rwanda and prosecute both in iraq and syria those on either side or any side committing these terrible atrocities. ior thoughts on that. and the committee on ngos recently voted down the application for consult tative status known as freedom now. the no votes came from china russia cuba iran nicaragua and azerbaijan and others. i've worked with nicaragua for years. a great organization. on the same day the palestinian refugee center which works with hamas and hezbollah was approved. what are we trying to do to help freedom now get their accreditation? >> i'll try to move quickly through each of these very important issues. freedom now couldn't agree more, they are doing some of the most important work to highlight the

plight of political prisoners. i use their work to reinforce whatever they are campaigning on. and just very sad fact is the ngo committee in which members are elected by u.n. membership often by the regions is stacked with a group of countries who don't themselves tolerate ngos in their own countries. and so it's almost everyfrustration that one feels about who gets elected to this or that in the u.n. body stems from this same issue that regions are not taking sufficient responsibility for the integrity of who they are putting forward on behalf of their client. we're not giving up. we're working behind the scenes with freedom now. it goes from this smaller ngo committee. we have a smaller chance to overturn the vote. in the united nations as a

whole, a body of 193 countries, more than half are not democratic. we always have our work cut out for us. we've been able to score a number of important victories and we're going to dedicate ourselves to that and welcome the support of congress leveraging relationships. second, working backwards on syria, i remember your op ed and i think it's a very important idea that you have put out there. the issue with the icc it may well not prove up to the task but there's no way to get icc jurisdiction that doesn't go through either the syrian government, which hardly wants to hold itself accountable, or through russia which by supplying and supporting the syrian regime is implicated in some of those atrocities. the same atrocities would apply if we replicate the yugoslav

tribunal. that goes back to the first point i made in my remarks at the outset which is this deform hit in a way where a permanent member of the security council can block the creation -- whether an icc referral or creation of international criminal tribunal like yeohou are describing. chairman royce raised this saying they'll be held accountable. the question is when? in the last six months we've seen perpetrators are the crimes carried out held accountable not only at the icty where they had been held akontable but in serbia proper, bosnia -- >> thank you so much. i apologize. >> i'll find a way to get to it afterwards. >> now pleased to the raunknking member on the subcommittee on

the western hemisphere. >> ambassador thank you. five latin american countries pulled their ambassadors from israel. i'm talking about chile, peru, el salvador, ecuador and brazil. i'm wondering what oefrtefforts are we making to urge those countries to send the ambassadors back. we've sent letters to those countries urging them to get -- to be engaged again. are we making any effort to urge them to send the ambassadors back? >> i think i'm going to take that question. all i can really speak to is what i do every day in new york which is lobby those very countries not to take the positions they generally take on the very specific issue of their level of representation. i don't have an answer for that but will get back to you quickly. >> that's going to bring me into the human rights commission.

the u.n. human rights commission. i personally feel that they are not effective when you have a cuban sometimes leading the human rights commission. since the president made his announcement, the abuses have increased. people put in jail. women are beaten just to go to church and this human rights commission, i never hear anything regarding the abuses on the island. i know at one time cuba was in charge of this commission. that's the biggest joke i ever heard. what can we do to get them to speak up about the abuses on the island? this is a crackdown on the very people that we're trying to help supposedly. >> thank you again. let me just say on the question

of the conditions inside cuba, i couldn't agree more. there have been -- i just looked up these numbers on the way over here. 600 arbitrary detentions in may alone and 2300 over the course of this year in 2015. there remains a significant human rights crisis inside cuba. i want to underscore the effort at normalization is aimed at getting at some of these issues. clearly it's not having an overnight effect. i don't think anybody could have expected it would. over time more access to information, more internet more exposure to americans and american values is going to actually help -- help ensure that cuba over time liberalizes. we have to speak out about -- >> i was going to add, if nobody speaks out about it -- >> i certainly do.

>> but what efforts are being made? >> if i could, in addition to the earlier follow-up i owe you, i'll send you the public statements made by senior u.s. officials even since the changes in our relationship with cuba were announced. i don't think we've held our tongues at all. i myself also make a point of meeting with dissidents who have -- may well have been murdered by the regime. we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. if i could distinguish that from the human rights council human rights council is vulnerable to the flaws that you and congressman engel and others have pointed to already in this hearing and that others have made clear their views on. it is, again, a body in which a country that does not have a good human rights record can end

up in a leadership position. that's officially true. it's also a body the united states by virtue of being a member has used to create commissions of inquiry for syria that would otherwise not exist. that has moved the ball very substantially on lgbt rights. it created a commission of inquiry for north korea that documented the systematic horror the gulogs are inflicting every day in a way that had never been done before. a special repertoire for iran that would not exist if it weren't for the human rights council. like a lot that exists at the u.n. it is not us, it is not -- >> we expect maybe this will also happen towards cuba? >> i think one of the effects over time in the u.n. system of the steps the president has

taken vis-a-vis cube apeople will be focusing less on the embargo and on u.s. policy which has been a diversion from the human rights situation in cuba. now we'll have a better chance of drawing people's attention to the human rights crisis in cuba. >> we turn to mr. dana rohrbacher of california. >> thank you very much madam chairman, and madam ambassador. thank you very much for your service. you are much respected. your energy and your commitment and although there are some things we obviously disagree on, i want to associate myself with my colleagues' concern about the blackout of reporting of human rights abuses in cuba. and let me just note this idea that -- well it's offset in

some way by the fact there's going to be more internet connection between people and more communication with people of the united states. the people of cuba know when their neighbor has been arrested or beaten up in front of them. they don't need to see it over the internet. the people beating them up and throwing them in jail know, too. what they know is we've given up a huge amount of leverage over them and gotten nothing in return as they continue to oppress their own people. and i believe perhaps this travesty that we're discussing and describing here really reflects why some of us don't have faith that the united nations, considering that there's a cuban head of the human rights commission that we don't have faith the u.n. is going to be doing the right thing to create a better world

than the united states has to play perhaps a more active direct role rather than trying to spend our time maneuvering through the united states, all kund kund kinds of different resolutions. with that said, i'd like to ask you a little bit about ukraine. do you -- you were mentioning the -- being shelled at by the russian allies there in ukraine. how many civilians have died since this whole incident began? do you know? >> 6,300 is the official number, but we think there's underreporting because the separatists don't allow access.

