it's highly technical and it needs to be well-articulated d also based on informed views around the community from all -- from the entire spectrum. >> the last two questions and i see the two gentlemen here.

>> as you would expect me to say so, we don't intervene between corporate entities. both they are commercial entities that entertain commercial relationship. see certainly hope for the stability of that part of the world and for the stability of supply, that the situation can be addressed promptly and satisfactorily between the commercial entities and the negotiation. strong hope >> thank you. this is the last question. >> josh, associated press. madam director, in the downward revision for growth in 2014, it looks like weather played a big role. what does that take oh tell --

tell us about the stability of the economy given that impact? >> i think it says two things. one is, we believe that this q1 result was a temporary occurrence. with temporary outcomes that will be mitigated by stronger growth going forward in q2q3 and hopefully ongoing. however you would have noted, we have revise down our forecast for growth trends in the united states to two percent. we are facing this aging population issue. we are facing this relatively issue, which is why we're commanding various long term policy reforms to address aging

and productivity. it tells us another thing, which is that extreme weather occurrences have a serious effect on the economy. extreme weather occurrences have repeated much more frequency in the last 20 years than they had in the previous century. i think that's reason to wonder about climate change and how to deal with it. incidentally one the accommodations we put in this report deals with carbon tax. >> thank you very much madam lagarde. >> just a compliment of the u.s. economy. it is based on when you look at the household balance sheets, they have strengthened

significantly, corporate balance sheets have strengthened significantly. we're expecting the next three quarters to be up. our concerns are on the structural issues and the important issuesçfk >> coming up, irrigation of corruption and fraud at the united nation. then former national security

advise refer brzezinski. and christine lagarde explains the downgrade of the u.s. economy. coming up on the next "washington journal," we'll hear from john former u.s. ambassador to iraq. on the situation in iraq. then norman of the american enterprise institute on eric cantor's primary loss. and wendy young, president of kids in need. we'll also take your calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> republican senator rob portman member of the budget committee and democratic congressman chris van hollen at

the federal budget tuesday. we'll bring you that event here on c-span. >> the idea behind 215 and 250 instead of trying to tell the entire history of st. louis as a time line, we would absolutely miss vitally important things. instead of trying to do that and failing, we decided what if we just gave snapshots of st. louis history that would give people a glimpse of all the diverse things that happened here and they can use your imagination to fill in the rest. we chose 50 people, 50 places, 50 image and 50 objects. and tried to choose the most diverse selections.

this is what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of st. louis's history. it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries and of course the most famous became anheuser-busch with the largest in the world. in the era of anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year, this is from an era when things were simpler and it's fun to show people this object and kind of gauge their response. in the days before, they had cans or bottle caps, they put corks in the top of bottles. somebody had to do it by hand. you can see it got foot peddles on the bottom. that's where the operator would push down with his feet to give this cork enough force to go into the bottle. it's got three holes for three different size bottles. >> this weekend the history and

literary life of st. louis. the gate away to the -- gate away -- >> secretary of state john kerry address the 2014 our ocean conference on monday. hosted by the state department. he called for a single comprehensive global strategy to protect the ocean. here's a look. >> i want us to walk away from this conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with a plan. a plan that puts an end over fishing based on the best available science. may i i add one the things senator ted stevens of alaska who teamed up we me in the senate, oned things we were fighting was getting more better science. so that we can convince fishermen and convince

countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we hear, well, we don't really see that or feel that. i hear from captains of the boats, when i fish, i see plenty of stocks out there. there's no reason for it to be restricted. we need science and globally we can put our heads together and governments together and come up with both a bunch and the capacity to be able to do what we need to be able to help convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use deer and techniques that dramatically reduced the amount of fish and other species that are caught by accident and disguarded. a plan that sends subsidies to fishing. a plan that makes it nearly impossible to make illegally caught fish to come on the

market, anywhere. let's develop a plan that protects more marine habitats and we will have an announcement regarding that. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today, less than two percent of our ocean is considered marine protected area. where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem. less than two percent of the entire ocean. let's start by finding a way to perhaps bring in number up to ten percent or more as soon as possible. let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the more of plastic and other debris from entering into the ocean. everybody seeing that massive a

array of garbage. i learned about that back when i was running for president. you learn about the flow of these nutrients that go down into mississippi and the gulf. we need to develop a plan that gives us a better understanding of the acidification effect that carbon pollution is having in our ocean. i know it's a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and to maintain the oceans. we ought to be able to know where it's happening, how quickly it's happening. we need to push harder all of us for u.n. agreement to fight

carbon pollution in the first place. does the science proves that's the only way it will have a chance to produce the back of climate change. which is one the greatest threats facing our ocean. >> coming up a discussion on united nations' transparency. the heritage foundation -- former chair of the task force that investigated the allegations. this is an hour and ten minutes >> in the auditorium, we welcome those joining us on our heritage.org website and those joining us today via c-span.

we would ask everyone here in the house to make sure their cell phones have been called off as a beginning courtesy to our program and we'll post the program on our heritage home page for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion today is brett shafer, r.j.k. research fellow in the international regulatory affairs, part of the margaret thatcher center for freedom. he analyzes a range of foreign policy issues focusing primarily on the united nations and affiliated funds and programs and frequently speaks and publishes issues related on the world body and its activities. in 2009 he edited the book "conundrum, the search for alternatives" which features several experts examining an array of international activities and responsibilities conducted by the u.n. he is a frequent visitor to the sub-saharan africa as well and has written extensively on economic development, peace and security issues in that region.

