him? i mean, if he does so inept that the body like this to keep this from happening over and over again? and we are just now beginning to
process in place, what is wrong with him? isobel: i would say those processes have been put in place coming out of that a decade ago, but they have not been put in place. senator corker: that is my point. how do we put up with such ineptitude? is al: i think it reluctance to take on the opposition on troop-exhibiting countries that do not want to deal with this on a transparent thawayy - senator corker: we have the leahy act that says when we know this, we withhold money. have we withheld money?
>> i cannot give you an example of where we have withheld money for these things. the good news is, up until recently, we do not have the kind of visibility that we needed to be a will to pursue these things. now certainly with a lad when law, we do not go forward with security assistance anymore. all units that we train already go through that training. any training that we have done has been vetted through the leahy process. i think we would all agree that to happen sooner, but we are now getting more information coming through from the u.n. that we do not have access to before. and that will allow us to do it better than we have done before. senator corker: let me just, we make it was second round with you all, but i look at the list
of countries that are violators. most of them are, many of them limited this way, they receive aid from the u.s. in other forms . i do not understand why we continue to send money to countries outside of the u.n. that allow this type of abuse to take place. so, i do not think we are using the leverage that we have. i think we should be withholding payments to the u.n., until this ends, or doing some level of reduction. but it does not seem to me -- it seems to me that this is not that important to the u.n. or they went done much more about it over the last 10 years. by the way, the people you talk to, i would say they are somewhat fearful to say they don't want to be there, with officials in your presence.
not your level but other levels, we're not stopping this. i think the u.n. is in great jeopardy of building enough critical mass around here, where severe penalties should be taken against them, with withholding of funds from them because of their lack ofs, concern and care. after 10 years, to continue to allow this to occur, i hope that actions -- i plan to be part of actions taken against them. because it is obviously something that is not important to them. otherwise, this could've been stopped a long time ago. ineptness, lack of a moral compass, lack of concern for vulnerable people. you, mr.ardin: thank
chairman. i want to first thank you all. and i mean that. this is not easy work. and we appreciate your commitment and passion to get globalght, on behalf of people. thank you for your commitment. i do acknowledge the fact that we do have more information than we had a year or two ago. copyaff has given me a from the u.n. webpage on those accused of sexual abuse. looks like approximately, since the beginning of 2015, i'm rounding, but it could be 90 somewhere that range, episodes involving the same number of victims. cases, i wentse through quickly, only four
haven't finalized with any jail time. and i also point out what the chairman said, that these are the reported cases. countries,t in some the seriousness of this issue, even though it is globally acknowledged of being the worst types of conduct, but in some governments and some countries, it is not considered a serious issue. and that means that their reporting is going to be spotty in some of the missions. and then the pressure that is on the command structure has always been there, we saw that in the u.s. command structure when we were dealing with trafficking of military facilities located in other countries not participating. took us a while before we could change the culture. we know that is also a problem. but my specific question to you is, it is one thing to get the secretary-general to withdraw the mission, if they do not do
certain things. and i am all for that. see in sections that i 2272, which we just passed last month. the chairman is right, this has been going on for a long time. we finally got a resolution passed last month. section 4 deals with gathering evidence, but most of that section deals with, rightly so, how you deal with victims and making sure the mission is well-trained, etc. urgesction 9 says it concrete steps in combating impunity for sexual exportation. what are we doing? what is the united states, our leadership doing to make sure that those who have perpetrated these horrible acts are going to end up in jail?
