biden family are now in mourning over the tragic death of the vice president's son beau nine days ago. to tony and the vice president's many other friends in this room today we offer our sincere condolences. the world with which ajc interacts every day in our global jewish advocacy work is a world in jeopardy and in massive transition with new and evolving threats threats, competing national interests and some, but not quite enough true friends. today i'm privileged to ask deputy secretary of state anthony j. blinken a true

friend of ajc and a remarkable american to join us here on the stage. [ applause ] >> well, thank you all very very much. it is wonderful to be with you today. stan, thank you for those incredibly kind and generous words and thank you also for your reference to vice president biden and his family in this incredibly difficult time. beau biden is one of the finest people i've had the privilege to know and his loss first and foremost for his family but also for the country is a great one. so i deeply appreciate your recognition. i would also like to recognize

david harris an exemplary leader, a global citizen a good friend who is celebrating 25 years at the helm of the ajc. [ applause ] >> david, congratulations mazel tov. we look forward to 25 more years. and shalom, as well, to the israelits israel i audience and including the former minister of bulgaria. it's great to be with you today, as well. [ applause ] >> it's a real pleasure to join all of you and to see so many familiar faces even if mine wasn't the one you were hoping for. secretary kerry very much wanted

to be here today. as i think many of you know he has great admiration for the work that you do to advocate for the security of israel the well-being of the jewish people and the human dignity of all. he may be off his feet for a short while, but he is very much in the lead of all of our efforts across the board. in fact, i have to tell you, probably the smartest thing we did at the state department was to sign up for the at&t family plan because the secretary has been burning up the phone lines night and day. no time zone is safe but we're all looking forward to having him back in the office very very soon. we're also very fortunate to have an extraordinary team at the state department promoting religious freedom and advance peace and security in the middle east. our reformant david annerstein and larry silver mean and wendy

sherman. they are exemplary public servants of the highest caliber. but their work our work would not be possible without yours. scholars and students, community members, global leaders who are building relationships across religious, ethnic and national lines from sophia to tokyo, sao paulo to new delhi. you've been called the state department of the jewish people. a title so apt i may start giving out some assignments today. yours is a community whose beliefs as dr. martin luther king described it have quote boldly been expressed and resolutely supported by deeds and by action. for over a century, ajc has raised its voice in defense of those who cannot, fighting oppression with unflinching at vok assy and intolerance with unwavering commitment. you were present in san

francisco at the birth of the united nations where you advocated for the inclusion of strong human rights safeguards in the charter and championed the high commission for human rights. you dedicated years of diplomacy, research and dialogue to help shape nostre data, passed by the vatican council that hailed a new era in catholic-jewish relationship and stood against hatred and persecution by anything and anyone, and you have been an indispensable partner to president obama and his predecessors in america's iron-clad commitment to israel's future as a secure, democratic, prosperous jewish state. i quote, it would be a moral failing on the part of the u.s. government and the american people. it would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stand up firmly steadfastly not just on behalf of israel's right to

exist, but its right to thrive and to prosper, end quote. that was president obama last month at the israel congregation here in washington. for more than 65 years -- [ applause ] >> for more than 65 years since israel's founding during periods of war and peace calm and crisis, u.s. administrations of all stripes have backed the staunch, unshakeable commitment with concrete support, but no administration and no president has done as much for israel's security as president obama. [ applause ] >> don't just take my word for it. listen to another voice who called this administration's support for israel's security, and i quote, unprecedented, and

that is the voice of israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu. this is true in terms of our strategic and operational coordination. simply put it has never been stronger. our nations' armed forces have conducted more joint military strikes with israel than ever before including the largest exercise in our history. this has strengthened our military capabilities and the security of both our countries. at every level of our relationship we're engaging in more comprehensive and meaningful consultations than ever before from our political leaders to our intelligence officers to our defense officials. that unprecedence is true in terms of our vigilance to protect israel's legit mass owe the world stage and fight for its full and equal participation in u.n. institutions. we helped secure israel's permanent membership in the western european and others group as well as membership in the like-minded human rights caucus from which it had long

been excluded in new york. last year the united states opposed 18 resolutions in the u.n. general assembly that were biased against israel. on five occasions last year the u.s. cast the only no vote against unfair anti-israel measures in the u.n.'s human rights council. we will -- [ applause ] >> we will continue to stand with israel and against one-sided biased resolutions even if we are the only country on earth to do so. [ applause ] >> and finally our unprecedented support for security can be seen in israel's defense. last year, as you know, despite difficult budgetary times the united states provided israel with more security assistance than ever before, $3.1 billion. since 2011 the united states has

provided over $1.3 million for iron dome, a missile defense system that has saved lives, protected homes schools, hospitals from a rainfall of rockets like those that fell again just this past weekend from gaza. [ applause ] >> to guard against more distant and equally dangerous threats we worked with israel to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles and shorter rangis in ils. we collaborated on a radar system linked to early warning satellites in the event of a missile attack and we will soon start deliveries to israel of the f-35 joint strike fighter making israel the only country in the middle east with the most advanced fighter in the world. [ applause ]

>> this administration has also stood firmly with israel in its quest for peace with its neighbors and a prerequisite for long-term stability and the preservation of true and secure democracy in the jewish homeland. as president obama has repeatedly emphasized, the united states will never stop working to realize the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security because this is the best way to guarantee israel's future as a democratic jewish state. [ applause ] >> taken together, these examples are reflective of a president and an administration with a deep personal and abiding concern for israel's security and its future, and i can attest to this to you from direct personal experience. last summer late on a thursday during the gaza crisis when i was still in my position at the

white house i got a call from israel's ambassador to the united states ron termer and ron said i would like to come over to see you urgently any time you can see me and i said come over now and he arrived at the white house around 8:30 at night and he told me that israel needed an emergency resupply of more interceptors for the iron dome system and the ambassador and israel's defense attache ran through the substance of what they needed and why they needed it immediately. the very next day, friday morning i went to the oval office and briefed president obama. he responded with three words. get it done. and by tuesday -- [ applause ] by tuesday, just a few short days later we had an additional 225 million in short-fuse funding from the u.s. congress to do just that.

the united states and israel may not always see eye to eye we may have our differences but our bedrock security relationship is sackrosanct and i am here to tell you it is stronger than ever. [ applause ] and i can tell you another thing this morning. it's at the very top of our minds as we sit at the negotiating table with iran. the united states and israel share an absolute conviction that iran must not under any circumstances be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. [ applause ] >> when it comes to that core, strategic goal there is not an inch of daylight between the united states and israel. now we continue to believe that the very best way to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon is through a verified negotiated agreement that resolves the international

community's legitimate concerns and as a practical matter makes it impossible for iran without giving us the means and the time to see it and to stop it. the june 30th deadline is fast approaching, and we do not yet have a comprehensive agreement and there remains a chance that we won't get one. if we don't get what we need on a few key issue we won't get there, but as secretary kerry announced in loson in april, the deal we're working for will have four pathways to secure for a weapon, the iranian pathway, the plutonium pathway through iran's heavy water reactor at iraq and a potential covert pathway. to cut off these pathways any comprehensive arrangement must include exceptional constraints on the exceptional program and monitoring and transparency measures that maximize the

international community's ability to break out overtly or covertly. let me take this opportunity here today to address some of the concerns that are floating around the deal that we're working toward and i have to tell you that many of these concern are simply misplaced and are more myth than fact. first, the deal that we are working to achieve will not expire. there will not be a so-called sunset. different requirements to the deal will have different durations, but some including iran's commitment to all of the obligations of the non-proliferation treaty including the obligation not to build a nuclear weapon as well as the monitoring provisions of the protocol, those would continue in perpetuity. by contrast, in the absence of

an agreement iran's obligations under the interim arrangement we reached, the so-called joint plan of action. those would sunset immediately and then iran likely would speed to an industrial-scale program with tens of thousands of centrifuges. second, this deal would provide such extensive levels of transparency that if iran fails to comply with the international community's obligations, we'll know about it and we will know it virtually right away, giving us plenty of time to respond diplomatically or if necessary by other means. most of the sanctions would be suspended, not ended for a long period of time with the provisions to snap back automatically if iran reneges on his commitments. third, we would not agree to a deal unless the iaea has granted access to whatever iranian sites are required to verify that iran's program is exclusively peaceful. period.