he first joined us here at heritage in 1995 from march 2003 to 2004 he worked at the pentagon as an assistant for international criminal court policy before returning here to heritage. please join me in welcoming brett schaefer. brett? [applause] >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. as we noted on the flyer, in recent years, there have been a number of various stories, reports, and other sources revealing a troubling number of scandals, mishaps, misappropriations by the united nations and its affiliated organizations, and i'll go through a few of them to give you a sense for what we've seen. earlier this year the associated press reported the united nations office of internal oversight services failed to pursue cases of corruption over the last five years, including major cases inherited from the procurement task force that was disbanded in 2008.

over the past few years, francis scurry, director of wipo, have been accused of overtly authorizing the transfer of dual use technology to iran and north korea and acting illegally in an effort to identify the author of anonymous letters accusing of sexual harassment and improprieties and was recently elected to be general director of wipo. in late 2013 the u.n. dispute tribunal ruled two missile blowers retaliated against for exposing evidence tampering by a top u.n. official charged with investigating corruption were themselves retaliated against and -- by that top official who was their superior. the former spokesperson for the u.n. mission in darfur recently revealed in an interview to "foreign policy-making zone" the u.n. has routinely denied, concealed, or refused to report evidence that attacks on

civilians in order to make the situation in darfur appear more -- to appear better or more stable than it actually it. all this happened while u.s. secretary-general ban ki-moon repeated his goal is to make the u.n. more accountable and effective. today we have three speakers, two in person and one that, unfortunately, is going to have to appear via skype due to personal reasons. and each of them have come at the issue of transparency and accountability in the united nations from a different perspective. first we have edward patrick flaherty, an american lawyer and senior partner in a swiss law firm of schwab, flaherty and associates in geneva and focuses on representing whistle blowers, staff members and third party working for or injured by international organizations such as the u.n., wipo, the world health organization and international labor organization,

james wassertrom is a u.s. diplomat that serves as a anti-corruption embassy in kabul, afghanistan. when assigned to the u.s.a. peacekeeping program in cose, -- kosovo, he blew the whistle on a conspiracy to pay $500 million in kickbacks to senior kosovo officials. he identified the process for dealing with whistle blower retaliation first hand and can offer insights to its strengths and peculiarities and how it compares to the u.s. in similar procedures. finally, roger appleton was an attorney with the u.s. department of justice before being asked to serve as deputy chief legal council for the independent inquiry committee for investigation to the u.n. for oil food scandal. his distinguished service in that role led to him being named the chairman of the u.n. security task force charged for investigating fraud in the u.s. peacekeeping operations. until earlier this year, bob was director of investigations and

senior legal counsel for the global fund. he recently joined dave pitney l.l.p. as a partner and due to unexpected events, as i mentioned earlier, he'll be appearing by skype. following presentation, we'll have time for a few questions and answers from the audience. and before we begin, i also want to note we invited the u.n. to provide a panelist for this event. unfortunately, they were not able to provide one. so without any further adieu, ed, would you lead us off here? >> sure. thank you. >> welcome, everyone. thanks, brett. i just want to thank you and the heritage foundation for inviting me today. i followed brett's work from afar for a long time, as with james and bob, and i feel a bit like the piper here given the distinguished backgrounds of the two other panelists, i'm just

they often say is that a lot of their standards don't apply to them or any of the other international organizations, which is also part of the problem. but as brett said, i represented a number of staff members and staff associations during the 20 years i've been in geneva and brought a number of cases, both internally and also in u.s. courts and the european court of human rights. one of several of my more notable cases was the case of cynthia berzak vs. lubbers and others, he was the high commissioner of refugees in geneva who was accused of sexually assaulting ms. berzak. the case was investigated by iois, the u.n. internal investigation office and they

found her reports credible but kofi annan decided it wasn't credible for some unknown reason and put the report in the trash bucket and never sent it to ms. berzak and exonerated mr. lubbers. she came to me because really had no remedy in the internal system, nor could we really bring any case in geneva. the assault happened in geneva, by the way. so we then tried to bring a case in u.s. federal district court and we did bring the case and was dismissed because of the immunity of u.n. and went to the second circuit and challenged the immunity of the u.n. as unconstitutional. unfortunately, although we did get argument didn't get very much consideration in the decision but i still personally believe that the immunity of international organizations and the u.n. is unconstitutional in u.s. law and think eventually

it will be overturned, whether hopefully in my lifetime or my client's lifetime but that remains to be seen. i'm also working on -- well, i'm preparing an amicus brief for a case now brought in manhattan brought by a number of haitian survivors and victims of a cholera epidemic, where the cholera was allegedly introduced into haiti after the earthquake by u.n. peacekeepers which caused approximate 8,000 deaths and 750,000 illnesses or sickness. people were hospitalized and whatnot. the u.n. has refused to impanel the dispute resolution body which is set up in the general convention on privileged and immunities and so the haitians have been left to bring an action in u.s. district court. so i'm right now the case is at

the district court level. the u.n. has challenged the case on the basis of the immunity. i expect the case will be dismissed and then it will be appealed presumably to the second circuit and i will probably be writing an amicus for several years ago i founded an n.g.o. called the center for accountability of international organizations in geneva and on behalf of that n.g.o., or presuming that the case is dismissed, which based on the jurisprudence of u.s. law to this point, i think will probably happen. brett asked me to just open briefly about what some of the problems are for u.n. staff members, whistle blowers and whatnot. as a practitioner, the big problem is you have a system of immunity where the international organizations are not subject to local laws at all, whether you're sitting in new york or geneva, nairobi, anywhere, doesn't matter.

