operations. and the process of the 2012 presidential primaries and cauc uses. "washington journal," at 7:4030 on c- >> we will hear from congressman steve king then michele bachmann, herman cain, and john bolton. >> several potential 2012 republican presidential candidates are in des moines, iowa this weekend to speak at the conservatives principles political action committee daylong conference. the group was established by iowa republican congressman steve king to encourage constitutional conservatives to run for elected offices. we will hear first from congressman king then from

michele bachmann, herman cain, and former un ambassador john boldin. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning. this is a great way to start a conference. anyone who woke up half asleep is more like i did is wide awake and ready to go. i what is wide awake and ready to go. we will launch this caucus season so we can stand on these proposed and hopefully the principles that we embody will be embodied by one or more of the presidential candidates.

i have a feeling the dye will be cast before those primaries along the way. you as an activist iowans have more to say about the agenda and the planks in the platform and who the next president of the united states will be. it is an extraordinary responsibility. it is a privilege and a blessing. you step up to it with great enthusiasm. i know the basis of knowledge many of you bring into this role. i know how seriously you take this. to start this off this morning i was just sitting in and thinking, how do i best describe what is that makes america great and the constitutional conservative principles that i believe need to be embodied in the next president of the united states. i went back to 1997 when i was a freshman in the united states

senate. i would read everything. it took me three years for me to figure out i did not need to read all of that. i also thought i should read the code of iowa. i came to the education chapter in the code of iowa. i was reading through there and it said, each child in iowa shall receive a global not- sexist, multi-cultural education. that means all of the schools in the state would have to teach multiculturalism. i have never been a fan of any of those things. [applause] i took out a bill draft request form to write a bill to strike

all of that language out of there. i would get that drafted and get it filed. i thought, if i just strike the language out that calls for the global, non-sexist multiculturalism. but i thought people would think i did not believe in everything. i wrote a bill to replace it. strike up the language about global non-sexist multiculturalism. each child would be taught that the united states is the greatest nation in the world based on free enterprise capitalism. [applause]

i remember i was green and naive. i introduced the bill and you just drop it in the clerk's box and it would work its way through the system. the next morning, i went inside the house chambers and every democrat had their lights on. they wanted to talk, every one of them. i am sitting there, this innocent baby. they would get up and said, steve king introduced this bill. the audacity to say that the united states is the u.n. challenged greatest nation in the world. he wants to get rid of multiculturalism. they took turns beating on me. i am sitting there thinking, what is this hyperventilation about?

aren't these things true? i will go further. i believe god guided our founding fathers. he moved them around like men on a chess board to ship this nation. we need to defend and uphold what they did. it is not just to protect what we had. it is not just to declared that the shining city on the hill has been achieved. it has not. when and if it is, ronald reagan never said you can go home. he said we need to take ourselves to another level. we need to take this nation up to the next level of our destiny. i am hopeful that the next president of the united states, whose ideas and principles you help forge it today, will lay out an agenda and you can shape the plant and the platform for the next president of the united states, whose ticket will be punched out of i will and will be on his way to new hampshire.

i hope we can link what we believe in on the whole spectrum of the seventh of ideas and but another ticket out of new hampshire now to south carolina and launched that president to the white house so that barack obama is a one-term president. [applause] in the process, i want to do this. if you are going to have a victory, you have to imagine that victory in your mind's eye. i have laid out a strategy for the repeal of obamacare. here is the balance of this strategy. we pass the repeal in the house. we need to continue to put the pressure on the senate. we need to shut off the funding to implement obamacare off $5.50 billion in automatic spending has to be shut off. we have to elect a president

who will pledge to sign the repeal of obamacare. the next president of the united states will be sworn in on a january 20, 2013 in the the west of the capital. when he or she stands there and take that oath of office i would like to have at present is a with pen in hand. [laughter] [applause] i really like it when you get the pipeline before i get to it. i want him to say, so help me god. and before he shakes hands with chief justice roberts, i want him to sign the repeal of obamacare write there. welcome to the conference. i am looking forward to this day. i would be just as happy sitting in these seats soaking up the message coming from the candidates.

the panelists we have our full spectrum conceptus. they are constitutional conservatives, as are you. the-they are full spectrum conservatism's. -- they are full spectrum conservatives. who is ready to kick off a caucus? [applause] >> is an exciting to be here? there is no place like iowa. we love it, and it is wonderful to be in a state rehab the king of conservatism, steve king.

steve and i are actually a cage team match. in washington d.c., we like to get in the same arena and fight the same fight beginning with one of the fights that president obama brought to us. does anyone remember the trillion dollars stimulus bill? we were all promised that we would never see unemployment go up 8% if we spend a trillion dollars. let me ask you a question. did president obama correctly diagnosed the problem with job creation? did he have the correct solution was spending a trillion dollars? what is his level of credibility on job creation? not so much. iowans are very intelligent people, besides being extremely good-looking and very well tempered. also another area that steve and i have teamed up on is the issue

of obamacare the government takeover of health care. let me ask you did the president correctly diagnosed the problem with health care in this country? it was high costs, wasn't it? the high cost of health care. did he correctly diagnosed the solution? no, he did not understand. what is his credi obamacare? not so much, that's right. remember when the president talked about how during the obamacare negotiations, all of the negotiations would be like this today, what steve king is providing you, on c-span. did that happen? what is his level of credibility? not so much, that's right. i want to remind you, not to mention that the president was 0 for 4 on his final four

prediction last year. now he has thus engaged in yet another third middle eastern war. talk about march madness, can anyone say jimmy carter? i am here in iowa because this 2012 election is extremely important. how many of you feel the same way? [applause] all of our ships are riding on 2012, and a candidate for 2012 has to know a few things. bafta clearly diagnose and understand the times we are living in -- they have to clearly diagnose and understand the times we are living in. they have to have solutions for the problems we are facing. that have to have the political courage to stand up to the interests, stand up to washington d.c., stand up to big spenders and to what has to be done. that is what we need in our candidate for 2012.

[applause] because we are a nation of risk takers. that is how the nation started. i am an island. i was born here in waterloo, iowa almost 55 years ago to the week. i am a seventh generation iowa andnn. my forebears were tall strapping norwegians who came from norway where it was only 2% tillable land. they risked everything to pack up their five children and come to ottawa because they heard that this was the land of milk and honey -- iowa is the land of milk and honey. we had one person clap for that. i agree with you.

i think you are absolutely right, thank you. and yet, everything that my great great grandparents worked for that your ancestors worked for is at risk today. what happens between now and november 6 2012, is -- especially here in iowa, will force the difference with what happens in 2012. do you think you are up to it? i know you are up to it. i know you are. because what we are about to determine together here in iowa is whether or not, quite frankly, we will pass the american dream on to this next generation. this has faithfully happen, at least for the seven generations that i know of here in iowa, but for the generations that add up to approximately 20 generations of american history.

every generation has faithfully past that torch of liberty to the next one but we know what is at risk. i want to share a few statistics about what is happening today. 75% is the mound that national debt has increased just under the four years that nancy pelosi held the gavel. it took us 231 years to establish something over eight trillion dollars in debt. it took her for years to run up six trillion dollars more in deficits to get us up to $14 trillion. of course that made our chinese banker friends very happy. you know that the chinese leader is president hu so clearly we know now that hu is your daddy. [applause]

this as i was not have a sense of humor? $107 trillion is the estimated number of unfunded net federal liabilities in social security and medicare and when today's college students retire, they are looking upwards of 37% of their incumbents just going to pay that figure. let alone another 25% for their federal income tax let alone their state income tax property tax, sales tax, gas tax, and they will have a very different future than the one that our parents left for us. 35% -- guess what that is? that is now the highest corporate tax rate in the world and is in the united states of america. you only need to look to this number to know why we have

outsourcing of jobs. we want the united states to be the best place for job creation in the world, and we can be. cut taxes so that we can have jobs here in the united states, beginning with iowa. [applause] here is a very scary number for all of you, 3.8 million. what could that be? the irs cannot even tell you. this is approximately the number of words in the tax code. how many of you are filling out your tax forms right now? i am a former federal tax lawyer. i have read some of these words. let's make it simple. does anybody like a fair tax or a flat tax? [applause] i think it could safely be said that our current united states tax code is a weapon of mass

destruction. let's look at the number one that is the number of new drilling permits under the obama administration since they came into office. maybe that has something to do with this next figure. $1.83, that is the price that gasoline was the day before barack obama took office as president of the united states. is it time for a change? it is time for a change, absolutely. i am an entrepreneur with my husband. we created 50 jobs in the state of minnesota. we are proud of that. it cannot create jobs when you have a president that is unwilling to use american energy resources to solve our problems here in the united states. 19 of 20, that is the number of major metropolitan markets here in the united states where home prices have fallen in just the

last quarter. what do you think the one major metropolitan area is? washington d.c., where the money spigot never shuts off because they have iowa's money in washington d.c. let's bring it back home to iowa. 129 -- we have 129 miles currently under control at our southern border out of 2,000 miles. that is an incredible statistic. that is the highest level of security in interdicting illegal immigrants. let me read you from a senior official who said human smuggling constitutes a significant risk to our national security and public safety and could potentially be exploited by terrorists and other extremist organizations seeking

entry. how many of you think that qualifies for one of the greatest understatement of our time? that is absolutely true. 6000 -- that is how many pages of rules have already been written in washington d.c. to implement obamacare. and you thought a 2700 page bill was unwieldy? this is a bill that will never finish being written because washington will continue to redefine the government takeover of health care. more than a thousand. that is the number of waivers that have already been granted to obamacare. is something missing here? aren't we a nation that is equal protection under the law? i guess it is more equal for some than for others when you grant waivers to obamacare. one of my colleagues this week came out -- we are nice here in

iowa, i just want to remind you. anthony wiener said he wanted a waiver from obamacare. this is rich because of our colleague said that he wrote the bill for obamacare. he said the bill and i r one. if anthony wiener once a waiver from obamacare i want mine, too, and i don't know about you but i want a waiver from the last two years of president obama. are you with me? let's go to our last number. at the because of the great work that steve king has been doing we have tried to let the country know about this figure. 105 billion four hundred 64 million. this is the money that was hidden in plain sight in the

obamacare bill in order to refund the implementation of obamacare. my opinion is this. i believe that president obama needs to give this money back to the american people. [applause] you won't find one newspaper story, one radio show or one tv story about this money. you cannot just do this to the american people. failed to tell them that when you are represented votes for the government takeover of health care, they are also voting for $105 billion to fund it. you cannot just do that. that is why they have to give the money back. that is why also, steve king and i have worked very hard in our nation's capital, together with other colleagues who have figured out what a problem obamacare is. every member of the house of representatives voted to repeal obamacare.