[ applause ] >> fourth there is simply no better option to prevent iran from obtaining the material for nuclear weapon than a comprehensive agreement that meets the parameters that we set and announced in loson. i have to tell you that unfortunately, it is a fantasy to believe that iran will simply capitulate to every demand if we ratchet up the pressure even more through sanctions. after all, iran suffered even more through the great deprivations of the war with iraq and despite intensifying pressure over the last decade iran went from just 150 centrifuges in 2002 to 19,000 before we reached the interim agreement. more is it likely that our international partners without whom our sanctions are not effective would go along with the plan.

they signed to get iran to the negotiating table and to secure our interests and not to force iran to abandon a peaceful nuclear program. up until now we've kept other country onboard despite the economic loss it presents for some of them because they're convinced we're serious about diplomacy and reaching a diplomatic solution. if they lose that belief it's the united states, not iran that risks being isolated and the sanctions regime we've worked so hard to build will crumble away. and to those who would prefer that we sichl lie take military action now against iran without going the last, diplomatic mile, you need to consider that such a response would first destroy the international sanctions coalition and second, only set iran's nuclear plan back by a few years best and it would bury it deep under growth fund and speed toward a nuclear weapon.

>> with the agreement that we're working to conclude, we have a chance to achieve much, much more than that. the united states continues to believe as we have in day one that no deal is preferable to a bad deal impeach we've had plenty of opportunities throughout the negotiating process. to take a bad deal we did not and we will not. [ applause ] >> and we know just like the interim agreement we reached, any comprehensive agreement will be subject to the legitimate scrutiny of our citizens, our congress and our closest partners. we welcome that scrutiny and we will not agree to any deal that cannot withstand it. at the same time, i would say to any opponents of the agreement if we reach it you'll have an obligation, too. here in the united states you will have an obligation to tell the american people exactly what

you would do differently and exactly how you would get it done. [ applause ] >> many of you will recall how after we signed the interim joint plan of action that enabled us to begin these comprehensive negotiations there are those who have told us we've made a tragic mistake that iran wouldn't comply and the sanctions regime that we painstakingly built over so many years would crumble that we had jeopardized the safety and security of our nation and our partners, but president obama and secretary of state kerry maintained that the united states, our partners, including israel and the entire world would become safer the day after the joint plan of action was implemented. that is exactly what happened. a year and a half ago iran's nuclear program was rushing full speed ahead toward larger stockpiles, greater uranium

enrichment capacity and weapons-grade plutonium and shorter breakout times and today iran has lived up to its commitments under that plan of action and it's halted the nuclear program and rolled it back in some key respects for the first time in a decade. how do we know that? because today, as a result of the interim agreement the international inspectors the iaea have daily access to iran's enrichment facilities and a far deeper understanding of iran's nuclear program. they've been able to learn new things about iran's centrifuge production uranium mines and other facilities and they've been able to verify that iran is indeed honoring its commitments. if we do reach a comprehensive deal it will not end nor will it alter our commitment to supporting those in iran, demanding greater respect for universal rights and the rule of law, and we continue to insist that iran release said abdinny, jason rezia and help us find

robert levineson. [ applause ] >> and reaching a comprehensive deal will not alter our commitment to fighting iran's efforts to spread instability and support terrorism. this will not change with or without a deal. but iran with a nuclear weapon without a nuclear weapon excuse me, will be far less emboldened to take destabilizing actions in the region. it would reduce the pressure for nuclear arms race and strengthen the international nonproliferation regime. in short there is a greater step toward greater global security, for the united states, for israel and for all of our partners in the region. finally, i'd like to address this morning another grave concern, and that is the deeply disturbing rise in anti-semitism in parts of our world that have

already seen how this tragic story ends. in the last few years, as all of you know so well there have been horrific attacks on jews from brussels to paris to copenhagen. in some countries we're seeing a rise in government officials and media personalities spinning abhorrent, dangerous anti-semitic conspiracy theories about jewish individual about israel and about the united states and in a few places we see the rise of extreme right-wing parties from hungary to golden dawn in greece, openly embracing nazi-like hatred of jews. this is happening today, just 70 years after the holocaust. just 70 years after we pledged never again while survivors of the shoa are still with us to bear witness. with organizations like ajc at the forefront, communities are

mobilizing in response. in france germany, the united kingdom, leaders have strongly condemned these acts of vile hatred reinforced security and communities around key sites and expressed their unshakeable solidarity with the citizens and citizens of many faiths have formed human rings of protection around synagogues and denmark and sweden and norway, but more, much more must be done to make this fight a global priority. last month the ajc released a very thought provoking call to action on anti-sechlmitism that all of us can benefit from and this includes developing new curricula for civic education undertaking thorough studies at of jewish communities and blocking media sites that encite hate and violence, but all of you know so very well that anti-semitism is not just a jewish issue.

it's not a jewish issue, period. it cannot be addressed by jewish is communities a lobe it's a threat to open societies in every corner of the globe. [ applause ] it's simple. we cannot and we will not tolerate it. that's why the united states is devoting more and more resources to this fight, our embassies, our consulates, are increasingly involved in supporting jewish communities under pressure and under threat. at the u.n. and other international institutions our dip the mas are undertaking efforts to push back against anti-semitism unfortunately on virtually a daily basis. earlier this year the u.s. worked with israel and the european union to organize the first u.n. general assembly session on antisemitism in u.s. history where people of all

faiths took to the podium to denounce anti-semitism and pledged to halt its alarming rise. and over the last two years they combat anti-semitism and our reform has countries and 37 communities to discuss the deteriorating situation and find new ways to combat anti-semitism wherever it exists. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, for over 100 years, ajc has led the campaign against intolerance, against injustice, against a false choice between security and peace for the state of israel. for what ajc has always known and what the world must now understand is that these issues don't just affect someone else. someone else's freedom, someone else's dignity and someone else's safety. they affect all of us each of

us. they undermine our security. they defy our humanity and they call into question our most basic values and they're personal, and i have to tell you they're personal to me as well. last summer at the height of the conflict in gaza i exchanged emails with a cousin who has been living in tel aviv for nearly 30 years. she wrote to me and the rest of our family about living with the constant worry for her children especially her eldest son who is training for the engineering unit that would be deployed to uncover tunnels and dismantle bombs. she wrote about living with the fear that terrorists were tunnelling underground and could kidnap or kill her fellow citizens. she wrote about transforming their storage room back into a bomb shelter, about cycling to work with one ear bud out of her ear so that she could hear the air raid sirens, about living on