you're subject only to the u.n. internal rules and regulations and that obviously creates a problem, particularly if you have criminal activity because the u.n. doesn't have any criminal code. so if in the case of lubbers, a staff member, high commissioner of refugees commits an alleged criminal act, the only recourse of the victim is either internally or to try to go to the local courts, but then because of the immunity, it has to be lifted by, in this case, it would have been by the secretary-general. but that very rarely happens. so what you have is you have a case of -- with the internal system, this internal justice system set up in all these international organizations, the defendant is also the judge in a sense. they run it, they fund it and create the rules. so it's not a very fair system, as many have said, there's

absolutely no accordion of arms whatsoever in this system. so you have perverse outcomes. what's happened recently in many of my cases, i mostly litigate before the u.n. appeals tribunal which deals with most of the u.n. organizations, the u.n. proper, and then the international labor office administrative tribunal which also is based in geneva and there are about 40 different international organizations, intergovernmental organizations that subscribe to the jurisdiction of the i.l.o. and often you bring a case on behalf of a whistle blower or a disgruntled staff member, injured staff member, injured third party, and you win on the merits, whether it's an employment case or whether it's an injury case, but you then get pending damages. and you have no other recourse. that's the problem. what i tried to do more recently is challenge the u.n.'s immunity before the european court of human rights.

and actually, there seems to be more room for potential success there than i've had in the u.s. courts because in a more recent case, the european court found that a employee of the kuwaiti embassy in paris who had been fired and then tried to sue in the local labor courts in paris and had his claim denied because of the sovereign immunity of kuwait, the european court found he could in fact bring his claim. because he was not performing any sovereign functions, that they couldn't deny him his civil rights to bring his employment claim. now, in the united states, in the u.s. courts, the u.s. courts have viewed employment matters as protected by the sovereign immunity. so i think there is some room, some potential to use that case by analogy for staff members who work for international

organizations, at least within the jurisdiction of the european court which covers some 37 to 38 european countries, including russia and ukraine, that they in fact may apply that and we might be able to get around the immunity in those courts. what the problem is you have is no one guarding the guardians, the proverbial problem of who is going to be in charge, who is providing the oversight. in theory, it's the diplomats. it's the member states that are supposed to be providing the oversight and accountability for the organizations, but diplomats make terrible overseers. in geneva particularly, in many international organizations, the children, spouses, relatives of ambassadors have been hired as interns or staff members or consultants by these international organizations and in fact, many ambassadors after they finish their term then go to work for these international organizations.

this also creates obviously a clear conflict of interest. no one wants to upset the apple cart and they foresee when i'm done with my ambassadorial career i can go work for the u.n. somewhere so i don't want to change anything that might make me the skunk at the garden party. this also happens, i find also quite a revolving door between state department, foreign ministry officials who again are there to be the overseers of the organizations but ultimately end up working for the organizations. so there really is -- there is no effective oversight, and the internal legal systems, and this is what jim can speak to in much greater detail about his own experience, just provide no real justice because it's a system that's set up by the defendant, it's controlled by the defendant, run by the defendant. so i find that very, very difficult. occasionally you do get a win for a client but for the most part, statistically, just for

example, the i.l.o. administrative tribunal staff members win less than 30% of the time. so it's not a very effective system. there's no effective system of discovery. as a lawyer, you want to have -- i mean, you're dealing in administrative law, many things are done on paper. and to prove your case, you want to see the documents, you want to see communications. to get those document is virtually impossible. it's worse than pulling teeth. and whenever i ask for -- in every judgment i ever get, particularly from the iloat, they always admonish me for my fishing expeditions because i'm asking for documents that are pertinent but they still continue to claim that well, you know, if you don't have the documents, you haven't proven your case so that's the end of it. just very quickly, what can be done? i think the immunity in my view

is the major problem. there are times when the u.n. and other coercions should have the immunity. if they're in congo in a war zone, no doubt about it. but in terms of claims that arise in new york or geneva or vienna, there's no need for it and they're developing countries can functional legal systems that more than adequately can address many of the claims that arise in these organizations, whether it's sexual assault or sexual harassment or termination, things of that nature. how that will happen is many different ways. the problem is the now the u.n. immunity arises out of the organization promulgated in 1945 and ratified by the u.s. senate in 1971, i think. so in one way it gives the u.n., i should say, absolute immunity and that was the issue in the lubbers case where we

tried to attack the action saying how can sexual assault be a part of the mandate of the u.n. high commission for refugees? and the judge in the second circuit very plainly said i agree with you, but look at this convention? it's absolute. there's nothing we can do. so there are several ways to address it.

filed the claim, and you say, we have absolute immunity, judge, and that is what the jurisprudence says. two quick solutions i have. act,s to promulgate an similar to the federal act, and the federal fraud claims act turns individual whistleblowers into private attorneys general, where they can bring actions on behalf of international, on behalf of the federal government to recover fraudulent obtained funds. i think there is room for something like that in the u.n..