now we are calling on folks to defund obamacare by agreeing to not pass one more spending bill unless president obama gives this money back. [cheers and applause] we have seen what all of these problems are but the real problem that underlies all of these figures is this. it is the fact that washington, d.c. truly believes that all power and all money should be given to them so they can run and control your life. is that what thomas jefferson and our founders wrote in the declaration of opinions and then in the constitution of the united states? i don't think so. thomas jefferson said he could see into the future that big government would be the problem. he said let's bind them down with the constitution.

were they wise and what they wrote? but they understood is that the solution to our problems was not washington, d.c, because what did they do? they come up with really great ideas like cowboy poetry festival. that is a must have. or like telling you what kind of like what you have to go down to your hardware store and buy. just a you know, i introduced the light bulb freedom of choice act. [applause] i think iowans are to be trusted on the joys of their own light bulbs. who can access the internet, and what our schools can teach. we don't need them to give us the answers to those questions. the ultimate arrogance coming out of washington is obamacare because it will decide who your doctor is ultimately.

they will say we are not but yes, they will. you spend more and you get less. what a deal. no wonder in the last year every year every week that rasmussen has been taking a poll never once has it gone below a majority of americans not just conservative or republican who want to see obamacare repealed. as a matter of fact, this last week it was 62%, the highest number of americans yet that want to see us repeal obamacare. this is, i believe, at the greatest power grab we have ever seen and i believe is a crime against our constitutional republic. the debt clock is ticking and it

is changing now forever. we have seen how this movie is going to end. we'll see it in greece. is not a pretty picture. we have seen it in the u.k. we have seen it in spain, we have seen it in madison wisconsin and is not a pretty picture. again, the president is making the wrong call, and i am thankful that we have republicans standing up, like governor scott walker in wisconsin. they are standing up for less government, for more freedom and again the constitution holds the answer. this venerable document. it said this, we, the people. we are the answer to the problem today in the united states. you need to be put back in charge of your own health care. you need to be allowed to create

jobs because you are the only one who knows how to create jobs. the federal government doesn't have a clue how to create jobs. you do, and you can choose what cards you drive. you can choose what light bulbs to screw in to your lamb's back home. you can choose all of these things. we don't need the government, because you understand the solution for taxing, for protecting our borders and research backs it up. it is families that are the solution and the ultimate building blocks for america because no stimulus, no entitlement reform, no health care initiative, no educational revamp can match the power of an intact, 2-parent family and driving economic growth health, and well-being in the united states. [applause] i come from a family where my

parents did divorce. i understand the difficulty that single parents have. this is not to denigrate them in any way, but it is also to say our government needs to prefer a tax code and policy that prefers family formation and the building up of families so that children have a safe environment to grow up because no one loves them more than mom and dad. no government agency, it is mom and dad. [applause] we have been told that we need a truce on social issues, and i would highly disagree with that, beach -- because the truth is, social conservatism is fiscal conservatism i mention just briefly about the fair tax. i am a tax lawyer. my opinion is this. we make the tax code simpler but

first abolishing it. abolish what we have, and from there we are going to fly i have no doubt. we need a change in size and attitude in government, because attitude and arrogance of washington having the answers is just not working out. that is not what our forbearers understood. that is not what i am understand. that is not what our children need in the future. what we need is a change in address form for the person living at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. when my forebears came here in the 1850's, they did not come here for a handout. they did not come here for the government takeover of health care. they came here because they were wide eyed with excitement.

the future would bring all to believe for a seventh generation isleton granddaughter, and they were willing to risk all to make happen. they bore the fruit of courageously waging inch by inch, yard by yard, a vote by vote, the battle for freedom that we are the grateful recipients of what they have done. it takes me back to another dark horse candidate. he is a prairie politicians from a large, nearby state named abraham lincoln. what he wanted -- when he won a very doubtful election, he took a whistle stop tour from springfield, ill., and stopped off in indianapolis, indiana. the nation was on at the present is of war. his own life and presidency were in danger. abraham lincoln poured his heart out to the crowd at indianapolis as they gathered. he said i appeal to you

constantly to bear in mind that it is not with the politicians and is not with the president and is not with office seekers, but it is with you, and that is the question. shall the union and shell the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generation? what lincoln said at the back of the train is still true today in des moines, iowa. it is with you to make that decision. will we survive to the latest generation? will we survive? as i am here listening and speaking to people in iowa, i say to you, as wonderful as the king is, don't look too steep king. don't look to me. don't look to any other politician because the preservation of our nation, the presser ration of liberty is too

important to entrusted with mere politicians. the idea of liberty is so great and yet so precious that the founders recognized it could only be entrusted to the brain trust, and that is the people of this nation. they understood that it was our values that were the underpinning of this nation. john adams wrote, is only for moral and religious nation this constitution that we write. it is wholly unsuited for any other. that is not saying what kind of religion a person has to have or if they have to be religious at all. what is saying is that you cannot build a nation unless it is built upon a rock solid foundation. america has that. it is the character and the values of our people.

that is why i am so absolutely confident in 2012, because that has not gone away. what i have seen is the character and the strength and the morals and values of the american people getting more and more excited because america has made their decision. they have decided we are going to take our country back. we are going to be our solution. we are going to have a better day. america has decided they are in for 2012. that is my question to you today here in iowa. are you in for 2012? are you going to make it happen? are we going to take our country back? i agree with you. i say we do. we will take this back in 2012. thank you for having me here today. thank you, everyone. thank you, have a great

conference. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. i am thrilled to be here. our founding fathers got it right when they said we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator, and i did not leaving

it out. never will. we don't need to rewrite the declaration of independence. we don't need to rewrite the constitution. we need to enforce the constitution of the united states of america. [applause] that they are in doubt by their creator orwith certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is what conservatives believe but there is an element out there called liberals who believe that life should be controlled by another person who may want to kill that unborn baby. we don't believe that. [applause] the liberals want to reduce our

liberties with too much regulation, too much legislation, and too much taxation. and the pursuit of happiness as a result of this liberal attack on america is making the pursuit of happiness more and more and more difficult. our job, our task is to make the pursuit of happiness real again not for us, but for our grandchildren. the last time i checked -- it is not about us. it is about the grandchildren. the last time i checked on this american ideal called the pursuit of happiness, it did not say anything about a department of happy in washington d.c. my dad did not expect the department had beat when he walked off of that small farm.

he had his belief in god his belief in himself, and his belief in the greatest country in the world, and i have an announcement for the liberals. we are an exceptional nation and we are going to keep it that way. [applause] but the founders did something else that was absolutely brilliant. i had a caller to my radio show one night. he called up and said i am frustrated. i believe america is on the wrong track and i don't know what to do. i said well, are you familiar with the declaration of independence? do you have a copy? yes. can you find that section that says life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? he said let me go get it, i can

find it. he comes back real quick, and i said turn to that section that says life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. when you get to that part, keep reading, because it says when any form of government becomes destructive of those ideals, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them. we have some altering and abolishing to do. [applause] the founders got it right. it is within the power of the people of the united states of america to alter stuff that we don't like. we don't like this radical socialism that is being shoved down our throats. so we have an opportunity, and we will change, because as a results of this attack on the pursuit of happiness and the american dream we have become a

nation of crises. [laughter] we have a moral crisis. we have a national security crisis. does anybody in here know what our mission is in libya? i don't. the american people don't know. we have an economic crisis. we have an entitlement spending crisis. i know that you have heard a lot in the media about we have a spending crisis. it is bigger than that. they are trying to trim around the edges. they have to address entitlements as well if we are born to do something about this problem. -- if we are going to do something about this problem. we have an energy crisis. the thing about it is, we have the resources to become energy independent.

we have the resources. it puzzles me why our president is in brazil cloning them $2 billion and promising that we are going to be one of their best customers for oil. he has it the other way around. we ought to develop our own oil right here. it is already right here in the united states of america. energy independence is a reality. it can happen. if we get government out of the way. we have an immigration crisis. the reason that no progress has been made is quite simple. it is not one problem. it is for problems -- four problems. one of the greatest things i learned being in business for over 40 years -- i know it surprises some of you that i

have not been in politics at all. i have no previous experience holding office. whenever a reporter says you have never held public office before i say well, all of the people in washington d.c. have held public office before. how is that working for you? [applause] and you want to know if i have held public office? leadership is about problem- solving not a problem avoidance, not taking it down the road. we have to get serious about fixing our problems. we must secure the border, enforce the laws that are there, promote the path to citizenship that is already there. we don't need a new path to

citizenship. use the one that we already have. the fourth problem we have is, what we do about the illegal aliens that are already here? i believe you empower the states to do what the federal government will not and cannot do. empower the states to deal with that problem on their own. [applause] it is real simple. just take the federal immigration law, and when you get to the part that says the federal government, just add the phrase or the states. let the states do with the federal government is not doing. our seventh crisis among our crises is d.o.l. not department of labor a severe deficiency of leadership. a deficiency of leadership.

let me tell you what leadership means to me and what it was when i was in corporate america and what it means to every successful ceo and never successful leader. let me clarify something. we have some great leaders in washington d.c. but we don't have enough of them. represented steve king is one of them. and i mean that. i am not just saying it because you are the host. center jim demint is another one of the strong leaders we have in washington d.c. but we need the right leadership in the white house in 2012, and that is why i am here. [applause] i didn't say i was running. [laughter] i just said that's why i am

here. stay tuned. leaders take people to where they would not go by themselves. that is what leaders do. leaders identify the right problems. leaders make sure that the organization has assigned the right priorities that you surround yourself with the right people. you know, people who know how to fix stuff instead of just messed stuff up more. and leaders put together the plans to attack the problems. this is what successful leaders do. this is what we have to do in washington d.c. if we start to focus on the right problems, the right way with the right people, with the right leadership, there is no doubt in my mind that we can get america back on the right track.

here is what we have to do. number one, stay informed. that is why you are here. stupid people are ruining this country. [laughter] [applause] you all have noticed that i don't try to be politically correct. i am just trying to be correct. stay informed. that is why you are here. there is so much disinformation, so many lies that go over some of the media. a lot of people are confused. they don't know what to believe. you and i have to be that educators. as i was telling an audience last night in new hampshire look, we are not going to save all of the liberals out there.

let's just save enough of them so we can take control of the white house and the senate. that is all we have to do. [applause] save the sable. -- saved the savable. i discovered this being on the radio. they would call me up and challenge me on something i would have said. liberals i have figured out only have three tactics. their objective in every case is destruction of something that we believe then. but they only have three tactics. the next time you get in a conversation with one of them listen for these three tactics. i call them asthe sin tactics.

