the worst part of the u.n. rather than the best part. but the reality is the security council is operating to a fair extent as its framers intended, meaning they had a pretty good idea when they created this in 1945, they knew what they were trying to fix. what they were trying to fix with the league of nations in which everybody got the same for come everybody got the same voice, everybody got the impact, powerful countries, not so powerful, the whole thing. it was a disaster and so they saw the falling of the part of the donations and they were not going to let that happen again in the way to do that was to deliberately create a body called the security council in

which the great powers come in the good ones, the bad ones would be there. and if they deadlocked, they deadlocked. couldn't go against the will of been a single permanent veto bearing on her, but it is enabled them to keep the lines within the tent rather than having them go out by an start hacking away at it from the outside. so despite these and that problems the security council has, this is actually fairly successful. its quirkiness a place for the great powers come together to debate not necessarily dissolve things. to resolve some things, don't resolve others. but it's actually in many respects a success story, rather than a failure. >> host: which nations make up the security council? >> guest: the security council

has five permanent members and decided that tours of world war ii. the other criticism of the security council that they think is very well taken a seaside members no longer represent the population of the world. they don't represent the geographical distribution and increasingly don't represent power in the world. another is, if you have a permanent five members that include the united states, china, it includes russia. russia is really neither an economic or military superpower except in regards to its nuclear arsenal. and then we have friends and britain and here we have two very much medium powers that are not economic heavyweights, you still exert a great deal of

forward and influence in world affairs. a large part of that as leverage they security council itself. we have no india, no brazil, no party from outside this kind of frozen group. and this is, i think, an enormous problem for the security council and one that there's probably no structural way to overcome. the reason why is pretty simple. if you say to any of the current members, why did she set on down, france and britain come you guys had to combine in a single european union fee. and then there's a lot of hemming and hauling it in the meantime, germany pops up and says pet, we are actually one of the world's great economic superpowers. we have no military to speak of and we cannot do anything, but

we pay for everything, so we actually deserve a seat. she say we know how the military either, which is an entirely true, we should have a seat because where an economic superpower. anybody that says they want some powerful country, which says no way. india makes an enormous amount of sense. pakistan and china. japan doesn't make a lot of sense, but in any case, china would say no. germany, everybody says not another seat from europe. since security council has a structural long-term problem that's increasingly and will increasingly be unrepresentative of the world as a whole. that is going to be his biggest problem in base rates in your empowers the likely don't have a permanent seat at the table to make other arrangements to

contractor of the security council and find other ways to do things. not all of which were great ideas from the standpoint of the united states. >> host: aren't the revolving mom wears? >> guest: yes, we oftentimes neglect them. we've got 15 members and they are rotating in us at the other things that the u.n., these rotations that generally speaking, not contentious because they rotate on a fixed and geographic basis. they are sort of an order, so there's not as much fighting as you might think maybe over membership. it is important to understand we do require a vote not just of the p5, but you've got to get a supermajority of the 15 members of the apartment to agree for

security council action to go forward. so it's not just a case to block anything, but they don't have the ability to make anything they like happened. the u.n. is quite possibly the most recognized and makes the department of defense leclair by comparison. >> host: what is the effect of ms.? what is the general assembly and is a defective? >> guest: the general assembly of the meeting place above the nations. everybody has one vote. everybody has the police. you see this every year when the world leaders line up at the opening of the u.n. years, in september they each make their speech. the good part of it is the place

where everybody has some voice. the bad part is it's a place where everybody has some voice. i think it's generally the biggest single source of problems for the united nations because there is no tempering of what goes on. the members of the general assent lee both have no capacity to cast truly binding law. in other words, with the general assembly passes a resolution that do not carry the force of command. and at the same time, they also bear no responsibility for anything. so that's the ultimate heavy surf club. frankly from a u.s. standpoint, much of what they want to do is not just wasteful, but wickedness. there's an awful other things

the u.n. general assembly would like to see go forward that are really quite bad and they are quite willing to cover for the worst lenders survey human race standpoint, for many standpoints in this way. the nature of such a body insisted it organs that depend within the institutions tend to be the worse you are, the more you have an incentive that might somehow say things about you. they have the worst act varies because it protects them and create a racket for them and their friends. >> host: in your book, "living with the un," the u.s. should seek a buyer and containment of

the human investment. postscript the general assembly and appendages by and large are hostile to the united states, wasteful, will basically seek any resources can attempt to use them. but there are numbers to particular institutions of the u.n., a quasi-independent body was branded it the u.n. they generally speaking have a chance which receive a little bit of funding from the main u.n. budget, but is on voluntary front funded by governments that look what they're doing in the u.s. has a long pattern of trying to look for the ones that were passed. ineffectiveness both, i am encouraging the u.s. to look to the ones that are most affected.

