tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 16, 2015 5:00am-7:01am EDT
this is always -- there is always room to maneuver. i think this is one of those times. >> today, donald trump will announce if he is entering the 2016 presidential race. he will >> coming up today on c-span, a look at the role of the united stations -- united nations. jeb bush has formally announced he is running for president. today, the u.s. ambassador to -- they talk about how they plan to advance interest with the international organization. you can see that at 10:00. on our website. >> this weekend, the c-span city
store has partnered with comcast. -- wrote several of his novels here at the city in key west. >> pauline converted this hay loft into his first formal writing studio. he fell in love with the clarity of his writing how fast he was producing his writing. he knocked out the first rough draft of a farewell to arms in a few weeks. -- if you want to write, start with one, true sentence. he should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> key west is also where president harry truman found refuge.
>> harry truman saw the white house as the great white jail. he would bring a couple of his closest staff, let down his hair, sometimes the staff would let their beards grow. they could certainly have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. a sportswear company sent a case of hawaiian shirts to the president, with the thought that if the president where's our shirt, we will sell shirts. so truman organized the loud shirt contest. that was the official uniform of key west. >> saturday on c-span's book tv.
>> monday, the brookings institution hosted a discussion of the role of the united nations in responding to transnational challenges. susanna malcorra, chief of staff, also spoke about the un's post 2015 agenda. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon, my name is tom pickering and it is my special pleasure to introduce this afternoon's distinguished guest. she works with the
secretary-general of the united nations. a moment ago we were chatting about her job and how interesting it is and how tough it is. i am sure she brings to those particular challenges, her own distinguished and indeed deeply experienced career. as many of you will know, she proceeded this present job which she undertook in march 2012 by a four year stint as undersecretary general for field support. an extremely challenging job dealing with between 80 and 120,000 peacekeepers around the world. many missions with the united nations and many taxing and challenging questions. she stated about her present job, it is everything between the bombing of sonata on one
hand and 10 minutes later a fire in the grudge of the united nations. hopefully, today there are no fires in the u.n. garage that are being untended by your presence here. prior to her work at the undersecretary general for field support, she had also a distinguished career in the world food program which undertakes the burden of providing to those needy all around the world. the donated and surplus foods that can be made available and provided to many thousands of recipients. she was the chief operating officer and the deputy director general of that organization. she brings as well to us today a distinguished background in the private sector. a very interesting one. she worked for ibm in the early stages of her career in argentina. and then left that job, that set of jobs, and went to work for
the major telecommunications of her country, where she rose to very important and responsible positions in directing the work of that particular organization. she comes to us with experience that is vast both in the private sector as well as the international sector. today, we are here talking about the future of the united nations and the potential for change. i would like, if i can, to take a few seconds to talk about one or two of the challenges that are out there. having spent a little bit of time myself in dealing with the security council, i think it remains at the heart of the organization's capacity to deal with today's overwhelming problems of threat to peace and security. in that regard, we consistently look at the security council. sometimes, in anguish over its inability to get its act together, and sometimes in deep
admiration that it has the capacity to thoughtfully provide for the legitimacy and indeed the processes that can help the international community deal directly with threats to peace and security. the veto is something that no representative of any permanent member would wish to talk about in public. i used to do it somewhat as a basis of deciding how strong and firm my own career was in the united states. the year that i left american government employment in 2000, i made a proposal that i thought then had legs. i don't think it does now. our friends in france are following the proposal with some interest. i thought i would mention it briefly, because i think it can help set off a little bit of our discussion and a little bit of
the interesting issues. the veto in my view, should be used to promote the interests of the organization and protect the permanent members of the security council when what they consider are the highest order of vital interest being threatened. and not for other purposes. it is unfortunately as we now know well, used for other purposes. some of them a femoral, some of them highly political, some of them to send signals, but none of them worth the notion of stymieing the work of the united nation's counsel. my view was and still is that in cases like genocide, which is particularly important, the security council ought to adopt a voting convention, among the five permanent members that when they cannot read inside all a
draft, and three of them oppose it, then it would be a veto-able draft. when there are less than three then the others would agree that they should abstain. in my view, this was possible back in the early 1990's, when in fact we emerged from the cold war and we had good feelings and the effective operation of the security council. it is not now. i would temper the voting convention by several caveats. one, that i mentioned a moment ago. that the voting convention would work except when one of the permanent members felt that a truly vital interest was at stake and hold the other members why it was going to and -- invoke voting convention. secondly, it would be much more acceptable if two thirds of the
members of the general assembly asked the security council to operate under the use of this particular voting convention when threats to peace and security were on the agenda of the security council. these are wonderful ideas. they don't solve the problem, obviously, but how do we get more representation of more deserving states on the security council. my sense is that were we to resolve the question of the use of veto, in a way that much more tightly restricted its application, we could perhaps open the door in a more positive way to slightly broader representation. that would in itself be a help. thank you for giving me an opportunity to deliver this message to our audience. and thank you also for being with us. thank you for coming to the platform to give us your thoughts and your remarks. we all look forward to this. with a great deal of interest in anticipation. thank you. [applause]
>> good afternoon everyone. it is a pleasure to be here today. i want to thank the brookings institute for this opportunity. i particularly want to thank my host for being here today. i want to add my thanks to ambassador tom pickering. his introduction set a high bar for me. and makes me wonder how much in trouble i may get. i would like to start by referring to the fact that 2015 is a very special year for the united nations. i am sure you all remember that this is the 70th anniversary of the united nations which essentially is time to take stock.
to define what is it that the institution has done so far and to fundamentally think what is it that the institution should be doing towards the future. it is a very relevant here for all of us, for all of the world. at a moment when things are not easy in the world. the combination of us trying to look inward and see how we have moved so far, and external threats and factors that put pressure on the united nations are combined before us. the first thing i would like to say is that when we look at the u.n. and we look at the charter of the u.n., and i would invite you to read the charter of the u.n. if you have not done that it is very interesting because the founding member states have written the charter that is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago.
