On Wednesday, July 17, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing for the nomination The Honorable Samantha Power as United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) Presided.
For full event notes, continue reading or click here for the PDF.
Senator Menendez opened the hearing by describing how Ms. Power’s nomination as UN Ambassador has attracted both fanfare and criticism, and therefore she “must be doing something right.” He was confident that she will use her position to advance human rights given her credentials, service, and her “willingness to speak her mind.” He also expressed his confidence that her “unrelenting voice” in advancing human rights and crimes against humanity “will be heard around the world.” He agreed with her belief that nations must learn from past atrocities so as similar ones will not occur in the future, noting the genocides in Rwanda and Armenia, and also agreed with her opposition to Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba. He called on her to address international issues not necessarily “on the front page” to benefit the United States as well as people suffering under tremendous poverty and oppression the world over.
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) used his opening statement to urge Ms. Power not only to use her position at the UN as a platform to promote international peace, security, and human rights, but to as a means to reform the UN itself. He also thanked her for advocating for the UN’s efforts even when it was unpopular domestically.
Senator Menendez then recognized Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to introduce Samantha Power. Sen. Chamblis listed her education and other credentials, as well as described her as a “smart, tough lady who can express herself in very strong terms when she needs to.” Sen. Isakson attested to her intelligence and appropriateness for the UN Ambassador post, citing her experience in Rwanda and Sudan (where Sen. Isakson has also travelled). Both Senators expressed their support for her as a candidate and their confidence that she will execute her job successfully.
Ms. Power began her testimony by thanking her family, the committee, and Sens. Isakson and Chambliss. She recounted her experience working at a local TV station in Atlanta while in high school when she saw the Tiananmen Square massacre unfold on the news, and swore to spend her life spreading American values around the world. She also described how the UN, albeit its “mixed record,” provides a stage through which issues surrounding areas such as healthcare, poverty, state-sponsored violence such as that in Darfur, and women’s empowerment can be addressed. However, she also condemned the UN’s unfair treatment of Israel, apathy towards Iran, and its inaction in Syria, the last of which “history will judge harshly.” Thus, she asserted that a strong United Nations requires strong American leadership, citing President Clinton’s intervention in Bosnia and President Bush’s PEPFAR program to address AIDS in Africa. However, she agreed that the United States is “not the world’s policeman,” and must look to work with international partners and the UN overall to address the world’s problems. As UN Ambassador, Ms. Power cited three key priorities and core values that would define her tenure: (1) Power advocated that “the UN must be fair,” citing what she considered its unfair treatment of Israel, especially from the Human Rights Council, arguing that does not hold up countries like Iran, Sudan, or North Korea up to similar standards. She said that she would work “tirelessly” to defend Israel and its legitimacy. (2) Power advocated that, in a time when the US needs to promote its own austerity domestically, the UN must cut back as well and work to become more “efficient and effective.” Cutting waste, eliminating corruption, and encouraging other countries to contribute more greatly to the UN were her key goals in this respect. (3) “The UN must stand up for human rights and human dignity, which are American values and universal values.” Power argued that the UN must apply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “[less] selectively” and that she would “do what the United States does best” by standing up to repressive regimes, against terrorism, and for expanding women’s rights and religious freedom, among other goals. She closed by assuring the committee that she would continue a strong partnership and dialogue with the Congress in affairs at the UN.
Sen. Menendez opened the question section by agreeing with Ms. Power’s comments on Israel and asked Ms. Power if she supported Israel’s bid to join the UN Security Council, to which Ms. Power agreed, arguing that curbing efforts to de-legitimize Israel must be coupled with efforts to legitimize it. In response to a question on building consensus within the UN that Iran must be denied the ability to build a nuclear weapon, Power also agreed that that was an important step, as well as highlighted the importance addressing Iran’s human rights record. In addressing a question on bringing the UN Security Council to a decisive action on Syria, Power called the current status of Security Council action on Syria as a “disgrace,” and suggested greater action within the General Assembly to isolate the Assad regime and to work more closely with Russia to identify common interests in the Syrian conflict, most notably the spread of terrorism and the use of chemical weapons.