another important thing would be a freedom of information act for the u.n. right now, getting information out of the u.n. is, as i said, worse than pulling teeth. one way to do that is to set up a special tribunal, assuming you keep the immunity in place, which if you cannot get rid of the immunity, this is an alternative, and any award made by this tribunal pursuant to the is to reduceud act any of those awards from the amounts that have been allocated think brett which i sayingy wrote something, that the direct assessments are four dollars billion or five dollars billion for year, and that is something huge, so double that. at is another aspect. can go on, and we can tell war stories. it is hard to shut them up, but it's sort of gives you the

general overview of what the problem is, and for me, it really is the immunity, and today in the 21st century, there is no reason for the u.n. and other international organizations to enjoy an absolute immunity that harkens back to the day of kings and queens. no government today enjoys absolute immunity. theory inling discourse is a restricted theory, except with the u.n., and you have to address this at the root of it, and it is only then that you can have effective oversight and accountability of these organizations, and they have not done it and will not be able to do it, and it is up to , to try to bring these organizations and bring them into the 21st century. thank you. [applause]

>> well, it is hard to follow tech an error died -- erodi presentation, but as you know, i am a u.n. supporter in the flesh, and what i about to talk about has absolutely nothing to do with my current position with this government or the u.s. government position vis-à-vis the u.n., and this is my personal experience. i have worked for the u.n. for 28 years, and for the last six of those, i was attached to the you when peacekeeping operation in kosovo. time, it washe oversight of public utilities. of course, there is an allegation that my colleagues at the u.n. as well as senior

ministers in the government were up to no good. they were in the process possibly of fixing a bid. it might have generated $500 million in kickbacks. so i try to confirm it. i could not, but i turned it over to the inspector general of the u.n. at the time, and she and i agreed that we would cooperate in an undercover investigation, which we did for several months. in the meantime, my colleagues ,ound out about my cooperation and they engaged in egregious retaliation. they trumped up charges against me. since we were administering it at the time, they controlled the police justice system, so on a weekend after i had been accused

of all kinds of wrongdoing, and , withdefending myself higher circles of the u.n. there, they blocked me from leaving. they arrested me at the border and brought me back and didn't you legal search of both my apartment and confiscated and in the end, i was put under investigation for a year. there were actually five investigations that went on simultaneously. the three against me criminally or administratively. one was an investigation i was working on, and one was an investigation that i asked for i viewedranted, and all of this as retaliation, so after a year, i was cleared of any wrongdoing, and the investigation -- the report vanished. we had no idea what happened to

it. and the investigators came back to say there is absolutely no retaliation involved, despite the fact that i was arrested and despite the fact there was an illegal search and seizure, and despite all of what i said happened had happened. there was no retaliation. just random acts, and i found that, of course, further retaliation, so in 2008, my solo practitioner attorney and i've filed a claim in the u.n., and i was one of the first whistleblowers to take the ethics office, which was responsible for protecting me in which i thought had done a horrendous job. , and after effort your years, the u.n. ignoring

six orders of the court to turn over documents, which goes to the lack of access to information in the u.n. system, their own tribunal, or during the secretary-general to turn over documents on six occasions, and he did not do so. eventually, the judge turned to the documents over to my attorney and me, and in my view, those documents supported my claim. 2012, the tribunal in new york ruled in my favor. that was a very important victory for me personally, and i think, for all of the whistleblowers, because it was the first case of a whistleblower actually winning in the tribunal courtroom. he judge in the case decided would separate the liability judgment from the damages judgment, so in this case, he appallinggious and behavior on the part of the

secretary-general and a variety of other actors, all of this a matter of record now, and he decided to have a separate trial on damages at a later date, but after several months, the judge changed his mind and decided not to have a separate trial and that he had sufficient evidence, and we presented evidence of the damages i had suffered, and in 2013, he issued a judgment, which gave me roughly two percent of my estimated losses. those losses, by the way, were activated by professionals in our uncontested by the u.n., so in the face of absolutely no contradictory evidence, the justice decided that it was only two percent of what i had estimated. he essentially knocked out anything that had to do with my finances terms of except for a small amount for

what they call moral injury, which is a catchall phrase for distressed, damage to professional reputation, defamation, and so on. period, theing this u.n. was continuing to defame me . they violated their own rules and procedures about ongoing investigations, but they did so, and in the end, i got this very, very small reward, and the point in all of this to me, and i want to be very clear about that, it was never about compensation. this was always about truth and justice, and i know that may sound cliché or somehow corny, but that is what it really was for me. i was violated. my career was irreparably damaged. my name was blasted out in dozens of countries as a corrupt u.n. official caught while a coupleg to flee for

of years, and the u.n. supported that. quietly or not so quietly. and to have that very small reward was a terrible message to send to other whistleblowers who might want to come forward, and that is really what it became for me i'm which was why would anybody come forward to suffer what i had suffered if, in the end, you do not get truth, and you do not get justice. so we decided to appeal this judgment, and to ask for intervention by the government, the u.s. government, to put andsure on the u.n., earlier this year, in january, the support of congress, 2014 consolidated appropriations bill was signed by the president, and in that, there is -a1b, which7048

refers to transparency and accountability in u.n. agencies, and it requires that each and every u.n. agency adhere to whistleblower best practices. debate as may be some to what those are. i do not think there is any debate, but maybe one could argue it. we specifically put in five ,rovisions, five very pointed union rated best practices, and i refer to only a few here. please feel free to look it up, should you be interested. one is that the u.n. must have -- u.n. staff who are whistleblowers must have access -- external, some sort of body that is not controlled by the secretary-general.