one wonders how was it that they had such a long-term view when they first wrote the charger. -- the chargerter. the charter essentially has three pillars -- the peace and security pillar, the development pillar, and the human rights pillar. it is a very interesting combination of elements which are mutually reinforcing because one would say that there is no peace without development, as much as one could say that there is no development without peace. more and more, one can say that there is no peace and development without good human rights. and that is exactly where we are. our first check is the charter our founding principles.
those remain as valid as 70 years ago. even though the principals stay the same, we do have a question regarding the united nations and how prepared it is to address all of the challenges that the u.n. and the world has today. there is a question which i will try to take us through as they speak. it is whether the united nations is the only tool to address all the problems. sometimes, we expect too much from the united nations and maybe we need to have a consideration of other tools that could address some of the problems. let me start talking a little bit about the nature of the challenges that we face today. because i think the more we
understand the nature of the threats and challenges, the better we can understand what is needed to respond to them and then decide whether there is a right match or not between the united nations and its ability to maneuver, and what the challenges bring. the first thing i would say is that the united nations is basically an organization of member states. it is a sum of member states 193. that essentially recognizes their sovereign space as the main basic driver. we have an organization that is mounted around the notion of sovereignty of member states as a key element to our decision process. having said that, it is clear that the type of threats we are facing are essentially
cross-border, cross regional, of global nature. let me just give you a few examples of those because i think it is important. violent extremism. one of the things that we are seeing these days on a daily basis, not only in iraq and syria and libya and in nigeria. that violent extremism has a way to work that challenges borders, challenges states, challenges all of the institutions and systems that have been established. migration. migration is another clear example of a challenge we have which is, of course cross-border, but kenexaconnects the
different regions and we can see that through the migration that is now on the news, coming out of libya towards europe, but we also see coming out of myanmar. we see the connection between the political and the security issues, the lack of opportunities, and people moving in a manner that is far beyond anything than one saw in the recent past. illegal trafficking is another element that is totally transborder, trans regional, but handles itself in a manner that is outside the established system but is progressing and what is even more worrisome is that it is totally interconnected with extremism because it is the way that extremists have to finance themselves.
it is an issue on its own because we see people trafficking drugs, arms, people, organs, all of these. it is not only a business on its own, which is horrible enough, but it is also a business that is tied to the extreme groups which need desperate funding for their activities. cybercrime is another good example of a threat that we have that his far beyond boundaries. climate change. it different type of challenge but as the secretary general lise to say, even the most powerful countries in the world cannot address this challenge on its own. again, there is a direct connection between climate change and the development opportunities and peace and security. pandemics are another important
transborder element. we saw this recently with the pandemic that look like it started in a small village in guinea and ended up threatening this country, and europe because it went beyond anything that one could imagine at the beginning. the question here is, how do we find a way to address the toolbox of the united nations in a coherent member -- a coherent manner with the agreement of the member states to tackle the issues before us that are so different in their nature from the ones that we used to have that essentially were confrontations between member states. how do we do that in a manner that member states feel like the organization is worthy to handle and can it be done in a manner that respects the na notion of
sovereign states which is the , basis for the united nations. the other reality is that this challenge -- these challenges are of a nature. most of them are such that established institutions customs, all of the established parts of the state are not prepared to handle it. it is not even the united nations that is lacking the tools to address, but often member states themselves that lack the right tools to address them. it is a moment, an interesting moment, because one can argue that more than ever before cooperation among member states is required to address these and cooperation through the united nations should be the way to go forward. as much as there is a challenge, there is a gap, we don't have
the right instruments, it looks like an opportunity because no one can address these on their own. we have to be innovative, and we have to act fast because the enemies we have in front of us are very fast on their feet, maximizing the use of media, and the use of all of the openings and opportunities that the systems give them to bypass the system. in this context, what are we doing? what is the united states doing -- the united nations doing? what are we facing? one can say that probably the united nations is facing today more fires, and not exactly in the garage, then ever before.
if you look at our work starting from afghanistan, you can see that there is a pattern that allows to understanding the conductivity of nations, but each one of those issues being almost impractical at this point in time. you go from afghanistan where al qaeda has been at its heart, and and you start to move from fair to iran -- you start to move from there to iran, syria, and yemen, and you start to see that now we have not only the complex on their own merit but we have isis and there is a new development which is the competition between al qaeda and this new approach and how they view themselves in power and in
acquiring the relevance that they want to have. we are involved in each one of these countries trying to find ways to move the different parties into a solution. but then you add to that, the influence or the different perspective of the regional players in each one of these places. the overlay of different views different geopolitical interests from neighboring countries which adds to the complexity, and which has led us, in the case of syria, to lead us into already four years of the impossible situation without any hint of a solution yet as hard as the official envoy is trying to find one. how do we find a way to connect
all of these thoughts to rethink how we can offer solutions to member states? how we can offer solutions to the people who are suffering there. the humanitarian situation in all of these countries is absolutely incredible. delivering humanitarian aid is a good first step but it is far from enough. only finding a political solution that gives people an opportunity is what is going to get us there. of course, we have the long-lasting issue of the middle east which is yet, which is very difficult to see a solution in the near term. and which one again could connect to the rest of the questions particularly in syria, iraq, and yemen.
then we get to africa. africa traditionally had its own dynamics. when you go to the great lakes you have the question of the democratic republic of congo and you can see there the question of solving the access to the people, the different groups trying to seize the opportunity, but it is a conflict of a traditional nature. and then you have somalia. somalia is not a conflict of traditional nature because it is linked to the other groups and now trying to decide whether they pledge allegiance to al qaeda or isis.