the first tactic is, they shift the subject. if they don't have a logical argument for what you have proposed well, what do you think ought to be done in afghanistan? bush got us into iraq. we are not talking about iraq. they shift the subject every time. secondly they ignore the facts. they ignore the facts. nearly one trillion dollars in spending has not turn this economy around. but they are ignoring the fact that spending has failed. we cannot spend our way to prosperity. we must grow our way to prosperity with direct stimulus,

by allowing workers to keep more money in their paycheck. allow businesses to keep more of their money on their profit and loss, and get government out of the way and we can stimulate the economy. that is direct stimulus. not in direct stimulus. they ignore the facts. president obama sold the american people on the stimulus spending by saying a lot of it was going to be used for schaub already projects -- shovel ready projects. a year and a half later, he had the audacity to say there is no such thing as shovel ready projects. how stupid does he believe we are? we ain't that stupid. he is an insult to the american people.

they ignore the facts. unemployment is going to come down below 8%. no it hasn't. this economy is in a recovery. no is not, it has stabilized. i stood on three corporate boards until last week. when you consider running for president, you become unemployed. i am now an unemployed individual in a presidential exploratory mode, but i don't regret it at all. corporations were on a productivity blitz and they succeeded at stabilizing its economy. they don't have any more fat to cut in the next two years, so don't by the rhetoric that things are ok and this economic growth is going to take off. it is not going to happen. they are ignoring the fact that this economy is not truly going to turn around when our gdp growth last year was 2.6%.

the year before that it was 2.1%. when china is growing at 10% a year in 15 or 20 years they will have gdp the same as ours. i consider that a national security threat. we have to outgrow china, not seening kumbaya with them. the third thing they name call. i have been affiliated with the tea party movement, citizens movement american prosperity, the fair tax movement, all of those i have been affiliated with. because i describe myself -- i don't like for people to label me so i label myself. this is america so i used to

tell my callers when they wanted to call up and assigned a label to me, i would say let me tell you how i described herman cain. i am at american, black conservative a-b-c, and i am proud of it. [applause] because i have been affiliated with the conservative movement in this country and had the audacity to go on radio and do a radio talk-show and promote conservative principles, i have been called a racist, too. go figure. i have not figured that one out yet. but you see i get called a whole lot of other names as well for being conservative, because i won't stay on the democrat plantation like i am supposed to just because of the color of my skin. it is not about color, it is

about content. that is america. it ain't about color. and for those people who believe that just because you disagree with the president's that that makes you a racist, i have two observations for you. number one if you are black and you disagree with the president i have told some of my callers it may shock you but some black people can think for themselves, because it ain't about color. no. 2, if we ever reach the point where we cannot criticize

constructively our elected leaders, we are no longer the republic that the founders intended. we have become a nation of tyranny, and some of us are not going to let that happen on our watch. we are not going to let it happen. [applause] we are in the process of taking this country back. we are going to take back the senate in 2012 and take back the white house. we have to stay informed, as they involve, and stay inspired. you see the liberals want us to believe we cannot take it back. but on november 2 we show them that the movement is on. game on. we now have to take back the senate and the white house. so stay inspired. don't let them tell you that

this citizens movement is going to die down. not from what i have seen all over the country. it is getting bigger and stronger. let me tell you a couple of things that inspire me. i have time to share one of them but i have a whole list of them. one of the biggest things that inspires me is that back in 1999 my first grandchild was born, january 22. i got to the hospital just-in- time for the blessed arrival. went in the delivery room, i asked my daughter how are you doing, darling? she said i am fine, dad. how is the baby? she is fine. she said, would you like to hold her? i said of course. i took this little 15-minute-old baby in my arms, looked in that

face, and the first of the crossed by mind was, what do i do to make this a better world? that was 12 years ago. a few months ago i had finished a long board meeting with one of the companies that i served with. my good friend joel was taking me to the airport to go into another speech at another tea party or another rally. i was tired. i was hungry. i said to my good friend, joel, have i lost my mind? thinking about running for president of the united states? he said no. i ought to be going home, being comfortable like everybody else. no you haven't lost your mind. then he reminded me of matthew

25:4, where we are all asked to use our talents to the best of our ability. and then five seconds later right after i was complaining, i got a text from my granddaughter. love youpapa. i said take me on to the airport, joel. i got my second wind. [applause] let me finish with sharing with you why i believe we are going to take back our government and put this country back on the right track. it is real simple. the founding fathers did their job. it is now up to us to be the defending fathers of the greatest country in the world.

in being the defending fathers of the greatest country in the world, the spirit of the american people that i call the sleeping giant has awakened. what the liberals do not want to believe is that this sleeping giant is not going back to sleep. it was the same spirit that started this country. it was the same spirit that kept this nation together during the civil war. it is that same spirit that got us through world wari the great depression, world war ii and for the civil rights struggles. it is that same spirit that has awakened in this country today that is going to take back our government. former president abraham lincoln said it best. america is never going to be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedoms we will have destroyed

ourselves. we have an announcement for all of the liberals. the united states of america is not going to become the united states of europe, not on our watch. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it is an absolute honor for me to introduce our next speaker, ambassador john bolton. [applause] you can trace his conservative roots at least to his running a students for goldwater

campaign, and after yale law and a legal career, john boldin served three republican presidents beginning with ronald reagan. it was during this time that john alden was task of shepherding justice scalia through his confirmation process. he also served both bush administrations, the first in the state department then as you and ambassador to the un. it was during these rather tumultuous senate confirmation hearings that then senator joe biden compared sending boldin to the un to sending able to china shop. in a berkeley, may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about -- inadvertently it may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about john bolton. at a time when we have not even really had a full discussion on whether america is in decline is critical that u.s. ford, and national security is part of our

greater debate. we have no one better to discuss these issues than our next speaker. a big welcome to ambassador john boldin. -- john golsonbolton. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thanks to all of you for staying all day and having patience and being here. i want to thank steve king for the wonderful opportunity to join you today because i think this is been a fantastic event. you have heard from a lot of fascinating speakers. i would like to turn the discussion a little bit to national security. i am acutely aware that we are the only thing standing between

you and a well-deserved reception and dinner. the subject of national security is one that is absolutely critical as we look towards 2012. the political commentary likes to say that they don't see how foreign policy affects their lives. obviously it has direct tangible impact on our independence, our freedom, and peace and security. peace and security through protecting ourselves against international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other foreign threats. this is concrete interest to the people of america, i believe. it is true that foreign policy and national security unfold differently than domestic

policies and the bay. differently than domestic policies and debate. it is like humphrey bogart said in open with casablanca." . it seems that fate has taken a hand. on january 20, 2009, when it came to national security matters when president obama took the oath of office, he was not qualified to be president of the united states. [applause] today, more than two years later, he is still not qualified to be president of the united states. this reflects a crisis in american international leadership. we ask ourselves why does the president perform this way? there are a couple of reasons. first, he does not care much

about national security. it is not what motivates him. it makes him the first president, republican or democrat since france and roosevelt woke up on december 7 1941 -- since franklin roosevelt woke up on december 7 1941 not to put national security first. he did not want to talk about the global war on terrorism. he did not want to talk about the threats we face. he called iran, a tiny country as if a tiny country with a few nuclear weapons cannot to ruin your day. [laughter] he feels comfortable with the notion of america in decline with america and not taking the leading role to protect its own interests. this does mark him as a different kind of president. in the days gone by, a president with those characteristics might

have become an isolationist. not to this president. he is the oldest example of multilateralism in the operation. we can see it today in the way he is handling the crisis in libya. this is an attitude that very gravely threatens american sovereignty over the long term. sovereignty is a concept people debate over. a lot of people think it is abstract. in the united states, we understand exactly what sovereignty is. it is not an attack -- not an abstraction. our constitution says, we the people. we are a sovereign here. you hear suggestions that we share sovereignty or cede sovereignty to international organizations. it is like saying, you have too much control over your own government. that is a truly remarkable

statement that everyone in this room rejects. not barack obama. he is fascinated by international law. he talks about it all the time. on monday, you will hear more about it. it is something that does not receive the kind of attention it should. a lot of it is said by academic law professors. get the connection -- who like to theorize about these things. let me give you an example. in 1999 during because of low prices the secretary general of the -- kosovo crisis, the secretary general said the following -- and less -- we are on a dangerous path to anarchy. i would like to hear our president say whether he agrees with the former u.n. secretary general or not. i think legitimacy or the united

states comes from itself. we do not need to ask anyone else if we are permitted to use force. [applause] all this talk about international law -- we need a president that will say unequivocally that in the secular matters for americans there is no higher authority than the united states constitution. [applause] our present it seems to have trouble with this. i think that is because he is our first post-american president. it is a carefully chosen phrase. i did not say unamerican or anti-american. i said post-american. he is beyond all that patriotism stuff. he is a citizen of the world. he doesn't believe in american

exceptionalism. he does not accept the unique role for america. he was asked on his first trip to europe if you believe in american exceptionalism. he said, yes i believe in american exceptionalism just as the british believe in. exceptionalism and the greeks believed in greek exceptionalism. carefully done. when he gets in the first third of the sentence he took back in the second 2/3. he could have continued. just as the new guineans believe in new guinean exceptionalism. if everybody is exceptional nobody is exceptional. that is the obama approach. this is not the first major leader in the democratic party to hold this view. it is the first major leaguer to

become president. it is similar to what george h. w. bush said in 1988 about his democratic opponent that year, governor michael dukakis. bush 41 said my opponent sees america as a another pleasant company on the united nations role call. you could say the same thing about barack obama. what should the republican rethought -- republican response be? certainly it is not doing nothing in the international sphere. it is not isolationism. but neither is it succumbing to the woodrow wilson in view of the president or others in our political debate. the answer is not multilateralism. protection and security for the united states are not going to be thought in the united nations system.

nor is it and in this wi-- endless wilsonian crusade. let's not or get bitter roosevelt's response to wilson. he said, first we are to make the world safe for ourselves. that is the policy we should be pursuing. on a subject i know is a sensitive one i want to be clear here. the way we do that is to pursue the policy of peace through strength. that means sufficient budgetary expenditures for our military that no adversary dared to challenge us anywhere in the world. -- pudares to challenge us anywhere in the world. there is waste and fraud in the defense department. of course there is. it is part of the governments.

we should find the waste and fraud and root it out. we need to plow that money back into our dispense expenditures. the obama administration has already cut $300 billion, our defense base line. a couple of months ago the secretary of defense proposed $78 billion more expenditures. it will have to keep that level of defense spending up, i am privately happy to find offsetting domestic programs that cut even more deeply than some have proposed. -- deals look perfectly happy to find domestic programs that cut even more deeply than some have proposed. -- perfectly happy to find domestic programs that cut even more deeply than some have proposed. let's run through some important issues we are facing now.