>> of those 6,300 how many were separatists, in separatist towns and villages? >> that i don't know off hand. >> when i ask that question almost nobody knows. but it was my understanding. i went over to europe and met with some people involved in intelligence agencies in various countries, and they were telling me that in the ukrainian military, which was one-third made up of people who were not in their military but were instead in -- on the payroll of some oligarch they had heavy artillery and were indiscriminately shelling the separatist villages. do you know anything about that? >> you asked how many civilians have been killed. the 6300 figure is both civilian and soldiers. let me also get you the breakdown on civilians if it exists. one of the issues that i raised

in ukraine in my visit was how critical it is for the ukrainians to abide by international humanitarian law. it's critical for hearts and minds and -- >> is it possible the majority of the civilian casualties you're talking about were actually civilian casualties that were -- that were the victims of the ukrainian army and the oligarch that financed one-third of their army at one point? >> if i could say two things. i think it's highly unlikely based on the reports we've received. i want to underscore why this conflict started. russia moved troops and weapons and so forth into -- >> just so you know the russians would suggest it started when there was a violent overthrow of an elected government. >> i don't make it a point of listening to president putin's claims.

>> you should pay attention to everybody's claims and refute them if they can be refuted rather than dismissing them. i happen to believe that coup, meaning violent overthrow of -- >> violent overthrow of an elected government. had not happened. we would not be in this situation and the ukrainians would have been spared this. and you can go beyond that to where our european allies didn't offer the deal that he wanted and most people in ukraine don't like russia and didn't want to be in agreement with yaushrussia. it didn't start with russia going in to the separatist areas. that's not where it started. at least that's what they explained. >> thank you, mr. rohrbacher. >> now we turn to mr. deutsche. >> madam ambassador thank you for appearing today.

thanks for standing up for the human rights of the people of ukraine. i want to thank you for the outstanding work you've been representing this country and our values at the united nations. your efforts on the security council, your willingness to speak out, your efforts to get the u.n. to act and unlelenting pushback against attempts to delegitimize israel. in syria we cannot succumb to a condition you taught me called psychic numbing. thank you for pointing out the use of chlorine against one's people is the use of chemical weapons against one's people. also thank you for your efforts at the mpt conference that would have jeopardized israel's security. i know that going forward you'll continue to use your platform to prevent all efforts to usy in

united nations to deli jit legitimize israel. i appreciate the efforts you described at the human rights council, but i'd suggest the human rights council cannot be taken seriously. and i am someone who believes in engagement at the u.n. but i'm shocked by the decisions of the council including how some of the worst human rights abusers are allowed to sit on the council. cuba's ally venezuela plays a prominent role as well. i expect the same bias will apply when the investigation into last summer's conflict in gaza comes out. i find it absurd that the

council has only one standing agenda item, item seven, that refers to a specific country. and that country is israel. my question is why it says the human rights council's website it describes the election process but the general assembly takes into account the promotion and protection of human rights as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments in this regard, under your leadership, has the united states suggests any reforms can be made to the council so the members of the council perhaps have to recognize the importance of human rights as well. >> thank you congressman. let me say the language you've just read out was language negotiated -- hard-fought language negotiated by our predecessor, by the bush administration, by the united states. unfortunately, simply putting that language in the kind of

founding ethos of the human rights council doesn't make it such. regional groups put forward the candidates they seek to put forward and sometimes a whole set of back room arrangements and all kinds of bilateral issues at stake in which people agree to give votes to people based on things that have nothing to do with human rights. two reasons i would like to at least appeal to you to still consider the united states membership in the human rights council very worthwhile. the first is the very reason you point to which is the absurdity of having a single standing agenda on israel, not on korea or isil. it's ridiculous. however, by the united states being on the council we're in the room and we're calling it out. since we joined the council, the number of resolutions on israel

has gone from a half to a quarter. >> ambassador if i could interrupt. we're going to have to recess the committee for 15 minutes and then we'll readsjourn. i'm going to have to ask the members also that we be clearing the room. and afterwards we'll reconvene at that time. >> thank you very much, ambassador. >> thank you, congressman. >> the hearing will reconvene. we appreciate the work to make us aware of the security situation and to ensure the hearing here is safe to reconvene. i appreciate the cooperation of our witness. thank you, ambassador. and we'll now go to mr. shabbott ambassador, for the

questions he was going to ask. >> thank you mr. chairman. and welcome back. i first like to associate myself with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle with respect to cuba. a great amount of skepticism there. i won't go into that in great detail because others did. the topic i'd first like to go into is the fact that russia, as we all know by force, has taken crimea and eastern ukraine, yet this administration still hasn't supplied ukraine with respectry necessary to defend itself. our allies have done very little to help. that's not really surprising. secretary kerry met with putin last month and, in effect, told putin we'd lift sanctions on them if they promise not to take even more territory. not that they'd abandon crimea but that they not take any more

territory. earlier this year by democratic colleague and i introduced the crimea annexation nonrecognition act, hr-93, which states it's u.s. policy not to recognize the sovereignty of russia over crimea or its waters or air space. what's the u.s. and what is the u.n. doing to get russia out of crimea and it's no secret that some believe that this administration wants russia's support in the iran deal that it's willing to cut russia some slack on ukraine with respect to crimea. how would you respond to that? >> thank you sir. having just returned from ukraine, these issues are particularly fresh in my mind as is the suffering of the people of crimea. many have been displaced.