tension there may bring the same approach that we have seen with boko haram in nigeria. and then you can go of course to libya and see what is happening there. not only the unresolved issue of establishing the institution but also the question of the opportunities that these groups, extreme violent groups have seized and now taken a huge amount of territory. with the implications as i mentioned earlier of migration and the impact that this has in europe. something that is happening in africa, that starts from far away, now has a direct impact on europe and has created a very strong reaction in the people and in the governments of europe with a great deal of concern. and out of libya, you can move
to mali. it has a situation mixed with smuggling, extreme groups, allegiances to different groups, a shift in reality that has made our mission there -- our peace keeping mission there a target to these groups and we have lost in a year, more than 70 peacekeepers. that shows you how much we have become a target on our own. all of this to say, these issues that we handle, one by one, are absolutely connected. unless we can establish those connections and tackle those connections at their heart, it is very hard to really see a
future where solutions will be available and produced by the u.n. or by you and partners -- u.n. partners. what are we doing then with this reality? and now i'm going to mention something that ambassador pickering refer to. all of this is seen by the security council. it is a combination of us in the secretariat trying to deliver to the best of our ability sometimes for good and sometimes being short of good. when the security council comes together behind an issue, and i could make a reference to the chemical weapons situation in syria, it is clear that we can make it happen. as much as some people may argue that we are not certain that all
chemical weapons have been moved out of syria, the reality is that we have reduced the presence of chemical weapons in syria dramatically. all of this was done because the security council worked solidly behind this objective. it is clear that that is not the case in syria for the political file. and it is clear that while there is a bigger confrontation, and ukraine represents the bigger confrontation, among the members of the security council, the chances for all of us to move forward is difficult, very difficult agenda that has so many nuances and connections, it is less likely to happen. for us, the security council coming together and seeing in the same way the issues at hand, is absolutely important.
what is happening from our end to try and adapt to the future? a few things that i will mention to you. the first one is the secretary-general peaceful operations, he commissioned a panel at the end of last year and the panel is coming out with a report that should be out the next few days. with recommendations on how to strengthen our peace operations and this means not only peacekeeping but also the political missions. trying to see how we can find ways to work in a manner that is tighter, that delivers better, both in political terms and in military terms when the security council decides. here, there is an interesting analysis to take into account, going back to the charter, which is the eventual use -- goes to
the regional organizations and says one can use regional organizations when that seems to be the best option. in this day and age, with this combination and going back to my question of whether the u.n. should be the one doing everything, chapter eight is one one of the elements that may be worth considering as it is told to be used more frequently moving forward. the other thing that is happening is a review of the peace building commission. that is an element that is written by member states. the member of peace building and trying to see how we can reinforce that transition between the conflict and the post-conflict and the elements of association between the security and the development, i think is essential and in review
and we should have an output or outcomes later in the year. there is also a review on 1325 which is women in conflict. which is very important because a lot has been done regarding women in conflict. i think we are still behind where we should be. then there is another element, very interesting on the development pillar, which is the post-2015 agenda. there is an incredible amount of work done by member states to discuss what comes at the end of 2015 and we have seen so far a very interesting agenda put together which is all-inclusive, it applies to all states in the world. contrary to when the developed
world dictating to the developing world. an agenda that is centered on people and planet, so it connects sustainability around development. and it also is very much centered on inequality which is an issue that prevails all over the world and that one could argue is one of the elements why so much is happening with extreme ideas taking brute among youngsters. the last thing to mention, the third pillar, are the human rights. the center of the work of the united nations. no matter where you work. in the developing side, and the humanitarian, to connect the dots and be able to look at the early signals coming from member states or from societies where
the lack of respect for human rights most likely will lead into a situation of conflict sooner or later. all of this to say, we are reviewing ourselves. we are assessing ourselves. we are taking stock of what we have done. we are not complacent. we understand that what we have done is good in some occasions far from getting to the expectations in others. but most important, what we need to do is probably something different and requires a different toolbox and tools than the ones we have. we need to define what that is and that is part of the work we are doing, together with member states, to leading to the night
that to leading to a decision if the united states should expand or deciding if it should not and how to make it be a part of the international system. there is a lot before us. adaptability, flexibility, and a long-term thinking is part of what is required. i can tell you that it is very difficult when you are trying to catch up with fires from the garage, and do it in a manner that nothing falls between the cracks. so, thank you. i hope this helps. i would be more than happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. [applause]
>> thank you very much. i am the acting vice president of the foreign policy program here at brookings. let me start by adding my thanks to our speaker for coming here today. i have known her for more than a decade. i have always been impressed by her frankness, honesty, and dedication. this is continued in what his easily the most comfort heated job in the international system so our thanks to you for the service that you do to the u.n. and taz. i am not going to get you into trouble by pushing you to answer tom's questions per se, but i do want you to talk a little bit more about the dynamics in the
security council. over the last 20 years, we have seen enormous evolution of the u.n., and you have been sitting at the helm of large parts of that, but the unity of the security council was the central condition of that. now, we have the situation where the security council is deadlocked on some key issues like syria and ukraine. and yet, cooperating on others. i wonder if you can describe what it is like to work on the council in that slightly odd circumstance. >> you get me in trouble. it is really very interesting what you said. this is true. as much as there is almost an impossible situation at the present time, and one where we are stuck in one day, in the morning, in the afternoon there is unity and you see how the
agenda can move forward. how we can get the members of the security council to have a view on the issues that they are not seeing eye to eye is the question mark. i don't believe we can do much about it. we can offer options and provide ideas for compromise, i always believe that the secretary-general can bring to the table alternatives that can ease the tension. but when you have profound differences between two permanent members or more of the security council, that are at the heart of their own policy, it is very difficult for the secretary-general to fix that.
while this exists, i think we have to assume that the hands of the united nations are going to be tied because the u.n. in situations of peace and security is only an instrument of the security council. we do not have the capacity of our own. other than volunteering options, that at least can give the security council alternatives that maybe they had not thought about, and that can be the first step towards movement, the rest still lays in the hands of the member states. >> you ever find yourself playing the opposite role? the u.n. by practice and by policy taken the view that the u.n. should be able to talk to
anyone. do you ever find yourself reaching the conclusion that a particular actor, i will ask you to name names, a particular actor is particularly intractable and impossible to work with? you ever find yourself in that role? >> it is clear that we have often to speak with very difficult actors and we have done that for a long time. but it is also clear that as you get into this new era that i described earlier where people who essentially reject institution are the ones that are part of the constant, it is hard for us to have them interlock sure.
it is difficult because essentially we are the institution at its maximum level. if you're trying to deal with somebody who disregards and wants to destroy institution how can we establish a negotiation or compromise? it is a critical issue, it is hard to think about how to embrace this group. >> speaking of radical extremism, you describe a number of the teams that you are looking at. when it comes to the question of violent extremism migration isn't also the case that you need to be working with other actors? the concentration of the u.n. is with its member states. there are social media groups.
