Seeing in a positive way is there is no longer a monolithic resistance on these issues. There are to contribute in countries that recognize we face a crisis. They recognize that simply circling the wagon and saying no to transparency and accountability is undermining peacekeeping. It is undermining their own integrity. We have seen some progress on that front. I would point out on the list , a large number of people who are violators are in the peacekeeping mission to make money. They are in the peacekeeping mission to make money. Sorry. I cant imagine how political resistance can keep us from enforcing against the countries that make money off doing this in this particular situation. Thank you chairman corker. Thank you for convening this hearing and your voice, both of you in fighting Human Trafficking and human slavery and the passion and engagement you bring to making sure we dont just hold hearings. The deplorable conditions around the world, we actually do something and get something done. In this instance today, were talking about you and peacekeeping. You in 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. Acrossegations made dozens of Different Missions for decades are simply shocking and unacceptable. It is the u. S. That is footing most of the bill for the peacekeepers who are committing these atrocities against men, women, and children. If the people who we are funding and supporting to the peacekeepers cannot be trusted our support for peacekeeping is at risk of doing more harm than good. Listen to act, not just to bring an end to Sexual Exploitation. Simply providing peacekeepers and police does not fulfill a Member States obligation. It is the responsibility of Member States to oversee the appropriate units. It is a struggle. Contributing countries are deploying in order to get troops paid we are not attracting the best, most capable forces from around the world. Before we make progress, we have to institute meaningful accountability for nations and their peacekeepers that connect these crimes. Ive been forward to exploring ways we can help the u. N. Push for accountability that is meaningful to and these crimes. Crimes. D these ambassador, tell me what training methods have proven most effective so far . All Panel Members to answer this question. What has been successful to is the training of the many of the contributing countries that Sexual Violence is being used as a weapon of war yet what training is most effective at preventing that he . If you would allow me to say i want to reiterate a point that general rothstein made which is that this is not fundamentally about a training issue. There is no training that will guarantee that this will not occur. When you look at the troops committing abuses, some of them are among the best trained. We know that they have explicit components of Sexual Exploitation prevention in the training methods. Ultimately, it is an accountability issue. There is no contributing country that is immune from these abuses, it is how they deal with it that provides prevention. How effective is naming and shaming . A number of implicated countries are close allies of hours. Of ours. I think accountability matters before training. How effective is naming and shaming . Thank you. I like to avoid the phrase naming and shaming because i see naming n accountability. It really is a watershed for us to be able to identify the countries and to be able to follow directly with them and the passivity that has existed, the sweeping under the carpet. , tolack of accountability not allowed anymore senator isaacson talked about having a big stick and you talked about money. To be able to say that you will not participate in peacekeeping any longer if you do not all troops accountable, if you do not sit report back to the Security Council, if you do not ,rosecute these allegations that is ultimately the u. N. s big stick. Could she did in countries will overtake jurisdiction over their troops. They can choose to have a full appropriate response or not. If they do not, they should not be part of peacekeeping. I could not agree more. I am ashamed that we have been supporting peacekeepers that are doing horrible things. We want to find a mechanism for accountability that is appropriate. What sorts of engagement accountability are most effective for troops . [inaudible] apologize. Let me start by echoing what the ambassador said. Training is necessary. Do not think it is efficient this is broader than training in a belief we have to train through the training that we provide, we think it is pretty good. What we work to do in our training, we start in a classroom. We moved to scenarios. We moved exercises. We focus on unit leadership. We were closely with the United Nations to find the best practices. We make sure they understand the policy. All of that will not be sufficient. I would . What ambassador i would echo when ambassador coleman said. Just because you have a rotten individual or unit does not mean you want to disengage from the country. As we remain focused on future outcomes, if that country will every want to effective for the better, we want to be involved in the training to make it better and not walk away. Those of the difficult decisions. I am looking forward to the second panel where we will hear about you when suppression of whistleblowers and the likelihood that these abuses are more widespread. Thank you. There ought toe, be some way for us to figure out a way to surgically deal with this in a bipartisan manner that gets at this issue, not bringing in other issues. We ought to be on a figure out a way to do it. Senator flake will ask senator shaheen to ask her questions. Testimonyou for your and for the work you are doing. With whatfollow up you said about how important it is for the u. N. To hold countries accountable and to ask, has ever been done . Do we have examples of where that has occurred and we have seen a change