secondly, that whistleblowers -- victims -- whistleblowers who are victims of prudent retaliation should as a consequence of that retaliation completely mitigate it for direct or indirect or future consequences of their whistleblowing. in other words, we should not suffer any consequences for whistleblowing and being victims of prudent retaliation, either directorial direct or those that may arise in the future, and the third, i think this is very important, is that those who engage in retaliation should suffer some consequences, because in my case, there were no consequences for anybody but me. all of those who were engaged in retaliation and who were named in the various reports went on to have great lives with no impact on them, and i was the only one who suffered any consequences. three of the areas

that are highlighted in this section of u.s. law. view, what is wrong with the u.n. system, having been one of them for 28 years, the accountability institutions of the u.n., there are three of them. there is the ethics office, where comes to whistleblower protection. there is an office of internal wersight services, to which referred, the inspector general, and the third is the justice system. each one of these is broken in some way. office, if we just look at the evidence, of the numbers, and i get these from the government accountability project, which is representing me in terms of advocacy here in washington and elsewhere, and we have the president here in the audience

, there have been -- since the establishment of the ethics office in 2006, as i ever been told, 2013, there have been more who 300 whistleblowers and have come forward to the ethics office. of those, the ethics office reviewed 99, and they found retaliation in only two cases, two. mine is not one of those two. they turn down my case for but that is an astonishingly low percentage. .2% or depending on what your denominator is, but it is a very, very low percentage. it is just a shame, profoundly. second, there are cases that have been referred to that indicate witness tampering,

evidence tampering, lack of commitment to getting their job of interference, because there is political interference. the detailso into of what we discovered in terms of the evidence of my case, but they said there was no retaliation, but when we looked at it, it was absolutely clear they chose to set aside evidence they had in their possession to find there was no tally nation, and i do not know of an explanation for that. the third is the justice system. ed as mentioned, there are some very, very courageous , but theythe tribunal have complained about tampering with the statute, the organic statute, the statute that defines their domain as well as

the limits to how their case law can be applied to expanding the statute for whistleblower protection, so that is harmful to whistleblower protection. case, we will have a hearing and have our appeal heard in vienna, the u.n. appeals at the tribunal, thursday. d hasl be going, and e provided me with much discouragement this morning, as have many others, but i am not discouraged, again because i am here for their pursuit of -- i feel like i have gotten the truth out, and people understand what happened. i was not a corrupt u.n. official who was fleeing my wrongdoing but, in fact, i was blowing the whistle of the wrongdoing of my senior colleagues and some other officials, and the final judgment in my case, we have

been told, will be rendered in a pronouncement eight days later, the 27th of june, so at long last, more than seven years after all of this happened, i may be at the end of this long and winding and very tortured road, which i do not believe thinke the end, because i with the new u.s. law in place mentioned, as i requires each and every u.n. agency to adhere to whistleblower best practices or face an automatic withholding of 15% of their u.s. contribution, and that is a substantial amount of money in most cases, the u.n. is under pressure to change its far as the point about immunity, i would add, and i know this because i was one of ofm, there is a culture

impunity, so it is both immunity and impunity. it is the case where the people at the top don't feel any real commitment to getting out internal corruption, to protecting whistleblowers, to reform, which we hear about over and over again, the u.n. system, so that is a grievous shortcoming, and one of my suggestions would be to have thatsort of external body is as independent as one can get , with funding and staffing which is independent of u.n. mechanisms but which has some sort of authority to make binding judgments on those in the secretariat. i do not know how that can be done, and i shrink from the task of trying to take away immunity. i admire those who are pursuing it, because i think it is

manyitely unwarranted in cases, but assuming that that this is onelace, idea, and i am not a big fan of the u.n. ethics office. record of three and under that come forward, and the number that keeps going, and the number that have proven their case for retaliation is the same. i think something must be done with the ethics office. perhaps even getting rid of it. so, with that, thanks. and thank you all for coming today. [applause] >> and, bob, we are ready for you whenever you are ready. >> good afternoon. can you hear me?

the volume can put up a little bit higher. >> i was having a little bit of trouble. i hope i will not cover it you'll much of the same ground. -- covered too much of the same ground. these are critically important , and we are keeping these issues at the forefront, and it is so important. anduld echo the sentiments completely agree with just about everything the two previous speakers alluded to, and i think i am going to go over some of the same areas that were being raised, and i hope i will not be too repetitive, but i think it is worth exercising what it is that is deficient and these different pieces to the u.n. administration justice, but,

again, i think one of the major problems here is the privileges of immunity that have been granted at the u.n., and the way it has been interpreted by the organization, i agree that maybe there is a misinterpretation of its expansiveness and the reach of privilege and immunity, and it is causing havoc to ripple the u.n., and i would also offer that that hurts. the lack of a true immunity and framework hurts accountability. what you are seeing is examples, particularly what you identified at the outset. lacknces which demonstrate of accountability, which, quite

frankly, are really something that is unacceptable. you know, when i came into the u.n., i first came in, and there was the investigation with the leadingnd then my group the investigation of the then any-general, and independent entity which was not bound by the rules and regulations of the u.n., able to do a little bit more of an independent investigation, i think, and had an opportunity to be a little bit more accurate, andough, and relevant, becoming chairman of the task force, it was an offshoot. we operated within the u.n. rules, within the u.n. and the dynamic changed considerably, and what we saw -- if you didwas