>> it is clear that the u.n. needs to open up and is opening up to a much larger number of stakeholders. that again is tricky with the notion of an organization. we need to be able to construct -- where in the end the center remains the general assembly. we need to recognize that the media is a reality, we need to outreach to each of the cities in a world in a different manner. it is clear that you need to be able to transpire to speak to people in different ways.
we also need resources that go far beyond what the member states can do on their own. when you talk about the development agenda, and you think about the figures that are behind that agenda, it is clear that it is not something that comes be -- comes from member states providing assistance. we require a private sector. we require engagement of ngos. all kinds of sources that will help to construct the solution. all of this is very difficult for the u.n.. it is difficult because dealing with private sectors, the u.n. it does not know had to deal
with the private sector. trying to set the stage for a relationship with the private sector that is mutually satisfactory requires for the united nations to realign. that is something we don't do well. we need to sit with the private sector on an equal footing. there is a divide between the public and the private. we need to establish good communication. >> before we go to the audience, i want to talk to you about peacekeeping. you have played a huge role in overseeing one at a thousand peacekeepers at maximum. i was struck by a sadistic that was shared with me, that the charity -- the territory that falls under the u.n. is slightly
larger than the holy roman empire at its peak. does the u.n. secretary have the structures and the support it needs to manage that scale of operations. can say no. >> it all depends on what you compare it to. if you look at the united states military forces and the relationship that there is in the united states, we are at a place that is nowhere to be compared. if you look at nato, again, nowhere to be compared. so it is clear that we don't have the same strength of oversight and support that some of these institutions have. but it is also clear that the construction around the peacekeeping operations that member states in vision was totally different.
the command and control is different. the relationship between the military deployment and their own capitals is there, which makes things more difficult, so the short answer is no. i'm sure we don't have everything we need. but it is true that i don't see an appetite for member states to put in many more resources. what we are trying is to do the best we can with the resources we have. and i think when you look at it, all in all he balance is quite positive. having said that, we have many areas to make progress on. >> let me ask you about one of them. there have been a number of stories on sexual exultation by peacekeepers. it continues to be a challenge. can you say a few words on your thinking? >> well clearly since the panel
where there were suggestions made to change how the organization handle these issues, a lot of progress has been made. we see now a system -- a systemic approach to follow through on issues. to track situations. but it is true that member states decided that this was in the end going to be their responsibilities. it was going to be in their hands. so you get to one point where you transfer the file to member states, and it is in their hands. so looking into this now, member states are looking into this, there is a need to take a second look for recommendations, some may come after 10 years experience. we need to try to tighten that relationship with member states. it is a difficult thing because
it goes back to the question of the sovereign states. they are always, in the end underneath their responsibility and jurisdiction. the bottom line is that we now have a much better sense of what is happening then we had before. some of these are very appalling things that we cannot stand. they should not happen. but at least it's better that we know they happen. in bringing this to the limelight hurts, because it hurts the institution as we know, but until we get them to zero, so there is not a single case, it is better to be hurt than to ignore. >> let's turn to the audience and i will take several questions and come back to you. we are going a little bit over time.
please identify yourself and ask a question. >> i am with the voice of the vietnamese america. thank you. my question has to do with asia and the current tension that is kind of imminent with many fronts, including everything that you listed with human rights development, and peace and security. so to that, especially with the tensions in the china sea and the conflict in between rising powers and many others and the u.n., i question to you is, do think we have adequate representations of the region in the security council? how to build a security council capacity based on the regional representatives?
and also, what institutions do you think are being affected by the powers in that conflict? is there anything we can do to maintain the respect of those institutions you said -- it was detrimental if the u.n. established institutions being rejected or disregarded, is what i gathered from you. so please give us how to best resolve the current conflict in asia. thank you. >> there are a couple people right behind. >> thank you, georgetown university for women peace and security. you mentioned the upcoming review of 1003 hundred 25, i was curious beyond the global study and review, what has the office been doing to improve the gap between implementation and rhetoric?