when they say bio, that's a little bit issue this, essentially saying fund them in notes on these other things. this is all voluntary, so you can't arouse the controversy that refusing to pay u.n. dues status. in large part is finding in any case. this is what european allies do all the time. they try and identify the u.n. they think is the best leadership, the best institutional capacity, put money in and let the other was whether on the vine. i think it's a very good strategy of the one the u.s. out to her say this much is possible. it's not more than a few billion dollars. when they break that down a little bit. the actual u.n. dues the united states pays her a 22% at this point of the total budget.

the budget is set by the general assembly and impact spirits, what that meant was the general assembly consisted largely of poor states that didn't pay the bills, but increase the budgets ever more and essentially as a majority, stick it to the web the minority. it is not so much the u.s. is called a halt at the 1970s and he bought a system in which there is a sort of consensus basis at this point, where the countries have to agree to a budget. there's a lot of pressure from the u.s., a guy named to resell the who is our point i am dealing with budgets and administration management, these issues, all of which are enormously serious. this is an institution that pays

fantastically well to the people that get permanent positions in the positions are told on the basis of nationality, geography, almost anything other than competence. once you've got a position, you are locked into an international civil servant job who would make the controversies over municipal union controversies in this country at the state and local level paled by comparison to the kinds of issues that go on, something in which the official documents that the u.n. say that the civil servants at the u.n. should be paid according to the highest standard of what the highest civil servant make in the world. if you're coming from a poor country, i certainly don't encourage one with salary to the u.n., that the incentive appoints a creating to hold onto that job too that would have

been because you go back to your country to something that is a completely different standard creates enormously difficult thing to see it in terms total amount, we are talking a few billion dollars, most of which -- the vast majority is not actually tied up in required u.n. dues and it is a mistake to focus it any conservatives do on these required u.n. dues. the money is not that much. where the u.s. mostly pays then it's in the form at this point peacekeeping operations in which we put in $5 billion at this point a year and not many is money which we voluntarily put in and it's assessed in one sense that everybody who's going to contribute to the poet wants

to know his partners are agreeing to do the same thing in any given budget because you don't want to be the country that puts them in money and nobody else does me say now you can't do any thing and i'm stoked. so the u.s. but the most money and i'd say what the price point spots of the u.n. under the command of security council is peacekeeping operations. the u.s. i believe recognizes from a bush administration and neocon administration that peacekeeping operations for all the problems, scandals and procurement scandals ripping off the organization, all that stuff aside is a value being provided by peacekeeping operations but essentially irreplaceable to the united states. we will see this when it comes to molly and other places where elected them to perform jobs we can't do.

>> host: kenneth anderson, what is the u.s. influence? >> guest: u.s. influence is in one sense very large in another sense not. the key factor in the key point about this book as i've been talking about the u.n. and the u.s. relation to it as a player within the system. the biggest player, superpower, all of those things are true. the most important relationship is not as being the biggest play within the system. it is rather that the united states operates in a parallel system of international order in which the u.s. provides vast amount of public as to the world completely outside the system. we run a risk in deciding if the

obama administration has been tempted to say we don't want to be the hegemonic provider of security at these public goods to the world. let this be another big player at the u.n., but another belly up to the bar player at the u.n. in turtle bay. let's let the collector worry about it. they will worry about it and waste damaging to us. the most important thing is that the u.s. doesn't understand a guarantee system as an act or from the outside, the consequences going to be a scramble among scared and worried racing great powers who we all should fear we come to in south china sea. post rss if you were the last two u.s. ambassadors to the u.n.

>> host: the last two ambassadors. well, here's the thing. john bolton was excoriated as someone who despise the u.n. that you could chop off the top seven or 10 stories that no one would ever notice there at its headquarters. >> host: do you agree with that statement? >> guest: i agree about 80%. as somebody said, i've actually found found it quite conciliatory and the message is american liberals need to understand the u.n. is not going anywhere. it's not going to grow into this wonderful theme, which is going to govern the world in some sort of way. american conservatives need to understand the u.n. is not going anywhere. they need to understand that it's not going anywhere and two different ways. the liberals need to understand that static, not going to grow or change or evolve in anything

better. conservatives need to understand its permanent institutionally connected john bolton recognizes that. but the hostility had towards the u.n. meant that he showed up, which they are constantly engaged in every aspect of it. i watched an imac should be your first 2005, with kofi annan is the last secretary-general appeared with orders to blow up the place, but to take this process seriously. so we sharpen his pencil as though they hired a new york law firm to locking to negotiate every point as if it mattered and they hated him for it.

