my name is jamshed bharucha and i am the president of the union and it's truly an honor to introduce the former president of ireland who i assume those of you have come know about and mary robinson, her book which is really quite a revelation. we are very fortunate to have for tonight and just a little bit of that ground about this hall for those of you who might be new to it. the great hall at cooper union was the place where lincoln gave his famous speech.

and that began a long history of social justice movements launched or celebrated in this hall including the suffrage act which was the end to the work and the naacp had their first connection there. it was the first to make conference of american leaders led by red fox in this very room in the 19th century at a time when their people were being slaughtered on the planes. there is quite a history here of events that occurred during some critical and turbulent times in irish immigration to the united states as well from 1856 when more than 1000 supporters of the brotherhood met here right up to the eve of the 1916 easter rising.

the stage would host such leaders as the irish -- and i was intrigued by some of those and thanks to google i was able to find a "new york times" article from 1887 when the brotherhood assembled in this hall and "the new york times" article is entitled marred by discord. so apparently one of its speakers named richard cassoulet according to "the new york times" quote, the "new york times" is quoted not mccaffrey quote after careful study of irish history he had come to the conclusion that the best way to right the wrongs of the oppressed country was to plant it on in the heart of england. and therein followed cheers and a yell of dynamite.

this speaker then attacked another speaker patrick ford whose name was received with hissing and catcalls and he had to be protected by people who were then escorted out of the hall. well, tonight's talk i am sure will be a lot more civil than that but to give you a sense of continuity and history here. it is most fitting that we welcome the honorable mary robinson former president of the republic of ireland and a former u.n. high commissioner for human rights to the cooper union. president -- career has been devoted to the pursuit of fairness in society. as an activist lawyer she defended the causes of women and as a member of every senate promoted the rest of the legislation including the legalization of contraception.

president robinson has been the honorary president of oxfam and is a member of of the group of 11 independent world leaders together by nelson mandela to offer their collective influence and experience to support teambuilding. and to help address major causes of the suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. in 2009, president obama awarded her the presidential medal of freedom calling her quote and advocate for the hungry, the hunted and the forgotten and ignored. mary robinson has not only shone a light on human suffering but eliminated a better future for our world. this book "everybody matters" my life giving voice really sets out some of the work of our speaker tonight and i will allow her to speak with her own voice

so please welcome president mary robinson. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much for that warm welcome and it's very inspiring to be in a hall that has had so many illustrious speakers particularly a team of social justice and wanting the kinds of changes that will be better for society. i am delighted to be here in the cooper union and i very much appreciate also the sponsorship of nyu which i am very familiar with, a place i have oftentimes visited and enjoyed. i feel there is hope for lots of

reasons and i appreciate the fact that you braved to weather, the elements. yesterday was a beautiful tip -- dutiful day and what happened today? what is it in new york that can change dramatically in so quickly? as i say i feel very at home because i had an early experience of learning on human rights, very early and growing up in the west of ireland the only girl wedged between four brothers, two older than me and two younger than me so worse i had to be interested in human rights and equality but also using my elbows and generally exerting myself. as it tried to explain in the book because i think it's good to record what ireland was like at that time, the ireland that i was growing up in was in ireland

where girls and women knew their place, place in the home or the nunnery or if they were talented enough they could become writers or artists or musicians. and i was very aware that somehow boys seem to have much more options even though my parents very often repeated that i had the same opportunities that my brother's brothers had in they would support me in that. and after six years at the sacred heart boarding school in dublin, i realized that the options were not really very exciting and most of my contemporaries at the time were talking about what they would do for a year or two before they married. marriage was very much the goal and the objective and parents would help with that and that is what was expected. and i had benefited from various

nuns in my background who were doing other things. a great aunt who had been very forceful as a reverend mother in britain and had talked about how she tried to influence education policy in england. i enjoyed talking with her as a teenager and even more so i think my father's older sister i.v.. his two sisters became nuns but his oldest sister had gone to india and had become very involved with the children who are very poor who would not have had an education and all the issues related to that. i felt this was really interesting and worth doing so i decided my best option was to offer myself as a postulant and become a nun soviet the age of 15 i spoke to the reverend mother in the convent and

decided i had big calm -- decided to become a nun peerage he looked at me quite truly and said why do you think about it and go away for a year. if you would really like to be a nun we would like to receive you at that time. my parents who were catholics who are very happy with my choice and felt honored that i was going to be a nun thought it was nice to have me for another year so they said nothing was too good for their daughter mary and they would send me to paris for a year. [laughter] and of course that changes everything. i do describe that in some detail in the book. [laughter] and i kind of came under different influence also when i was very young. i had a grandfather who had retired early to get help from the practice of law and the law that he practiced was very much for the peasant and the poor guys against the landlord or the powerful presence. he was pleased to have a young

girl 10, 11, 12, 13 who is interested in what he was talking about. it was unusual and he didn't know how to talk to a child so he spoke to me as if i were an adult. and he spoke about law being an instrument for social justice. so once it was an appropriate for me anymore to become a nun and i decided to do law and when to the college in dublin. that is where my two older brothers were our ready studying. they had followed us of our parents and forgot yours and had decided to study medicine. i chose my law and my two younger brothers were also coming to college at the same time so there were five of us together. we were very lucky to get an apartment and a house number 21 westland rd. and it's the house where oscar wilde was born. and the coaches going down the

drove would tell other passengers to turn their heads and see all the plaques. actually it was wild house for a while for reasons i go into a little bit in my book, may because of my brothers. i was a good student in the front of the class and in that same year in law school somebody that i became friendly with named nicholas robinson and in that first year three of us got first class honors and nick and myself were among those three. we went out to dinner and got to know each other a little bit better and that then he decided that he had better things to do so he tended to sit in the back of the class and draw cartoons and i stayed in the front of the class and fought to achieve good grades. i also force myself to debate

and again i tried to say this very honestly in the book because why i wrote this memoir was to be encouraging, to be encouraging to push yourself a bed in reach her potential. so i pushed myself to stand up and not go blank with shyness and i got better at it so i decided to go forward for auditor of the dublin university law society and i was the first woman or female student to be elected as the auditor of the law society. at this stage i was really interested in law and the instrument of social change. one of the things that bothered me was that in ireland at that time, in the mid-to late 60's there was a totally equation of sin and crime and i felt that this wasn't allowing bats type of space for individual morality

and to take into account that there were not catholics in the republic of ireland, christian faith, jewish faith, no faith or whatever and we should be opening up the two minorities and respecting their viewpoints. so in my inaugural address in 1967 on law and morality in ireland i made some modest recommendations. i said we should remove the -- from the constitution and legalize -- and not criminalize adults consenting to hager between adults of the same cannot have suicide is a crime. i remember that the speech had caused quite a bit of interest because of the title law and morality in ireland. it was in the big examination hall at trinity and i delivered it to a slightly law for larger audience believe it or not and there was a moment of silence

when i finished and i said and i was kind of worried about you now it was more than a decent applause with no real controversy. i think the feeling was that is what students do and i had been more outspoken maybe then some other students but that's the way it is. and then i was very lucky to get a fellowship to harvard university and that was a wonderful year to be at harvard. the class of 1968 and when i arrived i found that my united states contemporaries were questioning what they believed was an immoral war, the war in vietnam and some of them were escaping the draft. there was a lot of discussiodiscussio n about poverty programs in the south of this country and civil rights movements and some of the people were bravely joining. martin luther king was assassinated in april of 68 and just after i graduated robert

canady was also assassinated. this had a huge impact on me. it was a different world. this classic method so instead of the good quality of law teaching and dublin teaching from lectures notes where if you took the notes down and could write and could write fast and gave them back accurately and did quite well but in harvard they kept changing and refiguring the question and that was a very interesting because it encouraged thinking. but most of all what struck me about that year at harvard which was so different from the ireland that i had left and gone back to was that young people were making a difference. they were a actually deciding we can make change. we can do things and we are going to bring our own perspective to the initiative so i came back to ireland in 1968 to practice law and to teach law

and as my husband to be nick said at the time, and i was immune to something you recognize he characterized as a political cartoonist is harvard humility. that harvard humility led me the following year in 1959 to question in a parliamentary election wide it was that those who were traditionally elected to university seats in the irish senate were elderly male professors. why was that? why couldn't it be more diverse? and so my friend said well if you want to go forward we will campaign with you and we will see what happens. i was elected to the senate at the age of 25 which meant that i was teaching law but also to influence law and i had a program of course that went back to the knocker of address that i've given in 1967 about law and

morality in ireland. the first item on the agenda was to legalize -- and that for me was my harvard analytical strength and was very clear. the law simply was not in conformity with the reality for was happening in ireland. we used to joke that married women must have cycle regulation problems because so many of them would get a doctorate certificate which was the only way they could get -- pills. you could have failed the without any sanction but it was against criminal law to buy one. so clearly this was something that needed to be addressed by a relatively simple bill amending an earlier criminal law of 1935 and two male senators supported me for a private members bill.

the normal course is that the bill would be tabled and then it would get an banal than be published on an official senate newspaper. it never got the nod. it was held for a long time and meanwhile i had touched a raw nerve in the irish at the time and i was getting hate hate letters. the then catholic archbishop required that a letter be read in the diocese of dublin and every church and diocese and dublin that said such a measure would be and would remain the curse upon the country and i still remember the irish press headline the following day. the curse upon the country. i was 26 and just married and it was tough and in fact it was really very difficult. i remember feeling very defensive even walking down the street. something would jump out and say you are the devil incarnate and you are a terrible woman and you

are doing terrible things. i have been used to being more or less admired and supported and it was her problem and suddenly i was a hate figure. i was written about impede the new nothing about me were saying how terrible it was. and nick saw that i was very affected by these letters tending to go back and read them in horror and be worried. he buried a lot of that correspondence which we both now regret because it was part of a social history in ireland but nobody talked about sexual relations and nobody least evolved the legislators talk about family planning. there was a real fear and antipathy for doing so. we persisted, my two male colleagues and myself did we change from criminal law to health and the next build a private members bill got printed but not adopted and gradually the irish government did take the responsibility nine years later passing a measure and that

issue is now of course not controversial at all in ireland. meanwhile i was enjoying teaching law at trinity college. i loved the interaction with students and i was practicing law and because of the opportunity to discuss the united states constitutional law compared with the irish constitutional law i quickly decided that was the area i wanted to focus on and take test cases. there were a lot of issues, issues of equality and discrimination. i would take them in the irish courts and then there was the possibility that these cases could also be taken beyond the irish courts if you didn't get justice in the high court or supreme court in ireland because ireland had ratified the convention on human rights and civil liberties, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

that meant you could take a case having exhausted your domestic remedies or maybe uniquely sometimes go direct to strasbourg. the other possibility was to take cases when ireland joined the european union in 1973 and where there were directives on equal pay and equal opportunities. that is where the case would start in the irish courts and it would be a reference of the legal issue to luxembourg. you would go go to luxembourg and argued and then get a ruling of the court in luxembourg which the irish court would be bound to apply. i enjoyed very much those cases. the ones that really stand out and i deal with in some detail in the book because i really found so admiring of the client herself. it was a case involving a woman called josie and rape. she was a -- woman and she claimed that she had an abusive husband who be her and she was