the community there unable to exercise its rights. independent media shut down. disappearances, detentions. one is the fact that russia, a permanent member of the security council has lopped off part of one person's country. the second is the conditions in which people in that territory are now living or the displacement that's arisen from the abuses being carried out. at the united nations, because russia is a permanent member and veto holder a privilege that all of us really should exercise great responsibility in having, but russia is not, our ability to get the security council to sanction a permanent member veto holder is blunted. however, in the u.n. general assembly, and this is unheralded not wideley known we were tubl galvanize 100

countries to vote against what russia was trying to do in crimea to stand for ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, to reject the phony referendum which gave them a choice of independence from ukraine and joining russia. didn't give them the choice of remaining part of the country they were a part of. the consequence of that resolution is that the maps at the united nations the maps under international law will not change. and so it is still the case that all the maps at the united nations show crimea where it belongs, which is part of ukraine. sanctions put in place by virtue of crimea will not be lifted until crimea is restored to ukraine. with regard to secretary kerry's meeting, i don't know if there's been misreporting, the u.s. position has been very very clear, which is minsk

implementation is required to be any off ramp on the eastern ukraine related sanctions. minsk implementation would result in the restoration of the international border to ukrainian sovereign control. that sour position. that's the position that the europeans agreed to at the g7 meeting. >> i'm going to -- i've got two questions. i'm just going to get the one. as we all know pretty horrific things have been happening to especially christians and muslims as well under isis control. dozens taken out to beaches and beheaded. people kidnapped and who knows what's happened. there's been crucifixions. what's the u.n. doing to help protect christians in places like syria and iraq and libya. what can we do to get involved

here? >> several things. first, part of ensuring protection for civilians who are vulnerable is being able to shelter them when they flee their homes and making sure they aren't vulnerable there to secondary attacks. because of the horrors carried out by isil you're seeing advance flight. if people hear isil is en route, they are picking up their families and kids and moving forward. it's the u.n. working with the iraqi government and indeed even in parts of s ofs of syria with the syrian government. unhcr is sheltering refugees. that's on the humanitarian side. the u.n. is also the venue where president obama chaired a hearing on foreign terrorist fighters. people share information, stop the flow of these many thousands of individuals from neighboring

countries who have staffed isil, who are helping them reflenish their numbers. so the u.n. has become a venue in which we measure compliance and hold countries accountable when they aren't doing what they should be doing. preventing people from leaving their territory or crossing borders into syrian iraq to staff isil. the coalition effort has gotten le jit legitimacy. iraq came to the security council with a letter and asked for the united states and the rest of the international community to step up militarily and through using diplomatic political and other means against isil. it's also a venue in which coalition countries come together to compare notes and figure out what more we can be doing. this is a long campaign with a lot of ups and downs.

it's critical we keep the line moving. some of the gove governance issues get aaddressed so people are not attracted to isil. we counter violent extremism in our own country. the foreign terrorist finance chicago can ing which can be done through oil revrevenue. so much of the isil equation is the product of things crossing borders. this is where the united nations shows it's indispensablity because it can impose standards, hold people accountable globally that can be a venue for naming and shaming and also mobilizeing resources. >> we'll have to karen bass of california. >> thank you, mr. chair for calling today's mite meeting.

ambassador power in your opening statement you really demonstrated the complexity of what is happening in the world today. the unprecedented number of conflicts. in this context i wanted to commend your leadership for focusing on conflicts and crises especially in africa that don't often rise to the attention of the world. i wanted to discuss a few examples and ask you a couple of questions. you mentioned ebola. i want to highlight that you led the effort in the u.n. to push the international community to take action. you chaired the first emergency meeting to gather momentum for international support. it's a source of pride for all of us. the role that our nation played in stamping out ebola in liberia. and i want to ask you about this because we have new cases. in terms of boko haram, the security council took a step to

help the nigerian government to beat boko haram and assist in the effort to return the girls. you may know of a weekly campaign that goes on here where members come together and make sure members of congress do not forget the girls that have been missing for over the last year. i appreciate your support for u.s. funding to directly support the effort to eliminate boko haram. in terms of the central african republic, i had the privilege of traveling to both of those countries with you. you were first in pushing our response in part because of your leadership in forming the atroc atrocityies prevention board. the board responded to the crisis at its outset and delivered $11 million in humanitarian support, $60 million in military assistance to the international effort. in burundi when we traveled there, you met with the president and encouraged him not to run, not to try to run for a

thurd term. he did just that. there was the attempted coup and now there is chaos. a couple of the questions i had, could you provide an update about the u.n. response to the crisis in burundi c.a.r. and the new cases of ebola that have emerged. >> thank you congresswoman. just to your opening point about the extent of the crises, gravity of the crises, one of the lines i've been drawing on is shakespeare's line from the tempest. hell is empty. all the devils are here. sometimes it feels that way. just to underscore the pride, i think, all of us and it really is was a massive bipartisan a shining example of what a significant bipartisan effort can the impact it can make in

the real world on ebola. people really stepped up in this country and, of course, in the congress providing the resources we needed and drawing attention to the crisis. president obama sending nearly 3,000 troops as well as a couple thousand civilians, and then the american people. ultimately this effort was staffed by sanitation workers health workers doctors who left their families and took tremendous rinks recognizing again a core axiom of the international system which is -- it won't come here if we can neutralize it there. just on that score where we are right now when that meeting at the security council occurred and when president obama made his announcement which we used to leverage to get help from other countries. you had them projecting as man as a million infections by january 2015.