not know any better, you thought the world was upside down, because the investigator became the subject, and the subject became the victim, and so many case, we proved very clearly that an official was steering 100 million dollars in contracts to a telecommunications firm that hailed from the same country that he was from, and the evidence was very solid, and it was referred to the national authorities in the u.s., and they prosecuted the case, and they convicted the staff member of fraud and unlawful steering of contracts, and he got jail time for that. was put out earlier in the conversation that in order for a criminal case -- for

the criminal code to be applied against a member, the secretary-general has to wait privileges of immunity of the organization. if the secretary-general does thechoose to waive those, person can go completely scot-free in anything and becauseng he has done there is no effective system to truly address wrongdoing, so this is a major flaw. this goes back to the immunity issue. if you look at the successful episodes of where there has been some accountability with context,tes, in this and whereas the nationstates pick up the criminal cases on and what happens to it does notr cases,

go to the national body or the national authority area it appears they went into the blackhole. cases that have not been followed up on. there have been staff members who were identified as having misused, misappropriated funds, that have been identified that have not been held accountable. so the question, why is that? why could that ever happen? it is an advanced international organization. among other things that have not been identified to round out the nature and scope and dynamic, which is the u.n., you would would want a strong oversight presents. why does it not?

well, cases of misconduct, misappropriation, cases of malfeasance, cases of loss of taxpayer funds are perceived in the u.n. as very bad press, very unwelcome news, and also lots of messaging that can jeopardize the very existence of the organization. the view of many in the organization is the u.n., which is dependent on donor problems ifs, has donors see headlines of funds,ion and loss of and then there will be a cessation of donations to the organization, thereby ending the organization, so what we really strong a very self-preservation ideal that permeates the organization, and i am not saying everyone.

certainly those in positions of responsible for their administration, for the many u.n. employees who are making a career out of the u.n., and those who hope that they never become a subject of a case, which is wrongly or even it mightursued because not end up in their interest. a dynamic. with this kind of a system, a it does not promote sound and effective administration of justice. and the point earlier was the of that who is the real overseer here?

the real overseer is the united states and the diplomats, and what is that? it presents a significant stands ino have those interested positions when viewing and overseeing and judging oversight, this function. what you need is a truly professional, independent body that is truly professional and not beholden to the administration, not beholden to the organization that can review the cases that have taken place, and there are challenges and claims that there misconduct,rors, and also a lack of justice. reading the last case that came out of the u.n. tribunal, as was , the case islier

actually about two investigators who had been retaliated against by a senioreir job member of their office, and there has been no accountability, and there has , despiteepercussions the fact that the findings of the tribunal judge were extremely strong, extremely clear, and hardly profoundly challenge. and yet, you have two whistleblowers who have been victimized and suffered severe consequences for their career, and you have the perpetrator who is unaffected, so that role a very sour sends message to the rest of the organization and to the rest of the folks, not only on the

oversight body, but through the administration and the organization. you count on this organization, especially the oversight body, to effectively meet out sound and proper investigations, and yet you have results that are occurring like that, where you have no and people even being identified as victims, found to have been wrong, still , and minimal/no recourse there has been no accountability for the wrongdoing, so it is a in numerousation respects, and certainly the thatng that the immunity

has been put forth by the organization, it does not reach the level as far as they claim they do, but there also needs to a more structured reconstruction of the accountability and oversight mechanisms in the organization to make them truly fair, truly wayuntable, and truly a -- that theyases are able to go through the system, and i think they were that the ethics office has not found any significant or only two significant retaliation cases. retaliation is one of the hardest things to prove, and it is clear in a national context that retaliation can be proved

by circumstantial evidence and , and i thinkd without acknowledgment of that, that many national authorities have, you're never going to have an effective ethics situation with retaliation. the cases are difficult to prove, and they have to know what to look for, and there are certain indexes which are cases,y present in such because without a strong whistleblower program where confidence can be built upon, it and it will be, disincentive for people to report wrongdoing and misconduct in the organization, especially when they do not see a level of when cases are not handled to fruition and final decisions that

are fair and just, and there is not a proper voice and mechanism in assuring that complaints will not be harmed, and when there is a mistake made that it can be corrected. or throughcial forum the investigative process, and there are so many different ways in which these cases can be derailed through errors, even innocent errors, not just , whereonal malfeasance these cases can go off the track. you have real lives and real careers. >> thank you, bob. before we go to q&a, i wonder if you could just briefly describe some of the successes of the task force, what made it

different, and where those cases are right now. >> do you want me to answer that? >> yes, please. tooke task force in 2006 more than 300 cases which fraud,d broad, financial and also they took over cases where they would be accused of misconduct, and in the three years, as you can imagine, there was no way we could complete the entire inventory of the cases. approximately -- i do not have the numbers in front of me, but a little over 200 than 26nd we found more significant fraud and corruption schemes, some of which we

concluded, and some we did not and that needed to be followed up, and certainly some with significant financial loss. others where there have been andty harsh mismanagement misuse of u.n. funds and misuse of u.n. positions. when we disbanded at the end of for the mostases part went into a black hole. ,ases that were reported on many cases which we thought were to reach at least the administration of justice. and there was further work that it seemsbe done, and not to have any further work. disclosure of work to

whiche, and cases in individuals and missions that found tod have been or cases misconduct, in the administration of justice within the organization, not even outside it were not taken that is certainly the appearance that is being provided, and nothing has been and there is time, to make thesen cases, because when you may cases, you can sometimes make enemies, especially with officials in senior positions, and there is a disincentive unless they are truly protected to move forward on those cases. the long and short of it is, there was a lot of work that seems to have not been pursued,

others that have been dropped, cases that have faltered and not made their way through the justice system. >> thank you. for a few questions and answers from the audience, but i am going to go ahead and lead off with one short question , and that is, jim considering the outlying circumstances for the legislation that was just passed in january about the whistleblowers standards by congress, do you think that in the u.n. organization, they currently meet those standards? no? >> absolutely not. >> so you'd be surprised that the organization can certify that it would meet those standards and that the money should be paid? >> i do not think they should, but whether they will or not is another question. >> ok. sir, in the back, please.