was -- he was convicted in the lowest court and given a fine and she alleged he continued to beat her. she wanted to get a judicial separation. remember there was no divorce at that time and to get a judicial separation she would have to go to the high court and that was complex procedure. she went to various lawyers in cork city to see if someone would help her to take her case and no lawyer was willing because there was no question of cost being paid and even if she won her husband would be able to take off because he was also poor working class. she saw an article in an irish newspaper that ireland had ratified the european convention on human rights and it was possible to take a case to strasbourg to the commission on human rights and she wrote a

long letter which included a lot of irrelevant material but it had a colonel of truth in it. she was tonight access to the court to protect her family life two values and articles under the european convention and some clever boils in strasbourg decided that there was an issue to be argued so they -- strasbourg provided legal aid to recruit a solicitor to instructed barrister and and i was a fair share to argue this case before the commission of human rights. it was an irony that the legal aid came from strasbourg because the argument was no legal aid in civil cases and ireland at that time. we succeeded before the commission of human rights and in the case went back to strasbourg a year or two later before the court of human rights. it was very heavily argued on the other side by the government

of ireland because they could see the implications. if the case succeeded it would mean that ireland would have to introduce a system of civil legal aid and pay lawyers to provide legal aid for civil cases to poor clients. so there was a very vigorous case and eventually partly because we were also supported by the commission, we want on those two articles, articles six and eight of the convention that denied access to justice and it wasn't protecting family life. this made a wonderful speech which the irish newspaper carried in which it said this wasn't just for me. this was for women who were denied justice. why should we put up with being beaten in our homes? it was a very telling wonderful moments and i was particularly touched when i got a letter from one of the key senior councils in ireland at the time whom i admired greatly. he was such a leader and

inspirational barrister and great fun as well. he wrote me a handwritten letter congratulating me on a landmark case for irish law. in your early 30s when you are doing cases had no case before before that had preceded in the court in strasbourg so i really enjoyed that. and the irish senate was moving various measures and established a center at trinity college to provide guidance to various sectors of irish life, agriculture, industry, labor on women's issues etc. and to look at the impact of regulation for directors of the european union. we were very happy about that. i had successful elections to the senate. i had tried twice to run and i described this in the book.

i clearly wasn't a very good politician and the grassroots level going to the door. i wasn't able to have the kind of conversation and so i didn't succeed in either case. i was reelected to the senate. i have joined the irish label -- labour party for a period and after i decided i wanted to go back to the independent bench to focus on issues related to northern ireland dr. garrison and margaret thatcher had entered into an agreement called the anglo-irish agreement which certainly was a breakthrough in relationships but it was totally abhorred by the whole union of community in northern ireland. i felt something totally opposed by one sector is not going to work. it never did work itself. it didn't change the dynamics and it didn't work so i wanted to express those concerns, very

minority concerns in the irish senate. so had resigned from the labour party and had gone back to being independent and was reelected as an independent. then we came up to 1989 and i had served for 20 years at that stage in the senate. i was also now a member of the chambers in london in little temple. these cases were increasingly interesting and they were changing the circumstances and it was all about social justice. i had three young children the youngest of which was about eight at the time so i decided not to go forward again for election to the senate. basically retire from the senate and concentrate on law practice. i was going to be what i would do in the future. we were happy about that as well fast-forward to the 14th of february, 1990 when i get a surprise phonecall from a former labor attorney general and a friend at the irish bar john

roberts who said he had something he wanted to discuss with me privately. i thought it was a problem he had himself an isa, round. i'm at home, come and see me. we came into our dining room in our home and he posed the question very unexpectedly. he said would you be prepared to accept the nomination of the labour party to run for president of ireland. the election is here and as you know we had elections and for president, sometimes presidents are kind of elected by acclamation if i can put it that way. that is nobody is opposing them. that was a complete surprise and i have two say not a very positive surprise to me because the presidency at the time, the six presidents that serve have been rather elderly when they were elected or came to the

presidency because they were not opposed and they had served with distinction but had not been proactive for pushing so they served with distinction in ireland. they were an important part of the president to refer bills to the supreme court as they are deemed to be kind essentially unconstitutional to address both houses of parliament and so on but mainly it was ceremonially and the bigger heads ruled an important role in paying state visits outside of ireland and the president of course was the first citizen of the country. the political power with the prime minister and his cabinet in a parliamentary system. the fact that the labour party had decided to nominate a candidate which meant there would be a contest was not the person nominated would win because labour party was the smallest of the three parties that could nominate. it was known that the way these

things are known in ireland were politically ill are at it. we understand these things. it was well-known that the popular deputy prime minister brian lenihan but he nominated by the largest party and he was in those terms kind of a shoe in. so it was really the irish bookmakers who gave you a sense of what your odds were. the bookies posted my artisan as i was nominated as 100 to one against. we didn't even put money on it. but what i had and been encouraged by nick to do first of all when i wrote him and told him that john rogers had posted an invitation to me out of the blue he said it's valentine's day, come to lunch so we had lunch and he said more or less year the constitutional lawyer. have you ever looked at those provisions of the constitution that relate to the president next i have to admit i knew

about them but i'd last over them and they weren't in the front of my mind. so i went back and read those provisions and realized a directly elected president who was below politics could do a huge amount because people had voted for you and they voted for you to serve as the oath of the president should do your best for seven years to serve the people of ireland. to really take the song and be the personification of the country for that seven years. so this gave me if you like a kind of case to argue for a much more proactive presidency that would relate to what people were doing in towns and villages in parishes in ireland and inner cities, what people were doing in various sectors of the economy in northern ireland to

begin the peace prospects -- the process. i went around the country and made these arguments and more in more and more people were interested in them. at the time the two men who were nominated, the favorite in the beginning brian lenihan and austin currie they too said we should have been more proactive presidency but an interesting way they weren't home and their arguments. they have been on the road as long as i had. many of you who have run for office in one way or another, you get to know how to be in tune with those who are speaking to and how to hone your arguments. that is what happened in my case and after the election i was elected president handed my speech of acceptance on the night of the election and all that incredible excitement and emotion -- that there was huge

emotion. it was a very real signal of the different ireland that someone with my track record would be elected by the whole people of ireland to service the president for seven years. so many people cried. they were half crying from joy. but anyway they cried and in my acceptance speech i particularly singled out the women because they knew that was one of the things that have helped. of course when you're in a general election you have to had to be voted for by men and women and the fact that there were so many whites who didn't tell her husband and voted differently and daughters who didn't tell their fathers. i actually have truth of that much more recently when i space to new york working for realizing rights. i was in boise idaho speaking to an audience and at the end of a speech i saw this young woman in her early 30s coming towards me. she had her hand out so i came down to the podium and i had my

hand out. she should mahand and she said i want to shake your hand. you are my first vote. i was 19 at the time and when i told my father he knew -- making nearly killed me. it captured the fact that there were women who did come out. the second thing that i mentioned during that acceptance speech which i completely underestimated me was the power of symbols. i said that i would put a light in the window of the official residence which some of you will know as is an irish name. it's the home of the president and i was to be the -- i said i would put a light in the window for all of those who would emigrate from ireland over centuries and over decades. that we cared and we wanted them to know there was a light in the window and they were welcomed home. we wanted a connection and i did feel strongly about that because i have known about the irish falling on hard times.

there were very good centers in different countries including this country who dealt with undocumented irish and others. i have known that from my senate days as a human rights person and i really wanted that to be a symbol. i totally underestimated. nick and i were thinking of a candle of course with the candle is the ultimate symbol of the security when we came to her official residence. not a candle, it will burn the place down so we got a lamp specially made. the kitchen of our private quarters you could see the road going through the park and that was the ultimate symbol of the lights you can see from the road saying you are welcome. and i was welcomed anywhere i came. this country, canada argentina australia, wherever and britain and very often by people coming to the podium before he could.

>> saying we know you have a light at the window and how much it mattered and that encouraged me on certain days to address the irish diaspora. it was the first use that word was used in ireland but it was the shaping of the connection that is so much stronger now. now this is leading up to the st. patrick's day weekend and i wish you all a happy st. patrick's day but there is actually a very concerted effort this year to encourage people to come back for a gathering in that gathering somehow builds on the whole idea in connection of the irish diaspora. in my inauguration address a bit later, i was keen to try and set out what my promise was to the people of ireland what i would try to do and i promised i would try and support locally local self-development because i'd written so much about it. i supported clubs and activities

and work that was being done in changing parishes and inner cities and helping to cope with local employment etc.. i also wanted to represent ireland well at the national level and at the international level in particular to try to see in some way a champion of human rights if the opportunity arose. i remember being very worried. how my going to to do this but some of the opportunities to come along. in 1992 i was invited by irish aid agencies to help them cope with the terrible situation in somalia where fighting warlords were preventing food from getting to the people and nobody was prioritizing this. somalia was sort of a forgotten place in the situation was really critical. so the irish government was a little bit afraid. i went to somalia with the then foreign minister and it was actually david andrews.

it was a visit that mocked me in a way that it was very difficult to see these long lines of people waiting for food at feeding stations in seeing dead children in the arms of their parents because they hadn't gotten there soon enough and the food was prevented from getting to the feeding stations and also the injuries from the fighting that was going on. i did manage to meet and speak with both of the warlords and neck at the time accused me of -- i didn't wag my finger and try to say this is not acceptable. the food must get to people so they can survive and then i went to new york to the then secretary general of united nations boutros-ghali to draw attention to the situation. he thanked me for years and years and every time i meet him

ahead of the state from europe came in raise the situation in somalia and how that have been useful for his services. having gone to somalia it was somehow less difficult in the sense that it became more of what i might be expected to do to go to rwanda after the killings and. nick: and i could go in 1994 neither of us will ever forget the aftermath of the genocidal killing, something you never want to see and the blood spattered rooms and the children's clothes and shoes and all of that and the small rwanda in government and the country trying to cope with the huge prison population. the following year in 1995 there was the 50th anniversary of the united nations here in new york in the building and i kind of knew that the 50th anniversary was going to be a time of great rhetoric, wonderful features made by the

politicians from all around the world flooding in to make their speeches. so i went back to rwanda to bring the reality of that to the united nations so that more would be done to prevent this kind of violation of human rights. i remember some scenes that the universities have been destroyed and the prison that had such of population at some of the prisoners were getting gangrene because there was no room to slide down so they had to stand in night. just awful images of that. and the third time that i went to rwanda was in march of 1997 a few months before i completed my term as president. an african woman's conference. less than three years after the genocidal killing. this was in march and the genocidal killing was an april 3

years before. those women had enough spirit and determination to host a pan african women's conference and i was one of two women not african who were invited to it. it included a vice president at that time some ministers, some women academics and community work or is etc.. they came as sisters to their rwanda and sisters. i think that sets were wanted on a particular course encircling it a huge impression on me. i remember going back to the journalists at the airport. it was a press conference and i try to tried to sum up then i used the phrase to deliver a cliché one way but i felt it very much. i have seen the future of africa and she works. those of you who know africa know that women mainly to the work but also i had seen it at a different level of political decision-making and determination. i loved surfing as president of ireland. every day was a very full day

and a very special day and yet when we came close to the end of the seven years i have a difficult the difficult decision of whether to seek a second term and i think the conventional wisdom is that if i had gone forward with a second term i would not have been opposed because people were used to me doing a reasonable job and therefore there wouldn't be an election. in my heart i was saying to myself can i really do it at the same level for another seven years and what was my mission to ensure that the presidency could be more proactive to strengthen the constitution is not that are now to say that somebody else come with their own capacity to take that forward? so i decided not to seek a second term and president mary mcaleese was selected and she brought her own skills and born in northern ireland and now we

have a president who is bringing his strengths to the office. i'm glad to say the office of the president is a think in good standing in ireland, popular officer difficult time when not all people in authority are popular. it's good to see that it's fulfilling a much more substantial role. having decided not to seek a second term the question was what to do. it was not obvious at all and quite lonely for a couple of weeks and then by coincidence the first u.n. high commission of human rights, josé -- went to ecuador to become prime minister and the rumor i think was inaccurate rumors that he left because the job was too difficult. when i approached the irish government and i was still present at the time a few months in april and may in the year of

