tv French Embassy Hosts Discussion on International Organizations Peace CSPAN December 22, 2018 6:29am-8:01am EST
so that is in an age when we are less powerful in relative terms than we were. that is the problem we are facing. >> the question is whether the problem is mechanical or philosophical. to apply it, the solution required merely a matter of adjusting current institutions to make more room for new entrants or is there a deeper problem? countries like china revisionist powers who don't just want to see the table but change the rules of the game and if it is the latter, how do
we construct a new multilateral order that suits us as well as them? >> i think unfortunately there are philosophical and normative differences at least in some areas that will make it difficult. we are headed for world that is a little shower than we wanted in terms of normative agreement, the tragedy is not the way the united states is behaving as if it doesn't believe in the concept of the west. i think you have to ghosts fear by sphere in terms of values. one of the disturbing ones which could have better relations that is disturbing to me is the degree to which this administration has not defended at all a core component of the liberal order. you think collective defense and open economies but this virtual silence on the issue of
human rights or democracy which got a bad name during early administrations. that to me i find disturbing. i wouldn't want a world in which nobody cares about the domestic authority structures so they can get along at the state level. i think there are major normative disagreements. when people talk about internet security or cybersecurity, there are differences between the united states and europe on a number of things but a number of differences between sovereign control over the internet with constant surveillance and monitoring and violation of civil rights, versus the western conception of that. there are disputes over humanitarian intervention and the boundaries of sovereignty. there are a number of different areas where there is not just
distributional questions like who gets more or how much the world bank you get for your share of trade but fundamental philosophical questions and the way the world is organized. >> we are in, again, a major ideological challenge to openness and freedom from the autocratic powers, they are dissatisfied with the order and institutions that we built, they have seats on the security council but it doesn't change the fact that they are not behaving the way we expected which was that if we invited them to these institutions including the wto they would enjoy getting rich and living within this peaceful system that we were proposing but instead they are wanting to change the rules from within
and undercuts, not simply our leadership position but also the system and public confidence in the system that undergirds it so the question is are we going to be unified in defending our citizens's right to live freely, individually in our nations, to represent themselves democratically, to innovate and prosper together and defend themselves together, or are we going to fight among ourselves and take action against each other and allow the autocrats to either brute their way into greater leadership position or use their way as another autocrat does into greater leadership position while we are squabbling and that is the moment we are in. i also think we did an insufficient job coming out of the financial crisis, learning lessons together whether it was
within the eu itself or transatlantic the in terms of reviving the new economy for our citizens in the wake of that. >> to follow up on that, by trying to make things more concrete, we've done a good job of laying out the current threats and looming dangers, but i'm curious, are we already suffering from the breakdown in multilateralism. are there costs we are already paying in security or economics, or hypothetical, even probable problems that loom in the future. are we paying the price, living with the consequences of breakdown in multilateralism? can you think of examples that are more a matter of things we fear will come if we continue down this path?
>> the united states is paying a price for deciding to take on china's trade of liberalism ourselves rather than accepting the european offer to get into the business together, having to exact a greater price than if we had decided what the costs were going to be multilaterally, trying to see what they could get by land and continuing to accrete into neighbors territory is a direct result of us being asleep at the switch rather than paying attention to shoring up the free world, just two examples on climate change, we are hoping we can secure the progress and keep moving but not necessarily clear. >> you follow this closely. do you see other warning signs? >> i was thinking of the climate change aspect of things, the united states not only has said it will pull out,
doesn't happen until after the next president whoever that may be is elected, but that has slid moment, that promise to pool out of paris and as you saw in recent poll in the united states getting together with a number of other fossil fuel exporting countries to try to go against this trend and not -- a devastating report from the internet continental panel on climate change about the dire straits we are in, that slows down only what governments are doing but takes away market signals that could be helpful to the private sector and make some hedge a little bit. the united states has found its weakening solidarity among a number of its close allies. european steps towards a more
integrated defense entity, in some ways it is a good thing taking more responsibility for one's strategic and military self reliance, but there are indications of questions of how reliable some of the commitments the united states is made. and south korea there's a lot of trepidation about the degree to which the united states is reliable in an effort to make sure if war comes the korean peninsula that troops are under rok control and not us control, this is just one indication and there are others of other countries beginning to hedge against the unreliability of the united states. >> i want to ask you all to start thinking about your questions. i have one more to ask myself and then turn things over to you.