i am sorry. i do not see anyone with the microphone, but just state your question loudly, and we will have the answer here. concern that is two parts. in the united nations, you have -- people that come from different legal major ones, and francee iran, civil law, , and most of the world is under civil law. common law, and then the israeli system.

under which of those paradigms does the legal, investigatory, and -- are the differences between these legal systems partly at fault for the stymieing? extent might there be extrajudicial legal bodiesration that the are not putting in these reports but which might influence them, such as this was necessary for , and they mayn not know, and the investigators -- what the

consequences might be? me is, ok, weises know, and here is the settlement . a nondisclosure agreement. be quiet. why is there not more of that? >> so the question is how does the u.n. judicial system arbitration process base itself on common law, civil law, etc., and to what extent the political circumstances of an incident may come into play in the decisions, to you want to go first? >> sure. mixture of the common law and civil code, and as to your second question, does that contribute to some of the problems, i think it does.

my experiences within the u.n. --tem, and bob may wait a weigh in on this also, it is based on documents. they do not place great weight on witness testimonies, cross-examination. it is pretty much, as in the civil code, were the document is superior, and i think as to the --t part, is that a reason is their secrecy because there might be some underlying consideration, probably, that describing the chamber, and i thought we moved beyond that. there are mechanisms that governments already use to deal with sensitive issues, but today in the u.n. system, there is just no disclosure, and the secrecy has to be dealt with, other than just go away.

i would hate to see secrecy being used as an excuse for inaction. there are those that came ,orward with the ethics office and some feel that he is still being retaliated against, and there is nothing dramatic or or secret, no forces behind this that i am aware of , so i of the cases certainly would not use that as an excuse for inaction. >> bob, do you have a comment on the basis for the judicial system, and in your experience, did you find that secrecy laid into some of the decisions that came out? part answer the first

first, two things. you have a series of rules, and the charter, with rules of , various rules of conduct, chapter one of the staff rules, and that can be a basis. charter,ust out of the out of the seminal documents in the u.n. that was promulgated back in the 1940's. we also have a second category which aren't natural laws of the particular country you are involved in. sometimes you need to pay heed as well. the fact that you're in a certain country. bribery, and i

think there is a tension between which laws should apply, and it shouldn't be one that strictly prohibits paying bribes, or the local law which sees it as a custom and a duty and a way of life to do so, so there is a real issue, and the other issue that deals with the secrecy piece is a critical need in a and your services have been procured roughly, but it is critical that you need to get that item through, and otherwisefood, and people may suffer and die, so which is of importance there?

you're going to impose a system of law and accountability, or are you going to put a premium or more importance on the items? a lot of times, the importance of the item is a good ways out, and the issue underlying it, the bribery and corruption, is buried. >> let me just add to that. i think that those are exceptional cases that should be examined one by one, and some of the underlying assumptions should probably be examined very carefully before going forward and making a leap of faith, this is the only way to get those goods and services to people in need. that principle can very easily be abused. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible]

you propose this? >> yes, just to repeat the if the new u.s. law enacted in january is addressing the issue of privileged immunities with the u.n. treaty. >> it does not specifically mention that issue. where that issue of immunity dovetails, there are five that are specifically mentioned. in the larger work done on whistleblowers and best practice, there is a mention of immunity. and the withdrawal of immunity, and i think, perhaps, one of the

members can address that. where the best practices come into and the government accountability. >> bob, would you like to address how you would go after if you areular issue inclined? to address this problem? >> one problem with this law is on a case-by-case basis, there is the example that brett gave about one that derived most of its funds from patent application fees. if you percent of which come from american patent applicants. the u.s. government pays a very small amount of money to that group, and therefore, in my opinion, the group does not comply with this law, but it is probably not going to make any difference because they do not

get very much money from the u.s. and would not care if the u.s. cut off whatever contributions it has made, even though in my view today, one of them is corrupt because of the lack of accountability, so i .pplaud the work certainly, you have to do something like that, but it is a start. in a case like that, it does not address the problem. bob, would you like to comment, or are you fine? you have any other questions from the audience? yes, ma'am? >> and who certifies it? >> the state department. --