a 90-second timer because that's how much time you have to get to a bomb shelter when the sirens go off. as i read her emails, i thought of the mothers and fathers in israel who send their children off to school or military service and endure each day in the desperate hope that their sons and daughters will be okay. i thought of the mothers and fathers in gaza who face their worst nightmare when their children were caught in the cross fire and i thought of how these parents share more experiences in pain than they do in joy and how it must be, how it can be the reverse. this is not naive optimism or false hope but rather the conviction that the steps we take today together can make all of us more free and more secure. the conviction that a two-state

solution is the best and only way to preserve israel's future as a secure democratic jewish state as well as fulfill the rightful aspirations of the palestinians to a state, that a verified negotiated comprehensive agreement is the only way to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and it is the only way to uphold the democratic values on which our societies are built. as they have for over a century, the voices of ajc remain essential in shaping this future in setting us on a better course. it is daunting. it is uncertain but we pursue this bitter future with courage and commitment and the confidence that comes from being with you in the very best of company. may your voices, your bold expressions and resolute actions, may they always carry far and wide so that together we

may usher in a world that is just a little bit more just, more free and more secure for everyone. thank you very very much. [ applause ] thank you. c-span's road to the white house coverage continues today when former florida governor jeb bush formally enters the 2016 presidential race with an event in miami. that's live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. tuesday, businessman donald trump will announce his decision whether to run for president. you can see that live at 11:00 a.m. on c-span3. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on

c-span3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant hearings and public affairs, vents and on weekends c-span3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series and the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key, ven events and touring museums to discover what artifacts reveal about america's best. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers and the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past and our new series, real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through '70s. c-span3 created by the cable industry and funded by your local cable and satellite provider and like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. this weekend of the c-span cities tour has partnered with

comcast. to learn about the history and literary life of key west, florida. earnest hemingway wrote seval of his novels at this home in key west. >> they found this house for sale and bought it for $8,000 in 1931, and pauline actually converted this hay loft into his first, formal writing studio. here, he fell in love with fishing and he fell in love with the clarity of his writing how fast he was producing and the work, in fact, he knocked out the first roughdraft of a farewell to arms in two weeks after arriving in key west. he had a line he said if you want to write start with one true sentence. >> for a true writer, each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. he should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. >> key west is also where president harry truman sought refuge from washington.

>> president truman regarded the big white house as the great white jail. he felt he was constantly under everyone's eye and so by coming to key west he could come with his closest staff let down his hair and sometimes some of their staff would let their beards grow for a couple of days and they certainly at times used off-color stories and they certainly could have a glass of bourbon and, you know visit back and forth without any scrutiny from the press. a sportswear company sense a case of hawaiian shirts to the president with the thought that if the president's wearing our shirt we'll sell a lot of shirts. so president truman wore those free shirts that first year and then organized what they called the loud shirt contest and that was the official uniform of key west. >> watch all of our events from key west saturday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2's book tv and

sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. and taking you live here today, live c-span coverage from the brookings institution with a look at how the u.n. is adapting to new, global challenges. we'll be hearing from the chief of staff to the u.n. secretary-general. the discussion hosted by the foreign policy program at brookings. it's set to begin shortly.

and just waiting for things to get under way here at the brookings institute in washington, d.c. we'll be hearing from the u.n. secretary-general's chief of staff about some of the new challenges facing the united

nations. this discussion is hosted by the foreign policy program here at brookings. also to let you know right here on c-span3, in about an hour and a half we expect jeb bush to officially enter the presidential race for 2016. the 62-year-old former florida governor will kick off his campaign with a speech and a rally near his home in south florida. he'll be at miami-dade university, the 11th candidate seeking the republican nomination. we'll take you there live expected to start at 3:00 eastern time and live coverage here on c-span3.

and just waiting for this conversation about the united nations to get under way running a few minutes late. it was supposed to start about 1:30. it sounds like it will get started in a couple more minutes here. we want to let you know what's going on on capitol hill. the house will be in in 20 minutes and they'll be working this week on medicare and changes to the federal healthcare law and we could also see a vote on the taa, the trade

adjustment assistance and we'll see a vote on that by tomorrow at the latest and the senate gaveling at 2:00 eastern, as well and they'll begin with speeches and the senate at 3:00 will resume debate on defense programs and right after the united nations talk here at brookings we're going to be taking you live to miami for jeb bush officially entering the presidential race this afternoon. the former florida governor kicking off his campaign with a speech and a rally at miami-dade university. he'll be the 11th candidate seeking the republican nomination. you can watch his remarks live. we're planning on taking your phone calls right after that and tomorrow donald trump expected to announce his decision on whether or not he'll be running for president tomorrow. live coverage here on c-span3 at len 11:00 a.m. eastern time. again, expecting this to start any moment here at the brookings institution in washington, d.c.

>> and here at the brookings institution at washington, d.c., about to get under way hopefully any minute here. supposed to start at 1:30 eastern time and just behind schedule and we're expected to hear -- it's being hosted by the foreign policy program here at brookings and then right after this event at about 3:00 eastern time we expect that jeb bush will be officially entering the presidential race kicking off his campaign with a speech at miami-dade university near his home in south florida. he'll become the 11th candidate seeking the nomination for the republican party. you can watch his remarks here live on c-span3 and he'll be taking your phone calls immediately after his remarks. ladies and gentlemen, good

afternoon. my name is tom pickering and it's my special pleasure to introduce this afternoon's distinguished guest susana malcorra who is the cabernet of the secretary of united nations. a moment ago we were chatting about her job, how interest it is and how tough it is and i'm sure she brings to those particular challenges her own distinguished and indeed deeply experienced career. as many of you will know she preceded this present job which she undertook in march 2012 by a four-year stint as under secretary-general for field support. an extremely challenging job dealing with between 80 and 120,000 peacekeepers around the world, many missions of the united nations and many taxing and challenging questions. she said of her present job to

me just a moment ago, it's everything between the bombing of sana'a on one hand and ten minutes later a fire in the u.n. garage, and i can imagine it is. hopefully there are none today no fires in the u.n. garage that are being left unattended by your presence here. prior to her work is the undersecretary-general for field support and she had also a distinguished career in the world food program, which as you know undertakes the burden of providing to those needy all around the world. the donated and surplus foods that can become made available and provided to many many thousands of recipients. she was the chief operating officer and the deputy director general of that organization. she brings, as well to us today a distinguished background in the private sector and a very

interesting one. she worked for ibm in the early stages of her career in argentina, and then left that job, that set of job and went into telefonicas argentinas of her country where she rose to very responsible positions in directing that work of that particular organization. so she comes to us with experience that is vast both in the private sector and now in the international organization in the united nations sector. today we are here talking about the future of the united fignations and the potential for change. i would like if i can take a few minutes to talk about one or two of the challenges that are out there. having spent a little bit of time myself in dealing with the security council, i think it remains at the heart of the organization's capacity to deal with today's overwhelming