the reason is because the dynamic of the u.n. is supposed to be taken seriously, but not too seriously. none of this is quite that serious. ambassador raised started out during much of her. at the u.n. has been in acid or to the u.n., who is liked by the u.n. bureaucracy, baby after ambassadors, but there has been a strong sense that she seized the capital of the world is not turtle bay, but washington d.c. and she spent much of her time during the first term in washington. i think there is a weird sense that bolton hated the institution, but impeached with it at a granular level in which the attitude from the obama administration has been, without the institution, but we've got

around to going on. i think it's a very open question at this point, which of these two ambassadors to implicate these two administrations have sized up in price the u.n. more accurately. the one that he said and engages with there to sort make sure it doesn't do anything the u.s. does not like what the one on the surface as much my love for it,. that's not fair to ambassador rake him over her engagement to six ackley what should be. she is living a united security council, exactly where she should be. but i think there's probably more fair criticisms of the first two to three years. >> host: when has the u.s. sought u.n. legitimacy? just go i would say the u.s. has sought u.n. legitimacy most of

the time as a parallel to actions is planning on taking anyway. so when iraq we sought legitimacy for some in the entire world knew we were going to do no matter what. but i guess i would also say the u.s. seeks a much less contentious point to support peacekeeping and places in the world where we can't operate ourselves, would operate ourselves, wouldn't put people at risk in both for reasons of interest as well as values and ideals, but it would be a good idea if someone were in the ground to maintain minimal order. we seek u.n. legitimacy for purposes that run to verify the signatures: site. >> host: you write in your book, "living with the un" there is a remarkable disconnect or block voting by reaching an ideological group reigns in this

country's formulation that the u.s. and the world. >> host: >> guest: how they behave as though often an indicator of their true interests. that is they tend to reflect accurately what the real interest lies. in the general assembly, the un's internal dynamic, closed circle of its own universe had been a u.s. ally scattered across the road in latin america in many places who are close allies and many things but in the u.n. the boat with the large roadblocks against us some ulcers of the and that's partly because they perceive a value in a stance which puts pressure on

the united states to take account of them, to take them seriously as a naysayer that can only talk. talk is not a lot, but some input. and second because we for our part, the united states does not feel it is worth extracting through pressure or carrots or sticks in their real place, and their capital city, and diplomacy with an embryo life within. concessions for how they behave at the u.n. because we don't think the u.n. is that important. so we don't wind up forcing them to take account of positions on things of many of which do matter at this in the general assembly because we don't think it's worth the price we have to pay it will pay the real world their own country. so it means there is this disconnect between how we and our allies behave at the u.n.

versus what are frequently far better relationships in the capital. >> host: who are the new liberal realist to talk about in the book? >> guest: the obama administration can slip between two quite different camps in its foreign policy. on the one hand, you have a way for people who typically described as the liberal internationalists, people who believe in nation in the u.n. to not just be this kind of diplomatic table for everybody negotiates and argues the debate that lets their views be known, but something which is supposed to take on local governance and take aspects of sovereignty from sovereign states. we, the united states, have traditionally been suspicious of that. the reason is we are the world hegemon that we are not going to wind up seeking that kind of

authority to the united nations. but there was a very significant chunk of the incoming foreign policy establishment they really did believe this and saw this has the way forward. at the same time, they were counterbalanced by wayne of the democratic party and the obama administration and led really by secretary clinton of new realist to the that the bush idealism. what caught neoconservatives and in foreign policy, but it's the conservative form of idealism about democracy, transforming countries, making things better by doing lots and lots of things. and to more or less conclude that it's just not going to work that we needed to retrench can be more realistic foreign policy. i describe this because they saw themselves as rejecting

neoconservatism, but at the same time essentially rejecting liberal internationalists that they regarded as soft and squishy in much the same way conservative realists would regard it is not dangerous to american power and sovereignty. that tendency is very special in one particular way. the bush realists, conservative realists tend to take words very, very seriously. they think that words behind. they think words have ways to come back and bite you. so one of the features about the bush realists who is they are very, very careful negotiation over farmed birds. if you are the liberal internationalist, lots and lots

of its talk about cooperation come you commit the united states to a countless number of things that probably can't come through on. if this were the bush administration, it's realists tend to flatten down. [inaudible] what characterizes the internationalist thinkers of the democratic party and the obama administration is they are not other by the words at all because they think basically we can just ignore them. we could be like any other country doesn't find any document put in front of us because when push comes to shove, we will do as these other countries do, find documents and blow them off. but has always been striking as we don't find that many documents because we tend to