we're down to 25 cases a week in sierra leone and guinea and liberia down to zero since may. it's tricky, the last stage. as long as there's one case it's a case that can exponentially multifly. the systems are now in place. the risk of a massive spike has been mitigated substantially by the investments we've already made. but sort of kicking it and getting not just bending the curve but ending the curve. it's a challenging last phase. the world food program is there providing food to people who go to clinics. part of the challenge is ensuring individuals will step up and allow themselves to be isolated. they were worried if they left their families there would be no one left. it's had to be a comprehensive effort. the biggest challenge outstanding is in guinea. still the level of community

resistance and to messages from the center has been an impediment. that's what we have to overcome and get this down to zero and concentrate on building back better so societies are not less vulnerable to an outbreak but other infectious disease and health creases. very briefly on burundi, you're right. when we look back at the last year, we can, on the one hand, take some satisfaction that we really did go all in on preventive diplomacy. a decision to seek a third term would be a violation of the spirit of the agreement because it had been the social compact on which so many ethnic and political tensions had been, if not laid to rest, at least neutralized. violating that agreement was bound to have severe destable using effects.

we got ahead of it. the security council also traveled in the wake of our visit. huge and sustained high-level engagement by the united states. but a certain point you can deliver that message, say put your country first. please, mr. president, be your country's george washington. be prepared to walk away and they'll put their self-interest ahead of the risk of severe destabilization. the third term issue remains the central sticking pount. it's been compounded by the fact the government in the wake of an attempted coup which we condemned, the government has attempted to shut down almost all of the independent media deny freedom of association. once people's rights are violated, then it is a further destabilizing phenomenon. >> we'll go now to mr. michael

mccall, chairman of the homeland security committee. >> let me first -- i led's delegation to the middle east and europe. let me commend you in working with lisa monaco. we met with the turkish officials. the information sharing on travel and watch list is a huge breakthrough. and i commend you for that and encourage you to keep the pressure up on the foreign fighter issue. the eu -- if you are a citizen of the european union, and coming out of the region through trkley, you are not going to be screened past a watch list which i thought was a glaring security gap. the eu parliament is getting ready to address this issue. many of the countries we met with understand the threat that poses. i hope you can continue to apply that pressure.

let me turn to foreign aid. we give a lot of money to countries that vote against us in the united nations. president reagan's ambassador your predecessor gene kirkpatrick testified before congress. we need to communicate to nations their attitudes inside the u.n. must have consequences for their relations with the united states outside the u.n. system. in response to her testimony, congress passed eded legislation that would tie it to the amount of foreign assistance provided. in 1990 this provision was apile appealed eded but the state department continued flas edd this practice of reporting to congress. the obama administration ended

this practice in 2010, and i want to see if you can explain to me why the administration ended that practice. >> well i am actually not aware that we ended that practice because we still retain very, very careful records of voting coincidents with the united states. i study these pore over these look at ebbs and flows and try to understand why a country goes from a yes vote to a no vote. it's important. we believe in transparency. i'm sure this is something we can look at and take offline. if i can get at the harder issue that you raise is not can we share our assessment of how countries are aligning with us on a range of issues. it's this question of what do you do about it? my view is we should call

countries out. we should press them publicly and privately. it needs to be raised in capital. one of the benefits of being in the president's cabinet is the close working relationship with kerry and rice. stooms what they are doing without capitals knowing and making sure there's an accountability chain back to the capital. depending on the vote it's conceivable you can look at more robust steps along the lines you describe. but let's recall that often countries that may vote against us on a resolution in the general assembly -- against a resolution that we vote for, those same countries may be providing peacekeepers to northern mali. they may be countries we're providing generous help.

helping girls get educated around the world. ebola we've described. investments in the global health security architecture that's in our interest over time. so usually the decisions around who we provide assistance to are overdetermined by a set of factors and a set of interests very important to us. i just think -- >> it's very complex extraordinarily complex. i do think congress has to look at this issue. you are required to submit an annual report on the voting practices in the u.n. it was due on march 31st. and it's june. are you planning to submit this report? >> we meet our obligations to congress, so yes, i will look into where it is. it may be on my desk. >> i would like to see that.

i recognize the complexity, but it is important to us. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador power for being here and offering your expert testimony on many of the issues before this committee. i want commend you for your tremendous work and your leadership at the u.n. as congresswoman bass said. in a complicated world you've provided extraordinary leadership and have been able to lead an effort to accomplish quite a lot at the u.n. thank you for your service. i want to turn to the efforts being made to stem the flow of foreign fighters. you mentioned the president convened a summit of leaders at the u.n. in september where a security council resolution was adopted requiring countries to have laws to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters and those who fund them to prevent them from entering the country and crossing territories.