problems of threat to peace and security and in that regard we consistently look at the security council, sometimes in anguish over its inability to get its act together and sometimes in deep admiration that it has the capacity thoughtfully to provide for the legitimacy and indeed the processes that can help the international community deal directly with threats to peace and security. the veto is, of course something that no representative of any permitted member would wish to talk about in public. i used to do it somewhat as a basis of deciding how strong and firm my own career was in the united states, but the year that i left american government employment in 2000, i made a proposal which i thought then had legs. i don't think it does now, but our friends in france are

following that proposal with some interest so i thought i would just mention it briefly because i think it can help set off a little bit of our discussion and a little bit of the interesting issues. the veto, in my view, should be used to promote the interests of the organization, and protect the permitted members of the security council when what they consider are the highest order of vital interests being threatened and not for other purposes. it is, unfortunately as we now know well used for other purposes, some of them are ephemeral and some of them highly political and some of them to send signals and none of them, in my view worth the notion of stymieing the work of the security council. my view was and still is that in cases like genocide and genocide is a particularly important question, the security council ought to adopt a voting

convention. among the five permanent members that when they cannot reconcile a draft and three of them oppose it, then it would be a vetoable draft. if there are less than three opponents that would help, obviously in negotiating perhaps a draft with wider scope and vigor, but when they're less than three then the others would agree that they should abstain. in my view, this was possible back in the early '90s when, in fact, we emerged from the cold war and we had errors of good feeling and we had the effective operation of the security council. it is not now. i would temper the voting convention by several caveats. one that i mentioned a moment ago that the voting convention would work except when one of the permanent members felt that a truly vital interest was at stake and told the other members why it would break the voting

convention and secondly my view would be it could be much more acceptable on a broader basis if two-thirds of the members of the general assembly asked the security council to operate under the use of this particular voting convention when threats to peace and security were on the agenda of the security council. these are wonderful ideas. they don't solve the problem, obviously, of how do we get more representation of more deserving states on the security council but my sense is that were we to resolve the question of the use of veto in a way that much more tightly restricted its application, we could perhaps, open the door in a more positive way to slightly broader representation and that would in, itself, be a help. so thank you, madam chef dekalber na for giving me the opportunity to deliver this

message to our audience and thank you for being with us and thank you for coming to the platform to give us your thoughts and your remarks. we all look forward to those with a great deal of interest and anticipation. thank you. [ applause ] >> good afternoon, everyone. it's a pleasure to be here today. i want to thank the brookings institute for this opportunity. in particular, i want to thank bruce johns for giving me the chance to be here with you today. i also want to add my thanks to ambassador tom pickering. i mean his introduction put a high bar for me, and sort of makes me wonder how much in trouble i may get. i would like to start by referring to the fact that 2015 is a very special year for the

united nations. i'm sure you all remember that this is the 70th anniversary of the united nations which essentially is time to take stock to define what the institution has done so far and to fundamentally think what it is the institution should be doing towards the future. so it's a very relevant year for all of us. i think, for the world at a moment when things are not easy in the world. so the combination of us trying to look inward and see how we have moved so far and the external threats and external factors that put pressure on the united nations are combined before us. the first thing i would like to say is that when we look at the u.n. and we look at the charter of the u.n., and i will invite you to read the charter of the

u.n. if you haven't done it it's very interesting because the founding member states have written a charter that is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago. and one wonders how is it had such a long-term view when they first wrote the charter. the charter essentially has three pillars that are peace and security pillar, which is the one most of the time people refer to. and i will work into that in a moment. the development pillar and the human rights pillar. so it's a very interesting combination of elements which are mutually reinforcing because one will say that there is no peace without development as much as one could say there's no development without peace. and more and more one can say that there is no peace and

development without good human rights. and that's exactly where we are. so our first check is the charter is our founding principles. and those remain as valid as they were, as i said earlier. the interesting thing is that even though the principles stay the same we do have a question regarding the united nations and how prepared is the united nations to address all the challenges that the u.n. and the world has today. and there is a question which i will try to take us through as i speak of whether the united nations is the only tool to address all the problems. sometimes we expect too much from the united nations and maybe we need to have a

consideration of other tools that could address some of the problems. let me start talking a little bit about this nature of the challenges that we face today. because i think the more we understand the nature of the threats and challenges, the better we can understand what is needed to respond to them and then decide whether there is a right match or not between the u.n. and its ability to deliver and the needs that these challenges bring. the first thing i will say is that the united nations is basically organization of member states. some of member states, 19 3 that essentially recognize their sovereign space as the main basic driver. so we have an organization that is mounted around the notion of

sovereignty of member states as a key element to our decision process. having said that it is clear that the type of threats we are facing are essentially cross-border, cross-regional, of global nature. and just let me give you a few examples of those because i think it's important. violent extremism, one of the things that we are speaking these days on a daily basis not only in iraq and syria, in libya, in nigeria. that violent extremism has a way to work that challenges borders, challenges states, challenges all the institutions and the systems that have been established. migration.

my migration is another clear example of a challenge we have which is of course cross-border but that connects the different regions. and we can see that through the migration that is now on the news coming out of libya towards europe, but we also see it on the rohoingyas coming out of myanmar. we see the lack of opportunities and people moving in a manner that is far beyond anything that one saw in the recent past. illegal trafficking is another element that is totally transborder, transregional, that handles itself in a manner that is outside established systems but is progressing. and what is even more worrisome

is totally interconnected to extremism because it's the way extremists have to finance themselves. so not only is an issue on its own because we see today people trafficking drugs arms, people organs all of this. it's not only business on its own which is horrible enough but it's also a business that is tied to the extreme groups which need desperate funding for their activities. cyber crime is another good example of a threat that we have that is far beyond boundaries. climate change different type of challenge, but as the secretary general likes to say, not even the most powerful country in the world can address this challenge on its own. and again there is a direct connection between climate change and the development

opportunities and peace and security. pandemics are another very important transborder element. and we just saw it recently with ebola pandemic where something that looked like starting in a small village in guinea ended up threatening this country and europe because it went beyond anything that one could imagine at the beginning. so the question here is how do we find a way to adjust the tool books of the united states in a coherent manner with the agreement of member states to tackle the issues before us that are so different in their nature from the ones that you used to have that essentially were confrontation between member states. how do we do that in a manner member states feel that the

organization is trustworthy to handle it? and it is done in a manner that again respects the notion of sovereign states that is the basis of the united nations. the other reality is that these challenges are absolute lyly lyly -- nature. much are such that establishing institutions all the established parts of a state are not prepared to handle it. so it's not even the united nations that is lacking the tools to address but often it's member states themselves that lack to address them. so at the moment a very interesting moment because one can argue that more than ever before cooperation among member

states is required to address this. and cooperation through the united nations should be the way to go forward. so as much as there is a challenge, there is a gap we don't have the right instruments. it looks like an opportunity because no one can address these on its own. so we have to be innovative. and we have to act fast. because the enemies we have in front of us are very very fast on their feet. maximize the use of media, maximize the use of all the openings and all the opportunities that these systems give them to bypass the systems. so in this context what are we doing? what is the united nations doing? what are we facing?