1997 i didn't finish until september and i said that i would like the irish government to nominate me because in a way it would be secretary general -- and i was warned by the government that the office was small underfunded and low morale and other possible jobs in the u.n. but this was human rights so i said no this is the one i would really like to do. so there was government ran a vigorous campaign and coffee on a decided to appoint me in and put pressure on me. this the first high commissioner was gone and there was no deputy and the office was in disarray. i had to come quickly to begin and i laughed himself to be persuaded of that. they take him 10 weeks early in september in the irish people especially after bit of time did not like that. i had sort have been elected for some years and i had left earlier.

i do admit in the book that it was a mistake. it i should have said i want to serve out my term because i have a pact with the people of ireland. anyway kofi anon praised me for coming early. i said if i knew then what i know now that the u.n. was always in crisis i would have waited. [laughter] anyway i did take on the mission and it was quite a shock to find there were management issues at the office and there were good human rights officers on a three month contract. everybody felt that they were underfunded, under resourced and didn't have adequate support for the big mandate they had and in fact in july there was a reform package of the united nations which kofi anon had left which greatly increased the positioning and the role of the office of high commissioner of human rights. it was only the office of the

u.n. which was a member of all four executive committees of peacekeeping development humanitarian issues and economic and social issues and the office was based in geneva, small office in new york and somehow we have to manage all of that. for the first few months everything that i look that seemed to be a kind of problem. so my response to that was to get up earlier and earlier every morning and stay later and later in the office and start taking sleeping pills. in fact it was a very difficult time. i think i wouldn't have been able to write about this as i have done in the book without the fact that i was writing it with my daughter who greatly helped me to write the book, tessa. she was here a few days ago because she has two young children and our grandchildren, and she couldn't stay any longer it was interesting, she said i remember mom how absolutely sort of the affected you are. you wouldn't even talk to us.

you were so exhausted and so stressed about the job. you have to write that and actually i had been seen as someone successful but actually that job was so difficult that it undermined my health and my mother in law said to me i was heading for breakdown territory. hearing that mothers voice i said no way. i threw with the sleeping pills and decided to take time, go for walks and take an extra week and call myself and then go back. from then on it was difficult the week built up a great team and the office of high commissioner. i figured out publicly the best way for me to fulfill that role was to lead for the -- so a lot of my time is high commissioner was spent being where the terrible violation of human rights to place. i went to chechnya during the

fighting there and yes the chechen fighters were very fertile at times but my focus was on the russian federation uniform of the russian army who were terribly violating human rights and describing that in the stories with a very good russian ngo. a very brave, an ngo country to take on the cause of the other country or minority part of the country and these violations were taking place. i reported to the commission on human rights. we had a first-ever resolution of the human rights commission at the time pass against the russian federation against the five countries. they were not at all happy that it was a good day for accountability for violations of human rights. i went to east timor on several occasions. i went to sierra leone for the

fighting was taking place there. each of the countries for the kosovo rest the cheese pouring out of kosovo and addressing their issues of helping the then prosecutor of the tribunal to have more support for what she was doing. she became one of my successors as high commissioner. then i went to china and i describe in the book and because i was the former president i had greater access to china at the time and some of the senior officials. if i had been in ambassador or whoever and academic, the fact that i have outstanding gave me access. i learned when you have access use it so i used it as best i could. but i had a two track with china and bank urged the chinese government to find both of the

main human rights covenants, the covenant on political rights and social culture rights and they ratify the covenant of economic and social rights during my time as high commissioner. and they had workshops where they would bring chinese experts and i would bring outside experts, judges looking at the education through labor. it's still an issue in china putting people away with no due process. we were addressing that at the time. also amnesty and human rights in china etc. on the transgressions of the tibetan monks and priests and monks and nuns, the political dissidents and i would raise these cases and very rarely got any satisfaction. i would give a kind of encouraging remark about what the chinese were doing on one side and then i would need very strong, by far the strongest

voice in the u.n. criticizing china. i learned having been there on seven visits that the media were completely divided. the western media never picked up that i had also given credit for certain measures taken by china. they focused on high commissioner criticized for violation of human rights and the chinese paper praised and gave me full coverage. high commissioner praises china for organizing leaders and it was really very interesting. it's still in part true. it's hard to get a balanced view. the last year that i served as high commissioner was after the terrible attacks in this country in 9/11 and i completed the most difficult task which was the world conference against racism. that extra year was a very tough year because once the united states no longer fully upheld commitments under the covenant

on civil and political rights and the convention convention against torture it made it much more difficult for other countries to say that the standard still applied because ministers in egypt and pakistan would say let's look at the united states. first of all the united states should have up-ended the standards and secondly it was leading to problems all over the world which human rights and treaty bodies were all reporting on and i was trying to address. when i finish the five years as high commissioner, i wanted to pioneer work in a practical way on the part of human rights that i felt western countries don't pay enough attention to. food, safe water, health and education so i spent a year baser new york and i had colleagues in aspen who worked on the health program and i had colleagues in geneva on human

rights that we were focused on supporting economic and social rights in african countries. we worked on health issues in some countries, on peace and security issues and decent work issues in business and human rights and corporate responsibility and it took me to a lot of african countries over a period of what ended up being eight years to the end of 2010. for about five of those eight years i realized that something has happened all over africa that was not being taken account of. and the way i describe it is people would begin a sentence by saying that things are so much worse and it was so much worse with gorbachev. but when i was growing up my friend in uganda would say to me when i was growing up in my village we were poor that we had food. now we have long periods of drought and flash flooding and then more drought and it

destroyed the school and they formed a group of women to try to cope with that. in liberia a friend would say to me when i was growing up in liberia we had two predictable rainy seasons that came within a week of when they should come. not anymore. when we get a rainy season we don't know, how do and mend my roads? how do i manage my economy in that situation? that is the situation all over south africa, south asia and north america. i was in bangladesh and i saw the devastating impact of the flooding from a cyclone where it had filled smiles and miles, hundreds of miles of fields with tainted water and the crops would not grow on it. i saw adaptations. you have to have new seeds and new ways of growing for

waterlogged or dry conditions. this is expensive and difficult and poor people are undermined in their food security. of course if you under find people their livelihoods and food security this is a huge gender dimension. the rules of an and women are given. women primarily still have to put the put on the table and still have to get the fire wouldn't have to go further for the water and that is a pattern that is so impactful now. it's been going on for years. we haven't heard much about it except a lot of were people didn't know that this was caused by the carbon emissions that are causing the climate change in this country and elsewhere. so they didn't know about it so they weren't talking about particularly that they would talk about it when he went there because it was making their situation much worse. i realize this was one of the worst human rights problems and then i read the signs and that is what brought me to the science.

i realize that this was not only a big human rights problem but it's also about the future the world. i established a foundation in ireland called the climate justice and climate justice started with the injustice that climate is hurting those least responsible because they live in vulnerable parts of the world so they are getting the most effect although is beginning to affect everywhere. there is a sort of disconnect between who is responsible and who is suffering and those suffering the most are those not responsible. they don't drive cars and they don't use fossil fuels etc. so that is one kind of climate injustice and the other is a more difficult one that is going to be quite hard for us to get real leadership on and that is intergenerational justice. we have to think now about the fact that we have a short period of time in which to take measures to curtail these carbon emissions and adapt and have

low-carbon clean energy because already we have warmed the world to a stage where we are beginning to see climate shocks that the world tank in a recent report says we are heading for a a -- world. then it describes what a four-degree world the senate's catastrophic. it affects everybody. it's not just the people who stare at who lose their lives but it's everyone and it's very interesting. there has been so much money on fossil fuel lobby's paying for science in confusing people about the science that we have forgotten about people, forgotten the people who are already suffering that the shocks would be huge for the future. let me finish and i won't. >> for too long. hopefully we will have a little bit of questions after. let me finish how i capture intergenerational justice and then our first grandchild was

born. he is actually the older child of my daughter tessa who asked me to write "everybody matters" and then little droid. i had a kind of physical reaction. maybe some of you who are grandparents in the room will know what what i am saying. i somehow recalibrated and i now think 80 years or 100 years hence because i know that this is part of his life and now he will be joined by three of their grandchildren to in dublin and two of our older sons in barcelona so these four grandchildren ,-com,-com ma the other is now nine ,-com,-com ma will be in their 40s in 2050 which is a very key year when we talk about climate. they will share the world with with -- or maybe more. it's the fastest growth in population ever known. it will be a world where we will definitely have very severe weather shocks and problems with

food security. i sometimes think what will they say about us? what will they say about the decisions that we take or don't take now? .. so we have a time and we should be seeing the most extraordinary leadership. the we should be seeing leadership talking to us about how we have change changed your

ways, have to be transformative. army of this country? yes, better than obama, both in his inaugural address in a state of the union did signal at time of change. his military are advising the biggest security issue. i am worried about the fact we need this leadership issue. a development issue is a climate justice issue. thank you for being a good audience. i'll be happy to answer questions. [applause]

[applause] >> i'm not sure i would do the questions. okay, so who's going to start. this is an interesting time for me and i would love when people do ask questions if anybody will come not to ask any questions. just say who you are. >> i am sri lankan, so you

probably know my question. during the 2009 through january until may at civilians by the massive development and you are the only high-level official to speak at the ui about the gravity of the situation, what most of the human officials are very tight asked about the problem. thank you for your position on s. and also your role in releasing human rights baystate man's. my question is when you have a real and sri lanka. how do you deal with it when states are being dead is project

good. between the irish struggle country latke. give me some idea to look at the future. >> well, thank you for the question. it is true that recently -- i think many of you may know there is a group of others that nelson mandela brought together, tenderness under the chairmanship, kofi anon, brahimi dealing with -- [inaudible] i always try to make it clear i am of the younger elders. [laughter] we have tried to address certain issues i'm quite certain my last year it was coming between the human rights council and can be

difficult and sri lanka had a huge campaign to prevent itself from being criticized. we felt it was important to remind the human rights council at the scale of the violation and the lack of real accountability and processes to address the issue. we were quite active in the human rights council passed regulation, criticizing sri lanka. mainly it was a resolution, which held into account that were not at all pleased in the series, began and not enough progress has been made on this issue to be consistent, to have the courage and faith in the dawn and to hold firm and that

will be the case. governments claim their sovereignty as you mention and the covenants and conventions in lieu of proper tours of the united nations is that a solid knowledge and issues of human rights don't stop at borders. we've gone way beyond not and his rate for the international community to concern itself and we try to concern ourselves. in the book i described north korea and jimmy carter who brought us once as director general and wishart with no running water. the former president of finland and the nobel prize winner

myself, it's kind of shocking to see the civil society and the difficulties of north korea and the temperature, we need dialogue and we are still loved the review to open up space to nuclear issues, human rights issues, food security issues because the food issue is a very big one, different african countries to sierra leone. we also had a major program still continuing of addressing an issue, which we had began by thinking of how to address the inequality of girls and women. and her need to be equal to the boy child and communities and have the same opportunities, et cetera. we realize it can well be the

distortion of religion or faith that causes to be limited or to be sent not to school or whatever. about three years ago now, saying later she championed the equality after girls and women should be part of their spirituality. most of them are men. [applause] >> bits are very well, but what are we going to do practically? that brought us to do early child marriage issue. it's usually sanctioned religious way and therefore a good example. i have to say i was aware of the extent and by largely underestimated.