i would like you all to imagine that the international system was still functioning smoothly and there still was a general agreement among the major powers about the underlying norms. even under those circumstances, with the international system, the multilateral system such as it is be able to deal adequately with the major global threats we face today like climate change, like cyber, like any quality? or is the real problem with the international system not just that because it is 70 years old it no longer reflects the power map of the world, but is it also because it was designed at the time when those 3 threats i just enumerated among many others weren't in anyone's imagining so a problem that our tools are not well-suited to the problems that we have to
use them for today. >> what was done in club 21 is an example that we can improvise, be inventive and bring to the table all the stakeholders to reach an agreement. only the united states has left room. china and india, i have been keen on repeating they want to stick to the agreement. the idea was to add a peaceful one every year. it is a call for creativity. obviously the international system but also representing institutions in the country and
international systems challenged by the fact that citizens with social media, new demands which are legitimately made. it is also less pressed to invent new mechanisms, to try to respond to these challenges so of course we should reform the institutions in terms of permanent members but we have also to try to look at other ways of working together, but also systems like an example of what we can do. >> the new climate change
agreement you're referring to. to pick up on what the ambassador was saying, ultimately things need to be formalized in national law, for staying power, legitimacy and burden sharing. the top 21 experience was a good example of these workarounds if you will. you can't get a formal treaty like you would have in the past so you used nationally determined contribution and everybody comes to the table but multi-stakeholder and multilateral so you use states and localities and corporations making their own commitments. that is important. then you ask is it enough? the difficulty is the estimate,
only one third of the mitigation of greenhouse gases we need to lower those emissions, only one third will be accomplished in the timeframe we need to get to. even with the ratcheting up of commitments that is supposed to happen over the long-term it will be hard to get them. the other thing i would say is the problems, particularly those happening by technology are happening so quickly we have no idea what artificial intelligence and machine learning and automation are going to do to global conflict and balance of power and it is coming down the pike, much less what it is going to do for employment and so fast that our lumbering institutions are having a difficult time dealing with this, the same can be said for the genomics revolution, nanotechnology and many other frontier issues in technology. >> i think one of the problems of the current debate and this
was reflected in the speech in brussels by mike pompeo, the false choice between strong state sovereignty and multilateral approaches. any multilateral approaches i have seen succeed are direct result of strong sovereign states choosing to act at home and then choosing to act with others. you don't wake up and say hey, un, do something. it is the states of the un that make these choices, it really comes down to national will in the first instance and the national will to act together and that is framed even in the eu context, you have full a lot of sovereignty but never made national choices to do that and national choices to deepen and broaden it. >> i want to emphasize this part. when people say the un, the un
doesn't exist. it is the member states of the un who have decided or not decided and the eu who have chosen, brussels as their whipping boy, brussels doesn't decide, the member states decide. >> let's open things up. we have a couple microphone so when i call on you, wait for the mike and please tell us who you are. on my left, far right and in the back. the microphone is coming right to you. please identify yourself. >> my name is charles wesner, i'm with but not speaking on behalf of georgetown university. i am a little troubled because it seems to me there's some handwringing here, i would be interested in your reaction, both in trade and energy and
security, this president who we may not love, said the same thing the last four or five presidents have said. he hasn't renounced article 5, we are not moving away from that. the pentagon is not. look at energy. we are so dumb, we don't make the right speed. we are closer to the kyoto requirements than the people who signed up. germany has gone in the opposite direction, france has continued to sit on this very heavily but we have made more progress than most other countries, perhaps denmark has done a little better. if you look at trade, when you say we should coordinate with europeans, trying to coordinate with europeans in your lifetime is usually a very daunting task. we lost an election because of the trade.