how about the war in libya that our nobel peace prize-winning president announced last week. of course it is not war. how could it be war? he cannot keep that nobel peace prize. this is the verbal nonsense that reveals the utter lack of clarity in the president also thinking. i believe that the united states has a strategic interest in removing muammar gaddafi from power. if we do not, there is every prospect he will return to international terrorism of the kind that brought down pan am 103 over lockerbie scotland that killed many americans on their way home for christmas vacation. he would almost certainly return to his pursuit of nuclear and chemical weapons. we cannot allow that to happen. had we intervened early

promptly, and decisively, we could have tipped the balance of power to the opposition side. this thing could be over by now. his inability to understand that risks a long-term involvement with no clear conclusion. for what reason? we do not know what his objectives is? protecting innocent civilians? how can you protect innocent civilians when you cannot use military force to remove the thing that is the greatest threat to the innocent civilians? he said in el salvador -- he said referring to the international coalition, it means we have confidence we are not going in alone. it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. our military is being volunteered by others? who is the commander in chief here. i think the answer going forward

is to do what ronald reagan did in 1986. our military has a wonderful euphemism called national command authority. it is a legitimate military target. in libya muammar gaddafi is national command authority. i think that is the answer right there. [applause] libya certainly has our attention. there is came out in the rest of our middle east policy as well. the president had four different positions on hosni mubarak before he finally left. the idea that we are on the easy path has already been defeated by ebay in the last few days. let's not lose -- it he did by the events in the last few days. -- defeated by the events of

the last few days. this is not an abstract strategic argument. if you have been to the gasoline station recently, you can see the forecast of what would happen if iran got complete control over those oil-producing regions. a company that serves as the world's central banker of international terrorism, that is close to achieving is 20 year- long objective of deliverable nuclear weapons -- we have no policy on iran. we cannot find ways to support the opposition forces to mop mood, then a job -- to mahmoud ahmadinejad. if iran can get a pro-iranian regime in that country it can threaten saudi arabia and our other arab allies in the gulf and our economy will be held in complete jeopardy at mahmoud

ahmadinejad's discretion. the instability in the middle east that is to undermine the stability we have saw for decades, which is peace between israel and its arab neighbors. there is every likelihood a new egyptian government will revise the camp david accord and israel's security will be threatened once again. our forefathers, when they came to this country often referred to america as a city on a hill, quoting scripture. they referred to america as the new jerusalem. i think it is critical that the new jerusalem not forget the old jerusalem when it comes under pressure. that is exactly what we see today. look at the other threats, the continuing threat of north korea's nuclear weapons

program, the increased belligerence of china its territorial claims in the east and south china sea that threatened the nations of southeast asia, its continued protection of north korea and the nuclear weapons program there. look at russia and its increased assertiveness. when he was still president vladimir putin said the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. most of us think that was a great way to end the 20th century. he has a different point of view. he has been pursuing that policy with great vigor threatening our friends in western europe enough their oil and natural gas supplies. we have only a few months when we think about it until the 2012 election. we need a sustained and on limiting discussion of the failures of the obama administration -- unlimiting discussion of these failures of

the obama administration -- unremitting discussion of the failures of the obama administration. wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been our shall be uncurled - unfuer led. she is the champion and indicator only of her own. thank you very much/ . [applause]

i want to be able to say we've done well everyday. >> his life and a possible presidential bid in 2012. part of a series of interviews with potential g.o.p. candidates on c-span. >> next, former chillen president talks about her new role with the unite nations. then from the conservative principles pac conference in iowa. after that, a forum focusing on women who are part of the middle east protest. tomorrow on "washington journal," "washington post" reporter perry bacon and for al-jazeera discuss the upheevels in muslim countries.

former united nations ambassador thomas pickering talks about the to shorten the means. scheduling the 2012 presidential primaries. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i am a numbers guy. the visual op ed columnist charles blow express' his opinions using charts and graphs. >> i don't decide that i'm going to talk about a subject and look for data. i really do search for data first and see if there's something interesting and something that kind of agrees with an opinion that i have or confirms something or surprise mess and i think would surprise my readers. >> on february 24, the u.n. launched a new agency called

u.n. women which is focused on gender equality and women's empowerment around the world. the former president of chile. she gave her first speech in her new position earlier this month at the roosevelt house public policy institute in norks. the newly rensvate house is the town house where frankly and eleanor roosevelt lived. first you'll hear about the history of the house from the president of hunter college then the speech about her vision for the new u.n. agency. this is one hour 40 minutes. good evening and welcome for this exciting and historic event. i'm jennifer raab and i have the grt privilege of being the president of this extraordinary institution, hunter college. it's an honor to have the former president of chile michelle

bachelet here and strengthening the rights of women around the globe. madam, i have to tell you a quick story when he had bill clinton a few months ago. i was able to introduce him. he said thank you madam president, i still like the sound of that. it is particularly fitting to have the undersecretary general speak here at roosevelt house where eleanor made her first foray for her legendary career for women's right. you may have read the piece on the kennedy admistration. when she was asked to lead on the status, saying men have to be reminded. this house tells a story of strong women and thriving side by side. fdr's mother imagined a beautiful home for newlyweds. so in 1908, she built this house and loved it so much she kept half of it for herself.

talk about your new deal. now technically, one side belonged to the ewlyweds and the other half to sara as you can guess from the single entrance and convenient connections sarah was not fussy about this. as eleanor said, you are never sure when she could appear, day or night. and you thought you had mother-in-law issues. but the unconvential arrangement was also an opportunity. sarah's handling f domestic matters gave eleanor unusual freedom. and she often found herself walking a few blocks up town to spend time with the hunter college. we suspect that interacted with the women of hunter nspired her. afterall in early 20th century higher education for women was still a progressive idea and all female hunter college was filled with uniquely ambitious and independent women. a long relationship developed

between the roosevelt and the community and lasted even after they left the white house. after the sarah died in 945 the family arranged for hunter to purchase the house for $50,000. still one of new york's great real estate deals. franklin himself donated the first $1000. eleanor attended the dedcation. for many years, the house was a similar student activity center. but when i became president in 2001, i was dismayed to discover it was long closed and in despate need of repaired. we were determine to hav it restored and so thrilled to have the dream become a reality. the house is amazingly rich in american history. this is where fdr came to recover from polio because it had an elevator. this is where he returned from the hotel a as the country's newly elected president. the next day broadcasting over

nbc from the parlor room he introducedded nation to the economic recovery. this is where eleanor led the democratic party meetings on women's issues and set out to change the role of women in politics. women, she said -- [no audio]

>> the homof the new public policy institute which supports faculty research. we're proud that michelle bachelet and so many are here to celebrate the women. secretary ban ki-moon spoke when we pened the house. your testament is further evidence of your strength between roosevelts. that's a period of certainly about global relations. long before his political rise fdr foresaw the need to preserve world peace. in 1923, in this house, fdr crafted a man for a society of

nations to help prevent future wars. shortly after pearl harbor he joined the term united nations and showed it to winston churchill by barging in on him. fdr worked hard to convince the allies, congress, and the american people that this new organization was essential to maintaining peace in the future. though franklin died before the u.n. charter was ratified, the organization continues to bear the stamp of his vision. it was eleanor who helped her net vision into reality. becoming a lifelong champion of the u.n. and serving as a delegate to the general assembly. on the bronx campus of hunter college eleanor helped draft the universal declaration of human rights. michelle bachelet embodies the values of franklin and eleanor roosevelt. we know they would be deeply gratified to have an accomplished and influential

renaissance woman speak in their home about one the most vital issues. ms. bachelet decided eary on nothing without prevent her success, even torture under the regime could not keep her from earning medical degree and becoming a pediatrician. they expanded her studies and became a renounced expert in military strategy. she served her nation as minister of health then defense before making history in 2006 when she was elected the first women president of chile and we believe the first women prident in latin america to get there on their own not through marriage or otherwise. president bachelet became one the most popular presidents in chilean history and role model. one the young women this inspired, michelle is with us.

she's a senior at hunter college studying political science and history. she's also earning a certificate in human rights here. last semester, she interned at the u.n., and hoping to follow as a leader in international politics and gender equality. it's a pleasure to introduce her. i would like to introduce phil -- phyllis kossoff as well as. her grandson graduated from hunter college this past january. she is truly one the most devoted alumni and friends. it is her generosity that made today possible.

please thank phyllis for the gift of thi lecture and everything that you do for hunter. [applause] [applause] >> it is a great honor to invite michelle bachelet to the podium. how proud she will be joined by one of hunter's own professor of political science robert jenkins. jenkins is a lead author on the report to the u.n. security council that was instrumentain the creation of u.n. woman. thank you for your important work. following their discussion professor jenkins will lead a question and answer session. please join me in welcoming a true international hero u.n. undersecretary, michelle bachelet. [applause] [applause] >> thank you president raab for such a warm welcome and such

warm remarks. it is a real honor to have been invited by hunter college to deliver th phyllis kossoff lecture for 2011. is a particular pleasure to address you here in the home of one of the 20th century's great campaigners for human rights and one the leaders in shaping the universal declaration of human righ. let me especially focus today on eleanor roosevelt. because her work permitted to build a foundation of international human rights law grounded in the equality of all individuals regardless of race, creed or sex. and i will address particularly one issue in the question that you will ask me about anything that you want. "women war and peace" that's

the subject of my address this evening. because it was also a fact in the topic on which eleanor roosevelt held characteristically strong convictions during the first u.n. general assembly in 1946 mrs. roosevelt insisted passionately that women should seek and b grnted the opportunity to and i will quote, share in the work of peace and reconstruction as they did in war and resistance. end of quote. her plea, as you may have guessed, was not immediately taken up. in fact it would take nearly half a century for the security council to translate mrs. roosevelt's insight into international law. because in2000 the security council unanimously passed resolution 1325. and this landmark decision recognized first that women's experience of war were different from men's and second that a nation's women were an untapped

resource for buildingpeace. resolution 1325 called on all actors, national and international to fully involve women in preventing, resolving and recovering from conflict; and to ensure that all peace building efforts are consistent with principals of gender equality. resolution 135 thus articulated in the security field precisely the two objectives that u.n. women, still just two mnths old pursues: to empower women and to promote gender equality. this is also reflected in our official name, which is very long to remember, but i will remind you: it's called united women. but it's real name is united nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women. it's real long, isn't it?

so it's reflective in u.n. women. and as the u.n. women's first leader, i am committed to accelerating our collective efforts to promote women's empowerment during transitions from war to peace. u.n. women will seek to influence the decision-making at the highest levels of u.n. policymaking -- through an organization who sole mandate is to facilitate women's realization of the human rights. and u.n. women will work in the field and work with governments to make public institution more accessible responsible and accountable to women. we will work -- we will support women's economic engagement through initiatives that address formal and informal barriers to expand market access. we will advise on how to make national laws consistent with international obligations relating to women's rights.