in behavior and if that is the case, why havent we instituted a process whereby that is on a regular basis . Thank you. U. N. Has consistently followed up with the contributing countries when allegations come to their attention. They have documented and presented evidence. They have followed up with a contributor countries. Too often, they are met with silence. Withrankly, have acted timidity in pushing back on the tcc and demanding action. That is the question i am asking. Is there a case, can you cite a time when the u. N. Has demanded action is taken to putting country has failed to act where forave denied them funding continuing to contribute to peacekeeping efforts . I know of a number of examples. Some of them have happened with u. S. Urging. Haiti hadyans in sexual abuse allegations. We know about them at the time. There was not a website, this was not published, but we learned about it. We engaged bilaterally. They did take action. They held a public trial. The food victims from haiti to the trial. 80 toy flew victims from the trial. When i went they flew victims from haiti to the trial. The u. N. Brought it to the highest levels of attention in the South African army in the delicate. T does happened the issue is that it doesnt always happen. Too often, they get no response from the tcc. When that happens, if we do not know about it, or if another member state doesnt, it falls through the cracks. One of the issues raised is that there is no Agency Responsible just for this. Is that the assessment of the panel that if we had a person in charge of just making sure that when there are allegations that troop contributing countries are taking action doll people responsible . Would that help solve the problem . Reportindependent panel in excruciating detail catalogs how information was diffused, fragmented, the bureaucratic inponse that so appalled us response the u. N. Has appointed a person as a special envoy to deal with the issue of Sexual Exploitation and abuse and we welcome that appointment right we think that that will help provide a focal point within the u. N. Said that there can never again be an excuse that the diffusion of responsibility allowed critical information and fall through the cracks to occur. We absolutely welcome that. Has she taken any action . Appointed. Ecently right now, she has been in the , theal African Republic democratic republic of congo. I think you will see action coming out of her, from her office. Sen. Corker the leahy legislation that would have the United States denied assistance. Is this something that has been done in particular instances where there have been documented cases of Sexual Exploitation and abuse . Have we actually seen the United States deny aid to countries you have failed to take action . Certainly will we have credible evidence, those things that fall under that lady laws level individual unit when we have that information that goes into our database that we work both through the nation in countries when those individuals potentially come of her Security Assistance with the United States as well as databases back here. Specifict have a example that if there is somebody who has credible allegations, they were going the database and we would not work with that unit or individual and that process is in place. I am asking a broader question. Have we actually denied aid to countries who have contributed troops to peacekeeping missions who have failed to take action with those troops on allegations that have been shown to be true . At the overall country level, we have not suspended to my knowledge and overall country. Should we . Should be considered that action if we see repeated abuses . I would like each of you to respond to that. We absolutely have to be ready to consider that. It is important we take it on a casebycase basis. As i said earlier, from my perspective, it is not so much that an incident happen, it is with the country does about it. If a country lacks the will to follow through on that, because incidents are going to happen and so, if the country takes reasonable action of followthrough, then we probably ought to continue working with him. I am actually asking if they failed to take action. Should we look at suspending aid . Thank you. It is an important question because we have to think about the leverage that we have in our relations with countries but i think we have to look at it in a holistic way. Most of the assistance we provide to africa is in the health area. We are not in the business of giving out freebies because we want to feel good, we are in the business of providing assistance that meets needs. You have to weigh whether or not it makes sense to cut assistance we are providing to prevent the spread of pandemic disease in response to a countries and ability to deal with Sexual Exploitation and abuse. In other areas, we are providing the rulee to support of law system and development of capacity to enforce law. I would want to redirect how that is used. Tool, not necessarily the two of first resort. You have to look at what the assistance is directed to you. We are try to do that on a casebycase basis through our engagement with the countries named in the report and that is an ongoing conversation we will have. Just say that if countries are not responding or taking action, they should not be included in a u. N. Peacekeeping. Therefore our contributions through our peacekeeping assessments should not be going to those countries. That u. S. Ly agree engagement to strengthen are great but if there is a willful nonresponsiveness, they should not be part of peacekeeping. Thank you all. Senator markey . Thank you. Can i ask how we deal with the countries from which these soldiers come . We are talking about the but doesof soldiers the country itself need training . Do we need a program that goes to get to thee adults in these countries so that they are taking intervention steps necessary on