tracey: thank you for your question, senator. it is a very important topic. i think you hit on something key here. we'll talk about what the u.n. is or is not doing. but the crux of the matter is what are the police contribute in countries doing to hold those perpetrated these crimes accountable? based on the new reporting we have of nationalities, we finally have a tool that allows us to go to those countries, to see what they are doing, to urge them to do better. i think you mentioned the four cases from last year that have gone through the whole process. there are released another 20, where trials are occurring now. 20 trials in the democratic republic of congo. that government is conducting against peacekeepers who have been accused of this. also, the republic of south africa has an on-site court-martial that is going on
right now. so we're starting to see the actions taken, that these countries now know that we know what they're doing. we know where the troops are coming from. and we are going to continue to shine a spotlight on the issue. we sent a mission just last month, this was the subject of high-level discussion with our ambassadors back here in washington last month for the conference. and we have been very clear with countries that we have gone to whether this is not just one sort of discussion. that we're going to be coming back regularly to determine what they're doing and holding their feet to the fire. senator cardin: lepidus underscore the point that the chairman made. -- let me just underscore the point of the chairman made. i support peacekeeping. a lot of u.s. taxpayer money goes into it. i have a right, as a senator, to of the unsection 9 security council resolution is
being enforced. i do not believe that the countries that have people perpetrating this, some of the countries will follow through. with this requirement of combating impunity, making sure that the perpetrators are held accountable and are serving prison time. so, what are you going to do to provide me with information on how we are doing and every one of these countries that have perpetrators, as to how their system of justice is handling this, acceptable to international standards? racey: it is very important that we continue to follow-up with his countries in a repeated way. we are doing that, happy to provide you at any time with the results of our conversations -- senator cardin: i want to be
more proactive. i want to know what you plan to do, working with the members of congress, to keep us informed in a timely way, as to how every country that sends peacekeepers to countries, the systems that they have employed to deal with those who are perpetrated these want to make-- i sure that no one is being left -- first of all, i don't think we have enough. i think we had be more proactive. the united states, making sure that those were victimized have an opportunity to come forward. i think we have to be more direct with the political structure with united nations to make sure that every country, perpetrators are identified, so that we have by country what is happening. and that we follow every particular case. the cost quite frankly i do not have confidence in their system to provide justice. international justice, not u.s. justice. i think the more transparency
you can put into this, the more important it is. i want you to come back to me, this committee, and tell me what we are going to be receiving on a regular basis, as to what is happening in every one of these countries. and holding the perpetrators accountable, and how those trials are going forward, and whether in fact you can say with confidence that they have taken steps to prevent impunity for those who have committed these crimes. will you do that? tracey: yes, senator. thank you. we have already certain exercise to do just this. there is a whole team of people behind me engaged on this everyday. we are putting together essentially what we want to do -- combine the new transparency we are getting on the u.n. with our own information that we get from our embassies in the field. we are preparing what we call a date of haul, but it is an actual effort to go out to every country that hosts a peacekeeping mission to answer a
series of questions based on our own observations, engagement, analysis, so that we can bring that information back to washington and do exactly what you say. to make a determination about whether the countries are doing the right thing or not. corker cardin: senator and i, we talked about the lady leahy rule, which i support, we do not give my to live up tohat do not standards. holding them accountable for these types of atrocities would not be contrary to international norm. draftll have to help us the appropriate oversight to make your the countries understand that they must act to prevent impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes. understood? tracey: yes, senator. senator cardin: otherwise, we
will draft. you may not like it. i will warn you. tracey: understood. we are working in the appropriation language, which does require the sort of certificate and you are describing. and we are looking forward to working with you to put that information together. senator cardin: thank you. senator corker: senator isakson. i appreciateon: you working on this. and i appreciate the contributions to the u.n. regarding transparency. putting in a year-end report, how many violations of rape against women, not much transparency. but you on the website is good, but a lot of victims were not know a website if they saw. they are in a remote part of the world. i want to echo what senator cardin and corker have said. holding these people accountable
in some way, if not the least by withholding funds until they comply with human rights. but here is the question. senator corker and i went to darfur, one of the many things i learned is that rape is a military target in africa. it is not a violation. they teach it. ur, we doent to darf not see a man younger than 12 or older than 72. they had all fled. the women had fled. they look like they were that old. the army that came in raped the women to break the family. the son is conscripted to the family. this is an ongoing practice. it is one place i know where it takes place. and unless there was a significant consequence of the