and every day we see how important it is. i support that all of you heard as we have today that six women were shot dead peacefully demonstrating for democracy. and in every part of the world we need to address or defend women's rights and no were more than in conflict and crisis. ladies and gentlemen, now i would like to share with you how u.n. women will play this roles, wering together with all of our peacebuilding partner national international, public and private women and men. my instinct is to look forward but before doing so we must see where we stand. we must ask ourselves more than a decade -- last year we celebrated 10 years of the 1325 resolution. so i can say more than a decade after 1325's passage. how has it called for women's

engagement in the work of peace been answered? let me say the international community's response has been at best mixed. on the one hand those parts of the resolution that address women as victims of conflict, particularly victims of systematic and widespread sexual violence having in recent years been considerably elaborated. a series of additional resolutions beginning in the mid 2008, resolution 1820, 1888 and 1960, broke new ground by: first affirming that there can be no impunity for those who command condone, or commit such crimes. and second, by pledging international community to prevent and respond to sexual violence perpetrated during and after conflict. the u.n. has begun the long journey from an exclusive focus

on humanitarian reaction -- responding to women's needs as victims, to a protective response. this means recognizing theneed for u.s.ized security measures to prevent mass atrocity crimes against women. progress on the agenda accelerated following the appointment last year of a special representative of secretary general on sexual violence in conflict ms. margot wallstrom. with whom i work closely on this element. an example of our joint work is our engagement with peace keepers in how to protect women from high levels of sexual violence. this predeployment training is a sign to produce tactical readiness in conflict. it is intended to help produce

intelligence and generate reliable warnings of security threats against women, and encourage peace keepers to use the full range of actions available to them in defense of communities threatened with sexual violence. it is a powerful example of the paradigm shift to thinkingabout the protection of civilians that is required when we recognize sexual violence as the tactic of warfare. an indicator of greater alacritity in protecting women in the recent convictionof nine government soldiers including the commanding lieutenant colonel of mass rapes committed on new year's day this year in the fizi area of eastern congo. these areimportant achievements. u.n. women will build on them but they tell only part of the

story. if we reflect on the victim-centered portions of resolution 1325, but on those provisions that emphasize women's role as agents and leaders of conflict resolution and long-term peacebuilding a very difficult picture emerges. frankly, when it comes to promong women's engage in pce and security, the international community has performed poorly. too many doors have remained closed, lately, the main institutional actors have admitted these failings. but we still lack initiatives that would make a major change in the size of impact of women's presence in peace and recovery processes. the hard fact is that the work of peace as eleanor roosevelt put it is it overwhelmingly carried out by men. u.n. women researched 24 peace processes since the mid 1990s

and found that women averaged fewer than 8% of the members of negotiating delegations representing parties to a conflict. a similar attern holds if we look at what kinds of experts are supplied to peace talks. very rarely have mediation support teams included specialist on how to shape peace agreements so that they preserve women's rights and ensure women's participation in the decision-making bodies that oversee the transition to a new political order. let us not forget, as well, that to this day, no woman has been appointed as chief mediator of u.n.-managed peace process. let me say that it is hard to believe that the lack of women in the highest levels of mediation does not account, at least in part for nearly invisibility of gender issues in peace agreements. a study of 585 peace agreements

concluded between 1990 and 2010 found that just 16% contain any reference to women at all. just 3% of these peace accords contain a reference to sexua or gender-based violence. being those 585 conflicts they did have a lot of sexual violence on it. in just six ceasefire agreements, ever has sexual violence been identified as a ceasefire violation. inwo important cases in nepal and in the nuba mountains region of sudan, the result was improved monitoring protocols staffing arrangements, and ultimately security for women. and yet -- i mean those were successful stories but yes this innovate vision has not become standard practice. this is an institutial failure of the highest order.

to this short comis in the area of peacemaking and peace keeping coul be added a litany of broken promises concerning women's engagement in peacebuilding. let me gist -- me give you just two examples. in postconflict economic recovery we find that employment creation programs disproportionately allocate women opportunities to men. women have constituted as little as 8% of such workers. i'm telling you despite u.n. guidelines encouraging gender parity in employment program which can provide women as independent income, at least temporary, and thus a chance at social political and economic entrepreneurship. yet little on-the-ground effort has been gone to benefit women. the international community

approach to political representati in post-conflict situations has been similarly underwell offing. this is clear despite evident that in the war aftermath, adaptable to national circumstances are by far the fastest means of bringing women's parliament representation to the committee mass of 30% that target set by the beijing platform for action in 18995. our research into post-conflict parliamentary representation has found that in a uota-based systems 34% of the elected representatives were women. whereas in countries without elector real quotas, women were just 12% of paliament. we have to think of how women haverogressed in terms of

equaty. the political aspect is the slower one. when we think that in the world only 19% of the parliamentaries are women. i think that in the u.s. it's 16% if i'm not wrong. and so we have a long way to go. if you think on one hand too the government of the states, only 19 were women. we really are in bad shape. i'm not saying that's the global average. in coflict countries, i mentioned the average. of the27 countries in the world that have achieved 30 or more than 30% of parliament -- female parliamentarian, only five of them, i believe it's the northern countries, probably, did not need the quota. in other words only a quota would meet more women for the representation. inspite of increased awareness,

the pace of international action. much more can be said about missed opportunities for women and engagement in the work of peace. rather than looking forward let us focus on the way ahead. and what i see on the whole are many opportunities for women empowerment, waiting to be seized. underlying these opportunity is the new international consensus the secretary general has build around issues of women war, and peace. the secretary general has appointed an unprecedented number of women to senior peace and security positions, both of headquarters and in the field with a number of women serving special representative of secretary general or seeing conflict peace operations continues to grow. nowhere has the secretary general's commitment been better reflected than the 2010 report on women's participation and peacebuilding which i think president raab referred to

earlier. the report contains a comprehensive action plan for gender-responsive peacebuilding to which the entire u.n. system has pledged it's support. the a plan consistents of clear commitments made on behalf of the united nations. i will not go into all of the details but let me include some of them. assigning responsibility for ensuring women's access topeace talks post-conflict planning processes and donor round tables. a requirement that at least 15% of post-conflict situations be devoted to investments in women's empowerment and gender equality. you may think that is modest. do you think? considering that current allegations for women's empowerment is about 5% of post-conflict and spending. mechanisms for providing appropriate gender expertise to

peace talks and post-conflicts statebuilding initiatives whether for electoral support, constitutional drafting or civil service reform, and institutional changes to advantage women's empowerment through economic recovery and rule of law interventions. this action plan was submitted to the security council last autumn, just before i took up my post at u.n. women. this permitted me from my earliest day in new york to focus and figure out how to advance implementation, how to make things happen for women caught up in r and its aftermath. at the center of u.n. women's work in this area will be our newly formed partnershipith the peacebuilding support office. the pbso shepherded this action plan through t process of securing u.n.-wide agreement. i would like to recognize the leadership demonstrated in the process by assistance secretary general for peacebuilding

support judy cheng-hopkins. the implementing for which the peace office served as the secretary at has lately expanded the number of post-conflict countries on which it focuses adding liberia and guinea. there are important lessons we can draw from a number of countries. inso many countries women are instrumental in supporting peace processes, they are asked to wait to address women's urgent concerns. those include justice and reparation for women crimes against women and also special measures to make sure women can take part in government. when women are told this has

special concerns to be addressed, once stability is achieved. but delays has consequences for peace. guinea provides an interesting example. in late 2009 a political crisis unfolded in guinea that constituted a clear threat to the peace. the international community reacted with unusual speed of reports of serious human rights abuses. more than 100 women had reportedly been raped by armed personnel that left 100 people dead at a stadium in conakry. the graphic videos taken on the cell phone freely circulated on the internet lent credence to the charges. an international commission of inquiry was quickly constituted by the dispatched by the secretary general. the commission had a mandate of investigated claims of targeted sexual violence and this sent a message that all concerned that women's rights would be central

to the international community's engagement with guinea from the outset. this reated opportunities in political discussions that would shape the subsequent transition process. women in guinea still face, of course, serious chalnges. but the international community's reaction in the case ofuinea stands out as an example of how early engagement on gender issues can bring payoffs down the line -- particularly for women's political assess -- assertiveness improving the economic fortunes enhancing the physical security and upgrading their legal status. we must internalize this lesson of early engagement. as the case of guinea and so many others show it is never too late to involve women it's never too soon to hear the voices and we cannot afford to delay their inclusion.

here is a dear friend. i was talking to a women from south africa. i asked her how were things in south africa when mandela tooks office. she explaed and i asked if i could mention this conversation. that i will use her words because there were women black, and workers so they had a triple combination. so they went to peak to mandela to ask for the rights. now it's our moment. and he said it is understood that they should speak to younger people. they stand out and say you know, we fought like you. we were in jane like you. many of them will die like you. we are not going back to the kitchen. so he then was so convinced he supported it. and they could have women could

be from the beginning of the building of the new democracy on a more just country, they had their voices were heard. and they could have been developing an important i would say they have been -- they have performance in a great way. i would like to mention that because today about equality, some other excuses are used. they shouldn't be dealing with the issue because there is an economic crisis. and i want to reaffirm the terms that it's never too early to involve women and never too late to hear the voices and we really continue afford delays on women's equality and empowerment. and i refer to those who say we have to wait to another great american champion for human rights the reverend martin

luther king who stated and i quote, it is always the right time to do the right thing. and yes it is always the right time to fight for women's rights. ladies and gentlemen, if u.n. women is to make a positive contribution to women's effort at the conflict-resolution, or long-term peacebuilding in countries we need to do much more. there are urgent priorities to amplify women's peace leadership. first, we need to be on the ground. we must be pre-positioned to respond rapidly to calls - first of all we have to strengthen women on the ground. because there's a lot of women organizations and capacities there. but we also sometimes in some countries women are not so well organized. they need support. so we also need to respond rapidly to calls for women organizing itself. it's amon my highest priorities

to strength the field base and engine of their work. the women will not maintain the presence in every country. though i have to say gender and equality exist in one form or another everywhere. i just heard two days ago the white house sent a report, the same report i mentioned eleanor roosevelt was in charge of so many years ago. iwas something, i mean oprtunities of u.s. women living in the u.s. and there still are disparities there. of course, there are still problems that we need to address. i mention that we don't be everywhere because we want to be where we are more needed. and because there are other agencies that continue working with women. we will continue working with women in development, unicef will work with women and girls,

and of course women and women's health. w.h.o. will continue working on health, and women and girls living with hiv/aids, and so on. we will be where we are most needed and where we will really make aifference. but in the coming months i will prioritize the building p of our fear level engagement that most require our support including those countries affected by conflic in some places women's sociation have been severity damaged. in others they have lost basic function of capacity with a corresponding revolution of women's voices. the primary purpose of u.n. women's field presence in this setting will be to support their effort to build the political voice and the capacity of women's organization. second a complete action that u.n. women will support to