i think one can say probably the united nations is facing today more fires and not exactly in the garage than ever before. if you look at our work starting from afghanistan, you can see there is a pattern that allows to understanding the connectivity of these issues but each one of these issues being almost intractable at this time. you go from afghanistan where al qaeda has been at its heart, and you start to move from there to iran syria and yemen. and you start to see that now we have not only the conflicts on their own merit but we have the isil isis name it however you

want want. and there is a new development which is the competition between al qaeda and this these new approaches and how they view themselves in ceasing power and acquiring the relevance they want to have. so we are involved in each one of these in the countries trying to find ways to move the different parties into a solution. but then you add to that the influence or the different perspective of the regional players in each one of these places. so this the overlay of different views, different geopolitical interests coming from the neighboring countries which adds to the complexity, and which has led us in the case of syria to be into already four years of an

impossible situation without any hint of a solution yet as much as a special envoy is trying to work one. so how do we find a way connecting all these dots to rethink how we can offer solutions to member states? how we can offer solutions to the people who are suffering there? the humanitarian situation in all these countries is absolutely incredible. and delivering humanitarian aid is a good first step, but it's far from enough. only finding a political solution that gives people an opportunity is what is going to get us there. of course we have the middle east, the long lasting issue of the middle east which is yet a very very difficult to see a

solution in the near term. and which one again could connect to the rest of the questions particularly in syria iraq and yemen. then we get to africa. and africa traditionally had its own dynamics. when you go to the great lakes region and you have the question of the democratic republic of the congo you can see there that there is a big pending question of solving the access to all the people you have the different rebel groups that are trying to seize a space and opportunity, but is a conflict of tradition in nature. then you have somalia. and somalia is not a conflict of traditional nature because precisely al shabaab is absolutely linked to these other

groups. and now trying to decide whether they pledge allegiance to al qaeda or they pledge allegiance to dash. tension there that may bring to somalia the same approach that we have seen with boko haram in nigeria. and then you can go of course to libya and see what is happening in libya. again, not only the unresolved issue of establishing the institution, but also the question of the opportunity that these groups extreme violent groups, have seized. and now have taken a huge amount of territory. with the implications as i mentioned earlier on migration and the impact that this has in europe. so something that is happening in africa that starts from far away now has a direct impact on europe and has created a very

strong reaction in the people and in the governments of europe with a great deal of concern. and out of libya you can go to mali. and again, mali has a situation of a mix of extreme groups, allegiances to different subgroups, a very shift in reality that has made our mission in mali -- our peace keeping mission in mali be the target to these groups. and we have lost in that mission which has a little bit over a year more than 70 peace keepers already. so that shows to you how much we have become a target on our own. so all of this to say this issues that we handle one by one

are absolutely interconnected. and unless we can establish those connections and tackle those connections at their heart, it's very hard to really see a future where a winning solution would be available could be produced by the u.n. or by u.n. partners. what are we doing then with this reality? and now i'm going to mention something that ambassador pickering referred to. all of this is overseen by the security council. so it's a combination of us and the secretary trying to deliver to the best of our ability sometimes very well, sometimes short of being that good but when the security council comes together behind an issue and i could make a reference to

chemical weapons in syria it's clear that we can make it happen. as much as some people may argue that we are not certain that all chemical weapons have been out of syria the reality is that we have reduced the presence of chemical weapons in syria dramatically. all of this was done because security council was solid behind the objective. it's clear that that's not the case in syria for the rest of the file the political file. and it's clear that while there is a bigger confrontation and ukraine represents that bigger confrontation, among members of the security council, the chances for all of us to move forward this difficult -- very difficult agenda, that has so many nuances and so many connections is less and less likely to happen and happen

well. so for us the security council coming together and seeing in the same way the issues at hand is absolutely important. what is happening from our end to try and do the stop taking and adapt to the future a few things i will first mention to you. the first one is the secretary general's peace operations panel. he commissioned that panel at the end of last year. and the panel is coming now with a report. it should be out in the next few days. with recommendations on how to strengthen our peace operations. and this means not only peace keeping but also the political missions. trying to see how we can find ways to work in a manner that is tighter, that delivers better both in political terms and in military terms when the security

council decides. and here there is a very interesting analysis to take into account going back to the charter, which is the eventual use of chapter 8 of the charter which the chapter that associates the u.n. to the regional organizations and says that one can use regional organizations when that seems to be the best option. so in this day and age with this combination, and going back to my question whether the u.n. should be doing everything, chapter 8 is one of the elements that maybe is worth considering as a tool to be used more frequently moving forward. the other thing that is happening is a review of the peace building commission. that's an element that is driven by member states. the notion of peace building and

trying to see how we reinforce that transition between the conflict and the post conflict and the elements of our association between the security and the development i think is very essential and is being reviewed. and we should have an output on outcome later in the year. there is also review on 1325, which is women in conflict which is very important because a lot has been done regarding women in conflict. but i think we are still behind where we should be. then there is another element, very interesting element on the development pillar which is the post-2015 agenda. and there is an incredible amount of work done by member states to discuss what comes after the nvgs and at the end of 2015. and we have seen so far a very interesting agenda put together

which is also inclusive. it applies to all states of the world contrary to what the mbgs were which was a little bit of the developed world dictating the developing world an agenda that is center on people and planet so it connects sustainability around development. and it also is very much centered on inequality, which is an issue that prevails all over the world and that one could argue is one of the elements why so much is happening with extreme ideas taking root among youngsters particularly youngsters without a job. and the last thing to name the third pillar of the charter that we are working on is human rights up front which is an initiative of the secretary general, that puts human rights at the center of the work of the united nations no matter where

you work. be that in the development side, be that in the humanitarian to connect the dots and to be able to look at the early signals coming from member states or from societies where the lack of respect for human rights most likely will lead into a situation of conflict sooner or later. so all of this to say we are reviewing ourselves. we are assessing ourselves. we are taking stock of what we have done. we are not complacent. we understand that what we have done is good in some occasions far from getting to the expectations in others. but what's most important what we need to do is probably something different and requires a different tool box and different tools than the ones we

have. and we need to define what that is in part of the world we're working together with member states to leave enough space for the united nations to expand or to decide where the united nations should not be and how that should be structured in a manner that is still coherent within the international system. it's a lot before us. i think adaptability flexibility and a long-term thinking is part what is required. and i can tell you that is very difficult when you are trying to catch up with fires from the garage toward whatever in the world and do it in a manner that nothing falls between the cracks. so thank you. i hope this help to entice ideas and i'll be more than happy to answer all the questions. thank you very much.

[ applause ] >> well, thank you very much. i'm bruce jones. i'm the acting vice president of the foreign policy program here at brookings. let me start by adding my thanks to susana malcorra for coming here today. i've known susana for nearly a decade. and i remember the first time we met being impressed by your frankness, honesty and continued in what is easily the most complex job in the international system. our thanks to you for the service you do for the u.n. and

for us. i'm not going to try to get you into trouble by pushing you to answer tom's question per se. but i do want you to talk a little bit more about the dynamics in the security council. over the last 20 years we've seen enormous evolution of the u.n. and you've been sitting at the helm of large parts of it. but unity of the security council was the central condition for that. and you talked yourself about how important that is. and now you have a situation where the security council's absolutely deadlocked on some key files like syria and ukraine. and yet amply cooperating on others. and i just wonder if you can describe what it is like to work with the council in that slightly odd circumstance? >> well you get me in trouble with a different question. so, you know, it's really very, very interesting what you said bruce. because in it is true as much as there is almost an impossible

situation in certain files, and one discussion that's totally stuck one day, that morning you get stuck, in the afternoon you discuss something different and there is unity. and you see how the agenda can move forward. so how we can get the members of the security council to have a common view on the issues they are not seeing eye-to-eye is our big question mark. i sincerely don't believe that we can do much about it. offer ideas i think, i always believe that the secretary general can bring to the table alternatives that maybe can help ease the tension. but when you have profound differences between two

permanent members or more of the security council that are at the heart of their own policy it's very difficult for the secretary general to fix that. so while this gap exists, i think we have to assume that the hands of the united nations are going to be quite tied. because the united nations in questions of peace and security is only an instrument of the security council. we don't have a capacity of our own. so other than volunteering options that at least can give the members of the security council alternatives that maybe they had not thought about and that can be first step to move the agenda. the rest will still play in the hands of the member states. >> do you ever find yourself playing the opposite role?