10 million girls a year. that's 100 million girls and a decade. way before they're ready physically or emotionally. we went to ethiopia, where the law is fine and nobody should marry under the age of 18. defend minister of health is a good friend is keen to infielders common help and and help and we went to the region in the rural part of ethiopia are the average age of marriage is 12 and we talked into villages that were addressing nice and we saw how it works at the whole village embraces they need to let girls stay in school because they are convinced that's good for the girls, good for the local economy, brings down mortality, et cetera.

that will be a way of having a work. we went a few months later with another elder, a wonderful woman i've learned so much from peer we went to her country to the state would be hard. interestingly was the same average age of moving out into a rural area in the school where there is a project for boys and girls to sort of learn not to accept marriage. we talk to girls and not school about the way in which they were negotiating with their parents to stay longer in schools and to grow with learn the rumor she might be married off and say please come and help me. i say let her stay another year. she's only 14.

we saw this being talked about and it's how you try to change the attitude. the most important thing we were very clear on, people said that as the culture of that area. that is the culture in the region and we said no, don't use that word. human rights are not western rice of the different culture elsewhere. it is a harmful traditional days, which is harmful and denies children all their human rights, the right to be children and not to marry before they're ready for it. almost all of the millennium development goals puts them at risk in the grave risk of maternal death or their children and dying.

by making that distinction, you don't overnight make a change, but you can persuade people to work from within. we have helped now to create a global partnership on marriage, which is called girls, not price, which is a lovely title. many organizations that work on the ground in different countries have been strengthened and resource because of the partnership and the foundations have been generous in giving support to it. it's been a way of addressing an issue of equality that was hidden, the scale of it because nobody wants to take it on because it's involved in some way the power of the local imam, the local faith tradition later, whenever it was. i'm feeling beginning to get a lecture and preach and i never intended to do that. why don't we call today, one

more. [inaudible] the boys are much, much older. sometimes you got a 40-year-old man and 13-year-old, even 80-year-old and 12-year-old. just to give you a sense of it, i did speak to one girl one of the villages in ethiopia to speak in more detail at churchill issue is extent, been married for a year. her husband was about 30. she was the one that spoke and i asked her because i want to be kind to her. i could tell me about your wedding day. should the enemy with this satisfies and say hi to drop out of school. she was a 15-year-old with her friends and her parents that tomorrow you will be married, go into the home can pay the dowry and that was it. the men are generally good deal

older. boys don't marry quite as jan. >> my question is, you mentioned early on the president did not amount to match. it was ceremonial. >> i don't want to denigrate it, but it was more -- yeah, yeah. >> official office. today today obviously much different thanks to you and others that have come after you. so today, how does the office of president been so much more port now coexist at the prime minister politically? >> it goes very well. i think because there are deep

issues that are partly moral issues, like the report recently and the initial reaction is fair to say that government didn't match the pain and feeling more. it is enough to send a signal. the t-shirt then gave an eloquent apology. as a former president, i thought not get involved. it's a healthy tension. it's a good thing. the office can send a very bleak moral signal to get involved in the political. i went into west belfast knowing in 1982 and no one was doing it

at the time that would be difficult. it is so important to bring out of their isolation because they didn't want to be part of britain in the south wasn't paying attention because of the violence. it was difficult. these two are the last. >> thank you so much for your presentation and need for your work. i near the international peace institute in new york. the integration all justice. in particular to the extent not to gender equality. i am curious, you know company said it's difficult to get political leaders to buy into this idea.

i'm wondering what she would say to the future generations of leaders. what way should leaders be looking at these problems and how can they best meet these challenges? >> that's a great question and i'm really glad somebody like your generation is thinking seriously about intergenerational justice because young people do understand it more. the process i can describe about 2015 should help us because there's a commitment to an agreement, which has to keep the warming above preindustrial standards and that has been agreed. but were not on course. two degrees that when you were going up for degrees in and the world bank is telling us it's catastrophic. the military of the united states is saying it's a great security issue. and also, following the rail

conference last june, governments committed to replacing in some ways the millennium development goals for developing countries, with financial support from the developed countries with sustainable development goals for all countries. we may be keeping the company said in die. if we have the climate agreement dialog telling us what that means, we've got to stay within the parameters, it's going to change behavior. we know a little bit about that. when the nobel peace prize for her work environments, planting trees, peace and environment. she would say with her great smile, one before people were talking enough, this is for everybody, for private sector,

communities, individuals. there's at least one thing we can all do which is reused, reuse and recycle. it means more than that, so continue to think about it and it will be hard to get real leadership on this because it's not short term. it's intergenerational. >> you are an inspiration to us all. i work for a scientific journal and very fortunate to work with scientists who do research on a daily basis here in the u.s. as well as europe. as we become more interested recently and they need to develop research capacity, to build research capacity in developing countries. really support in developing countries. i was wondering if he's seeing an evolution in that area in

which you think of the international latitude to resist building a capacity for people to do research. >> i very much agree with you and i know countries feel this and there is a sport as you have expressed it may not work championing or part of that network. i know members of the network a few times, even in dublin and not so long ago that is global, but it's trying to build up research capacity. also very much research capacity and values and views and knowledge and build on that, including the climate context because that may in fact be very wise in ways we need to understand better, so i do very much agree with you. all right, you're definitely the

last. >> i'm here at the cooper union. i sat here thinking about your extraordinary range of political understanding and i wonder if you'd be able to speak to the tangle meant around the syrian question from these many points of view you the experience. >> well, i jewison alder think on a daily basis about what's happening in the area is charge of terra voters on stability of both the u.n. and the arab league and envoy on syria and his heart is broken. it devastated country. children killed, wounded, shattered younger homes and families and couples are in syria.

70,000 killed his thoughtful as a government allowing that to happen. it's also the failure of the security council of the united nations. i think it's a moment to sort of say, this isn't in the classical sense a failure of the united nations. the failure of the government in the security council to come together in this governments in particular are permanent size countries, putting russia come which has refused to accept the resolutions because it doesn't like the way they're framed and china has supported russia. was there too early an emphasis on machine chain? was that premature the situation? yesterday was doing terrible things, but was very better way?

it is devastating in a real problem that we have not learned how to ensure that the very least we don't allow the savage slaughter people in the 21st century. i hope there'll be some some kind of agreement. we'll be closer to a behind the scenes. the damage done to the people of syria and many neighbors. jordan is overwhelmed, so is lebanon destabilizing. it's a volatile region anyway and this is terrible was happening. i don't have any other other than we know what isn't working in the united nations should be giving leadership on that and having the world behind it is not able to agree and that to me is not acceptable. there should be criticism of those countries and i don't even mean just the russia and china.

look at the whole thing and say why could we not agree? how hard to really try? e.g. set positions and not enable agreement? i don't own full detail, but it's such a terrible travesty that is happening and it's time a mandate. it's time the people of syria were allowed to breed again because they can't breathe. we know it's happening and we don't seem to care enough. it's a human rights issue in a very difficult one. [applause]

>> they had a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. so she would love the in the halls of congress. she was always very careful to say my husband believes this and my husband advocates that, that she herself was doing the pitch and one of her husband's opponents said he hoped if james rafter elected president she would take a pass keeping like a normal woman. and she said if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep house nor make better.

>> now, american university professor, jennifer lawless talks about her book "becoming a candidate." from the au media production center, this is 50 minute. >> becoming a candidate -- "becoming a candidate: political ambition and the decision to run for office" the author, american university professor, jennifer lawless. professor lawless, why do people run for office in the u.s.? >> lots of reasons. recently there's been something percolating in the back of their mind for a long time. related somebody wake up in the morning beside this is interesting. i don't like my comments. it's the evolution of a very long politically engaged prospect. >> is it because they're concerned about policy? is it because of an ego issue?

>> guest: it depends who you're talking about. one of the biggest finances each and her difference for people are more likely to consider and think they're qualified to run for office and they would win if they rent or office. two senate and there might be ego strength involved. it's about the idea entering the electoral arena is a way to make the world a better place. >> host: back to the gender issue, why is that men are coming soon to be successful popular? >> guest: we see that in many realms. you can ask fourth-graders how will they perform on a task and fourth-grade boys overestimate their performance. if you hearken back to socialization, men have generally been told they are good at what they do, especially when operating on the environment and women tend to not be discouraged, but encouraged to require different qualities and traits. savanna my self-deprecating.

in addition because politics is such an abominate arena, women think they have to be twice as good to get how this fire. they're also using a different yardstick they wish to engage them. >> host: is there a difference in race between white, black, latino? >> guest: yes, the sex and raise our negative predict nurse on whether you'll be interested. so any minority status come anyway deviate from the norm, which is a white male heterosexual 55-year-old man, we see variations. the good news is political recruitment can close those gaps. so party leaders or political act to this encouraged people to run for office. they very likely to take them up on that projection and we have seen increased encouragement, especially among african-americans and latinos.