ensure womens enhance engagement in crisis and conflict situation is establishment of an expert capacity to support women's institutional participation. in response to the security council request, the u.n. is already developing a rapidly deployable team of judicial experts to support national effort to -- well, to strengthen their judicial system but also to come with impunity with sexual violence. and that is an example of what i mention earlier regarding the u.n.'s recently improved capacity to address women's protection. but this must be establhmented by a similar initiative focused on supporting women's engagement public agenda-setting and decision-making. the international response facility i am proposing will consistent of on-call experts ready to work with local women to facilitate their involvement in any and all official process es. u.n. departments and agencies

are working to realize the commitments on women's participation that are in the secretary generals action plan on gender responsive peacebuilding. rapidly deployable interdisciplinary teams can help to bridge the divide between grassroots women and official processes. they can assist women's assoation to organization themselves in ways that will leverage their voices and sustain substantive participation. the international respond facility would act as a force multiplier for local women's movements that have seen the ranks decimated by conflict and instability. leme be clear, what we are talking about here is not onl for the support of women's engagement in mediationand conflict resolutn but also for direct involvement on an ongoing basis of women for gender equality spealist in all

transition institutions. this will create duringable consultation structures that can be sustained over time and the development of legal and technical capacity. we are working in partnership with the department of political affairs and u.n. entities to make this happen. finally women's peace and human rights movements need our support strengthening particularly for buildingour organizational capacity, especially while the conflict of crisis continues to rage. sometimes crisis and conflict thrust women into new unconventional roles as leaders of peace, liberation, and democracy movements as we see so vividly in the arab states region right now. but despite phenomenal and even heroic engagement by women during the peace processes this can dissipate quickly as members of women's group return to pick up neglected domestic roles. this ishat happened during the process of political

liberalization probably it didn't happen completely, but a little bit in my own country. because women triggered and led the democratization struggle. you can also see everywhere the women of the disappear one in march and demonstrating. everybody could be against them. police were against them. they took it in to peace. they did a lot of things, they sa everybody everybody for nobody will forget people who have disappeared. but at the moment of decision, however, women leaders and women's concerns were a little bit sidelined. and it took a lo time for some of us to climb up through male-dominated party hierarchies. so international security institutions must increase massively our engagement with women at the grassroots. and for this we must find a means of financing and supporting women's organizational development in

fragile states long before conflicts end. donors often have difficulty supporting women's groups because the transaction costs are very high. women's groups often need considerable support simply in organizational establishment -- the costs of setting up accounting and reporting systems for instance. in a conflict context, i think one the issues that i saw in my own experience, that because donors -- or in my case for example a suppressed or minister, we were using fiscal money. we needed be account many. they had to be accountable for that. we had so many papers they have to fill with so many strange words for them. for rest of the organization, it was a complicated issue. en though i knw we need to be accountable, we need to find more simplified way for people

from grassroots can really get the money they need. otherwise they are always under the table if i may say. so our trying to find how we deal with simple, accountability on the same hand. in the conflict context well i mentioned that in a grassroots organization, it was so difficult for them to fill the formal ads. in a conflict contest they are compounded by security threats and the massive challenges of coping in crisis conflicts. yet, how can we expect women to be ready to seize opportunities for engaging in peace takes constitutional reforms democratic transitions if they are not organized. how can women realistically represent other women without going through the task of constituency building debating women's interest groups, and finding effective means of representation. and this cannot be accomplished

over night. u.n. women have supported women in this different situation there in afghanistan and haiti. this find more brands to women's oup providing violence against women, the essential future of the model that is focused on financing and basic operating cost for women's association including developing capacity for accounting, documentation and constituency outreach. the u.n. women will review this model for potential for scaling up where there is a need. finding a strength of women's association is a sound investment in peace. for this reason, i have included funding to women's organizations as aey indicator in the process of women peace and security agenda. this is one of almost 30 indicators that we will track as means of building accountability

for meeting international commitments to women's protection and participation in conflict. they have given the task of indicating on the process of resolution 1325. i had mentioned some key initiatives that we are taking to ensure women are leading and transforming conflict resolution and recovery. an example of how this initiatives can generate a changed approach to women's rights can be seen in the case of transitional justice. victims and survivors of serious human rights abuses committed during or after conflict theoretically possess the right to obtain redress or reparation. in practice, efforts to provide reparations have been uneven and underfunded. they have also tended to marginalize women. this particularly reflects the pre-existing legal biases, including prop ownership and a inheritance law that criminate

against women. today i have a meeting with two women that represent different organization working on leaders. because many of this country the conflict many of the men died, there are lots ofwidows, and i'm talking young widows with lots of kids and no possibility of having access to inheritance tthe property of the house, and so on. so they have been working. in the case of nepal, because nepal was a very important part of the people who were struggling there were women, 40% in the army. at the moment when the peace talks they did have, women concern and needs taken into consideration. i think if i'm not wrong 32% of female parliamentaryies. of course at the beginning they were all dispersed. i met today the women that organized them. they started organizing

themselves collecting data and bringing them to their authorities. now they have -- they are receiving a lot of benefits that passing some aws they are changed laws, so the situation can be improved. they haven't finished yet but they are sill doing a lot. that means -- that's why we mean how if the difference between women can be supported so they can organize themselves, they can collect data, and they can have a voice that will be heard. part of the problem is even when women are getting access to peace talks gender equality is excluded from the process of deserving and operating justice institution. is it any wonder that they lack the legal provisions and government arrangement need to a more gender responsive approach to repairing the dmages suffered by women in conflict. the initiative that i have discussed this evening would

provide technical support for lasting institutional reforms for women's rights and maintaining women's participation. and when i emphasize the word paration. it's not because women's lives can be repaired through legal processes alone. in fact i am hesitant to express women'sole as victims at all. but reparations are also about empowerment. and we have experience in our country. we've had lots of laws to rep rate victims of human rights abuse. and i mention the reparation also means compensation, but empowerment. whether reparation is symbolic, and sometimes symbolic reparation is needed. we did both in our country. or material reparation. they went into t opportunities or between the people.

both are needed that i have to say. corporations can enable women to make active claims on the stakes. reparation can also involve something that's very important. because we always speak about lessons learned. there's the old thing that we don't know the history we are condemned to repeat it and do it again. reparations is something that's important and public acknowledge of abuses suffered by a country's women. if well designed, reparation programs can break the silence that increases too many survives of sexual violence. and let me quote an extraordinary survivor, committed by several years in eastern congo. a woman who currently runs a shelter for rape survivors. at a hearing conducted by the office of the high commissioner for human rights last year, she told an audience of her fellow citizens and i will quote her.

what reparation do i want? i do want money. the only reparation i want is that you all see rape not as my problem but your problem. isn't i a great -- great quote. because it's really the essential issue of reparation and acknowledgment. in other words a gender-responsive approach to reparations can demonstrate that women's security and their equal enjoyment of rights is central to an inclusive approach to national rebuilding. but like other examples that i have mentioned tonight attention to women's rights cannot be an afterthought if these positive results are to be achieved. ladies and gentlemen, before i close i cannot help asking me how eleanor roosevelt might have regarded the creation of u.n. women. my guess is that she would not

have welcomed it -- at least not now. not in 2011. not this late. mrs. roosevelt wuld likely have been shocked that six and a hlf decades after humankind declared universally the equalityof all people, it would still be thought necessary to reate a ecialized agency to serve as tribune for half of them. the commission of the status of the women which tomorrows concludes it's 55th annual session, was the sort of norm-shaping body that mrs. rooselt championed. and even that august body, i am sure she would be have hoped to see redundant before now. as mrs. rooseve knew obtaining formal equality was not the same as enjoying substantive equality. just as having one's right

officially recognized is not the same as being able to exercise them, much less to effect social change. in 1934 eleanor roosevelt sid, and i quote fourteen years since women's suffrage have now gone by. and everywhere people are asking what have the women done with the vote? i often wonder why they don't ask the men the same question. and i have to tell you that when i mad my first cabinet and it was -- you cannot imagine the kind of things that they said. why parity? you had to be talented people. i asked why they never ask that. i mean i didn't know but i said the same thing. why do you ask the same when they are all men or 75 or 90% men. eleanor roosevelt continues

saying i realize that it is a high compliment to women that they were expected to bring about marked clang in political condition. it was a bow of domestic and strong women. instead, it is women themselves working together with men who in the end will bring about change in their on political condition. there's the french saying when women get involved in politics, they change. i hope it is true. new women now have a steadfast, committed partner. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

>> hello, everyone. i'd rob jenins, i teach political science here at hunter college. and we were thrilled to have madam bachelet some together. i know there were thousands of questions bubbling, but i get the first chance, fortunately to ask ms. bachelet a few things from her talk. then we'll open it up to questions. we have c-span with us this evening. so that's a plus as well. so ms. bachelet, i wanted to start by asking you in light of the talk that you gave just now and as someone who was caught up in the civil war of sorts in your own country, whether you could speak to how your personal experience affects how you address some of the issues of war and women and peace that you discssed. and you are unique in our experience of being someone who was a victim of conflict to some

degree, a victim of human rights, and also someone who has helped to rebuild a new postauthoritarian chile. how have your own personal experiences and there are many affected your approach to these issues. >> as you mentioned in my remarks, our essential thing was to -- when we were traveling for democracy was we had i would say one enemy that was a dictatorship, we needed to regain the democracy. i would say at that time gender was not a discussion. but i had to say that women's organization were very strong fighters for democracy. and there was thishuge movement of women for democracy where you could see people from many different perspectives even people in thepast had been

adversely politically adversely sitting together and trying to find out ways to produce even strategies so that we can get into each decision. and as i mention afterwards this issues, not the principals ones. it was not thatclear. never will say you know what we have to deal first with the essential structural changes in a transition time. but of course and we did start with an agenda affairs. but, of course, it was -- it was probably the less relevant minister of the time with the sllest budget. and things i the world still persist. they are called national gender machineries in the world are very weak and low budgets. we're going to travel so that can change. alsoecause we are learned now

and it's different than what thought in the past, women issue cannot be the issue of gender. first they are to be cross cutting sector issue. but -- and we also deal with the age of human rights. and we tarted to organize or the of a high-level commission that could hear the voices of the people who had been a human rights victim. and there you could receive women and men they were all treated and they were all attended and we developed special laws of reparation laws so widows, so children victims or daughter or sons of the children of the political presenters or disappeared one couldreceive some reparation. because we understand two things. first it was important the truth. to break the silence. it was a very difficult moment.