the figures on its productivity, half of the loss is productivity but maybe the chinese, everything they are doing has had no effect but, it is not the case. what you might imagine is putting a 10% tariff on all imports in the united states, stop exporting food to japan, took us off the gold standard and as a result, president nixon having shaken up the whole system got the wto, got the imf reforms and laid the basis for the wto. and it is a complete game changer. europe needs to do something before they are purchased by china.
the balkans as they are already doing. >> in terms of china and all these things, we are not, any of us appear, saying the end of the world is my. we are missing opportunities, we tackle these challenges because we are not working together, and in a way that will hurt the country and hurt security far better organized and have a strategy as compared to us. that is the concern. >> on trade from 2001 through
2010, and and there's no impact on that at all with respect to china. and donald trump put more missile behind confronting the chinese that are well-known in terms of predatory behavior. and the means he's going about it and certainly a blunder bus approach to things that could try to find common cause. that he was not spurious we slapping them and the canadians and others with aluminum tariffs and steel tariffs on national security grounds so it is more style, and i take your
point on the us gas emissions. there is no claim to credit for that but i do think it is an important point to make. the question is whether his climate policy is going to be useful going forward in terms of hindering or making it easier to get to the paris climate commitments. >> one thing on china, we don't even know what the objective of the president's policy on china is. from all accounts the white house hasn't decided what the objective is. that is because of the deep internal division, those around the president who want to soften sign up to strike a better deal and those who have no interest in striking any deal of any kind because their
objective is to fundamentally decouple the chinese and american economies so supply chains are no longer reliable on china which they deemed to be a fundamental security and economic threat. there is lack of clarity about what the objective with china is and that makes the analogy with nixon who for all his faults was a reformer, a little tricky. >> as a non-american, i know americans have never been shy about twisting the arms of their partners. this president is good at guessing where is the balance of power and is using it but it has always been the case in any foreign-policy of any country and the us being the most powerful country attempted to do it.
people forget the clinton administration, cheapening the nuclear testing. didn't sign the agreement of the international court. the country was -- the secretary of state at the time is an exceptional entry. it has always been part of the american foreign policy. when you have power you're using it. the us has always been using it. western democracy, the us needs a cloak of decency about what they are doing but they are doing what any power has been doing for thousands of years. >> i have to interject, this reminds me of the memoirs, when you said he talks about fdr's
plan, telling general doug all about his plans for the postwar world and they gaulle cryptically writes, not so cryptically, as was only his will to power clipped itself in idealism. >> next question please. the woman in the middle. >> thank you. i am a french american and i have had a career in foreign affairs focused on international development. i hope i can formulate this question and bring us down a little bit from geopolitics and power situations, how do you see a connection between populism which i will define as discontent by people that feel
they have been neglected and rejection of multilateralism? >> i think we addressed this already. i certainly do. populism making it difficult for politicians who would otherwise be inclined to push for new international cooperation or invest in existing ones to do so. and lack of domestic support. >> the other part of the question, are we more populist in part because of the perceived failings of multilateral institutions, i would say they are held as scapegoats for failures of
domestic policy choices but then there's also the other aspect which people feel many institutions and even worse, more distant international institutions are rigged for moneyed interests or corporations and it can be easy to be cynical about globalization, to believe any quality or the fact that you have been left behind is a result of what these institutions are doing. that may get to part of your question. >> there is something striking, when you look at all the western countries, you see the conservative parties are moving in a new direction and this direction is basically nationalism, about borders, about immigrants. we see it here, which is striking for me, the french conservative, moving into
exactly the same direction and in other european countries. apparently, personally i am convinced we are entering a new era. after 30 or 40 years of neoliberal policies by reagan and thatcher we are entering a new era which means new ideology. i suspect on the right there is already a shift, nationalism, borders, identity politics, doesn't lead you to be an internationalist obviously. as you know, mister bannon in europe is trying to create an association of nationalists but doesn't realize by the measurement, they don't like each other and austria and italy, there is a border
problem and squabbling already. that is the problem. i had as a footnote that if you see a shift to the right it is a question on the left whether the left is trying, the left is adjusting to the new situation. whatever we think of free-trade saying it is good or so on, i am willing to bet their neck may be an agreement ratified for the coming 20 years. we like it or we don't like it but our citizens are simply saying no way. even the canadian won't be ratified. the most friendly agreement you can imagine. >> internationally minded politicians face a real problem with rhetoric and messaging.