what seems to be the greatest challenge in seeing those measures implemented, and are there things we can be doing to support that effort? we've heard so much testimony over the last several months about this issue of foreign fighters and stemming the flow of foreign fighters. this seemed like a positive step. i'd like to hear your thoughts on that. >> thank you. it's not often how the question is posed, which is why, which is really important. we've made substantial headway by putting the issue on the agenda. identifying the areas of action where countries need to step up. we're not where we need to be. by we i mean the international community. secretary johnson just got to make this point. we sat the first u.n. meeting where interior ministers sat in

the clairhair. it made sense for foreign ministry to be talking to each other. here where the threats are deriving often from lapses in internal security or a community's failure to catch that someone was drufting off and about to become a foreign terrorist fighter, we need to get people presiding over those programs together. it's where the u.n. needs to go. have more of those technical discussions where people who are dealing with threats come together. to your question on why it's, of course a common issue. many of the countries from which foreign terrorists fighters are coming are countries that have very poor border security very weak intelligence services to actually be able to track citizens and how they are

moving. and this gets to the president's west point speech and his basically his direction to all of us that we need to invest far more in partner capacity. sometimes people focus on the border aspect of that. the institution building is important and political will. and in other countries, privacy concerns. some have held back the amount of privacy sharing that can be done. >> with respect to the efforts of the u.n. to protect lgbt individuals around the world, i'd like to speak to that. we've seen terrible increases in violence against members of the lgbt community in places around the world. you've led some work at the u.n. talk about some of the successes as a result of our participation in the human rights council. it's a flawed entity but there's been some good that's come from

it. maybe you can speak to that briefly. >> that's where i was going before we were interrupted in response to congressman deutch's question. we've already discussed at length some of the flaws or structural issues with the u.n. security council. we find there or in the general assembly which is apprised more than half of the member states are not democratic and not necessarily rights respecting. it can be a venue they can push the envelope on norms. we all remember back in 1993, the beijing conference on women. women's rights are human rights. the same shift has happened on lgbt rights. declarations have been made. resloogs -- we've managed to

insert those killed on the basis of sexual orientation status. that's an example of finding the constitution where you can mobilize the votes and pushing the envelope. what we have now is the second report ever prepared by the high commissioner on the treatment of lgbt persons. you have a norm. that's important. implementation is what matters. how are countries measuring up. documenting that for the first time. people who have felt invisible now know the international community is watching and we have their back. >> mr. chairman, i know my time has expired. i might submit a question and ask for a written response. i'm proud to be part of the peacekeeping congress so that

members could discuss regional piecekeeping operations and their impact. if you could madam ambassador, let us know what benefit do these international forces have to american strategic goals and security and have they been successful in carrying out their missions? it would help guide the work of this new caucus and continue to be a supportive entity for the work of the u.n. and its peacekeeping efforts. we're going to go to ted yoho of florida and back to ted deutch of florida. >> thank you. ambassador power appreciate you being here. these are the kinds of conditions we were tauklking about syria and ukraine. conditions and situations we see conflict in that the u.n. was created to prevent.

ukraine, syria, over 2,000 killed. iraq. you can go on and on and on. why has the u.n. not been more effective. i read a report about the peacekeepers in haiti. over 220 examples of the peacekeepers trading phones and aid for sex. and they are supposed to be out there promoting this, yet this happens over and over again. yet we do a study to study it and there's no end in sight it seems like. why are they not more effective? >> thank you, sir. >> i think how to make it more effective. >> that's the question i ask myself every day. the they is also us. 193 countries. half of whom are not democratic, to some extent the organization is going to reflect some of the

ds dysfunction of member states who comprise the organization. there's no justification not one cannot that would raise its hand and say they are revolted by what happens. when a peacekeeper from a particular member state is alleged to have committed crimes against young people or against women or men or boys they go back to their home state and the only punishment is often just not getting to be part of that mission and carrying out the practices ss they were carrying out. the u.n. is the sum of the efforts of the member states who comprise it. ultimately our ability to change those horrific practices and lack of accountability is going to turn on what we achieve in the capital, in our

strengthening of those institutions. in a democracy they'd come back and face if it were a european or american peacekeeper erer they'd go through a formal justice system. that's why investments in the kind of institutions that we were talking about is very important. it's also have usingore inging our platform to denounce this and never tolerate it and emphasize the one part of the u.n. we fund, the secretariat. gets instruction from the member states. it has autonomy. and for the secretary-general and his team to be investigating these abuses, to be sending people home and calling on those member states even publicly if that's what's required to investigate and build on the internal studies. when you find a country has not

prosecuted a person who has violated a child, who has relied upon that individual for protection, you call that country out, visit that country. >> i want to come back to that's where i think we need to go. i want to switch over to iran. you said the obama administration led multilateral sanctions against iran to bring them to the table. what was the purpose of that whole negotiation? what were we trying to prevent? >> the negotiation or the sanctions? >> well the sanctions. what was the points of that. i know it was to bring them to the negotiations table. what are we trying to accomplish >> trying to deny iran a pathway to nuclear -- >> that's what everybody says. i have had expert over expert in the past two years saying iran has enough material for new mexico bombs.