to be made accountable . Those of the people that we have what ise training to that program that we may or may not have in place . Thank you. You raise a very hard topic. Rule, in my experience, doing tactical training, predeployment training is hard but we are pretty good at it as a country. Helping to build those backs upons that Tactical Operations units is more difficult. It is intellectually more difficult. I just came out of a year in afghanistan where my job was to build the afghan air force. Now is trying to build their institution so i have lived a little bit of this myself and it is hard work. Wheree programs out there we are trying to get after that. In the state department, we have taking a look is at countries, how we can after the Institution Building that has to back this up the rule of law. The Defense Department i dont want to speak for them because i do not know but i know they are working some of the defense programs. Those are the things we are trying to work but it is difficult. It will take a long time because change in our own bureaucracy, think how hard it is to make change happen much less when you are working through a foreign government. We will have to stay at this for a while. I do not think you can solve the problem until those leaders in the Justice System in the own countries have the proper training and gumption to enforce the laws. These are just young men on the prowl in a foreign country. That is a dangerous thing without proper supervision back home. What would you like to see put on the books . What would you like to see funded . To teach them with a stick will be could potentially try to have them except as a standard by the proper educational standards. Without us having to punish the country. I want to include the thought that we started our effort last month to go to every country on the list, this is part of what we were asking. We want to make sure they understood the gravity of the allegations. Them the to impart on importance of following up. Third was to open a dialogue about what the country needs in terms of assistance to build up his own ability to investigate and respond. Those conversations are at an early level. We only got the information last month that we are going to build on. Those conversations are going to feed back into our decisions about assistance we provide including the law area. We should engage and hopefully we should be funded. Where countries are now willing, where they dont have the gumption, those countries should be barred from peacekeeping altogether. I believe that the resolution in the Security Council that we fought for provides for that kind of banning from peacekeeping. Lets talk about the countries you think are the worst. Give us the worst three countries. So we can just get an idea of what we are talking about. In terms of their total lack of regard for humans Rights Violations . Worst . Give us the three colleaguerefer to my and Esther Coleman who previously said it is hard to say who is the worst because we are only now in a world movie can identify what countries are doing. Assador may disagree congo, morocco, cameroon, tanzania, burundi, nigeria, togo, ghana, madagascar, senegal, canada, germany, slovakia, moldova do you want to pick three . If you dont want to put in canada, you dont have to . You might want to give us an idea of where this problem is and it will focus our attention more precisely on what we should start with . We should probably start with the worst in him we can know when we have to have is a project to teach the country how much they should care. Would you like to try that, ambassador . What you are saying is important. We need to identify where the problems are. Like alooking at a case democratic republic allegations horrific but we think the secretary general did the right thing by sending them home. They are not in peacekeeping anywhere else. At the same time, as part of this focus on the issues, we have seen that the democratic republic of congo has detained 20 peacekeepers to start trials against them. To the need to see is trials go . Several countries you mentioned have started judicial processes or finished them against peacekeepers who were accused. I would say it is too early to answer the question as to who is the worst because we havent seen there you saying congo is as a country that has already received special attention . Are there to bring others you and i to tell us if you are going to prioritize your we should be focusing that have been particularly bad . Comment. I can troops were repatriated because of a pattern of abuse. There were so many abuses that they were repatriated. In addition, the republic of troops were also repatriated because of a pattern of abuse. They are two Different Things going on. One is a pattern of abuse which speaks to a lack of control in the other is a pattern of nonresponsiveness. On that pattern of abuse, has , itgations become apparent is easy to see when there has been a pattern of abuse, in terms of nonresponsiveness, we are only now understanding which thatries have allegations have been pending for a long time where there has been inadequate followup and accountability. Lookingprocess, we are at which are those countries and we do not have an answer for you. We will get back to you with that answer. It is important for us to. Now yes. You have to narrow it down because senator cardin is saying that we have the ability to think creatively about all of the other relationships that we have with the country that can help to get the leaders who general austin was sitting are reluctant to have their judicial system fully engaged in nature that they are accountable and that the soldiers are accountable the military is accountable and we look at it in the same way. When will you have that list together . That would be a great hearing to just have. Those worst offenders focused upon by the committee. Are you talking abo