there are several things that are contributing to that. first it is no longer a bipartisan issue. because of the other disappearance of internationally minded republicans on the national stage in the united states, there was once a broad bipartisan consensus in favor of deep international engagement in the united states, it has now become effectively a left-wing or democratic priority. that creates a problem because it is identified with one particular camp and if you're in the other you are automatically disinclined to support it but the other problem is because people feel like they have been sold a bill of goods, the old rhetoric in favor of internationalism didn't deliver the things it was supposed to deliver on trade etc. and some of that is
not true, but some of it is true, and because again, the problems that people face or feel so immediate and the promises or benefits of internationalism, multilateral cooperation can often feel so abstract and so long-term, politicians need to come up with a new way of selling the benefits to ordinary people to non-politicians in a very immediate sense they can understand, they feel they are being sold a package that will make their lives better in a very real way and it is not just the preaching of aloof elites who are not concerned about their day-to-day existence. >> the problem is different in europe than the united states. i don't think it is the same
issue. maybe there are similar strains but in europe you have 20 years of politicians when they had to do hard things blaming the eu rather than taking responsibility, not touting the successes of the eu appropriately combined with the fact that when the eu makes these moves to pool sovereignty on things like currency on the one hand, borders on the other, but doesn't complete the process, so that the whole in that pool sovereignty creates the banking crisis and there are not the resilient multilateral tools to deal with them or the refugee crisis and there is no common approach because it was without coming up with a common refugee immigration policy, then people feel doubly let down. i will tell you, you have to go in the direction of more europe or less europe and you have to
defend it regardless. on the us side, maybe it is a personal thing but this perception that us global leadership has come at the expense of individual americans, somehow if you are not putting the money out there, you would have more of it here and the failure to make the connection we made so successfully in the 50s, 60s and 70s that if we didn't manage the global economy our own wouldn't grow, if we didn't maintain freedom in national security terms we wouldn't be able to grow and prosper and we would face more wars, somehow we lost the bubble on that one but i fear on both sides of the atlantic the nationalists. i'm a believer you can be a nationalist and a multinational list at the same time so i don't like the word but they
are offering negativity, not positivity in either case so they are not going to come up with answers and this will eventually cycle around, don't know how long it will take. >> the gentleman in the red sweater. >> my name is matthew. i'm a local washingtonian and i spent my career in the american labor movement. i have a question about multilateralism and peace which is how do you see multilateral institutions working or not working in terms of the humanitarian crisis in yemen which is arguably tied to a proxy war? >> i will take a first stab at that. i'm not a middle east expert, but i think generally speaking, the un security council in
particular tends to work best when one of the perceived vital national interests of the member state is not directly involved. it would be hard to say vital national interest was involved to say the least but the peacemaking was complicated by the fact that it was a proxy war between the saudi's and the iranian's and the united states, being pretty much in bed with the saudis and the europeans as well in terms of selling weapons to them. the un and international community continue to play an extraordinary role with respect to humanitarian assistance in dealing with internally displaced at a time the displaced or greater in number, 68.5, or 69 million people, the difficulty is as we saw in syria as well, if the great
powers, major regional powers are at loggerheads and not willing to put pressure on combatants >> as soon as the americans signaled their will to put a end to the conflict, there was a speech by secretary mattis, actually there was legalization and the united nations and that reached an agreement not only to see whether this agreement would be implemented is another problem but i think it is exactly what you said. the conflicts of the mechanism, is not able to serve the
conflicts where major powers are involved or considered of interest and so far, in this case, apparently it is not anymore. >> i will talk about syria and implications for human as well. the un gets blamed, the un had two special representatives for syria, they have an impossible job and the reason they have an impossible job is civil wars never end when combatants get significant support from players outside their country. until that support ends and countries on the periphery that are all involved in syria's civil war, russia, iran, the gulf states, turkey, until they make a decision to end their support or role it back as part