henry kissinger came out and said that. we had a retired general said that last week. we're beyond that. i just don't see, you know, in good faith how we can support this agreement. i would think sanctions should be back in place and you said president obama has snapped back authority with his pen is what you said. do you really have the expectation that a snap back would be effective? i mean they are not even coming clean now, why would we go forward and if we do find out -- you know it's more evident that they have not held up their end of the condition do we really think that we're going to put these sanctions back in place with snap back? >> if, first of all again, there's no deal. we're still negotiating a lot of the terms of the deal, as you can see from some of the public commentary, there are significant differences that remain and our red lines are red. we're not going take a deal where we can't come to the american people and say that we

have achieved the objective -- >> i'm out of time but our red line is that they can't have nuclear weapons but they already have. >> they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> the experts disagree with you. >> i don't think there's an expert that says they have a nuclear weapon. >> they have a capacity to have that. we're beyond that point of preventing what we can't instead of preparing for what we can. thank you. >> we go to mr. ted deutsch from florida. >> thank you for being here and staying with all the members. to discuss these important issues with you. i just had two final points in my remaining time. first, you had said earlier in response to a question about the specifics of snap back that congress will be briefed if a deal is done. i just -- i would just make the request of you and the

administration that rather than waiting until there is a deal that's done, that this is the time, over the next couple of weeks especially when it's so important for the administration to brief congress to let us know what's happening so that one, we're aware of what's happening. two, we can chime in we can have our questions asped and most importantly so no one is surprised with the idea that a deal will simply be dropped upon us at some date on or after june 30th. that's just a request. finally, i wanted to thank you for your efforts in working with israeli ambassador and the united nations to put together the first general assembly on anti-semitism and thank you for allowing me to participate. some of the important topics that we covered that day were the anti-israel bias in some

part of the united nations, a growing movement thinly veiled anti-semitism and other forms of anti-semitism in recent months manifested itself in violence and deadly attacks in brussels and paris and copenhagen and elsewhere. my question is after that special session on anti-semitism, after that conference when there were more than 60 countries who participated, what's been done what have you done what has the u.s. delegation done in order to move forward with some of those important discussions that took place then? how combat anti-semitism. how to help nations around the world understand anti-semitism in their countries isn't just an issue as it affects the jewish community but ultimately when there's hatred anti-semitism and the jewish communities are just the canary in the coal mine. can you tell us what happened

since. >> on that issue and i'll come back to iran in just a second. it was truly a historic session. i mean when you think about what the general assembly not only has done historically equating zionism and racism but as it does annually this year with 18 anti-israel resolutions all of which were voted against, to be in that chamber, i think was extremely important not only for the government of israel but for the united states and for many of the countries that helped shepherd that session forward. it wasn't easy. in terms of follow through i think we have to be careful not to confine discussions of anti-semitism to meetings on anti-semitism. what we're doing at the human rights council in the general assembly when we talk about other human rights challenges we're facing in the world we're always again coming back to

anti-semitism, documents what has been done, who has done what. we are still doing a lot of advocacy including by our anti-semitism envoy mr. foreman in capitals to get governments to do what we have done which is to appoint a special envoy dedicated to this effort, somebody preferably very plugged in the center not somebody, again you throw off to the side and keep marginalized from the mainstream of decision-making. there's education and community outreach and so forth that are central to this and require real political will from the top. a lot of our outreach has been in capital and in united nations we're looking to mainstream this issue. you don't get a clean bill of health on civil rights when you're encouraging anti-semitism. on tern dealhe iran deal fundamentally this deal will come back here.

people will be studying it and asking questions. as you know we have been briefing this deal at every term and specifically on the snap back mechanism if members have not received adequate insight into how we're looking at that and what the range of options are, again any one of them would achieve the shared objective we have which is to keep that within our authority this is the one at the u.n. i'm referring, to but if there's any shortage of insight in terms of how we're looking at this that's something i'm eggager to provide. we have sought to engage congress throughout this process, i think there have been more briefings on this issue than any other on planet earth. but, again, if there's more information we need to provide at this delicate stage we would be happy to do so. maybe in an open hearing might not be ideal. >> i would take some exception,

ambassador. from the standpoint of congress we do not feel we have received the details on these he in negotiations. >> it sounds to me when i listen attentively when i was in the room the rest of the world gets a great deal here. the oil companies get to run great surpluses with us. we fund their economies. the manufacturing outsourcing countries of the world china being the top of the line run great trade surpluses with us. then they all go the u.s. or the u.n. and they pound on us, they pound on israel, as i heard earlier from congressman deutsch

and others not objective with respect toiz, i, not objective to slavery and on top of that we pay for it. in nominal terms we're over 20 puerto rico of the world's gdp but as i under it we're paying over 20% of the cost of the u.n. there's something wrong with this picture. it seems we're not using our money at the u.n. to create leverage. and nor are we using our markets to create leverage. so we fund everyone else's economy and the global economy, we are the engine and then we turn around and tolerate the kind of things you have been talking about today. being mr. and mrs. nice guy doesn't seem to be working here. it feels like from an economic perspective people only understand leverage and so therefore, i'm not clear why we don't use our economic and monetary leverage both at the

u.n. and with respect to the global marketplace. am i missing something here in my synopsis? i'm sure you will tell me i am. >> i would say a few things in response. i tuned frustration and one of the priorities we've had at the u.n. is to get more countries to pay their fair share and i think you're going to see, you have seen over the last three to five years china's share for instance of u.n. peace keeping where the united states is the lead funder, but its share has gone up by more than 50% and soon in the next round of negotiations around the peace keeping scales you'll see it go up another 50% commensurate with the global economy and that's the kind of distribution of resource provision that we need to see at the u.n. and as people graduate from being underdeveloped countries they need to step up