here's what i'm thinking, you know, of course the u.n. has by practice and to a certain extent by policy taken the view, i certainly did when i worked in the u.n., that the u.n. should be able to talk to anybody, crazy groups rogue states, et cetera. but do you ever find yourself reaching the conclusion that a particular actor, i won't ask you to name any names that a particular actor is simply intractable? and the message you have at the security council is we need to move on from a political solution? do you ever find yourself in that role, you the secretary? >> well, it's clear that we have often to speak with very, very difficult actors. and we have done that throughout time. but it's also clear that as you get into this new era that i describe earlier where people who essentially reject institutions are the ones that

are part of the conflict. it's hard for us to have them as -- first, i don't think they care about us being an interlocater. but from our perspective it's very difficult because essentially we are the institution at its maximum level. and if you are trying to deal with somebody who disrespects this regard and wants to destroy institution, how can you establish a negotiation there? or a compromise there? it's such a principle issue that i think it's hard to think to how to embrace these groups. >> staying on radical extremism and terrorism issues for a moment, you described a number of the themes that you're reconsidering and looking at. but when it comes to the question of violent extremism these transborder issues you talked about migration, smuggling, et cetera is it also

the case you need to be working with other actors, in other words the kind of concentration of the u.n. is with its member states, you come from the private sector, there are civic groups, social media. does the u.n. need to shift who it's working with in trying to tackle these problems? >> well it is clear that the u.n. needs to open up and is opening up to a much larger number of stakeholders. that again is tricky with the notion of an organization that is a member state organization. so we need to be able to construct circles of outreach where in the end the center remains the general assembly and its 193 member states. but we need to recognize that a social media is a reality, so we need to outreach to each one of the citizens of the world in a different manner. some of them don't see

themselves represented even by their own government. so it's clear we need to be able to transpire the principles in a different way. but not only that we need also resources to build the solutions that we need to build that go far beyond what member states can do on their own. when you talk about the post 2015 development agenda, and you think about the figures that are behind that agenda it's clear that this is not something that comes out of oda or member states providing assistance. that's not it. it will require private sector. it will require an engagement of ngos, of foundations, of all sorts of sources that will help construct these solutions. all this is very difficult for the united nations. and it's very difficult because

dealing with private sector is for example, a new proposition. and often the united nations that's not understand how to deal with the private sector. trying to set the stage for a relationship with the private sector that is mutually satisfactory. that is a win-win requires for the united nations to realize what values there for the private sector in the u.n. that's something we don't do well. and to sit with the private sector on sort of an equal footing. so all of this is something we need to develop because there is a divide between the public and the private. i'm not suggesting we need to blur the divide. i mean there are different responsibilities, but we need to establish good communication. >> briefly before we go to the i want to talk to you about peace keeping. you played a huge role in

overseeing. i was struck by a statistic that somebody from your old shop shared with me that the territory that falls currently under u.n. mandates slightly larger than the holy roman empire at its peek. does the u.n. secretary have the staff, the structures, the support that it needs to manage that scale of operations? you can just say no. >> well, it all depends and compare with what. if you look at the united states own forces, military forces and the relationship of direct there is in the u.s. we are at a place that is nowhere to be compared. if you look at nato, again nowhere to be compared. so it's clear that we don't have the same strength of oversight and support that some of these institutions have. but it's also clear that the

construction around the peace keeping operations that member states envision was totally different. they command and control is different. the relationship between the military deployment and their own capitals is always there, which makes things even more difficult. so the short answer is, no, i'm sure we don't have everything we need. but it's also true that i don't see an appetite for member states to put in many more resources. so what we are trying is to do the best we can with the resources we have. and i think when you look at it all in all the balance is quite positive. having said that we have many many areas to make progress on. >> let me ask you about one of them. there have been a number of stories on sexual exploitation by peace keepers.

kofi a nan adopted continues to be a challenge. say a few words about what you're thinking and what you're doing on that. >> well, clearly since certainly panel where there were suggestions made to change how the organization handled these issues, a lot of progress has been made. and we see now a systemic approaches to follow on the issues, to track situations. but it's also true that member states decided that this was in the end going to be their responsibilities. it's what's going to be in their hands. so we get to one point where you transfer the file to member states and it's pretty much in their hands. so looking into this now and member states are looking into this probably there is a need to take a second look to those remg recommendations and some that may come after ten years

experience, and try to tighten that relationship with member states. it's a very difficult thing because, again this goes back to the question of sovereign state that lends military to you but they're always in the end under their responsibility and jurisdiction. so the bottom line is we now have much better sense of what is happening than what we had before. some of these are very very appalling things that we just cannot stand they should not happen. but at least it's better that we know they happen. in bringing these to the limelight hurts because it hurts the institution as we know. but until we get them to zero there is not a single case it's better to be hurt than to

ignore. >> let's turn to the audience and i'll take several questions and come back to you. we'll run a little bit over time. so i'm going to do this grouping in the middle here. please identify yourself and please ask a question. >> thank you. my name is jean i'm with voice vietnamese americans. thank you, madame. my question has to do with asia and the current tension that is kind of imminent with many fronts including everything that you listed with human rights, development and peace and security. so to that especially with the tensions in the china sea and the conflicts in between rising powers and many others and the u.n. my question to you is, do you think we have adequate representations of the region in the security council? how to build a security council

capacity based on the regional representatives? and then also what institutions do you think being effected by the powers in that conflict? is there anything that we can do to retain or to at least maintain the respect to the institutions you said it was detrimental if the u.n. established institutions being rejected or disregarded right? is that what i gather from you? so please give us how to best resolve the current conflicts in asia. thank you. >> thanks. there were a couple people right behind. >> thank you. ash slee, georgetown institute for women peace and security. you mentioned the upcoming review of 1325, i was curious beyond the global study and review itself what the office has been doing to improve the

gap between implementation and rhetoric? we have seven wonderful resolutions and yet only 3% of women were -- or only 3% of peace negotiations had women as signatoryies signatories. so i'm wondering what the s.g.'s office can do to improve that? thank you. >> back behind. >> foundation for empowerment ngo. thank you very much for your passionate speech of dedication and the commitment to international organization. i used to work for the world bank over 20 years. and in the meanwhile i was working in geneva the commission on macro economics. so at the time i could make the comparison between world back and the u.n. and while i was working for both, you know, there are so

many institutions by the u.n. so in times of peace and development i cannot agree with you more that your peace and development goal hand in hand. but there are many institutions u.n. proliferated that certain missions overlapping and that they are very much to polite they are sort of like marginalized. i don't know their effectiveness. and as a person who used to work on the international development hard breaking that when the eastern european community -- i mean the wall had collapsed and there's no institution no organization, u.n. organization but you are based in vienna had any actual mission because their