>> host: professor lawless come you walk through cities reek of examples. what's an example of somebody who woke up or developed an interest in policy and ran for office successfully? >> guest: bill clinton is the most obvious example. he writes in his memoir sometime in his 16th year he decided politics is a real calling for him. at that point he became cognizant of the idea he wanted to run and began looking for opportunities. when he was in his early 20s then there's the congressional seat in arkansas figured that would be a good time and even if he lost that race there is still be a good shot that he would perform well enough not to ruin his political career. sure enough he lost the race, but ultimately randa became president. >> host: somebody loses their first race, how much of a turnout to them? >> guest: i don't think it's that much of a turnoff. i'm interested in why people do

it in the first place. i ran for congress in rhode island second congressional district and i last and when i can say is it's an amazing mix of sadness people who throw their hats into the ring to it because you're so passionate about the issues, so interested in making a difference in the campaign itself is so exhilarating, but it's difficult not to do it again. >> host: jennifer lawless, where does your brand, what was the primary? desk of the democratic primary in the second congressional districts. and i commented that manner for secretary of state in the state legislature. and the main reason that i ran this because i thought he wasn't

representing the district on the issues that matter most to me. he voted 27 times against a woman's right to choose. i was pro-choice regarding reauthorizing the patriot act that he was not outspoken about the war in iraq. their issues where it was adequately represented. there's a common theme advantage and religious establishment of the candidate to go to someone in a primary. i thought it had to do it if i wanted to bring about this change. i've written the first to and was aware of limitations and because i was cognizant, is that i believe i could become then. it is better than people expect

it. >> host: did you become known as a single candidate issue? >> guest: it's difficult when only a few issues differentiate you. it was particularly because the one issue with the most different was reproductive freedom is also the traditional women's issue. the fairness of a referendum on abortion rights with a female candidate who didn't. so we worked very, very hard to demonstrate this was far more than just a single issue campaign and it is really bringing what i considered real democratic leadership back to the congressional district. >> host: jennifer lawless, at what point the third point is that i can't believe i'm doing this? >> guest: no, but every single day i woke up the road i had the opportunity to do it. genuinely on the worst days come it was still worth it in no

point did i ever think davis is not the right thing to do. >> host: given your hearing, what would you tell women who may have an interest in running for office? >> guest: the most important thing to keep in mind is you can access with your qualified before you can enter the race because it takes two weeks to acquire the qualifications and a thick skin you need to persevere. if you assess yourself a sound qualities before you run, of course you think you don't have them. remember when i first announced as running command my parents have been supportive of everything he wanted to do that i couldn't run because i was a crier. people are mean and terrible. that's exactly how to audit teats.

99% of interactions you have is people are incredibly positive and nothing particularly surprising to me was most people never met a candidate. they are so grateful when they have the opportunity to speak to you, even if they disagree everything you believe because they have an opportunity to of part of this debate. >> host: and your book, "becoming a candidate" coming-of-age heard of how many elected officials are in the united states. >> guest: there are well over 500 elected officials of my time not to realize that because so many at the local level. we tend to think about the 535 federal elected officials. the system is set up in the united states such that people run for office and we have uncontested races are literally hundreds of thousands of local positions. if people are interested in getting involved, they don't

necessarily have to weather a congressional campaign. bedard have to worry about the right wing's renovation of privacy in most cases. most of these offices garnered little attention and really do provide an opportunity for people to bring about change. >> host: jennifer lawless, while attorney candidate off? negative campaigning. >> guest: everyone says they hated. aggressive they don't want to do it. but the minute you find yourself with an opportunity you see fit. if you have to engage in negative campaign if your opponent is campaigning and negative way, is a close competitive race. you need to differentiate yourself. we reached a point in american politics where we've conflated this notion of a person versus the position and people have to realize and what she differentiate yourself on the

issues. you don't have to take down his or her family. you're not to run a smear campaign. negativity in terms of differentiation is a useful way to educate voters. [inaudible] >> guest: everyone hates it, i hated it, is miserable. but i just disable an effective when they do it. part of the reason we have women in politics is not because they're not able to raise as much money or voters won't vote for them on election day. if they are not running in the first place. candidates and elected officials wish there was less money in politics. they wished they could spend less time raising funds. once you pick up the phone, you're probably going to be quite successful. >> host: jennifer lawless, was 500,000 plus elected officials, how many men, women. >> guest: we don't actually know. and the federal government, 18% of the u.s. congress is women.

45 of the 50 states have governors. 90% have mayors, but once you get to officers, it's not systematic attention. school boards have better representation across the country are women. school boards are not as likely to be the first office that proposed a future career in politics. >> host: is a steppingstone to definition of policy? >> guest: we tend to have this country so most people start at the local level and kind to the state level and run for federal office. it's by no means a requirement. what i learned from constructing the surveys as well over 4000 women well situated to run for office is that it's important you focus your political ambition and the issues you care most about. if you care about federal

issues, not necessarily the most effective route to start by running at the local level and wait 20 years to climb the ladder. so the most effective run the issues of which are most enthusiastic. >> host: do you have in your book, "becoming a candidate," a case study of a failure, someone who ran for office for the wrong reasons, et cetera. >> guest: we have a series of people we surveyed and interviewed. we surveyed and interviewed 4000 women and men in the professions most likely to the two political careers. lawyers, educators, political act to this. and then they follow up phone interviews between 35 and 45 minutes in length of 300 over the course of this interview is, there were certainly examples of people who said they thought they wanted to run for office, they weren't sure where to channel their ambitions, so people who were at this encourage them to run for a position in their heart wasn't

in it. when i lost the campaign it was unclear that they really wanted the position in the first place. we see that in high-level politics as well. when you watch them can painting will be realize that's not what they wanted. >> host: use a week. >> guest: political in general. there's nothing more and healing than a candidate running for a high-level office whose heart isn't in it. one example is if we look at the 2012 or 2010 house and senate races, the most competitive races are where the two candidates really spent all their time campaigning and by derivation is right. it's not because you does have become at it every says. these are two people who want nothing more than anything else to win. without that competitive spirit

and drive, politics become boring. >> host: you said we caught and conducted surveys. who hope to? >> guest: the research "becoming a candidate" is based on his three ways of surveys and interviews with candidates starting in 2001. the surveys were conducted with richard fox, professor in los angeles. >> host: did your last name have a negative effect in your campaign? >> guest: it was memorable. i would say there's node-negative effect, but it made people think about it. people say i was lawless enough and they would say no. when you're trying build name recognition, briefing helps. upon regarding your name, i'll take it. >> host: what about the role the media in 2012 in today's media world?

>> guest: tammy hayes at george washington university atteberry borough assessment of local media coverage of races in 2010 because there's this at all to my the coverage of women focuses more on fantasy and integrity, women are perceived as leaders are competent people and there's the tracy won any politician. so if there is this worth it negative coverage served and on my own experience i didn't feel that way. more than i deserve a small states. i felt like it was not gendered at all. so we undertook the analysis were not the reading and coding and systematically looking at 5000 newspaper articles from all the races in 2010. the bad news is not that women

and men are the same way because it's good coverage, but the overall amount of coverage has gotten more superficial. men are now covered regarding their appearance. nobody beyond chris christie were paul ryan spent a lot of time talking about their weight or exercise regime. although that might level the playing field because it's not just women who talk about these things, and maybe at the expense of coverage. poster would advise that you have for candidate are reaching out to the media? >> guest: the first is when they call, always talk to them because you need to build relationships with them. if you're approaching you, there's a reason to take them about on the opportunity. the second is don't waste their time. don't send out a press release everyday announcing something that is. have an event that actually newsworthy. if you get them to cover this

event, will continue to cover you. if you waste our time, will easily stop. >> host: jennifer lawless, what do you teach american university? guess the women in political leadership and contemporary topics in american politics. last semester had a class called election 2012, where he followed the congressional and presidential elections and very, very excruciating details to teach women in politics and public opinion. >> host: what are two conclusions you have about the 2012 election? that's a terribly general question. >> guest: that's okay. the two big things i would say that were relevant in 2012 as primaries really matter and even though it seems that romney got through the republican primary, he doesn't waste to a lot of the debate because some of the other candidates for nomination possibly. she was still stamped with the

result and so he still came into the general election, looking a lot less moderate than he would have liked to look. soon if you are not one of the candidates moving to the democratic side, chances are you're still be stamped with the primary looks like. women really matter. one more election where there is a substantial gender gap. we had gender gaps in every election since 1980 and 1986, but one more example of a president not been able to win without the women though. he cultivated the vote was able to keep their support to the same extent he had four years earlier. i have no immediate plans that are sent questionably the most and best experience i've ever had. >> host: "becoming a candidate: political ambition and the decision to run for office". cambridge university press,

american university professor, jennifer lawless is the author.

society of american business and editors spring conference continues friday morning at george washington university. >> whirs to predict ability? but are the assurances that this committee in the senate has as to where you'll be given the background of the history? >> as a teenager and into my early 20s i was a socialist. had he seems to indicate findability. winston churchill as his anemones in a socialist adverse party. after his party has now had. and i think that kind of evolution is very common in

people. >> those two characters used all, you had two trains passing in the night. one of the toughest, hardest senators to lobby on anything, let alone supreme court nominees. he was smarter than rehnquist in a lot of ways. he wrote the book and so years these two guys needed in pakistan like few trains and coming together on anything. >> on her book, "the secretary: a journey with hillary clinton from beirut to the heart of american power." she's interviewed by "daily

caller" editor jamie weinstein. >> host: we should begin to talk a little bit about your biography. as much as this book is about hillary clinton and secretary of state, is also your experience from beirut to covering the secretary of state around the world. so when it should begin by talking about where you came from. >> guest: jamie, thank you for having me. i'm delighted to be here and buy your first question because of course the biggest star in the book is hillary clinton herself. but this isn't just a biography of an historic women. it's also a different take on the whole issue of american power. as you mentioned, i grew up there, was born in beirut in the middle of the civil war in 1977 and lived my whole life in

lebanon. 13 years and more than the rest of the time some people may know it's not a stable city. lebanon is not a stable country. i've looked through all of them, which gives you an interesting take on the world and america's position on the global stage in the first sentence of my book as i grew up in beirut on the front lines and if america wanted the conflict and come it would be over tomorrow. it frames the whole discussion about what is america, what can i do? how much power does it really have? to find the balance between the illusion of how much power in america has and what is happening on the ground. so that frames the discussion. i lived in beirut my whole life. living through war is what drove me to become a journalist.

i was keen to understand the chaos, why have to live through what i was living alongside the other 4 million lebanese who were there. i covered the middle east extensively. syria's unfortunate going through its own terrible conflict. and then i applied for a bbc job to cover the state department. i was writing for others as well. it is doing more and more and eventually applied for the state department job, which was an amazing opportunity for another good on what i'd been covering. obviously knew about the u.s., traveled there, i haven't america brother-in-law. it gives you a front row seat to the other side of the story. >> host: heuer if i'm not mistaken the only non-american correspondent, is that right?