they were still the commander in chief. because to get into -- i mean we had aboat. and we boat in a constitutional reform. and they know one that meant that they couldn't stay for eight more years. so there were elections there. but there were negotiations in between. so one the negotiations was that the state stayed as commander in chief for year. so th was a lot of tensions every day that you can imagine. but on the other hand, we advantage on trying the truth to be known. and the truth was not easy to be known. when there were so many people who were missing and nobody knew their whereabouts. but we deal to try to find a very fragile balance between -- to have -- to wlk and advance in terms of giving the reparation and the knowledge and

that knowledge of what has happened in our country. but on the other hand try to avoid a political interest. and on the other hand we tried to respond to a very important problem that washe terrible -- i mean even chile was known by one the for economic performance that we had almost 47% of the population behind the line of poverty. so we had to deal with many different things to manage to develop the politics in a very democratic way in parliament they were sitting. people who have fought for democracy, and people who were in the military regime and they have to sit together and to learn to work together because they were elected by the people. second we have the social problem that urgent social problem. they need to deal with poverty and with strengthening of the

publi capacities of educational capacities the health system capacities and so on. because they were in a very weak condition. and we also needed to take many people out of poverty. but also as i mentioned to deal with human rights issues. so i think our transition was a very good model for chile. i don't believe that one size fits all. where we could at end and then we were form the constitution and so on. it could in the end i would say today we have a solid mature democracy that could be able to elect women president something unthinkable. some years ago. and i was no tragedy. i could be minister of defense with my story. there was no tragedy in the country. it was great. so i believe we did it in a way that we could really could get into a peaceful transition but that could take -- take charge

of all of the problems that the society has and ty to do something that in our case was very important it is to try to reencounter two parts of the society who at the past look at themselves i mean especially one part the one was government and dictatorship they saw the other as enemy. because it's natural to have political adversity in the country. you have one party and another. you can look at each other. you cannot cannot -- you do not agree. adversities. t you never can see yourself as enemies. that weakens democracy. i believe that diversity is something that enriches the democracy. and democracy is much more than elected peole. it's the capacity of being able to discuss with each other and get into agreement or because sometimes there are conflict of interest so impornt or to deal in a good way how to profess

the disagreements. i think in chile, we learned the disagreements. not always. sometimes in politics there are some very difficult moments. some people sometimes forget what our history. :

>> if we think of transitions fr war to peace and transitions from authoritarian to democratic rule, we have to think today of north africa and the middle east. concrely what can u.n. women do to ensure that women who are part of those transions and were part of the street protests are not filtered out once the discussions move into committee rooms and hard bargaining. now, the answer might be u.n. women on their own can't do anything. we work in partnership, but i think it's helpful for people to have a sense of really what sort of engagement is possible. >> well, you know, usually as you mentioned, u.n. works with national organizations and national government, not only

women issues but all issues. usually, with government, it's man-driven but there in the countries, there are a lot of women, a lot of organizations that have been doing a lot of things in the universies, in the civil society and what we can do is to strengthen the capacities to help them if they need, for example, in having producing a lot of information for example, compare constitutions in many different areas of the world. specifically those constitutions for transition of kind. we can help in providing them if they don't have it, with the tools that permit them that voice to have all the necessary tools to convince the ones who are in charge of those reforms

that this a specific opportunity. nobody can lose, so women in any part of the world can really trust that democracy. those countries should take into consideration how this new constitution really includes women's rights gender equality, and members of parliament so we will be -- we are, already shall we say trying to produce all the necessary data, information, and support for women's organizations and i think they need also to identify champions of women's organizations that can help them on this behalf. >> all right, now one thing i wanted to raise was i was involved last year on women's participation peace program which you spoke about in your lecture, and one of the things that came up frequently as we

were engaged in consultations with member state and others in producing this report was the issue why is it -- we heard from from developing country states, african member states particularly, why is it when it comes to war in conflict it's at its most as a rule necial, national authorities has the least bargaining wer,hy is that the moment that the strongestomen's rights pressure is broight to bear on them in order to reform civil services in order to make them more gender responsive? all the things in the report. we said why is it only when countries are weak we have this externally impose feminist agenda on us? i'm not saying, of course, that i agree with that critique but it is one that comes frequently, and i wonder whether in your position as head of u.n. women, one way down the line you'll be able to counter that charge is

if your organization takes a strong stand on a number of countries that aren't weak post-conflict, recovery post-transition countries, countries like the united states, saudi arabia, so i guess the question is whether or not it's possible for u.n. women to deal with the hard cases so to armor yourself when it comes time to dealing with post-transition cases and make yourself able to say we do not discriminate on the basis of t power of the member state concerned. we advocate for women's rights whenever and wherever possible. >> absolutely. we have global mondays. this was a general discussion in general assembly before u.n. women was approved. i spoked to the u.n. women and thought this could be the most interesting thing for many people, but we do have other tasks, and i have prioritized

empowering women, empowering women everywhere and it's specifically political because there we are in a, i would say, slower progress and economically, and that's everywhere and also a very important issue that is ending is violence against women. ending violence against women is everywhere, and it is in this country. in this country it's cost $5.4 billion a year in terms of health care mental health care productivity loss based on out of work and so on, and we -- and in canada we know how much it costs the states. the report from the cbc and u.k. and in other countries they don't measure how it costs, but it is a worldwide issue and we just the day before yesterday we had a meeting with the mission of finland about the

u.n. trust fund ending violence against women, and we had people from jamaica and others showing what interventions do work on ending violence on women and empowering women and everybody ages there that this is a universal issue. we will be advocating everywhere, not only in the more vulnerable countries but and because if you think on developed worlds, we have a lot of problems. in the developed world maybe women can have more opportunities, but still, this would poll from the white house show that in this country e opportunities, the salaries was different. if we talk about location, what you call americans -- i don't know what you call i you're -- [laughter] for me it was strange when i came to the united states, and i was not -- i had to put myself on the -- i was not vocation. i was like an american.

i never understood why they divided things like that and so i would say asian caucasian? caucasian-american african-american? latin american? i mean, it was completely different. the societies were incredible. you also have issues to work with, but if you think on developed worlds, and for example, my grant workers and domestic workers they usual don't have good labor conditions, so there are lots of issues that developed worlds have to deal with we will be watching on that, helping as making it a focus, or if it's not needed or in many cases, not needed giving technical support, but, of course, the main efforts have to be in the most vulnerable countries where women are powerless and where the lack of

funds makes government sometimes not being able to advance much faster, and women's organizations not being able to ganize more stronger so it's not an issue of discrimination against some countries. on the contrary --f course we will be going and working hard but one important issue for the u.n. is governments will agree on that, but most of the government have found that all the conventions, they deem this for all. the framework is there, and if they need help from us, we provide it and i hope we have much more funds because then we will be able to help much more the women of the world. >> all right. i want to ope it up for questions, and i think we have a microphoneerson here. please make sure that you identify yourself and for organization before asking your question and i'll ask our first

questioner here in the third row to put forth your question. this is a hunter college student, so please go ahead stand up if you wouldn't mind. >> hi, thk you so much for coming and thank you so much for that wonderful speech. my question actually is something you alluded to earlier, and it's about funding. how would u.n. women fund its wps initiative and other initiatives in the coming years? do you have an estimated annual budget? how do you feel funding forces have responded so far? so looking ahead what's next? >> i'm not sure everybody could hear the question, but the question is where's the money to do all of the good things that were put forth in the lecture, and what sort of response as u.n. faced in its early rounds of seeking the sources both from the u.n. general assembly budge committees and voluntary

donors. >> well one of the things when you have liv essentially in a country, in a minister or president, a specic a country like mine usually the money comes from the fiscal space, and you can work with the private sector to get some money but, for me, i read when u.n. women was approved in the resolution that it says it was an approved budget of $500 million, and i read also that the -- i believed it was not enough, and we needed at least $1 billion, so i said -- i didn't imagine at that time i would be the executive director of u.n. women b i said okay good. $500 million for the women but when i came here, i learn how it is. first women have the $500 million. we have like one-third of it.

second from the budget from the u.n. of this one-third, from the u.s. budget is only 1.4% of all the budget for u.n. women. all the rest 98.6% is from voluntary contributions, from donors and nondonors. i was in the republic and i didn't know the reality for all the u.s. system. in some places 1.8 in some fewer, and everything is voluntary contributions. if you ask me can you do your work without money, and we put it together with high expectations, how that you say document? hopes are high. [laughter] well yeah, high expectations. u.n. women, on me being

appointed, so we need to fund raise, and in order to fundraise, we need to be able to have very strong data to show the reality and the need. we need to work with donors, and we work with donors in terms to pledge money but not only pledge it, but give the money in the rightime also. it's the third condition. four i would say private sector and nontraditional because donors due to the current economical crisis or financial crisis donors have varied by shape, but they still are expecting their commitments and spain has been a very clear exple, a very clear example of people really -- i mean, the best two donors are the toughest

donors and then comes a lot of other countries the two ones are very high donors, so we hope all this excitemen with u.n. women, all thi commitment with reflect in funds but we understand that we cannot expect only from traditional government, so we will be making complaining with private sector with women's organizations. women's organizations have told us they will support us, so i don't know that we're going to get all the money that we want, probably not. we want so much, but at least with the money we have we need to work in a good way improve our effectiveness and efficiency, but we also have to think and incentivize the rest of the u.n. system to spend more in women because there would never be the money for the u.n.

women, and that's why i mentioned we won't replace the rest and we will be holding accountable all the systems so u.n. bp has to do more projects for women. you can imagine that in africa the cultural force -- i mean, in the world the average is 60%. in africa and some countries it's almost 85% but they all only have 2% of the land and when you see how much money from different privates go to women, it's like 2% too, so we can improve that direct more to women, and i am really looking forward to -- i would say push for this huge project for women because there -- i mean women who know how to produce

fantastically, but they don't have water supply or if they do have, they make the product that they can sell, and when you don't have the stage capacity, you have to go quickly to the market, and you cant negotiate good prices, and also we can give technical assistance so they can add value to a product so not only produce tomato but can it sam, whatever -- salt whatever, and i think this will help so much, and, of course many other things needed, and you can look in the concrete situation, so all these thinkings from people from far the institution for development of agriculture special fund. with the people of the world program and how could we think big? you know, because we're doing great things but still focusing

o small group of people a small group of women, and i'm sure the many governments, many women organizaons would be so happy that we can work together exactly like that. >> i wanted to pickp before the next question which is you said you were welcomed heartly by member states and others but you're not sure all the money is going to come through. there's other areas you set forth with the discrepancy what member states do at the u.n. and what they do in theireneral foreign policy comes up, and as a former president, i guess you know foreign policy is not necessarily the same thing at u.n.'s policy, but why it makes a difference in the women's engagement in peace is that we often point the finger of blame at the u.n. system for not providing gender experts to mediation processes or insisting that women are engaged in negotiating delegations but it's not just the u.n. system. of course, there's many member states engaged in theirwn free

lance diplomacy like the united united states and other regional powers. is there a way in your position now and the respect you're held in by other world leaders to go directly to member states and those engaged in contact groups and friend groups engage in mediation to put them on the spot so to speak to say you speak a good game in new york at the security counsel wha about pushing behind the scenes in the mediation you engaged in for more women at the table, more negotiators, mediators is that something to be doner your hands are tied in yo new role? >> no no no we can do all of that and we have done a lot of that and thinking about the commitments and important political commitment has to be reflected also in the funds but talking about mediator, we he to be fair that i say we have enough women mediators but still when i came into office, they told me we didn't have, so