only 3% of women were -- only 3% of peace negotiations had women as signatories? so i'm wondering what you can do to improve that. >> thank you for your passionate speech of dedication and the commitment to international organization. i used to work for the world bank over 20 years. in the meanwhile, i was working for geneva, the commission on macroeconomics, so at the time, i could make the comparison between the world bank and the u.n.. while i was working for both, there are so many institutions by the u.n., so in times of peace and development, i cannot
agree with you more that your piece development coal -- development goal goes hand-in-hand. but there are many institutions where certain missions are overlapping and they are sort of marginalized. i don't know their effectiveness. and as a person who used to work -- the wall has collapsed. there is no institution organization, but you are based in vienna. has any actual mission, because their client has now been open to capitalism. but because over 170 staff interests, that institution
didn't disappear, and it survived, and it goes on. so my question is that is it really nice to hear that the u.n. is trying to take stock of their last 70 years and trying to move forward in that review and in that commitment? is the u.n. willing to take a look at some of the institutions, and if they are overlapping, they are willing to and have determined to eliminate some of them? if they don't have a capacity, can they really work with others rather than just making other institutions? think you very much. >> i think that gives you enough to chew on for the first round. i will start with the -- >> i will start with the last one. i think it is clear that the u.n. has grown throughout time in an court -- in an organic
manner. there is no particular sign of the architecture change in the u.n.. we have had different organizations flourish in different times and they were based on real needs of the time. one can also argue that after certain processes, some of these organizations could be mainstreamed into others or merged, but it is a very difficult exercise. each one of these organizations has member states involved. there is a strong ownership by member states and member states sometimes have different ministers in member states. they are not a single member state. it is very interesting, because often, member states ask us to be more coherent and coordinate better among ourselves and we see that the member states
themselves don't necessarily coordinate in the system. so i think that part of the purpose as we move forward is trying to see how we tackle that. one of the biggest problems i see we have these days internally is the need for coordination to get things done. sometimes coordination becomes an end of its own. he spent so much in coordination that you lose sight of why it is that you are there, and who it is that you are there to serve. so we need to find ways to simplify our mandates in a manner that is more clear, has less overlap, and at the same time, is more geared towards working together. having said this, there is a
very strong competition for resources these days. that goes against the notion of coming together. it is so difficult to fund the programs we have. it is so much that we rely on extra budgetary funding that the different agencies and programs fight for the pool of resources as a matter of survival. so there is a big tension and contradiction between something that is absolutely significant which is coming together and sharing, and at the same time, that unless you have your own institution recognized, it is unlikely that you get enough resources. to me, that is part of the fit for purpose. how we adapt united nations to this reality of the 21st
century, particularly to this reality of sustainable development agenda which will require a totally different approach by member states and by us. so a long question that does not have a precise answer. but it is work before us, no doubt. the secretary general has been -- i am starting backwards -- has been very keen on the question of women. if you look at the presence of women in the secretariat in a very important positions it has grown exponentially. we believe that women should be an essential part of negotiation
and processes. when i worked on his behalf in the great lakes, we brought to the table the woman at the framework that it was agreed upon in the 11 member states. it is a matter of putting pressure and putting pressure, and putting pressure. it doesn't come automatically. people don't think in those terms naturally. the only way is to resurface the issue. that is why this stock taking is so important. the review is important and adding and adding pressure. it doesn't go into automatic mode for sure. then on the question of adequate representation, first, i cannot answer that. this is a question to be answered by member states. i'm sure i could have somebody coming from my region and making the same argument, or somebody coming from africa and making that argument. what is clear is that there is a
very wide agreement that something should change regarding representation. there is a wide disagreement on how this should be done. as long as there is no common view on how to make it happen, it is very difficult. it is something that will not materialize at anytime soon. >> let me ask you about that. are you seeing a different level and quality of engagement by the group of countries we tend to describe as emerging powers? india, brazil, china? are you seeing a difference in their engagement at the u.n.? >> i don't have that long history in the united nations. i don't know how they were when the ambassador was in the united nations. it is good to me from what i see that these emerging powers feel that they don't have enough share of the say.
local governance will come out have co-authored. i think you probably have been briefed on it. one thing they have talked about in the report is that we ought to take to the 75th anniversary and work on building support for major changes. i am wondering if there was an agenda that you had of perhaps different financial formulas perhaps ideas for reforming the general assembly that you think should be worked on. and i have to as a coda say that another great gift from argentina to the vatican is going to come out -- he will come out with a very major statement. i am wondering how the united nations will capitalize on that? >> gentleman and back?
>> i am a professor at johns hopkins. when of the challenges that you mentioned climate change is an area in which the leadership and vision of the secretary-general would lead to transformational change. his legions -- his leadership at the u.n. climate summit did broaden the circle of outreach and engagement, and has led to opening dialogue development oriented solutions to climate change. engaging the private sector, especially the financial services sector in a successful way. by raising the ambition of leading corporations the -- has brought new hope into what had begun to be a stultified process of negotiations by member
states. could you say a little bit about how you see the role of the esog continuing in this broadening effort to create the opportunity for engagement in the private sector as equals at the u.n., going behind -- going beyond and fuller solution? that builds the framework? >> i'll take one more, the lady at the back. >> think you. i work here in washington dc. i have one quick question. addressing all the different and complex problems in the world what are the things that are unique that the u.n. can provide
and no other entity are able to offer? thank you. >> and global governance, i am not really yet fully privy to what is coming out. so i will navigate in from the things i know. forgive me if i am not properly exposed to it. i think the notion of having a five year perspective to what is needed to change is an interesting notion. one of the problems is coming from the private sector, i always stop it -- thought it --. i have learned there, fire after
fire and being pulled and pushed by the reality of today, and reacting to the reality of today. being able to have an agenda that is developed a. of time and has a common understanding by member states to me is fundamental. that means that member states need to trust their agenda is in the interest of everybody and work towards the agenda. it is often seen with the suspicious mind within the united nations. and certain relationships --
seeing it from that perspective. i believe that many member states, many of the emerging powers that we refer to understand there is a need for a broad reform in both the security council. if we were able to articulate a few things with the common agreement by member states, i think that is a very powerful way to move the united nations. it is clear that there is a strong tension between the general assembly and its willingness to delegate power to the secretary-general. it's not from any other -- in this town, this is very well known reality.
the question of how deep you go into managing what is under that was possibility of the secretary-general it is something that requires a conversation. it can only happen if member states fully trust the secretary-general will do the best interests of their organizations and not manage by any other factor. that would be something for me that is important to see whether there is an opportunity to come to a common fear and move that agenda forward. fast and how creatively the u.s. can react. having said that, a very interesting example that happens, the geo reacted in three days. when there is a will, there is a way.
it is a good example of the general assembly working towards something that needed to happen now. sometimes we think that this cannot work. maybe there is an interest to make it work and it can be proven. the secretary-general and climate change, this is in a funny example of how much the secretary-general can do in a certain agenda. we were having a conversation with ambassador pickering before coming in and we were talking about how much influence the secretary-general has. and this question of the secretary general and all of these things.