>> guest: that's correct although my friends from the press than raiders want to point out that not american, but i'm also nonwestern. i have attached mother, but for all intents and purposes i'm an arab woman. i lived there my whole life and that's what they bring to the table. you have a western is on another's nationality and the time i spent traveling in the west. it is the only nonwestern and for the bbc do not redish person to cover this. >> host: one of the most interesting parts of starting the process of being secretary of state going country to country and you take us there is hillary clinton traveled all around the world. when we talk about profits and ask you about that. when the book opens in the first chapter after the introduction and you're with the press corps,

hillary clinton comes in and you mention the prices starstruck. do you think that affected the coverage in any way that she was such a big figure that they were trying to pull back a little bit? >> guest: i really don't think so. there was this moment inevitable, when someone with her celebrity status walks into a room and it applies to world leaders as well. it's not just journalists. of course to reassure the viewers there is no clap and because there was a lot of clapping when she walked into the building for her first day on the job. there was this incident is being a little starstruck because she's hillary clinton. not all of a sudden matter in the past, so there is that first moment of wow, hillary clinton as they are. but it's immediately followed by the tough questions we want to ask her research he didn't shy

away from asking questions throughout her tenure. when i interviewed her be a tough exchanges, but always very fair have very much designed to broaden the conversation further the understanding about the issues. the awareness on both sides because they haven't had to put it mildly, that she was weary of us. who is going to cover her? were they going throughout the stories. how is this going to work? they suddenly arrived and i want kush world of diplomacy, whatever, matters and how is this going to work? at a certain degree of wariness that she write because you brought with her a little bit of hillary land as it was dubbed at the white house. >> host: as you said, i was intrigued at a fast pace of

trades. one day here in islamabad, one day your theme the united arab emirates. there's this book as mention updated with where they're going to affirmation. but it seems like little time to digest what you just did and where you are going next. even the mist of one trip, and one of if they're planning a trip to latin america in two weeks. is it good to be this fast paced? should there be more time to digest was going on? is this how mistakes would be made? >> guest: let me tell you what it was like to follow her. unfortunate nature of the world we live in. you don't have the luxury to sit back and press pause on what event they than he did just that happen in syria before i turn my attention to pakistan. it's kind of why he wanted to write the book. i'm a journalist covering daily

news for a cover foreign policy. that's what motivated you to write "the secretary," to take a step back and digest everything that the men learn. i learned a lot being in this front row seat to history, to diplomacy, watching all those different events unfold and writing the book was a maturing experience as well as i digested some of what i'd been and come to conclusions i was trying to get out. when it comes to the secretary of state and people around here, what i found striking his/her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on what is happening. she doesn't get good by the details as they're not important. details often matter, but she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in

afghanistan and packing the middle east? how wedded having the middle east impacting what they try to do in asia? see it a good sense of the big picture and the strategy and is surrounded by people hoping her. i have to carry mail suitcase, but she assassin that allows her -- that allows her to stay focused on what really matters. she doesn't have to worry about lunch will be served or not. once it arrives shall have it while she's thinking about picture. of course i think mistakes do happen and that's inevitable, but it's also important to acknowledge that and that is part of what motivated me to write the book. not just for an audience in the u.s., but around the world that america has this impression of the all-knowing power that has the answers to everything and has all the facts and a foolproof grant for everything. america is run by human beings who don't have all the facts, don't have all the answers and

are trying to do the best they can. sometimes it doesn't work out. >> host: the important part of the book is america's role in the world. maybe we should turn to the examples and there's no better place to start than babe ruth. they traveled there early on with the secretary of state. what was that like returning to beirut as part of a delegation. you are covering it, used to watch and a little annoyed when you were a child in beirut and growing up in beirut. what was that like? just got to hysteria that only in writing that chapter was the first time i really said very much about it. it was the first time i put into words how i felt about the manner. as you mentioned, growing up in

beirut, they are often mixed feelings about the united states, whether for me or others in lebanon. i grew up in an environment where we did tend to look to the west for support or help, but i have a lot of friends who grew up on the other side of the divide we don't see the u.s. ofa my friends or family do. but enough to be america's a super power comes a sharp although sometimes an big motorcades and fortresses of embassies and i can be a bit grating on the local population. so it was really interesting or perhaps revealing for me to be on the other side all of a sudden. it's a totally different person through which to look at the issue, my own country. i am in the convoy, sitting there in the convoy and a few cars ahead of me as another car

in the same motorcades rounded by security escort. there is the secretary of state and jeffrey feldman at the state department who used to be ambassador to beirut. there was his convoy to use to annoy people in beirut. they used to annoy me when i at an intersection waiting for him to drive through. do ..

and then there's this moment i share with the secretary because it's the first time she goes to beirut. she's never been to my country before, and she knows that i'm lebanese, and at the press conference she mentions that in public. and i could sort of imagine what people might have been thinking across lebanon. there might have been cheering. oh my goodness, she recognized my friend or colleague. we are proud of her. there might have been people thinking not exactly a badge of honor is the american sec story of state -- secretary of state recognized in public like that. it's the mix of motion -- emotions. >> host: did you get any calls from family member or friends questioning you traveling with the delegation any any way? >> guest: well, obviously there was a security issue with

coming to beirut. beirut has a heavy history when it comes to the relationship with the united, and go in to some details about that, you know. an american ambassador was kill the in beirut u during the war. the cia chief of station was killed,en the embassy was bombed, the marine barracks were bombed in 1983, there are many reasons why the u.s. feels wary about the security and the security of the diplomats. we were under instructions not to say anything to anyone about the arrival. we didn't want to comprise the secretary's security. we were traveling her with the motorcade. i wasn't able to tell anyone. i called my sister. my parents happened to be out of the country which was disappointing. my sister was there, i called her. i then clinton only spent four hours in beirut for the trip. i stayed behind.

i stayed and then everybody comes up to me and i have lunch and breakfast and dinner with friends. it's a social environment in beirut. it's about eating out with people. everybody is asking me what are the americans doing about this and that? what does her visit mean? what is she going to do? those are the questions that i used to ask myself about the united states when i was bay riewlt. it was face -- beirut. it was face nate -- fascinating for me to answer the questions with whatever i knew. >> host: one of the issues that occupies any secretary of state, any administration usual will athe end, usually in the beginning is the israel-palestinian conflict. president obama, as you mentioned in your book, first call was to as president to the head of the palestinian authority. how did that get derailed? it seems like it's no longer -- maybe it's going become a front burner issue. for at least three years of the

prosecute sei it went to -- presidency it went to the back burner. what happened there? >> guest: several thing finance certainly for the lack of trying on the part of the administration. i think you can sum it up by saying expectations were raised way too high by the president, by the administration. there was a belief that perhaps there was a window of opportunity that could be used to advance the talks. but it was a misreading in the united states about what had changed on the ground in israel and in the palestinian territories. and where each of the players was. maybe net netanyahu. and there's a sense if you're the american president, you can make anything move. then you bump against reality. it's not enough to be obviously the candidate of change, the president of change, there is a certain reality on the ground. sometimes the personality for president can help make things

move along. you have to remember that players on the ground have their own agenda, their own domestic considerations, their own fears and concerns about what they can give up on or not give up. then there was this moment when hillary clinton shows the locality to the president -- locality to the president. without revealing too much to the readers about the plot, there is a moment where she shows loyalty and exercises a statement that the president has made in a they the players on the ground, the pam -- palestinians and israelis feel they are stuck in a certain position. they have to unblock that. but the palestinians are sitting there thinking well, you know, we're not going to be more british than the british or more, you know, royal than the king. we're going wait for the americans to deliver what they said they're going deliver. >> host: i think we are talking about the settlement here. >> guest: yeah. >> host: and the

administration's -- >> guest: freezing settlement. glois which is beyond what the palestinians were calling for at the time. >> guest: initially. beyond what the israelis were willing to give. >> host: once the president made the issue the palestinians couldn't be less palestinian in the way than the president. it was interesting there was an camp where i think you said that hillary clinton disagreed with the president -- >> guest: she didn't say it. as far as i can tell. she didn't voice that disagreement at least not forcefully. she picked up on a vibe within the white house. it was about showing netanyahu who was the boss. remember, her husband, bill clinton, was in power in the '90s when netanyahu was prime minister. and there was a lot of frustration there. and i describe that a little bit to explain the context with which people were operating. hillary clinton is in a way wasn't in the policy making aspect of the white house back

in the '90s. she remembers what were interactions were like. rob emanuel was back he was by bill clinton's side. not necessarily advising policy and now he's with president obama. it's sort of informs a little bit of the mood of needing to be bullish and needing to be strong when it comes to dealing dealing with benjamin netanyahu. everybody has been there before. i had american officials tell me that ben -- benjamin netanyahu thinks he can wait it out until he leaves. we're going here longer than him. we can try to move the ball forward a little bit here and there until he's edged out of, you know, the political theme. that's the nature of politicals in israel but, you know, benjamin netanyahu has just been re-elected. there was a series of miscalculations, i think that what i like to -- what i would like to remind people of is

there's a tendency in the arab world and possibly around the world to always say, you know, america did this wrong. it's america's fault. america didn't deliver. i think to some extend there's absolutely truth to that. i think it's also important for people in the region for people like me, people in the arab world to come to grips with their own responsibility about what they can do. obviously it's very difficult for the palestinians to feel like they have the upper hand because, you know, certainly in a difficult position and they're not the strongest party at the negotiating table. but it doesn't help the issues to just blame everything on the united. and that's something that is ingrained in a lot of people's thinking. >> i guess -- i think it's jumping off point.

how to approach various situations around the world. what was her role as secretary of state. was she shaping policy to a certain extend or implementing policy coming from the white house? >> guest: going back a little bit to the israel palestinian discussion. i think she didn't necessarily force her disagreement about the approach the administration was taken. it was in the first year of her tenure, and all she wanted was to show loyalty. that's my reading of what was happening. she may have thought -- i don't think it's the right way to go about it. she didn't necessarily voice that forcefully. i'm not sure there was an open disagreement. that was an breasting -- to former rivals learning to work together as president and secretary of state. but overall in the bigger

picture, i think that she carried a lot of weight. i think there was an -- she was one of the heavy weight at the table alongside bob gates in the first cabinet or in the first term of president obama. she had a lot of experience. and she was a big player on the global stage. president obama was going to be busy at home with the economy. it was one of the many reasons he choose her. he knew she could do that for him on a daily basis in all around the world. and that's why i think that she would bring to him an accurate reading where things stood. what she could deliver to him in terms of moving forward to the agreement and where the players

were when it comes to libya, for example. she lost some battles. she influenced a lot of decisions libya being one and asia definitely. >> and we'll get to libya next, actually. i find that was a very interesting scenario in what happened there. one last question on the israel-palestinian con flick. -- conflict i was covering apeck when hillary clinton spoke at the conference. she mentioned the the time something i thought was interesting. she said where she would be traveling the issue would come up the first, second, or third issue. it struck me as unlikely other than europe that people will be focusing on this destinations and once we saw wikileaks come out and we saw that the saudis weren't particularly that interested. they wanted to talk about iran and cutting the head off the snake. did you get the sense that

beyond maybe israel's immediate neighborhood and beyond europe that was one of the top issues of discussion that people wanted to talk to hillary clinton about? >> guest: it comes up often and beyond those regions. if you're in pakistan, there are immediate concerns that pakistan has -- but america's relationship with israel comes to the in the way that pakistan and afghanistan to explain what america's prism is when it deals with international affairs. it's ongoing. it resonates around the world all the way down to africa and latin america. because it's one of those conflict that is publicly until the headlines. i'm not sure whether every

single world leader she met with wanted to speak about the conflict. i 0 have no doubt it came up often. >> host: it struck me to one of the things that believing it was linked to so many other things. as we'll move to the arab spring. i think it shows that other things are going on. that aren't necessarily focused on the israel-palestinian conflict. and arab spring obviously dominated a lot of secretary of state. it happened suddenly. nobody was anticipating it happening at that moment. maybe they believed that down the road stability would not be maintained with the dictatorship. what was it like to be in covering the state department at the time of the arab spring and how was the state department handling all of these things happening at once? >> guest: they were really scrambling to keep up with the change. i think everybody was. the europeans, the russian, the chinese, perhaps to a lesser extend much further away they

have the own domestic concerns. it was again going back to the point i was making at the beginning. it was a reminder that, you know, the super power is run by real people who what are we going do? what the long-term consequences. how should we handle this? what happens to the relationship --ic the arab spring the chapter around the arab spring are a perfect example of what the book is trying to do. it's trying to bring the reader in to or give the reader front seat row to diplomacy in action.

and learning how to connect the dots. learning low one -- it makes it engaging for people sitting in florida or oregon not sure where y they should care about the arab world. there it's an interesting topic jumping off point for the discussion of american power because for all of this talk of american decline you write in the book that no matter how maybe some people in the region didn't see america as always ben eve lent force. the mist of the storm or revolutions no one was calling to china for recognition. they were calling out for america in some way or another.

nay are. when america doesn't respond people get upset more so than if china doesn't respond. there's a feeling within the arab world and other regions, i think as well. no matter the faults the u.s. should stand up for democracy, human rights, et. cetera. so whatever the history of the united states, whatever the interest that it has to pursue, that is the expectations. >> you're right. it's almost like a catch-22. one official says, you know, if we intervene they say we're meddling. if we stay back they say why aren't you standing up for human rights. no matter what we go, we're on some side of criticism.