in this program that we're going to develop a dlee-year -- three year program we are strengthening women skills and cacity, but to be fair that's not enough. when you have parties they need to accept the mediators. you cannot impose the mediators and you can't impose because the mediator has to be somebody who represents something for the people who are there in the negotiations. you have to be something that is respected, and you are seen as a leader, so you cannot put any man or any women. it's not an issue of women. it's an issue -- you have to have somebody there that means something to the people that in some sense has something to negotiate at least politically so that's probably one of the main problems with women mediators that we can't have great women, extraordinary women, strong ones, but you don't -- you cannot -- i mean, it could be a marvelous woman in europe but you cannot put her

in the peace talks in the arab world for instance because maybe it does not mean anything to them so you cannot impose. that's the challenge, and i think the challenge -- and we have great women everywhere -- is to try to identify the women who are leade skills the essential issues to identify women leaders and to work to the develop more leadership in women because i think that's essential. it's an issue of leadership. >> i think we have some questions here in the second row, many questions. starting here,nd then working our way back. please identify yourself. >> thank you very much for your talk and for your presentations regarding women in war and peace. i am from brazil, a professor of an throe poll ji, and i'm also

the coordinator of the national observatory that's monitoring a nebraska -- [inaudible] i know you know about it, and i'm here with the delegaon here because of my position of national coordinator and my question goes in the way of asng you about what are the plans to increase if there are any plans, the u.n. front to combat violence against women? i know that it's been a b effort that way, but i think there's another area of violence against women that i don't see in any other fund or any of the discussions which is how violence affects women. we talked about proposition 235 and talk about what's done in brazil and in the conflict room, and it's no, you don't know what it's like to live in a big city

in a poor neighborhoods in the northeast of brazil. these are conflict zones and we have to look and see how women ar effected because of urban violence in the big cities so i'd like to leave those questions for you, and i know that you're doing everything you can to increase that fund, so, thank you. >> well, i think i have to say that i mean that is a country like brazil of women precedence, many more women have opportunities in the world, and i'm sure they will play that role in trying to open more opportunities for women, not only in brazil, but for the rest of the world because i was at a chair that i w never sitting at the g8 or g20, but she will be representing the voices of

the women because women are also absent of the big discussion. in the financial crisis, did you ever see something about how the crisis was impacting the women? the only organization that this road, and i will say champion about it was ioa lope who with the crisis in the resolutions says that conflict with women and men, the crisis also did it, but there's never been gi g20 that men said nothing about that. in clime change for the -- climate change for the first time in mexi it was the first time there was line saying it impact differently. we'll have it this year and next year, august 20 i hope we can have proposals in that direction, so i hope she will represent that and be a champion

there. on the other hand, you ask about about -- we have a u.n. trust fund and therefore ending violence against women and secretary's unit against violent against women and incooperatg more men and boys. violence against women is not a women issue. it's the whole society. we need counterparts to speak to the others and have good ways of solving problems, not through violence, but with t children when they are little. that's what they receive in an abusing moment. we are working a lot and fundraising, and secretary yale has a goal that's like $100 million a year so that's part

of the j. you mentioned something in my meeting will the caribbean group, the mexican says thunderstorm watch -- this much, and security in some countries is not synyms in countries after crisis, but even countries after crisis like guatemala, today's problem is organized crime, but trafficking and so on. i cant tell you much about this because the u.n. united nations is going to organize, we are organizing ourselves in a different way to tack m this problem because we understand that this is not only violation of human rights, but there's no democracy that can survive in a good way. i mean you cannot make effective, you're right, if you cannot be out of your home after five o'cck in the afternoon. now, it happens in many places

where the murder in all these places, i mean there's terror in the streets and so on so i'll tell you we are going to deal with that because we understand that security is much more and not only for wom but for men but specifically for women. we are aware of that, and in the united nations we are making decisions very shortly. i think we'll be able to respond in a much better way. >> all right woman here in the third row if you could grab the mic. >> i'm a u.n. committee member, and i would like to pose a question to you connected with ratification of convention by not yet ratified states and conventions including the united states, the plan to encoura ratification by the united states and other countries not

yet ratified and how you with planning to connect the work of the high commissione for human rights with respect to implementation of this global women's human rights and mitigating the world standards for all countries with the discrimination against humans. thank you. >> well, we have worked with the high commissioner in establishing mechanisms not only on that, but all areas, specifically trying to identify who's going to do what and when because very involved in the human rights situation, u.n. women has other issues al. we are also discussing what mechanism will be developing in terms of being able to provide information and all the data you need. on the other hand we receive all the information you have in terms of being able to sort of

the money tooling and reporting so we can make a role in ensuring that it is being implemented. we'll know that people, that many time member states find a lot relutions, conventions, and so on as many countries with lots of laws, but there is the implementation gap. we will be working with any or all countries that are fine and find out how we can help them in terms of filling this gap so they can implement. there's so many countries that find everything, whatever you can imagine, and then nothing's happening, so it's not only the fining issue but it's important. of course, it's important. in the ca of the u.s. and

its -- understand it'sn issue that's in the congress, huh? of course we will be always focusing with anybody in terms of how important it is to ratify conventions than are looking is to ensure gender equality and women's rights so i hope so this will be a reality soon because there was a lot of interest in the u.s., in the constitution for u.n. women, and u.n. and u.s. women's organizations was very strong part of the campaign for a new entity with new roles, so i have to tell you we can do our part, but you know what? you can do -- you have to do your job. i mean parliament will likely

be reelected, so it's the constituencies you haveo convince them. i have to tell everybody i will be working very hard on women's rights because i believe it's human rights but that's not enough argument,nd i will be working strongly on producing data hopefully, maybe one day country by country because we don't have that right now. why is it so important politically? is it hun rights? yes, but there's so many people making decision not based on human rights and then you have to deal with a strong economical case, social and political case where it is essential and, of course, in the same with the view of human rights but we alwa stay on the human rights idea unfortunately that doesn't work many times so i'm going to work very strong arguments. if -- i'll do my part but i

need others fighting to do their part not only because of funding, but because people who are in the position or in parliament, ey need to know what the citizens -- constituents think about that. they need to feel that that is important for them because that's one thing they take into consideration before passing a law or voting against it and so on so we will do our part, but we need you. >> everyone has tir marching orders. i'm told we have time for one last question, and the lady in the second to last row. >> thank you very much. i'm grace anne, and i'm here with the hunter college model u.n.. my question being a student of political science and also a female being able to ask a woman and a diplomat, i'd like

to know from your personal experience if you feel the voice of a woman is as loud as listened to as a man's in international policymaking or still old stigmas are preventing the women from having strong as a voice on the floor. >> i have to correct you. i'm not a diplomat. [laughter] maybe i would have said a lot of things if i had been a diplomat. [laughter] i'm learning. i'm learning to be a dip employee mat. [laughter] it depends. if you are the president i can tell you they hear yo voice. [laughter] especially if you're in a cotry like mine where the international policy is the responsibility of the precedent, not of the congress. in this country it's different, so -- but i would tell you it's not easy. when we started the first cabinet when i was minister,

every time we spoke our male colleagues were noninterested like it was not interesting what we were talking about. [laughter] until they got to know us very well and to see we were very good, and then they respected us and they started taking us into consideration, and see, so sometimes in countries where there are a lot of prejudices or disparities, sometimes women's voices are not heard, in international affairs any any affairs, but you know, the only -- if i may say suggesti is to know exactly what you want to know exactly what is needed, to be very well prepared and to never give up because when i became minister, i always say that i had in myself all the possible sins,

political sins. i was a woman first female minister, i was divorced. i wasn't catholic. [laughter] what else? i was a socialist. [laughter] can you imagine something worse? [laughter] i told that to the commander in chief in my first meeting. i know. you have a lot of doubts because i'm this and this and this and this but believe me, we're going to work perfectly. it was like that because i had determination, i was very well prepared, i had experience of minister and i learned in my home and to make decisions because my father was a general and my mother was a very strong woman. i will tell you to give you other example i was in the last year of my government with

an economic crisis. let me say before we had a wonderful moment of very high corporal prize and everybody was pushing, parcularly my colleagues, but the funded position that i should start everything, and because my minister of finance and i thought it was reasonable, he told me, you know what? he had this power, during, i think it was between first war and second war, it was very useful in a lot of things so we produced a lot, but secondly, it was too expensive, so, of course, what happens and with the technology they invented something to replace it. it was a main asset, and we lost everything so we thought, you know what culprit is important,

but it'sot extending everything in the budget. let's keep some of this money. in special funds like the nor ones and so if we're going to educationareform and so on, we'll have the money, and we'll be able to -- what's the word? english? no, i mean to -- disconnect, that's not a good word, the strength of the economy to the strength of the social benefits, so even the economy's bad, we have the funds to continue to give the benefits. what happened is that when i made that decision, you can imagine, everybody was against me by approval rates went down, down down, down, and i was torn. i said, nope and the few went up and everybody says use the

money to compensate the prices. i said, no, we need to have this money in case. i didn't know that that was going to happen otherwise i would have with the price of the economy, but, it happened that the crisis came, and when i crisis came, it affected chili becausthey had the develop of their economy and all the forestry, u.s. was the first to buy us so we had a terrible problem in the forestry and so on so we knew what we had to do. this is the problem, these are the areas affected and these is how unemployment is rising. we went to countries, specific regions, developed regional programsn terms of developing employment trying to boost economies, and even the people they can have most of the

demand, and so we did a lot of things. you know what? it was important that i knew what i had to do, and i also had the money to do it. many countries didn't have the resources. why i'm telling you this is not because i'm crazy and forgot your question -- [laughter] it's because the important thing is to know the problem and the solutions of the problem and to maintain your position. i would have been much more popular if i would have been populist. i did spend a lot, it's not that i was -- i didn't cut any benefit. because i had the money, i improved all the benefits of the country, but we have made tough decisions when it was necessary, not that bad -- not within cutting anything.

that's tough but then we could do a stimulus plan, and our stimulus plan was not with the banks because fortunately for us in the 80s we had the terrible financial crisis, and in that time we introduced all the regulatory we needed in terms of reducing risk, so we didt have a huge financial impact in the last crisis, only the ones with money in other banks, so i tell you, even though it's not easy, don't give up. be prepared, know exactly what needs to be done, and you will be republicked and recognized. it might take time but it doesn't matter, it will be wort it. [applause] [applause] >> we wish you the best. we are all here.

we will heed your call. we will help and we really wish you the best, and thank you thank you. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] >> i ended with 85% of approval. [laughter] when i have to decide not to use all the money, i was like in 40%. [laughte i don't think you can go in with trying to have good approval. you have to make the good choices and the good decisions. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]