i think that the secretary-general has much more influence then people perceive he has. but i think he has much more influence than some believe he has. is secretary-general and his in his own convictions that move his agenda. when everybody went to koba -- copenhagen, it was easy for him to death it was a difficult moment and he did not give up. he has worked with every single member state on his agenda. very big powers, very small nations that are now grounding
themselves, and he has made the case, i think. his high moral ground has helped in shaping this agenda. now we have adding his voice. i hope that will also bring more to the table. it is clear and again i am discussing about development this is an agenda that will not happen with member states. the biggest contributors will be in the private sector. unless we enlarge in a very complete manner the commitment of the perm private sector, and we make sure there is alignment between what private sector does
and what the overview is done at the international level, this will not materialize. we will have to think through what has come after december but we are not there yet. this is something that is in the works. i don't have a specific answer for your question, what is going to happen. there will be follow-up to it. no question. this secretary-general will not let go, i assure you of that. >> what is the difference between the u.n. that as a unique miss. the authority and the convening power the u.n. has through the general assembly, through the secretary-general is something that is unique.
there are meetings of the regional organizations combinations of member states. these meetings are very good they have important perspective from a more narrow representation. in the end there are certain issues that can be sorted out at the level of the united nations. that's why we need to pressure the value of the united nations as a convener, and find a way to make this institution except it so that we don't lose the track of the people, and we are able to deal with it. quick speaking about the trust of the people, this is standing room only. i look up and i see that the average age is pretty young especially the young people who stood at the back. what do you say to young people about engaging at the u.n. and
working at the u.n.? >> let me start from the personal perspective. if you would have told me 12 years ago you are going to be in the united nations, i probably would have answered that is crazy and you are out of your mind. then for different reasons i came into the united nations and i came to one of the programs programs and i came to learn the value of a good organization and a system that has a unique program over the world and is able to listen to the people all over the world. i think sometimes we don't listen well enough.
so my call to the young people is to involve themselves, to use all means and of course social media is available now for people to convey messages, to participate. last year, we had different meetings in the u.n. that brought in different combinations of society. we had 3000 people, 4000 people around the subject. this is a drop in the bucket of the representation of the world. but there are opportunities. in the case of this this table -- sustainable development go, every single country had a participation and many people trying to shape their priorities.
you need to push us, claim your space, and to make sure that what we do respects the purpose. we can only do that if we hear from you. that is the reality. >> give us one reality. you touched on asia, latin america, middle east, africa and europe. one country that didn't come up with the united states. what is it that you say to american decision-makers about why it is that the u.n. matters to them, to us? >> first of all, it is clear to everybody that the united states is the finest power -- is the most powerful country in the world. one could assume being in that
position does not need anything to support its policies, it's decision. to me, being in that unique situation, having the united nations is an ideal setting to engage with others in a manner that is not threatening to others. it's a way to set up around the table and start conversations that probably are not possible in any other way. that's one thing. that's the question of engagement. again, many of the issues that are of concern to the united nations -- united states citizens are issues that are cited that cannot be solved only
by the united states. then the peace and security side of the discussions. and there the united states clearly has the situation in the security council and the -- when the people of the united states say yes, we need to be engaged but how far and how much, it is clear that the u.n. is a key potential tool to answer the view and the perspective of the united states, as long as that is --. when you get to that, you are not the only one. that sometimes may be perceived as they downside by the americans. i think it is the opposite. they few are willing gauge, the chances you have to make your case, to have your policy well
represented to the united nations is very high. it is a win for me. >> brookings is about to -- i suspect as the u.n. turned 70 and you adopt the organization and its complexity to the world around you. the u.n. is often in the news for firefighting and for failures that i have to say it is a privilege to see up front and up close the talent and the dedication of people who make it work. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. [applause]
today ambassador to the united nations cement the power testifies before the house foreign affairs committee. how she and her step plan to advance u.s. interests with the international organization. you can hear testimony live a time clock eastern on our website, c-span.org. on today's washington journal congressman hill path well of new jersey discusses the ongoing tpa trade bill debate in the u.s. house and other issues on the legislative agenda. on the u.s. strategy against isis and a potential u.s. plan to send heavy military weaponry to eastern europe.
washington journal's live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. the new congressional directory is a handy guide to the 114th congress. with color photos of every senator and house member and bio and contact information and twitter handles. district maps, a full out map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95 plus shipping and handling to the online store at c-span.org. bugger. if the direction or a presidential studies of the university of virginia miller center. she is joining us from louisville, kentucky on the day that jeb bush entered the race. >> great to be with you. >> professor the biggest
challenge is to get beyond the name recognition and talk about the lyrical biography for jeb bush, it is the opposite. >> it is the opposite. like all members of political dynasties, he comes in with name recognition. some good things come with some baggage as well. that is the case for political dynasties. he has the name, but we know that he has dropped the surname from his logo, so that new logo is jeb! and that is an obvious attempt to separate himself from the policies from his father and brother that may not be so popular. >> how does he do that and how does he get beyond the bush brand that many people may be tired of? >> this is also a problem. the name brand is good, on the other hand, people are weary of that brand. he has to be his own man, to
present himself as his own personality, to be comfortable in his own skin and do what he has done in his campaign video to focus on the policies he created in florida. he was a popular governor in the state of full -- florida. >> yesterday on fox news, george will said jeb bush was and is a conservative. he was a conservative governor for eight years in florida. and yet the party seems to be moving more towards the right. many say jeb bush is more moderate. >> he does have a problem right now, as a number of national candidates do over the years. we know that caucuses and primaries in the states, leading up to getting the nomination ring out the party faithful. the true believers tend to be more extreme than the general electorate and the election.