and take their share of the burden and that's something, again, that's constantly being reassessed. >> can i follow up just on that point. with respect to china, i mean the american consumer via walmart is funding the building of their military and their economic prowess. do we ever talk about not only having them increase what they pay for the u.n. but also do we ever want to use our marketplace to kind of level things out here? >> to stick to what i know best the place i work and how we engage the countries that you have expressed concerns about, you know, the fact of the matter is we as a nation, as we saw with the ebola crisis have an interest in global health security in part because of the globalized economy, in part because goods and people are crossing borders in the way that they are and the notion we can take our marbles and go home and

wish everybody the best doesn't get at the core of national security linkages and human security linkages that exist in 2015. also i would note on peace keeping which is a place again where it's fair to ask should other countries be stepping up more, that peace keeping while we do our major contribution, it's not our forces who are going into south sudan and, you know, being on those bases and protecting civilians. it's not our force in northern mahli, more that have been killed by ieds and other things. we're taking advantage of the global system so that tissue of security is being manned by others than americans and american families. indeed the peace keeping share that we pay still leaves the rest of the shares, even put to one side the fact that it's other countries, troops and police going to dangerous place

other countries are also paying 72% of the burden. and if you look at nato, defense expenditures where europeans really have not stepped up to allocate their defense as they should be the figures are reversed. we're 80% of nato's defense expenditures. i actually think even though u.n. peace keeping suffers from these flaws and president obama launched this initiative to ensure missions have better capabilities to protect civilians and prevent sexual abuse and so forth in terms of us seeing atrocities being prevented, radicalization prevented by virtue of having some stability, the rule of law advanced not least also because of corruption and some other thing that we see which don't help american companies seeking to operate in these environments, there's a set of

investment there's that are good for us and the united nations help us make them but also helps us force multiple. what we invest we can leverage. still 72% on peace keeping provided by others. in our regular budget it's 78% provided by others. >> we go now to california. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, ambassador power for your service to our country but your service over the years as a leading advocate on global human rights. i'm going turn my questioning a little bit to internal politics within the u.n. as a body it certainly has served us well throughout its history but if we look at the makeup of the u.n. security council, you know it does seem like it is time to revamp the permanent membership of the u.n. security council, certainly to include the g 4 countries india, brazil japan and germany

and if we take india specifically, you know soon to be most populace nation on the planet, one of the fastest growing economies, certainly a critical ally of the united states and my understanding president obama is supportive of including india as a member, as a permanent member of the u.n. security council. can you give us a sense of how this body working with the administration might be able to work within the political structure of the united nations to move forward including more nations as permanent members again recognizing the world we're in the 21st century. >> it's an excellent question. because it's the 70th anniversary of the u.n. it's a question many of my counterparts from around the world are asking this year specifically and there's no question that when you have a body whose permanent

membership hasn't changed in 70 years, you know there are people on the outside who ask is this the alignment of power and influence in 2015, then it's hard to say it's a perfect calibration. i think the challenge is while everybody, almost everybody is supportive of security council reform in the abstract there are huge and quite bitter divisions within the u.n. membership just who should get those seats. and while india has the support, the united states has made clear, president obama has made clear on his trip we can't imagine a reform security council that doesn't include india, other countries are throwing everything they have at preventing that outcome. and so what has not happened is you've not seen one version of security council reform that has gathered a majority of

countries, and even this year when there's been more action on this issue really haven't seen momentum again gather around any particular reform scenario. the u.s. position is very clear. we recognize some of the legitimacy challenges that the currents council poses particularly in terms of its permanent membership. we recognize the growth and the influence of countries india who incidentally one of the leading contributors to peace keeping, huge amount within the u.n. family and has a huge amount to offer as the world's largest democracy but we focus on the efficiency of the u.n. and we're looking beyond that case at how countries would likely perform on the security council. we're looking at issues relating to advocating coincidence which was discussed earlier. we're looking for countries that share our approach to promoting internal peace and security, to

promoting human rights to seeing the linkages between the humanitarian and human rights on one hand and peace and security on the other. it's not clear this is going to move forward quickly. >> as these discussions take place and the u.n. debates in the security council are there things this body, congress can do that would be productive in helping to move this along? >> well i probably should have noted in order for security council reform to take hold this congress would also have to ratify any reform package. so in the past when the size of the council while the permanent membership hasn't changed since 1945 the size has and i want has to come before this congress. one thing that can to be done is to actually pass imf reform because one of the things that these emerging powers look to is the congress' ability to ensure

that international -- to support measures that would ensure that international institutions actually reflect 2015 measures of influence including economic influence as distinct from those a decade or more ago. it would be an important show of our attention to the rise of these countries to the need for their their voices to be exercised and for these countries to dedicate more resources. for more authority per our last exchange contribute more to everything from peace keeping to development to humanitarian assistance, et cetera. >> thank you, ambassador. >> thank you. >> thank you very much ambassador power. we thank you for being with us this morning. and we also thank you for returning and for our brief interruption and i look forward

to continuing to work with you on the pressing issues raised here today including the plight of refugees, issues like peace keeping reform and the ongoing crisis in syria and, of course, with you and the administration on iran sanctions, the committee trusts the administration will be in close touch with us on these negotiations. we don't want to be surprised in the final agreement, given the position that congress has taken on this and especially the suggestion that the administration may be backing off its original demand that iran submit to inspections ever its nuclear sites at any time. this is for us as is this question of the lifting of sanctions, not being on the front end as a signing bonus but instead being over the long haul of what was supposed to be a 20

year agreement. but we thank you again, ambassador. and see you soon in new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the next washington journal, john sununu former governor and chief of staff to president bush and the book he wrote, "the commonwealth man." then senator chris murphy and the u.s. strategy against isis. and a story on whether the 2016

republican hopefuls will cut government spending. washington journal is live on c-span and you can contribute to the program on facebook and on twitter at c-span. >> wednesday defense secretary ashton carter and martin dempsey testify before the armed services committee. it will focus on policy in the middle east and military strategy combat isis. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. some are sitting kind of front left of the chamber, if you will and so when brooks comes into the chamber he comes into the center door, sits down and almost looking directly at sumner. problem is sumner is not looking at him. sumner's head is bowed.