take much more seriously. the new liberal realists are cared to raise by this strange believe these combined things and ignore them and i will have no consequence for you. i would say the risk presented by this claim is not really some, but a realism that is too clever by half. it believes it can have its cake and eat it too, find authors of endlessly idealistic documents and do whatever it feels like push comes to shove. i think the power of words is much more by name and much more influential and these are things one comes to find and we'll discover they have not so much from one down the road is a much scarier risk. our friends use of the last

number of years signing names and saying yes to all sorts of people into agreeing to rebalance to the degree we want and talk without preconditions. our friends are not treating this is nearly cost free exercises and symbolism. our friends, particularly in asia are looking at this insane, if they are willing to talk the line that says anything to anybody, do we trust in the way we have traditionally trusted the americans? that means one fundamental thing. if war comes to the asia-pacific, will the u.s. be there? and if you believe down to your very core the u.s. will be there, that does more to deter war. china, all other parties than anything else. the moment you believe the u.s. doesn't believe its own symbolic statements come you start taking

about that. the clash between the liberal realists in the obama frustration has been fantastically costly to the u.s. long-term position. not because realism is wrong, but relisten believes he can have it always. i can say whatever it wants and i think it works away. >> host: what is your background? >> guest: i'm a law professor at american university and teach a combination of business love -- don't really teach in a way international law courses in public international law. i am a visiting fellow at a nonresident fellow at the brookings institution and do emotionally national security. this book book i'm proud to say was published by the hoover

institution press. i have a background somewhat schizophrenic. i have a background in finance and business attacks on that sort of stuff. earlier in my career i was a long time nonprofit lawyer, but also general counsel to the george soros foundation before becoming a professor. entry to the right you would have to say somewhat and for that is the director of the human rights arms division in new york. so i've got another career in nonprofit, but it won't background intersectional business part to sorts of things, language above development finance and international development issues. one of the things i enjoyed this a chance to read a chapter in a general tape that address

specifically the development issues that many international relations scholars don't understand and are comfortable taking a, but very much areas have been involved with a long time. so do a lot of national security staff very much related to drones and targeted killings and counterterrorism in those kinds of things. on the other hand about the business and nonprofit background in these areas as well. currently my big fascination is robust. >> host: professor andersen, when you hear the term one world government, which you think? >> guest: i don't think anything. i just break out in hives. i think it's not possible, but i also think it's not desirable. what i do think is most relevant to that is believe that it's

desirable and what should be working towards that actually cripples the u.n. was than any other thing. the un's biggest enemies turn out to be his biggest believers because the people who truly believe the human will over time become misfiring world government, what they do is put the u.n. in the position of being unruly, bad child who always has to be excused because of the future potential of what it might turn into. you can't ever hold the u.n. truly to account because of the fact we always have to excuse that because you down the road and say something it might become this anniversary of loose the opportunity.

i don't think it has any chance of becoming not in a much better thing for the u.n. as an institution the two renowned for that kind of forward-looking focus on the u.n. not become a misfiring spreading tree of global governance shaping the planet you but also a series of low, sturdy hedgerows decided to tasks, which take as much of the politics out of performances possible and make silly technocratic institution to particular things. that is the u.n. as a whole. for the parts that are inherently political, to see themselves as not on a circuit train track, trying to get to this future point or become some

completely different from what it is now, but to say this is what the yard we are going to live for the new political organization, essentially for the nation. that's pretty good and important and what poison not to the next and would become something different on the road. >> host: we been talking with american university professor, kenneth anderson, about his book, training thank you, professor andersen. >> guest: thank you. i appreciate this.

>> host: for new slots, a familiar faces on your screen, chris wallace of fox news sunday. we are with lorraine wallace at the national press club where they have a book. did you ever think you'd be popping a coat of? >> guest: i am hawking it. my wife, lorraine verde. the first sunday i started to oxidation what would you like? i said chicken, maker to comfort food. the second week we said chicken. eight to half years later she's got a book and i'm still on the show. >> host: 100 chicken recipes with 50 vegetarian sides. i've had to step up my chicken. what i learned this chicken is the most versatile agreement on trade ingredient. you can day care, rose at comic

con, barbecue, it's amazing. >> host: headteacher recipes? >> guest: my own recipes tried and trusted. i have a cooked any them, but i've beaten everyone. >> host: each chapter is family stories and photographs in each recipe in hives a family tidbit about it. >> host: can you give us background on how have you been married, how many kids, et cetera? >> guest: six children together for 16 years. >> host: >> type four, she had to. so getting your family around the table and trying to figure out schedules and needs, including your house in, who is 5:00 in the morning getups on sunday is amazing. so this is a great book to help you do that.

>> host: what time do we chicken on sunday? >> guest: hence the name, saturday night shaking. >> host: you think i would've caught that. mr. sunday saturday night shaking. chris wallace and lorraine wallace, thank thank you very m.