of deal, the best un negotiator in the world won't be able to accomplish anything. next question please. right here in front. >> microphone coming. >> i am a long retired career diplomat. i was waiting for the word migration which gerard araud mentioned. we are talking a reform of multilateralism to support peace there should be more attention to the migration problem. that is determining populist politics in europe, one of the major reasons donald trump is where he is today and it seems to me by saying we are closing our borders, doesn't solve the problem and it seems to me this
is something the international community should being paying more attention to. >> i agree with you. something like one of every 37 people in the world is a migrant living in the place where they were not born and this includes refugees. it is a huge proportion of humanity in overall numbers. there has been an effort in the last two years for a global compact of migration and it was signed last week or the week before. last week, right? what was interesting was the united states towards the end of last year decided it was not going to participate in that and nikki haley, the ambassador to the united nations, did this because she said we retain the sovereign decision to decide who enters our country.
not alighting the fact the conventions had nothing of the sort about -- it was not binding in the slightest. it was an expression of intent to treat migrants humanely. there was no legal standing that it would have in the united states in the us context. it is an indication, this phenomenon running incredibly hot. i couldn't agree more that it is building up walls, given economic and other incentives for people to be leaving their own countries, it used to be orderly and their need to be rules about it. whether the global multilateral level was the place to come up with major regimes was a big question because many of these phenomena tend to be regional so there will be an arrangement
between sub-saharan africa and the european union and between central america and the rest of latin america and the united states but no question it needs to be more regularly governed because it was the reason why in many ways trump was elected. the migration issue was number one in terms of why people were attracted to him. there are many reasons but that was the biggest of issues. >> sorry to step on your toes but europe shows the need for greater and more equitable burden sharing among countries because the burden of dealing with migrant populations has fallen in such non-even ways so some countries like italy have these enormous populations to deal with and despite pledges of assistance from countries further away hasn't gotten the help. certain individual countries like germany and sweden have stepped in to help others
haven't done their fair share so you have these wild disparities in the numbers. >> what happened with the migration packed on the example of populist politics, actually the us has been followed by several european countries, which are countries where it is not by chance, actually have populist governments, decided not to sign this fact. you can -- it is one of the elements behind the riots in france because there was a sort of incredible fake news about that, saying europe will be obliged to accept. it would be impossible to stop migration and so on and so on and it has been a major issue.
conservative parties, which i mean respectful parties, actually have served on the way and used the same arguments against the market that was signed. so migrations are now toxic, very toxic topic in our democracies. we are living democracy. even if you don't -- actually there are too many migrants, actually these people are obliged to leave, any democratic leader is obliged to take into account the feeling of the citizens. 70% of europeans consider immigrants, so that is one of the challenges we are facing, all the more because the
populists are very effectively on this issue. >> next question please. the gentleman with glasses. >> good evening. i'm a medical student. what do you think, moving more broadly, what do you think of the role of organizations like the united nations in coming years and decades to build and or maintain multilateralism. >> i think as gerard araud said and we have all been saying, there is no such thing as the united nations without the nations. there is no phone number you call and things happen if the
countries don't have the will. so first and foremost, one of the problems best addressed at that large global table, and often the us works best and gerard araud has the most experience working there, when a small group of countries agree that the tools illegitimacy of the human is used against that issue. if you think about the trump administration's all success with the un was strengthening multilateral economic sanctions against the d prk when they were launching missiles at their neighbors and into the sea that was an issue that threatened lots of countries where everybody at the big table was unified, that it had to be dealt with. when big countries are unified about a problem, the un is often the best vehicle.