Sen. Corker began his time by asking Power if the United States needs the permission of the Security Council before taking military action overseas, to which Ms. Power argued that the President should always seek to advance American national security, even when the Security Council is “stalled.” In response to a question on what the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” means to the U.S., given that Power as an outspoken advocate of the norm, Power responded that the U.S. has an interest and moral imperative to intervene in cases of mass atrocity, though that does not necessarily mean militarily. It is important when examining these types of complex crises to assess the right “tools in the toolbox,” whether that means military action, arms embargoes, jamming communications, creating commissions of inquiry, or other means, though she also argued that there is no “one size fits all solution” to these kinds of crises. In response to a question on waste and “duplicative programs” at the UN, she testified that she had worked to identify $56 million worth of savings by consolidating various peacekeeping missions, and pointed out that the UN recently made its first budget reduction in 50 years. However, she also brought up the importance of not squandering the progress of various projects, missions, and agencies around the world, especially given that terrorist groups like al-Qaeda have targeted UN missions overseas. Finally, in response to a question on whether the UN Security Council should be expanded, Power argued that any effort to do so must expand the Council’s “representativeness” and “effectiveness,” although she disapproved any effort to remove the veto power from the Council’s permanent members.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) began her time by sharing her support for Power’s confirmation before asking if the election of President-elect Rouhani could lead to a diplomatic opening with Iran, to which Power replied that while the 2013 Iranian election did not reflect the “democratic will of the Iranian people” the way it did in 2009, the U.S. must move forward with a strategy in Iran which she defined as “verify, then trust,” or trusting Iran based on its compliant actions rather than its compliant words, and that she would work with the Security Council to hasten reforms in and compliance from Iran as best as possible. Power also shared that she was encouraged by the launch of a new UN office on empowering women in response to a question from the Senator on the status of that office.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) used his time to give Ms. Power the opportunity to review various statements she had made in the past, beginning with Ms. Power’s suggestion that the international community needed to assemble a “mammoth protection force” to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to which Ms. Power replied that she gave an “incoherent response to a hypothetical question,” and that the conflict must be resolved through a negotiated solution and not through unilateral actions, such as those the Palestinians have taken at the UN for their own advancement. In response to a statement Power made regarding the “reckoning” for “crimes” the United States has committed in the past, and Rubio’s question as to what crimes she was referring to, Ms. Power argued that the U.S. was the “greatest country on Earth” and that she would “never apologize for the United States.” She remarked how when she went to Rwanda, albeit disappointed with the lack of U.S. action in the face of the genocide, many Rwandans expressed their thanks for the speech President Clinton made afterwards. Senator Rubio expressed his confusion to her answer to “what crimes has the U.S. committed?” being “the United States is the greatest country in the world,” to which Ms. Power rebutted that the U.S. is a champion of human rights and dignity and holds people accountable when it does not perform by those standards, such as after the incident at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. To clarify a comment she made saying that Iran posed an “imagined crisis,” Rice argued that she never said that and that the U.S. should continue to “press” the Iranian regime.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) asked Samantha Power how she would generally deal with Russia at the UN, particularly with respect to Russian civil society and human rights abuses there, to which Power replied that the U.S. cannot afford to be silent on civil society in Russia or anywhere else, stating that the world “looks to the U.S.” and that the U.S. cannot be silent on its values.
In his remarks, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked Ms. Power about her opinions on President Obama’s strategic “reset” with Russia, to which Ms. Power argued that such as strategy has led to “complex consequences,” most notably a frustrating relationship with the Russians over the crisis in Syria, the crackdown on Russian civil society, and the issue over handling Edward Snowden, but has led to positive outcomes such as in supplying troops in Afghanistan. Nonetheless, the U.S. should continue to support civil society in Russia.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) first praised Power for her “blunt, outspoken” demeanor and the value it would add to a diplomatic post before asking why the UN, which helped create Israel, uses it as a “perennial punching bag” when it comes to human rights, to which Power argued that criticizing Israel was a “reliable way to change the subject” for undemocratic countries at the UN, and that the U.S. must assert its role on the Human Rights Council to advocate for Israel. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) asked how the United States can project a more friendly image at the UN given that many countries vote against the U.S. at the UN more than 50% of the time, to which Ms. Power responded that at the UN, less than half the member states are democratic and that getting more countries to vote more in line with UN and U.S. norms and values would be a key priority for her ambassadorship.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) began by asking Power whether she thought the Security Council was close to decisive action on Syria, to which Power responded that she thought it was unlikely, given the Council’s inability to even pass a verbally “condemning resolution.” In response to a question regarding whether the U.S. should respond with military force if Iran develops a nuclear capacity that the U.S. finds unacceptable, to which Ms. Power assured that, as a member of the executive branch, she would work to ensure that the President would have as flexible array of options as possible when it came to taking action against Iran. McCain closed by suggesting that Power follow Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick’s example as U.S. Ambassador to the UN moving forward.
Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) asked whether the UN was growing too far and in need of reform, to which Power replied that while there is a need to come some waste and make some offices more effective, missions in places like Iraq, Mali, and Afghanistan have to be continued so as to not lose the advances made there, as well as how some offices just need more funding in order to improve their effectiveness. She also agreed with the Senator’s opinion that the Palestinians at this point should not attain full status at the UN, and argued that the U.S. must lead at the UN if it is to support Israel there or affect a variety of other issues.
In response to Senator John Barrasso’s (R-WY) questions on what he felt would amount to a UN Gun Registry and on supporting transparency of U.S. contributions to the UN, Power said that she would oppose the former and “absolutely” support the latter.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) began his remarks immediately by asking whether President Mohamed Morsi’s ouster in Egypt was a “coup,” to which Ms. Power argued that her standing outside the Obama administration made her unequipped to answer that question. In response to a question regarding whether the U.S. should intervene to support religious freedom in Pakistan, she argued that the U.S. has the responsibility to respond to a variety of crises around the world, albeit that intervention does not have to involve military force. She also agreed with the Senator that foreign aid should carry conditions but could only say that she would “promise to consult with Congress” when asked whether the President or the Congress had the power to initiate intervention overseas. Sen. Paul then stated that these are “important questions” to consider, especially given that the United States is debating supporting Islamist rebels in Syria and that there is “no valid justification” to keep Congress isolated from deliberations over “secret wars.” He concluded by saying that “war is scary” and that although he liked Ms. Power, he was worried about unforeseen crises that may develop during her tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the UN and what that could lead the U.S. to doing, especially in Syria.
Sen. Menendez posed two final questions, asking whether Power would support efforts to re-unify Cyprus, as well as whether genocide always constitutes genocide or just when it is convenient to call it that, to which Ms. Power replied that she would “absolutely” support such efforts in Cyprus and that the Genocide Convention is a “useful instrument, though it is not perfect” and that facts should always “drive the analysis” when it comes to determining whether genocide occurred. In response to a question as to whether identifying human rights violations depended on where they took place, Power stated that it did not. Finally, Sen. Corker briefly added that he appreciated the hearing’s conversations and that he thought that Power was going to be a “significant force” at the UN. With that, Sen. Menendez shared that he had received a letter sent by “30 individuals from across the political section” in support of Power’s nomination before he moved to adjourn the hearing.