in bush's case, he definitely governed as a conservative in florida. he would seem to be conservative enough, but we have to remember the intervening factor between when his father was president and his father was president. the reaction to obama and so-called obamacare. things have changed in the republican party. they are making jeb bush the not as conservative as perhaps he would have been. there is also the fact that his father george h w bush bush 41, was a traditional republican of the northeastern roots. that was more moderate. i think people tend to associate the bush name with that brand of conservatism, rather than a reagan brand of conservatism, or even his brothers compassionate conservatism. gum -- a father and a brother
president, you know how the system operates running for office and staying in office. the problem is the baggage that comes with the names and their policies. >> two issues that both bush presidencies had to deal with, struggling economy and his invasion and iraq, which many say was far more successful than the invasion led by bush 43, and the economy he left for barack obama. on these two big issues, what does jeb bush need to do to prove that he is his own person? >> sadly, he failed the test at least it is the first quiz on iraq to when he was asked about it several weeks ago he said he would do the same thing his brother dead. that he had to back off of that. that's the difficult point he was then where he loves his father and brother but he will have to create distance between his brother and that very
unpopular war. on the economy, he will say what his father said to begin with and remember read my lips no new taxes. but george w. bush did follow through immediately and that was lowering the taxes for the middle class. i am sure that is part and parcel of what will be a platform for jeb bush. >> we are talking with barbara perry, the director of presidential studies at the university of virginia. you have been doing oral histories on both 41 and 43. what have you learned? >> this is a family business. politics and presidential politics in particular, that is the bush family brand and business. it is not just nature energy, it is a combination of those, it is what they have grown up with. it is in their blood and it is in their daily inking of the
world in political terms. that is what we have learned. barbara parry, joining us today from louisville, kentucky. thank you very much for being with us. jeb bush makes his formal announcement for his candidacy for president. mr. bush, son of president george h w bush and brother of the president, is the 11th candidate to announce his run for the 2016 republican nomination. from the largest campus of the miami dade campus his speeches 40 minutes. ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the united states of america, jeb bush.
thank you. thank you very mitch -- much. i always feel welcome at miami-dade college. this is a place that welcomes everyone with their heart set on the future. the place where hope leads to achievement and striving leads to success. for all of us, it is just the place to be in the campaign that begins today. [screams and applause]
we are 17 months from the time from choosing the states for america's future are about as great as they come for prosperity and security are in the balance. so is opportunity in this nation where every life matters, and everyone has the right to rise. [cheers and applause] already the choice is taking shape. the party in the white house is planning a no change collection. to hold onto power to slog on with the agenda with another name. that is our call to action this time around.
it's all they've got left. [cheers and applause] and you and i know that america deserves better. [cheers and applause] they have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress. they are responsible for the slowest in the -- economic recover come the biggest debt increases, a massive tax increase on the middle class the relentless build up of the regulatory state and the swift mindless drop-down of a military that was generations in the making. [cheers and applause] i for 1 am not eager to see what another four years would look like under that kind of leadership.
the presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next. here's what is comes down to. our country is on a very bad course and the question is, what are we going to do about it. the question for me is, what am i going to do about it. i have decided i am a candidate for the presidency of the united states. [cheers and applause]
we will take command of our future once again in this country. we will lift our sights again make opportunity, and again, get events in the world moving our way again. we will take washington, the static capital of this dynamic company -- country, and turn it out of the business of causing problems, and get it back on the right side of free enterprise and freedom for all americans. i know we can fix this, because i have done it.
here in this great and diverse state that looks so much like america, so many challenges can be overcome if we can get this economy growing at full strength. there is not a reason in the world while we cannot grow at a rate of 4% a year. that would be my goal as president. [cheers and applause] 4% growth and 19 million new jobs that comes with it. economic growth that makes a difference for hard-working men and women, who don't need reminding that the economy is more than the stock market. growth that lists up the middle class, all the families who haven't had a raise in 15 years. growth that it's a difference for everyone. it is possible, it can be done.
we make florida number one in job creation, and number one in small business relation. 1.3 million new jobs. 4.4 percent growth. high family income, a balanced budget and tax cuts eight years in row that saved our people and businesses $19 billion. [cheers and applause] all this, plus a bond upgrade to aaa, compared to the sorry downgrade of america's credit. that is the commitment and that is a record that turned this state around. i also use my veto power to protect our taxpayers from needless spending. if i'm elected president, i will
what swarms of lobbyists have done we can undo with a simpler system, clearing and special favors for the few, reducing rates for all. with the irs, epa and the entire bureaucracy have done with overregulation we can undo by acts of congress and order of the president. further regulation has gone past the consent of the governed. it is time to start making rules for the rule makers. when we get serious about limited government, we can pursue the great and worthy goals that american -- america
has gone too long without it we can build our future on solvency is set of borrowed money. we can honor our commitments on the strength of the integrity. with north american resources and american ingenuity we can finally achieve energy security for this nation and with presidential leadership we can make it happen with an i've years area -- five years. [cheers and applause] if we do all of this, if we do it relentlessly, and if we do it right, we will make the united
states of america and economic superpower like all other. we will also challenge the culture that has made lobbying the premier growth industry in our nations capital. a self-serving -- self-serving attitude can take place in many capitals. i was a governor who refused to accept that as the norm or the right way of conducting the people's business. i will not accept it as the standard in washington either. we don't need another president who merely holds the top spot among the pampered elites among washington. we need a president willing to challenge and disrupt all culture in our nations capital
and i will be that president. because i was a reforming governor, not just a mother member of the club, there is no passing of responsibility when you are a governor, no blending into the legislative crowd or filing an amendment and calling that six is worried as our whole nation has learned since 2000 eight, executive experience is another term for preparation, and there is no substitute for that. we are not going to clean up the mess in washington by electing the people who helped agree it
or have proven incapable of fixing it. [applause and cheers} in government if we get a few big things right, we can make better for millions of people especially for kids in public schools. think of what we all watch not long ago in baltimore, where so many young adults are walking around with no vision of a life yet the life that they know. it is a tragedy. played out over and over again. after we reformed education in florida, low income student achievement improved here more than any other state. we stopped processing kids along as if we didn't care, because we do care. you don't show that by counting out anyone's chapter you give them all a chance.