he's literally signing copies of crimes against kansas speech. he gets up walks down the center aisle. sumner oblivious to what's happening. signing these copies of the speech. brooks reaches him. lifts his cane over his head. and says, mr. sumner i've read your speech over twice it's a libel to my state and my relative. sumner looks up at this point. brooks is blurred through his glasses because he's so close and brooks strikes sumner on the top of his head the cane. sumner's head explodes in blood almost instantly. >> on the caning of massachusetts senator charles sumner by south carolina congressman preston brooks that drove the country closer to civil war. sun night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. monday the brookings institution hosted a discussion on the role of the united

nations in responding to transnational challenges. susana malcorra also spoke about the u.n.'s post 2015 development agenda. this is an hour and 15 minutes. 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 chef de cabinet of the secretary of united nations. a moment ago we were chatting about her job, how interesting 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 jobs and went into telefonicas argentinas the major telecommunications company of her country where she

rose to a very responsible position 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 nations 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 de cabinet 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 an organization of member states. sum of member states, 193 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. 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 rohingyas coming out of myanmar.

and we see the connection between political and security issues, 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 box 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 that 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 8i challenges are absolutely -- nature.

most of them 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. and there is a new development which is the competition between al qaeda and these new approaches and how they view themselves in seizing 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 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 these 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 that 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 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 continued dedication 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. we can offer openings we can think ideas that compromise. 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 own. so other than volunteering options that at least can give the members of the security council alternatives that maybe they have not thought about and that can be first step to move the agenda, the rest will still lay in the hands of the member states. >> do you ever find yourself playing the opposite role? sheer what i'm thinking. the u.n. has, by practice and to a certain extent by policy taken a 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 etcetera. but do you ever find yourself

finding that a particular actor is simply intractable and the message you have from the security council is we need to move on from a political solution? do you ever find yourself in that role? you, the secretary. >> it is clear that we have often to speak with very, very difficult actors. and we have done that full time. but it's also clear that as you get into this new era that i described 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. 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 disregards and wants to destroy institutions, how can you establish the negotiation there or a compromise there? it's such a principal issue that i think it's hard to think -- to how embrace this group. >> staying on radical treatment of terrorism issues for a moment, you described a number of themes that you're reconsidering and you're looking at. but when it comes to the question of violent extremism, these transborder issues, you talked about migration smuggling, etcetera, is it also the case that you need to work with other actors? the 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 strictky with the notion of an organization that is a member state organization. so we need to be able to contract circles of outreach where in the end, the center remains the general semester knowledgely and it's 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 darchbt manner. some of them don't represent themselves even by their own government. so it is clear that we need to be able to transpire the principal in a different way. but not only that we need also socialists 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. you will require private sector, you will require an engagement of ngos of foundations, of all sorts of sources that will help the contractive solutions. all of this is very difficult for the united nations. it's very difficult because dealing with private sectors is for example a new proposition and also the united nations does not understand how to deal with the private sector. trying to set the stage for a relationship with the private sector that is neutral lyly

satisfactory, that is win-win, that is something we don't do well. and to speak with the private sector on sort of an equal footing. so all of this is something we need to develop because there is the divide between the public and the prior to and that suggests we need to blur the device under the different responsibilities. >>. >> i want to talk to you about peace keeping. 120 peacekeepers at its maximum. i was struck by a statistic that somebody from your old shop shared with me that the territory that falls currently under mandates is slightly larger than the roman empire at its peak. does the structure have the staff, 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 that there is in the u.s., we are at a place that is 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 state conditions is totally different. the command and control is different. the relationship between the military deployment and the own capital is always there which makes things even more

difficult. so the short answer is no, i'm sure we don't have anything that we need. but it's also true i don't see an appetite for member states to pour in many more resources. so what we are trying is to do the best we can with the resources that we have. and i think when you look at it all in all, the balance is quite possible. having said that, we have many areas to focus on. >> there's an issue that continues to be a challenge and just say a few words about your thinking and what you're doing on that. >> well, it clearly is general kofi annan's time and there were suggestions to change how the organization handled the issues. a lot of progress has been made.

we see now systemic approaches on the issues and it's true that the member states decided that this was in the end going to be their responsibilities. it was going to be in their hands. so it gets to one point where you transfer the member states and it's pretty much in their hands. so looking into this now and member states are looking into this, probably to take a second look to those recommendations and some that may come after ten years of 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 states 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 this are very, very appalling things that we just cannot stand. they should not happen, but at least it's better than we know they happen. and bringing these to the limelight hurts because it hurts the institution as we know. but until we get them to zero that there's not a single case it's better to be heard than to ignore it. >> let's turn to the audience and i'll take several questions and come back to you. we're running 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 jeanie moyce. my question has to do with asia

and the current tension that is imminent, including everything that you listed with human rights development and peace and security. so to that, especially with the tensions in the south china sea and the diversion in -- with the conflict necessary between rising powers and many others and the u.n., my question to you is do you think we have adequate representation of the regions in the security council? how do pld a security council in regional representatives and also what institutions do you think -- 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