>> guest: i goat a official say it swings people are upset in syria and in the region. here in the u.s. you listen to senator john mccain upset that the u.s. isn't intervening. there was perhaps as much upset when the u.s. decided to go to war in iraq. now there's upset because of inaction and, you know, under the bush administration there was upset because of action. it's a struggle to find that fine line. >> host: i think it's break time. [laughter] >> guest: great. glmpleght the central banker can't control everything going on in the economy. >> host: right. >> guest: and so, you know, writers like us it's important what they do and they really go

shape the course of economies and of the world. that said, at the end of the day, they do have finite powers they can use. they when you boil it down. they have a dial that can say we're going to put more money to the or less. kneel irwin on the creation of the world's central banks and how the managers develop global power on after words sundays night at 9:00 eastern. part of booktv this weekend on

c-span2. and then there was libya. which could argue be a success some people say, you know, a distractions or whatnot. a place where hillary clinton played a pivotal role. she travels to france as you document in the book, and she wants to make sure that other people will contribute. it doesn't seem she's getting hints of the obama administration. she wants to make sure that other people will act with the united states if there's action. explain what she is doing in france. >> guest: let me give you the context of the trip. it was one of the most insane trips that i have been on. everything was on the move. it felt like the world was ending. you had the earthquake in japan, with a tsunami there and the nuclear crisis. a crisis with pakistan where cia contractor raymond davis was

detained, you had had the revolution ending in egypt. hosni mubarak had just stepped down. the revolution was ongoing, the uprising was ongoing in libya. syria was erupting and you had a couple of thousand troops marching in to bahrain to quell the unrest there. all of this happening at the same time on the flight to paris and the u.s. is coming under intense pressure to try to do intense pressure to do something about libya where gadhafi was threatening to level the town or the city of ben gas city. that takes you back to the questions you asked about, you know, it's all fast moving and, you know, how do you make sure that you're not making any mistake. you don't have the luxury to

stop. you have to aged it all at the same time. that's one tiny little window in to how, you know, dynamic it is to address all of those challenges. so hillary clinton goes to paris to try to assess where everything is on the issue of libya. because this administration is not going to get involved in my sort of military intervention unlate i are. there's no repeat of that for this administration. they don't want to be leading the charge and find that everybody is standing in the back and criticizing them for having gone forward. they are keeping their cards close to their chest. and hillary clinton is in essence lining up the duck for as i say, in the book, you know, going through the checklist. what do we need -- what does the u.s. need to make the decision to go for intervention? and she goes about very

methodically lining all of that up. she speaks to the brits and french to figure out what they are going to contribute or not if they urns what it entails. she explains the no-fly zone not enough. you have to do more. the arab league just called for a no-fly zone. they are on board. se meets with the libyan opposition leader to sides up -- size up the man. who are we doing business with? it's when she gathers the elements she makes the call and decides it's time to tip the balance in favor of intervention. that's how she operates, as far as i can tell in conversation with the president. she gathers everything she needs to make her case then she does it by making it with the

president. leading him to the natural conclusion as to what is the next step to take. >> host: i think within the scene we see the famous official leading from behind. traditionally you imagine america would make a decision. it's in america's national interest. we are going to gather coalition and compel people or argue people to join us. if they don't join us we think it's in our interest. we'll do it. what we see through your example is that she is first trying to make sure people are going to do something. if they're going doing? , then we'll consider doing it. she's not saying that this is what we need to do. this is in america's national interest. she's waiting for other people to commit to the united states before doing it. it's not that different from the coalition from bush senior for the first gulf war.

that was also a collaborative the united states was leading more openly and vocally. but wants to make sure that everybody was on board. they want a broad coalition. what hillary clinton and president obama do with libya is they say well, you know, it's not really in our national interest at this stage to get involved in this. it matters to our european partners. and the arab world is asking us to help in a way that sounds as though they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. because she also talks to the emirati and ascertains they will participate militarily. because that's often the danger, you know, the united states leads the charge, the arabs don't participate militarily. then they criticize the u.s. for, you know, getting in to a war in other muslim country.

it was about perception of what was happening accurate. do you want to call it from leading behind? it's not from the front. i'm not sure fast characteristickization. how you bring people on board. the u.s. would not have -- do you think the united would have gone in to libya had france and the arab league not . >> guest: the french were adamant they want god go ahead ahead with this. it was part of the one of the factors that shaped the conversation when people were debating this within the administration, you know, clinton tells the president, look, the french are going ahead with this with us or without us. we may as well get in there and sthaip to look like something that we can work with.

there's no point having just a no-fly zone if we're doing it for ten years. what's the point? you need to have a result. that's where the discussion comes in about including the words the measures to protect civilians. that's the final resolution that gets voted on at the u.n. as we are flying back from the region back to the u.s. on that trip that we were discussing. we went to paris, egypt, and then tunisia. it's in the course of the four days that the decision is made. the conversation was very much, you know, the frernlg are going to go ahead. we can let them do whatever we want or we can shape it to something that will deliver for people. >> host: i think my favorite in the trip is -- book is the trip to burma. >> guest: i love that chapter. >> host: just talk about what made that trip so unique, obviously not many people are traveling to burma from the

united states at that time. >> guest: more and more certainly at the time it was hardly anyone. you know, it was a very special moment, and it goes back to when you look at the big picture of what, you know, my book will do for readers. this is a book that is several things. it's, you know, my personal story, my perspective on american power. it is the story of hillary clinton as secretary of state and her approach to the american leadership and the concept of smart power which we can talk about later. how do you do business as a global leader in a challenging world? but it's also a portrait of the woman, you know, this historic figure in the united politician like her or whether you like her or don't like her. she is a global stature. she's a celebrity.

she's a big personality. she's been in the public eye for several decades. but i think that readers will disoifer dr discover things about her they didn't know and see her in a different lying. i think that chapter in burma achieves part of that as well. where you see her -- two amazing wimg for different reasons who come face to face who never met before. it's emotional and very historic. because of who these two women are. and in a way, again, you know, whatever you think of hillary clinton, i think everybody can agree on the fact she is, you know, is a global figure with an important stature on the global stage. she probably rarely meets women or people in general who are to

some extent on the same historic level as hers. i -- write in the book how it's a moment of recognition. and it's not everyday she has the opportunity because she's been under house arrest in burma for so long. she has the opportunity to meet world figures like that. so it was that moment that made the trip special, and that's why i agree with you. it's a great chapter. it's also to see american diplomacy in action and to see a tangible -- if you want to use the wonkish board deliver. there aren't many of those. the opening of burma. still ongoing. no guarantee of long-term success. they seem onen the right path. that was quite a lot special to watch as well. it was done again very

collaboratively. the united states working along partners the region to make this moment happen. >> host: and you said when you landed in burma and traveled around it was the only time the reporters were actually looking outside the window. not because it was unique and interesting which it probably was. there was no blackberry service. >> yes, indeed. we're so addicted to the blackberry on the trip and as people are in washington as well. they sometimes miss looking around you. you don't have time because you're filing your, you know, story, your texting with the editor what they need. for some people checking back home with the family. is everything okay or not for my daughter's birthday i'll be home. you tend to be hunched down on the laptop or, you know, looking at your blackberry. in burma, you know, communications was very limited. internet was very limited. this is a country that is not

north korea. it is quite closed and has been for the last few decades. so it was a great opportunity for us to just, you know, sit back and actually look at the beautiful scene i are and take in what was unfolding in front of us. >> host: let's take on the broad element of the book. we discussed a little bit butlet tackle it head on. i think as we said the book is really an exploration in many ways of american power in the world. questions of american decline. is it happening? is it not? is it a good thing if it was happening? is it not? what was is your conclusion in the really big questions? >> guest: in some ways i'm hoping my readers will draw their own conclusions when they have read all of those different chapter. all of those different angles. all of nuances. it's a little bit like cliff note on international dipty and

affairs, court if you want. done in a fun engaging very colorful way with a lot of paints. i think people remarking on the fact they were exhausted reading the book. i had the turkish foreign minister it seems easy. you can do whatever you want. you wave your wand and make things happen. it's not like that. it's important recognize and it see how you behavior in accordance to that whether you're american or whether you're, you know, overseas. i found that in my research i knew on a sort of, you know, instinct level i went to the intellectual aspect of it.

i knew that the conversation of american decline was headline were there constantly when i was growing up in beirut

can you work with turkey to bring them on board and work toward a common goal. you know, it sounds great and easy. it's not that easy. but i think that clin to be, her advisers, i mentioned jake sullivan, the deputy chief of staff and appointed to work as a national security advisers for the vice president and people around the president as well. they saw smart power collaborative approach to power as a more realistic long-term strategy for maintaining global leadership for the united states . if you don't want american leadership if you resent american power, it's something you there to learn to work with as well, of course. i think that as clinton told me

in one of the many interviews i did. i interviewed her nineteen times and she sat down with me for an interview for the book as well. it doesn't work anymore to say you are with us or against us. the united states isn't in that position anymore. if only because of the economy. this isn't an unrivaled economic super power anymore. it doesn't have the money to throw around what it wants done. >> i saw hints in the book at least of you coming to terms asking questions about some people want american -- what does it mean? do you want china to replace america? would it be good for the world. no power to have a significant say. would that be good? i took away the impression that in some ways personal because it's not only the broad question of american power. it's relating it to the experience back in beirut and what you learned in the secretary of state that you think that america having a strong presence in the world. the strongest presence in the

world even if you think it's relatively declined is a positive. am i misreading that? >> guest: the relative decline thing. i think american power is changing. i think the notion of power is changing. i'm not a big fan of the word decline. i don't think it reflects necessarily the reality and, you know, i'm a policy maker. from where i'm standing as a journalist and someone who has lived, if you will, on the receiving end of decisions made in washington, i'm not sure that the word decline is the right one. it is certainly the one used in the debate. i think that what i found was that there was no one else who could take on the role at the moment. practically speaking. that the u.s. has. you know, china isn't ready to take on the role of the super power, and i also discuss how having no one superpower or no

leading superpower, you know, can lead to global gridlock. and, you know, there have been many bookings written about if you don't have one leading superpower it leads to g0 world when is a phrase coined by e began. no decisions gets made. look at syria now. because the u.s. is unsure what to do. no one is quite doing anything. they are doing a little bit of this. the they are arming the turks want to do this. no one is really coming in and taking charge. that's what happens when the united states doesn't put the foot down and say this is what i think we should do. i think the way they approach that and how to move forward requires the united states to do it as i've within saying in a more collaborative way to get people on board rather than lecture them and bully them in to doing something, you know, we may be wrong. in a few years we'll see the