here is what i believe. when a school's neither dead end, every parent should have the right to send their child to a better school, public, private, or charger. -- chargerrter. every school should have high standards and the federal government should have nothing to do with setting them. nationwide, if i am president, we will take the power of choice away from the unions and bureaucrats and get it back to parents.
we make sure something else in florida, that children with developmental challenges get schooling and caring attention just like every other girl and boy. we did not leave them last in line, we put them first in line because they are not a problem. they are a priority. that is always our stress first and best instinct with our nation field which are double hearts. these have been rough years for religious charities. the leading democratic candidate recently hinted of more trouble to concord secretary clinton in says that when the progressive agenda encounters religious
believe to the contrary, those believes quote have to be changed. that's what she said. i guess we should at least banker for the warning. [cheers and applause] the most galling example is the shabby treatment of the little sisters of the poor. a christian charity that there's the objections of conscience to obamacare. the next president needs to make it clear that great charities like the little sisters of the poor need no federal instructions in doing the right thing. [cheers and applause] it comes down to a choice between the little sisters and big brothers. i am going with the sisters.
is still a mystery to me why in these violent times the president a few months ago thought it relevant at it for your reference to bring up the crusades. americans don't need lectures on the middle ages when we are feeling abroad with horrors rated by fanatics. -- created by fanatics. from the beginning, our president and his foreign-policy team have been so eager to make the history that they fail to be the peacemakers.
with their phone it in policies, the obama clinton kerry team is leaving a legacy's of uncontained, violence and, enemies unnamed, friends undefended and alliances unraveling. this supposedly risk-averse administration is running a street in the direction of the greatest risk of all, military inferiority. it will go on automatically until a president steps in to rebuild our armed forces and take care of the troops and our veterans. they have my word i will do it. [cheers and applause]
we keep dependable friends in this world by being dependable ourselves. i will rebuild our vital friendships, and that starts with standing with the brave democratic state of israel. american led alliances need rebuilding and better judgment for relations for and near. there is a talk of a state visit by our outgoing president.
improbable things can happen as well. take back, guy who was the president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital. the person who handled both introductions is here today. she is watching what i say and frankly with all these reporters around i am watching what she says, too. please say hello to my mom barbara bush.
and they didn't mind it at all when i found my own path. it led from texas to miami, i way of mexico. in 1971, eight years before then candidate ronald reagan said that we should stop thinking of our neighbors as foreigners, i was ahead of my time in border outreach. across the plaza, i saw a girl. she spoke only a little english. my spanish was ok, but really not that good. with some intensive study we got that out of the way in a hurry. in the short version it has been a gracious walk through the years with the former.
whatever else i might or might not have going for me, i have the quiet joy of a man who could say that the most wonderful friend he has in the whole world is his own wife. i love you. together, we have had the not so quiet joy of raising three children, who had bought us nothing but pride, george, no well, and jet. --noel, and jeb. the boys brought us there wise, and our grandchildren. campaigns are not easy, and are not supposed to be.
i know there are a lot of good people running for president. quite a few, in fact. not one of us deserves the job by right of resume party seniority, family, or family narrative here it is nobody's turn. it is everybody's tests. it is wide open. exactly as a concept for president should be. [cheers and applause] the outcome is entirely out -- up to you, the voters. it is entirely up to me to arm the nomination of my party and to take our case across this great and diverse nation. as a candidate, i want everyone to hear my message, including being the many who can express their love of country in a
am certain that we can make the decades ahead the greatest time ever to be alive in this world. that chance, that hope, requires the best that is in us and i will give it my all. i will campaign as i would serve , going everywhere, speaking to everyone, keeping my word facing the issues without flinching, and staying true to what i believe. i will take nothing and no one for granted here in i will run with heart, and i will run to win. [cheers and applause]
eastern on c-span two. today donald trump will announce if he is entering the 2016 presidential race. if he decides to run, he will be the 12th major candidate seeking the republican nomination. that is live at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span three. this weekend c-span cities to or his partner but comcast to learn about the history and life of key west florida. several novels have been written >> by hemingway. they bought it for a thousand dollars in 1931, and pauline converted this hayloft into his first formal writing studio. here he fell in love with fishing, how fast he was producing, the work that he knocked out come the first rough draft of a farewell to arms. he wants had a line that said
if you really want to write start with one true sentence. for a true writer, each book should be a new beginning for something that is beyond the --. you should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> key west is where harry truman saw refuge from washington. >> president truman regarded the big white house as a great big white jail, he found he was under everyone's i so by coming to key west he could come with his closest staff, let down his hair, sometimes some of the staff would let their beards grow for a couple of days. they certainly at times used -- told the stories and could have a glass of bourbon and visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press, a sportswear company said a case
of hawaiian shirts to the president with the thought that if the president is wearing our shirt, we will sell a lot of shirts. president truman wore those free shirts that first year and then organize what they called that the loud shirt contest. that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of the events saturday at 5:00 eastern on c-span2 book tv and southern afternoon at two on c-span3. >> like today, washington journal is next. at 10:00 eastern general speeches and at noon eastern members take up the 2016 intelligence authorization bill. coming up in 45 minutes, congressman bill pascrell of new jersey discusses the ongoing tpa trade bill in the u.s. house and
other issues on the legislative agenda in at 8:30 a.m. representative on a u.s. strategy against isis, and the moving of heavy military weaponry -- weaponry to eastern europe to send a message to russia. host: good morning and welcome to the washington journal. congress is in session this week and we will talk with a couple of lawmakers about key debates and trade and the fight against isis. we are on open phones. here are a couple of issues. the president and his republican allies are seeking more time for redo. in politics, the 11th gop candidate jumped into the race yesterday. former florida governor jeb