the other thing that is important to remember is the un agencies where our pool funds actually do a huge amount of good. where would we be on the migration crisis without unicef and the world health organization and all these great development and mitigating institutions. we shouldn't only think about the security council but we should think about the fact that it is a place for collective poverty and suffering alleviation that is extremely important and without which all of us would bear a greater burden. >> in a paradoxical way i would say there's also the fact that today we are back to power politics, several big powers and the fact is we don't have the concert of nations which
means these countries have not a common language the way we had before 1914, basically you don't have russia, the us, china, having rules of what you could do or can't do. that is the problem we have in coming years. is it possible to have a sort of understanding between the major powers about what are redlined and what are not redlines and what are the vital interests of each country and whether it is possible to compromise between the vital interests and in a sense, ukraine is a good example. and these agreements between powers.
and we could get rid of because of the cold war and the western triumph but unfortunately we would be obliged to do it. >> lady on the far left, 5 rows back. >> up until four days ago from the weekly standard. foreign-policy is hiring, i hear. mister patrick mentioned in passing the migrants agreement is nonbinding and the paris agreements was also nonbinding so we hear a lot of importance of multilateral agreements like the paris accord on climate change but can such agreements be effective if they are nonbinding as it often seems they are? >> very good question. >> for some of the proof remains in the putting.
there are reputational aspects particularly in naming and shaming, and not only was it recently agreed in terms of how countries will be monitoring and recording these things but it does allow, provide some incentive, there would be certain penalties at least in this current iteration, and advocacy organizations and those who care about the climate within the country to actually take action. the other thing that would be very useful going forward is to try to do something with the wto which when there is room
for this, to allow climate waivers to be integrated into the global trading system and that would permit countries in principle to discriminate against in terms of tariffs or others in terms of border adjustment measures that are not making progress on the climate agreement. they are highly controversial but it could be one way of moving towards putting force into these commitments. >> i actually think this stuff is great. we talked about politics in individual countries. if you have to have a binding agreement within the nation it has to go to parliament, the standard is going to be the minimum that you can agreed to. having aspirational goals which you might be able to reach, or at least work towards, often
allow you to get a better outcome. the advent of voluntary regimes like what happened under bush 43, to interdict ships at sea that were suspected of carrying the farias stuff, no parliament would agree to that requirement but when you have a voluntary let's do it whenever we can, it became a competition that could do better and it was much better than treaty oriented would have worked. and take it where we can get it. >> >> i'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about
peacekeeping forces, specifically of haiti and other stuff and the role of multilateralism, international institutions, improving the presence of these peacekeeping forces, making them iterative responsive and impunity. >> let me take one or two more questions because we are almost out of time. the woman in the second row here. just wait for the microphone please. >> you are doing an amazing job. i am from the molly republic of west africa and i know the big issue in malley right now, the united nations and
international community as a whole have been working to bring back peace and security in the region. i wanted your perspective on how you think we can tweak a little bit the multilateral cooperation, from day one because it seems to me the violence and security. >> you, sir, towards the right. and please keep it quick. >> my name is blake. i'm a government consultant and i work for us missions in the un in geneva and we talk a lot about reforming multilateralism. but in regards to international organizations, what alternatives are actually there to reform these institutions to work with current context of
the world? >> why don't i give each of you a chance to wrap up and you can comment on whichever of the 3 questions you would like. we have two questions about peacekeeping, one relating to haiti and impunity and the other related to molly and another about performing international organizations and what alternatives. >> i may give short shrift to molly because i've not been following it closely enough and perhaps our french representative might be able to respond to that, hate to put you on the spot but with respect to peacekeeping, there is an ongoing reform effort with respect to peacekeeping. 100,000 blue helmeted soldiers deployed around the world, second-largest deploy group of forces in the world, and doing