world changing again. i'm not sure. i don't have a crystal ball. but certainly at the moment it looks like it does still require american leadership even if it's collaborative to get something done. >> and people still on the ground as we mentioned -- you talk about a trip to to beirut you took in the summer of 2011 in the midst of the arab spring in some casings dictators have already been in egypt. >> guest: yeah. syria was rerupting. >> host: and you have two friend, not just one -- >> guest: i have several. i. i thought i should condense. >> host: asking if it was organize straited by america. if what is their plan with lebanon? they couldn't imagine that a super power like america wasn't pulling the strings. >> guest: it was an interesting moment that i found very revealing of the continued

perception of america as a master puppeteer pulling all the strings. it was an inherit contradiction in what my friends were saying or other people in the region where simultaneously they were praising people power. which had brought down mubarak, which had to some extend brought gadhafi and at the same time they were convinced that the united states was pulling autostrings. and i don't know how you reconcile the two images. my explanation is that, you know, when chaos erupts around you. you want to find a neat tidy explanation for why you continue have control. that's what my experience was like growing up in lebanon. there was war, and i can't do anything about it. there must be someone responsible. and beyond, you know, the militia leaders and my country somebody must be pulling the

strings string somewhere. it must be america that provides a neat explanation for why you are powerless. it's not an accurate explanation. not always. i mean, america is certainly powerful and pulls quite a few strings. doesn't have control over everything. it doesn't have control over the outcome of the decision that takes. look at the iraq war. it was supposed to go according to certain plan. it didn't work out the way people anticipated. so it's contradiction and i don't know where weather we will move beyond that. but i think that one thing that clinton did very well as secretary of state in the relentless public diplomacy was to be very sort of pragmatic in the way she explained to people, you know, what the u.s. was doing. and very as a matter of fact about it. she even, you know, i say that

in the book. we don't have a magic wanted we can wave. of course the united doesn't have a magic wand. everybody knows that on some level. there's an expectations. it's a fine line that's you have to walk as an american leader between saying we don't have the answers. we're still the superpower. how do you project power? but at the same time not raise people's expectations too much. it's a very difficult line to walk. >> legacy time. what will history look back and say of hillary clinton's time of secretary of state. nothing with north korea or iran but the relationship with pakistan is a little bit better. it's a still a mess. what has she achieved? that's a valid point.

there aren't necessarily that many pieces of paper to hold up and say this is a agreement we signed and achievement there. you have her fans or the people who like her approach to diplomacy who will say what she really did was change the way the u.s. does business around the world and try to apply the concept of smart power. deploy all the tools and toolbox of american diplomacy. development, -- defense, and diplomacy. of course. i think that in a way will be part of her legacy. but it's very much a work in progress. we have to see whether building on that continues with the new secretary of state with second term of president obama.

she was about the big picture. she realized there was a lot of talk about america decline. what america was facing the financial crisis. and she was struck by the perception that people had of the united states and the country she loved. she believes in american leadership and people are asking her who are you? what do you stand for? are you still a superpower. everything seems to be going in meltdown in washington. she reasserted that perception of america as a global power. repaired some of the damage to alliances that america had around the world. i spoke to several foreign minister for the book. it's a layered book.

whether it was the turk, the french, or pakistan the united has a difficult relationship. i had people say she was one of the greatest secretary of state the united states has had. i think history will tell you whether or wonder if the celebrity factor contributes to the perception. thing is something there worth examining. >> host: yeah. i guess the president himself is going claim she's going down in history as one of the greatest secretary of state. as you mention, i think it's --

it's a hard thing to make a case for without necessarily any cig chiewr agreement. you mention in the book she choose not to make a signature issue out of any one problem around the world. >> guest: except for women. it's one of the issues she took on and made part of the mainstream conversation. with every single world leader she met, she discussed women's issues and she put it in very pragmatic terms. you want to improve the economy? you have to got to include the other half of the country. otherwise you're not going to move forward. and i have seen officials at the state department and even across washington and, you know, overseas as well roll their eyes and say women's issues. it's a nice soft power thing to have. it's not the urgency. it's not the urgent question of the day. she knead very much part of the discussion. she made people realize well, if you want to move forward, you cannot leave behind half the population.

so -- >> host: i found it interesting that, you know, one of the cases that you make and they set out in the beginning of the administration is to repair america's image in the world. while that was in some cases in europe, there was a few polls from 2008 to 2012 in places i found it somewhat striking in pakistan and jordan -- >> guest: you mean turkey. >> host: down in turkey, beirut, egypt, it's down from the last year of george w. bush's administration. but i want to ask one last question before we end here. i think we should touch on benghazi a little bit. how do you think that will affect hillary clinton's legacy. it l it be a lasting tarnish she'll be able to escape or something that history doesn't blame her for. >> guest: briefly on the poll issue. i think polls, you know, aren't always an accurate reading behalf is going on. and no doubt that perceptions of the united states will continue to go up and down. it's very much dependent end on what world events are there.

it's often driive bay frustration that america isn't helping more. just to make that point. it is -- what this administration set out to do isn't repair the image per se but improve the perception and make it possible have conversations with allies or friends or countries that you don't necessarily have a conversation with before. i think benghazi is a moment that will continue to be associated with the secretary's tenure. knows caping that. it happened on her watch. i think some questions still remain unanswered. questions that she could answer, questions that the cia, the pentagon, and the white house have to answer. but the partisan nature of the political debate has to some extent blurred the picture a little bit. i think with the big picture with information we have now. i don't think changes her legacy that much. but it will definitely be used against her if she decides to run for president or if she reenters political life.

very briefly the big picture is that these things -- these tragedies unfortunately happen. when you're doing the diplomacy in dangerous places or journalist in dangerous places. there was definitely a security failure. something went terribly long. america lost one of the great ambassadors. remember beirut 1983 under president reagan's watch. that bombing isn't necessarily the first thing people associate with president reagan. he was re-elected. it's hard to tell at this stage how it will affect fully her legacy. it's a moment that will continue to be associated with her time in office. >> host: thank you so much for the book and interview. >> guest: thank thank you very much for having me. it was a pleasure. >> host: thank you. >> guest: thank you.

it's important to remember central banker his tools are limited. they can't control everything that goes on in the economy. >> host: right. [laughter] >> guest: and to, you know, writers like us, it's very important what they do. and they really do shape the course of economies and of the world. that said, at the end of the day, they do have finite pours they can use. when you really boil it down. they have a dial they can say we're going put more money to the economy or less. it's more complicated than that. as you and i know. they can regulate banks and influence things in other ways. but to think that everything gone wrong is their fault is wrong. to think that everything has gone right is, you know, alan green span probably got too much credit for the moderation and the strong growth in 2000, you know, it's easy to blame alan

and the federal reserve before the crisis for what we see now is probably overseeing things as well. >> on the creation of the world central bankers and how the managers develop global power. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. next here on c-span2, state department undersecretary talking about issues facing women in the arab world. that's followed by former irish president and u.n. high commissioner for human rights mary robinson on her career. later, a discussion with jennifer lawless, director of american university's women in politics institute. on the next washington journal, russell moore president elect of the southern baptist commission discussions the role of religion in politics. katrina editor in publisher of

"the nation" looks how progressive values are featured in political battles from immigration to gun control. and sint cynthia look at the american diet and the obesity and diabetes rates. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you're watching c-span2 with public affair and politics. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. weeknight watch key public policy event and latest non-fiction authors and book on booktv. you can see past program and get our schedule at our website. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. undersecretary of state talking about some of the advances and continued challenges for women in the arab world. the brookings institution in

washington. it's just under an hour. welcome to the center for middle east policy at the brookings institution. i'm glad to have you here. i'm the director of the center. i'm truly delighted to welcome to our stage this morning undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. we are here just almost exactly on your one-year anniversary joining the state department as undersecretary for public diplomacy. what we wanted to do today was really have an opportunity to delve in to a particular aspect of the sweeping change that is taking place in the middle east today. the arab awakening has brought

tremendous opportunities and openings. it's also brought a great deal of anxiety and questions. and i think on no issue is that mix of hope and anxiety more prevalent than around the status of women. women's equality, women's empowerment. women's rights in the middle east. and just a week past the end of women's history month, we thought what it was a good time to take stock of where things stand. why this issue is important, and what the united states is doing as part of the broader support for change in the middle east. what is it doing to support the empowerment and equality of women and girls. i could not be happier than to

have my friend here with us to help us address these questions. she is a long time media professional. but she's also somebody throughout her career has worked on, has written about, has spoken on issues of women's empowerment and women's inclusion. here in the united and in foreign affairs. and she brought that deep concern and commitment to the issue of women's empowerment with her to the state department. she is in her role as undersecretary a champion for this issue in american diplomacy continuing the work laid out by secretary clinton and land revere who was ambassador at large for global women's issues. terra came to the state

department after a long and distinguished career in media, strategic communication, and diplomacy. she was executive vice president at the u.s. institute of peace, a communications adviser to a host of organizations involved in foreign affairs and diplomacy including the international crisis group. the american academy of diplomacy, and the international women's media foundation. many of you may originally have come to know tara through the work at abc news where she had a wonderful career as producer of "nightline," as a reporter at the pentagon, and also as a contributing editor at "newsweek." tara has been a public face and public voice for women in public affairs for many years. and i'm delighted that you are with us this morning, tara. the podium is yours, tara.

[applause] [applause] >> well, i want to thank back to you, tamara, for not only hosting me. but so many incarnations we have worked on projects together. and you continue to be a role model for women and for men in foreign policy and we thank you and applaud all you do. thank you. [applause] well, i was hoping to start the speech by saying spring has finally arrived. but i'm going to drop that line. but i do wish spring would fully arrive for the women of the middle east and north africa. as we meet here this morning, fifty percent of that region's

population -- those many of whom are on the frontlines of democratic change in egypt, tunisia, libya, they are denied equal or even remotely equal roles after the rev lyings -- revolution. fear not, i'm not going to deliver the speech you have heard a million times before about the importance of women. no, i think we are moving beyond that speech in to what i think of as a post-rhetoric stage of this issue. instead i want to ask you a few provocative questionses. should we really care about increasing the role of women in the arab world? i mean, beyond just feeling good about ourselves. if so, why?

really, will the full inclusion of women, practically speaking, politically speaking, economically speaking, is it really going make a difference amid this uncertain even chaotic transition? and how will we know what success even looks like? so let me break it con. -- down. on the issue: why care? yes. fairnd and human dignity are universal values. but, you know, i notice we tend to embrace those values very strongly when it comes to talking about, like, the global economy. level playing fields, open rules, fairness, transparency, essential, so men and women can

compete on the basis of their talent and economic drive. what about in the broader sense of human rights? this week former secretary hillary clinton came to the -- stage of the kennedy center. we were all reminded of her remarks twenty -- almost twenty years ago in bay shinning. can you believe that was almost twenty years ago? and remember how she put it so memorably and i quote her women's rights and women's rights are human rights. ..