united states funds, and this may impress your organization general, we are just in the wind. the wind. these people are talking to us. i want to make that -- that was not a question, more of a statement -- which brings me to the question? is there any burden on regarding any status the legal account ability to which those peacekeeping troops will be, in the event they create a felony or a crime? >> i will have to defer. i know there is a memorandum between the country and those countries that go to a mission and the country they're working in. but i do not know the details of that, to be able to wrap that further for you. i don't know if i could turn it over to you, ambassador? isobel: there is a memorandum of
understanding, and a model that is negotiated every three years. that negotiation is coming up in 2017. strengthening the provision to be very exquisite and incredibly direct on sexual expectation and abuse is one of my goals for the upcoming negotiation. off of that model, there are specifics that are negotiated between the true-putting country and the u.n.. what i can tell you center is that this is not a problem at its core of lack of words on paper. this is a problem of political will. and it is a problem that has persisted for too long, where words on paper have been ignored. words on paper have been disregarded. even within the existing mous, the tccs have not abided by the agreed we will not tolerate that going forward. as long askson: ingse troops, many use
sexual violence as a tool, if however, ifwn -- all of a sudden because of the initiative the u.s. takes, and all people accountable, will start serving punishment and time for rape and violence against women or whatever it might be, the world will get out really fast. the u.s. is the best at making agreements, putting words on paper. but not the very best at putting those words to working light. my point is that if we could get to some sort of status of forces agreement between countries that supply troops and the u.n., requiring the agreement, having must establish a force in 90 days, but that you will be
liable and punished for rape, murder, or whatever capital felonies we want to include in their countless egregious of which, and then do an example of it, that withholding money are the two things that will get these guys' attention. we don't have anyone's attention right now. it is a frightening thing. gpoi, whichthat the is a vision of the state department, right? >> yes, sir. under my leadership. center isaacson: i would hope you would work with the trade part of the u.s., working if you could fight violence against women with the agreements we make in commerce. just enforceand i the terms of the african growth and opportunity act, the trade
agreement between the countries. people do not like rape or violence, they sure do like commerce and trade. if you predicate participant in those things, with them being committed to ending violence against women and sexual violence as a practice, them against are going a long way towards making something happen. that is the kind of leverage that really makes a difference. i am not belittling the annual report or the website. i'm telling you it is one thing to tell names on a website, another thing say you cannot traded more. we have gotten countries in inica to change labor laws nrder to get in an compliance. we have imported chickens. department should leverage some of the benefits we do on a daily basis with countries around the world who may provide peacekeepers, see where you could tie them together. then all of a sudden, you have a
big stick and some of his country. 't got nothing. pardon my english. but the economic impact in terms of better behavior from some of these countries. sen. corker: one before going to unz, what kind of political resistance exist to keep soldiers from raping and abusing young girls and young boys? what kind of resistance do you face at this united nations body? resistance, mr. chairman, is over giving up any control or jurisdiction, with respect to how issues of conduct and discipline are handled by tccs themselves, troop-determining countries.
they have resisted our efforts to increase transparency on these issues. on the fear that it would dishonor their troops, that it would dishonor peacekeeping. but what i can tell you is that the dishonor, and what i say to not, the dishonor is in being transparent, not prosecutors in credible allegations of exploitation and abuse, to restore integrity to peacekeeping. i think what you are seeing in a positive way today is that there is no longer a monolithic resistance on these issues. i think there are truth-contribute in countries that recognize that we face a crisis, and they recognize that simply circling the wagons and saying no to transparency, no to accountability is actually undermining peacekeeping and their own integrity. we have seen some progress
recently on that front. sen. corker: i would just point out on the list, i know most of see the list, but a number of the people that are violators in the peacekeeping mission, they are in it to make money. let me say this one more time. they are in the peacekeeping mission to make money. so, i am sorry. imagine how a political resistance could keep us from enforcing against these countries, that make money off doing this, in this particular situation. senator koonce? thanks fornce: convening this hearing and for your persistence to your voice and engagement. in fighting human trafficking and fighting to and human slavery, for the passion and engagement you bring to making sure that we do not just hold hearings on the deplorable conditions of the victims of sexual abuse and violence around the world.
but that we actually do something, get something done. and this particular instance today, talking u.s. peacekeeping, last week, i went to the u.n. headquarters to meet with the undersecretary general for peacekeeping operations. i was struck by the challenges , by thecekeepers face number of countries where we have peacekeepers deployed, and by the possibilities of peacekeeping in terms of protecting fragile countries from falling into being failed states. i have supported peacekeeping efforts in terms of appropriations support and they viewed as a positive way to build peace. the allegations