incredible things and a great deal for american taxpayers, we paid $.25 on the dollar for the effort we get. a lot of issues still remain in terms of mobilizing contributors that are professional that are willing to conduct themselves and are punished when they do not conduct themselves and too often spend time committing crimes against the people they have been charged with protecting. going forward it will be interesting to see how the peacekeepers that are un peacekeepers relate to the increasing capabilities of regional organizations not least the african union. haiti, i spent some time in haiti, it is a really dire country in many ways in dire circumstances, that has had too
many operations over the years so an understandable desire to wind it up and has become overly dependent in a pathological way on international assistance so winding up the peace operations has to be part of that. on the international organization, i will pick a geneva-based organization. the world health organization, one of the problems is funding has been up and down and disease specific versus strengthening the overall agency. one way to reform would be to balance the relationship between headquarters and who, a strong regional office and that could have helped the response to the ebola crisis and there may need to be further reforms in the who's international health organizations to deal with the bio security threats coming down the pike but it is
possible to get reform in a place like who, all the major stakeholders to get behind that kind of reform. we saw that in the wake of the ebola crisis. >> i could talk during hours because it has been my problem to full doctoring 5 years. first, the un basically doesn't have real military structure so there is no strategy. the forces which are very lightly armed, western powers -- which means it is often not very good quality because some countries are making money by providing blue helmets, each one is paid $25 a month and some countries go forward keeping the money.
the last point, these soldiers are not sent to fight. they are sent to analyze the situation after the peace agreement, so you don't have to expect them to be fighting forces, risking their lives. they are coming from foreign countries. they don't have any really basic, they don't have any stake in the country. very often they don't speak the language of the country so they are very much checkpoint forces studying the situation and the problem we have now is in terms of france, we have robust mandates for central african republic, which means these
forces are allowed to, their mandate is to be robust but they don't have culpability to do it. once more, it is not the un but member states. when you tell the un, a strategy command in new york, one of the officers in new york, 20,000 blue helmets deployed in the world, it is amazing. doesn't make any military sense but when you want to create a real headquarters, there is no way, it would be dominated by western powers, the only ones able to provide the capabilities necessary for command. once more we have the contradiction which is often
the case in these organizations between the political goal and what you are putting in place. the problem we are facing again is particularly robust mandates with peacekeeping forces who can't really implement the mandate which means the french forces are in support of the un at the un force but at the end of the day the solution would be political and it would be a manual solution so it is up to authorities of the macro to which agreement to the population in the north. you know there is a problem between the south and the north and that is where we need a political agreement and a political compromise. that is part of the issue.
the other part of the issue is libya. you have regularly terrorist groups which are going from libya to maui and they are stopped by the french but it is endless and so that is the second problem. meli is part of the problem in southern libya. >> last word to victoria nuland. >> on you and reform, i don't think one should have hope for you and reform unless and until the united states has the leadership and the will to take it on as a major endeavor and that is not the case right now. >> we haven't solved the world's problem and not sure we conclusively resolved how to reform multilateralism to support peace but we made a lot of progress. i don't know about you but with great people like this working on these issues i can't help but feel hopeful. please join me in thanking our
>> government funding ran out at midnight as the us enters a one of a government shutdown. negotiations continue on a bill that will pass both chambers of congress and get the approval of the president. watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. .. >> and it's a four-day holiday weekend here on booktv on c-span2. as always, c-span2 is committed to providing gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. senate, and they are scheduled to come in at noon eastern. we're not quite sure how long they'll be in, so we've kept our tv schedule available on the cable guides and on our web site. some of the programs scheduled to air this weekend i