client has now been open to the capitalism. but because of 170 staff interest that institution didn't disappear and it survived and still goes on. so my question in the end is that is it really nice to hear u.n. is trying to take stock of their last 70 years and trying to move forward in that review and in that commitment? is u.n. willing to take a look at some of the institutions and if they are overlapping they are willing to and that they have determined to eliminate some of them? and if they don't need -- if they don't have a capacity can they really work with others rather than just making another institutions? thank you very much. >> i think that gives you enough to chew on for a first round. >> i would start with the last one. and i think it is clear that the

u.n. has grown throughout time in an organic manner. it has been no particular sign of the architecture of the u.n. in fact, we have had different organizations flourishing in different times. and based on real needs of the time. one can also argue that after certain process some of these organizations could be mainstream into others or merge is a very, very difficult exercise. because each one of these organizations has member states involved. and there is a strong ownership by member states, and member states sometimes have different ministers in member states they are not a single member state. it's very interesting because often member states ask us to be

more coherent, coordinate better among ourselves, and we see that member states themselves don't necessarily coordinate in the system and in their presence in the system. so i think that part of for purpose that i mention as we move forward is trying to see how we tackle that. now one of the biggest problems i see we have these days internally is the need for coordination to get things done. sometimes coordination becomes an end of its own. and you spend so much in coordination that you lose sight of why is it that you are there and who are you there to serve. so we need to find ways to simply find our mandates in a

manner that is more clear, has less overlap and at the same time is more geared towards working together. having said these that is organized things one likes to hear, there is a very strong competition for resources these days. and that goes against the notion of coming together. because it's so difficult to fund the programs we have. it is so much that we rely on extra budgetary funding that the different agencies and programs fight for the pool of resources as a matter of survival. so there is a big tension and big contradiction between something that is absolutely significant which is falling, coming together, sharing and at the same time the notion that unless you have your own institution recognized it's unlikely that you get enough

resources. so for me that's part of the fit for purpose how we adapt the united nations to this reality of the 21st century particularly to this reality of sustainable development agenda which will require a totally different approach by member states and by us. so a long question that has not really precise answer, but it is work before us no doubt. secretary general has been -- i'm starting backwards, so has been very very keen on the question of women. if you look at the presence of women in the secretaryiat in very, very important positions, it has grown exponentially. he also believes very deeply that women should be an essential part of negotiation

and peace processes. you know, when i work on his behalf in the great lakes, we brought to the table -- the women, and in the framework that was agreed upon the 11 member states, women have a relevant piece to address. and it's working. it's a matter of putting pressure and putting pressure and putting pressure. it doesn't come automatically. people don't think in those terms naturally. so the only way is to resurface the issue that's why this stock taking so important, the review is so important. and adding and adding and adding pressure. it doesn't go in automatic mode for sure. then on the question of adequate representation, first i cannot answer that. this is a question to be answered by member states. i'm sure i could have somebody

coming from my region and making sadly the same argument, or somebody coming from africa and making that same argument. what is clear is that there is a very wide agreement that something should change regarding representation. there is a wide disagreement on how this should be done. so as long as there is no common view on how to make it happen it's very very difficult. it's something will not materialize any time soon. >> let me ask you about that. it's one thing to talk about representation, but are you seeing a different level and quality of engagement by the group of countries we tend to describe as emerging powers? by india, brazil, china? are you seeing a difference in their engagement at the u.n.? >> to me i don't have that long history in the united nations, so i don't know how they were when the ambassador was in the united nations. i cannot compare. but it's clear to me from what i

see that these emerging powers feel that they don't have enough share of the say. and this goes beyond the security council only. and that often the agenda is not shaped with their participation in a very, very established manner. and just to give an example talking about the design of mandates by the security council and their participation as a stay holders, tcc or pccs is something they continuously ask to be more open and more direct participation. so no doubt that they see themselves in a manner that is not fully reflected in the way we work. >> let's go back to the audience. so i'll start up here and work my way back.

>> in a few weeks a report on global governance will come out that madeleine albright and ibrahim have co-authored. i think you've been briefed on it. one thing they talked about in the report is we ought to take an optic to the 75th anniversary and really work on building support for major changes. and i'm wondering if there's an agenda that you had of perhaps different financial formulas? perhaps ideas for reforming the general assembly that you think should be worked on? and i have to just as a coda say another great gift from argentina to the vatican is going to come out -- he's going to come out with a very major

statement. and i'm wondering how the united nations is going to capitalize on that? >> we sometimes refer to the secretary general as the secular pope. put that in arj tingentinia effect. >> one of the challenges that you mentioned that of climate change is an area in which the leadership and vision of the secretary general has led to powerful and i would say transformational change. his leadership which was illustrated last year dramatically at the u.n. climate summit actually did broaden the circles of outreach and engagement. and has led to opening the dialogue on development-oriented solutions to climate change. beyond sovereign states and the financial services sector in extraordinarily successful way by raising the ambition of

leading corporations the eosg has brought new hope into what had begin to become a somewhat stalt fied process of negotiations among member states. could you please say a little bit about how you see the role of the eosg and the climate change support team continuing in this broadening effort to create the opportunity for engagement of the private sector as equals with the u.n. going beyond c.o.p. 21 in december of this year and on toward a fuller solution, a cooperative and collaborative solution to the climate change that builds the framework for sustainable development? >> i'll take one more before i go back. lady in the back. >> thank you. i work for fao here in washington, d.c. i have one quick question in

addressing all the different and complex problems in the world what are the things that are unique that u.n. can provide and no other entities are able to offer? in this drastically changing environment. thank you. >> susana. >> thank you. on the report on global governance i know a bit. i'm not really yet fully privy to what is coming out. so i will navigate from the basic i know. forgive me if i'm not totally exposed to it. i think that notion of having a five-year perspective toward what is needed to change is a very interesting notion. one with problems you know,

coming from the private sector i always thought that the private sector was very short-term oriented didn't have enough of a strategic horizon. i have learned now that there is much bigger strategic horizon in the private sector than the one we have. again, going fire after fire and being pulled and pushed by the reality of today and reacting to the reality of today. so being able to have an agenda that is developed over a period of time and has the common understanding by member states to me is fundamental. that means that member states need to trust that that agenda is in the interest of everybody and work towards that agenda. reform is often seen with a suspicious mind within the

united nations. there's a certain relationship between reform and cost cutting measures. and i think it's wrong to see it from that perspective. i believe that many member states many of emerging powers that we referred to, understand that there is a need for a broad reform that goes beyond the security council. so if we were able to articulate a few things with a common agreement by member states i think that is very powerful way to move the united nations. what will i suggest to put in there? well, it is clear that there is a strong tension between the general assembly and its willingness to delegate powers to the secretary general.

it's not different from any other legislative body in the role with executive body. i'm sure in this town this is very well-known reality. the question of how deep you go into managing what is under the responsibility of the secretary general as chief administrative officer i think is something that requires a conversation. it can only happen if member states fully trust that the secretary general is going to do these in the best interest of the organization and not manage by any external factor. so that will be something for me is important to see whether there is an opportunity to come to a common view and move that agenda forward. it will make a big difference probably in how fast and how creatively the u.n. can react. having said that there is a very interesting example that

happened with ebola. the g.a. reacted to the secretary general's proposal in three days. so when there is a will there's a way. and it's a good example of the general assembly working towards something that was absolutely in demand that needed to happen now. and we got resources within a week. so sometimes we think that this cannot work, but maybe there is an interest to make it work it can be proven that it is possible. the secretary general and climate change, i think this is an excellent example of how much a secretary general can do in a certain agenda. we were having a conversation with ambassador pickering and bruce before coming in. and we were talking about how

much influence the secretary general has. and this question of is the secretary general a secretary or a general and all these things. i think that the secretary general has much less influence than what people perceive the secretary general has. but at the same time it has much more influence believes he or she has. to be politically correct. is secretary general ban and his own conviction that move this agenda. and you know when everybody went to copenhagen and that did not materialize, it would have been easy for him to give up. it was a very difficult moment, and he did not give up.

so he has worked with every single member state on this agenda. the very big powers, the very small nations that are now grounding themselves in water. and he's made the case i think. i wouldn't say secretary general ban is the only one but his high moral ground has really helped in shaping this agenda. now we have the pope adding his voice, so i hope that will also bring more to the table. it's clear again as i discuss about development this is an agenda that will not happen just with engagement of member states. the biggest contributors in a positive or in a negative way would be in the private sector. so unless we enlarge in a very

concrete manner the commitment of the private sector unless we make sure that there is alignment between what private sector does what policies are established by governments and what overview of all of this is done at international level, this will not materialize. it's clear that we will have to think through what comes after december. but we are not there yet. this is something that is being worked. so i don't have a specific answer to your question what is going to happen within our own office. there will be follow-up to it. no question. this secretary general will not let go i assure you that. what is the difference between the u.n. what does the u.n. add as a uniqueness? i think it's clear that the authority and the convening power that the u.n. has through

the general assembly through the secretary general is something that is totally unique. i go very often to meetings of different regional organizations, of different combinations of member states. these meetings have very good, very useful. we need to work with them. they have a very important perspective from a more narrow geographic kal representation but in the end there are only certain issues that can be sorted out at the level of the united nations. that's why we need to treasure the value of the united nations as a convener. and we need to find a way to make this institution more effective so that we don't lose the trust of the people and we are able to build on it. >> speaking about the trust of the people brookings doesn't do that many events that are standing room only. this one is. and there are a lot of people watching on the web as well.

i look out and i see that the average age is pretty young, especially the young people who very courteously stood at at the u.n. and working with the u.n.? is that something you encourage? >> let me start from a personal perspective. if you would have told me 12 years ago you are going to be in the united nations and eventually be working with the secretary general, i would probably answer by saying this is totally crazy, you're out of your mind. then for different reasons i came into the united nations and i came through one of the strong programs of the united nations to work with the program and i came to learn the value of a group of organizations, of a system, that has a unique

presence all over the world and is able to listen to the people all over the world. i think sometimes often maybe we don't listen well enough, so my call to the young people is to involve themselves to use all means and of course social media is available now for people to convey messages to participate. last year we had different meetings in the u.n. that brought in society of different combinations, some youth meetings and we had 3,000, 4,000 people one single day around a subject. of course, this is a drop in the bucket of the representation of the world, but there are opportunities. in the case of the sustainable

development goals, there was a huge consultation throughout the world. every single country had a participation of many many people to try and shape what were the priorities. so you need to push us. you need to really claim for your space and to make sure that what we do serves the purpose. we can only do that if we hear from you. that's the reality. >> youth is one reality. i was listening in to your talk and you touched on asia latin america, middle east africa and europe. one country that didn't come up was the united states. >> i knew better. >> what is it you say to american decision makers about why it is that the u.n. matters to them, matters to us? >> first of all, it's clear to

everybody that the united states is the first power in the world, is the most powerful country in the world. so one could assume that being in that position, does not need anything to support its policies, its decisions. to me precisely being in that unique situation of being the most powerful country, having the united nations is an ideal setting to engage with others in a manner that is -- if i can use the word -- nonthreatening to others. it's a way to sit around the table and start conversations that probably are not possible in any other way. that's one thing. that's the question of

engagement beyond bilateral. again, many issues that are of concern to the united states citizens are those issues that are decided as cross border cross cutting, and cannot be solved only by the united states. then there's the peace and security side of the discussion. there the united states clearly has a privileged situation to sit on the security council and veto power of the security council. when the people of the united states say yes, we need to be engaged but be careful how far and how much it's clear that the united nations is a key potential tool that can serve the view and the perspective of the united states, as long as that is agreed with others.w/a"z so yes, it's true that when you get to that you are not the only one, and that sometimes may

be perceived as a down side by the americans. i think it's precisely the opposite. if you are well involved, well engaged, the chances you have to make your case, to have your foreign policy well represented through the united nations is very high. so it's a win for me. i don't see it any other way. >> brookings is about to turn 100 and we go through our strategic planning process to determine what that means but i subject that your job is harder as the u.n. turns 70 and you adapt the organization and its extraordinary complexity to the world around you. the u.n. is often in the news for fire fighting and failures but it's an enormous privilege to see upfront and upclose the talent of the people who actually make it work and make a contribution, so thank you for being here today and sharing that with us. >> thank you. thank you.

][ applause ]

and a look inside the auditorium at miami-dade university, a location that former florida governor, jeb bush, has chosen to officially enter the 2016 presidential race. the university is near his south florida home. he'll be making his speech and starting his campaign with a rally here. you can watch his remarks live this afternoon. we'll have them in just a few minutes, expected to start at 3:00 eastern time here on c-span 3 and we'll be taking your calls immediately after. we'll take a look at some of your phone calls from today on washington journal. >> here's how it looks in the local paper, in the miami paper,

front page. they lead to -- jeb's big day is the headline above the banner. he's set to make his run official. jeb bush to announce his candidacy. they write that his name is jeb. he's the former governor of florida, and he'll more than likely want your vote. they wrote that miami was the site where senator marco rubio announced his candidacy for president in april. pulling this off to look at how it's reported this morning in the usa today. jeb is ready to take the plunge and joins the crowded race for the g.o.p. nomination. they rank that more than a dozen years after his last political race bush faces questions about his commitment to their cause. the list of complaints including his common core.

he will face many opponents who have been state executives themselves mike huckabee, pick perry and george pit tacky are already running. chris christie of new jersey bobby jindal of louisiana are expected to announce their plans soon. rand paul of kentucky, ted cruz of texas lindsey graham as well as rick santorum. we're joined by the political editor for the boston globe. what will we hear as some of the themes of the 2016 jeb bush campaign? >> first of all, thank you so much for having me on this morning. i think one of the first things we'll hear from jeb bush's announcement today is a knock on washington. he wants to separate himself from this really large and

unpredictable field and there are several senators running several people who have worked for years, decades in washington d.c. one of the first things he's really going to strike is saying we can't fix washington with someone from washington. that's not only intended to set him apart from washington which voters are not pleased with right now but also someone like marco rubio with whom he competes in florida during the primary calendar. >> he certainly will have a fundraising advantage. he's expected to announce some fundraising totals this week. what's the anticipated amount that the bush campaign we'll say is backing the candidate? >> well, there's a big number that's been floating around. everyone thought he would reach $100 million in fundraising. so that's a huge number. it's possible but we've heard that he