>> they are taking the issue very seriously. they have circulated a questionnaire where they are gathering logistics. was not focusing on policy. it was focusing on implementation of policy, as the andnization has policies, some of them read very well, but it is really how that policy is implemented, so i think that they are taking it seriously, and we will see what they come up with in the end. i think it will be submitted to congress, and then it will be up to congress to decide whether there will be these notifications, the documentation collected, and if the facts collected are adequate. i think the government accountability project and others are watching this very closely. >> ok, i will conclude with a final question, and that is do you get the sense that the united states is unique in its

concern about these types of issues, or is the frustration of the treatment of whistleblowers more widespread than that? the efforts that tom trying to undertake is internationalize this movement for whistleblower protection in the u.n., and i am in touch with civil society organizations, governments, and with media in a variety of other countries. with majorg closely donors of the u.n., and there is considerable interest. the fact that the u.s. has taken this step has generated curiosity, and other countries particularly, those which have a strong rule of law and strong believe in whistleblower a look at are taking taking action themselves. whether that means withholding or political pressure or some

other manifestation, i do not know. but there is interest in it. in other countries have picked this story up. they are quite actively pursuing it, and that hopefully will generate a constituency that will put pressure on politicians to do the same thing, as has happened here. quickly, i think the u.n. has to be treated, particularly in this type of question, as they exercise many indicators of being a sovereign state, although they are not a sovereign state. in fact, they are almost like a supernational state because of the immunity, but they get a pass. for example, transparency international does not review the u.n., and i do not know why. i think they should. so i think we have to come back and re-examine that, as well, to make sure if they are functioning as a quiet life state that they have the same

accountability -- if they are state,ning as a quasi that they have the same accountability. i am not sure. >> any final remarks? bob, any final remarks? i think many of the important things have been said today, and i think a lot of these things will be brought to the four -- and helps to have viable protection programs. it helps to have a viable administration of justice and to have fair and equitable results in the way cases are treated properly. now, if there is desperation with this issue, these issues have gone on for some time.

going on for many years now, and i think there has wen a lot of casualties, and need a vested interest and some energy to address it, because it is ao have suffered, travesty to have them just fall by the wayside. for this to continue. >> thank you very much, and thank you all for coming today. i hope you enjoyed it, and good night or goodbye. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on c-span, the situation in russia and ukraine and the effect on european security. then, christine lagarde, managing director of the international monetary fund, explains the downgrade of the u.s. economy. next, a look of allegations and corruption at the united nations .

tuesday, the health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius talks about lessons learned from the health care situation at a national conference in washington. see her remarks live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. president obama is expected to sign an executive order preventing federal contractors from discriminating against lgbt employees. tuesday, the president speaks at a dnc lgbt fundraiser in new york city. live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> the idea behind this is instead of trying to tell the entire history of st. louis in a timeline or sort of like air up

era,ir out, -- era by rather than doing that and feeling, we thought what if we gave snapshots of st. louis that would give people a glimpse, and they could use their imagination to fill in the rest, so we chose 50 people, 50 objects,0 moments, 50 to have the most diverse selection we could. we are standing in the objects section of the exhibit right now, and this is what most people would call the real history. this is where the object is right in front of you. of st. such a huge part louis history. it is an amazing story with lots theifferent breweries, and most famous became anheuser-busch, the largest in of world, and in the era anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year, we think they are producing so much beer, and it

was in an era when things were so much simpler, and it is fun to show people the object and gauge their response. bottle caps,er and and they put corks in the top of bottles, and somebody had to sit there and do it by hand. you can see it has foot pedals on the bottom. that is where the operator would push down on his feet to give the core kind of forced to go in the bottle, and it has got three holes for three different sized bottles. >> this week, the history and literary life to st. louis, the gateway to the west, and on c-span american history tv. >> on the russia and ukraine today -- >> now, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine and the former national security advisor discuss the situation between russia and ukraine. follows news that russia

has stopped natural gas supplies to the country. opens theongresswoman one hour 20 minute discussion. >> good morning. i am the president and ceo of the wilson center, and as i always say, a recovering politician. good morning. i am a recovering politician. i'm happy and fortunate to be in this role. i want to recognize the u.s. egypt ambassador who was here. welcome, sir. and to underscore the title of to date's event, which is mutual security on hold? russia, the west, and european security architecture. conversation could not come at a more important time, with events in ukraine looming large on the global agenda. i was thinking about it earlier, and i suppose one piece of good news about the assault of the

isif's extremist organization in iraq is that russia is distracted. what is russia distracted by? ukraine. and the disintegrating relations it's disintegrating relations with europe and the u.s. transport plane in ukraine on saturday as created outrage in kiev. the russian embassy there was damaged by an angry mob. fortunately, the event was defused by the foreign minister of ukraine, although a comment he made there has obviously on viral. no one really believes that russia is not meddling and fomenting instability in eastern ukraine, and that makes it much harder for petro poroshenko to stand up an effect a

transparent and corruption-free government for the first time in ukraine's history. i observed the is not meddling d fomenting instability in eastern ukraine, and that makes it much harder for petro election on the national democratic institute delegation led by madeleine albright. we had a chance right before it to meet with the leading candidates, and poroshenko said the right things about the leadership he hopes to provide for ukraine, and it is my personal wish that he is able to be successful. really,event is although ukraine will be a focus, to celebrate the role of the security conference and other organizations like the osce and the wilson center who pay careful attention to russia and other ager security challenges. the wilson center has invested in these issues for 40 years. the investor and others founded the institute in 1974.

ar global your program led by person on today's panel is the home of our newest distinguished scholar, who was the co-moderator of the national hinger.e, wolfgang isc from thelumni institute, and 100 of them are on the ground in ukraine. three of them worked in a small office we still have ntf. who better to keynote our program and someone who knows a lot about this region, ambassador zbigniew brzezinski? he wasi worked together, the big shot, i was the small shots, and the carter white house in another century, when somehow the problems seemed easier other than hostages in iran. continued to think

carefully about the strategic and hases in the world in my view written some of the most important books that give the rest of us. think about. during his tenure in the carter white house, he managed a normalization of relations with , the brokering of the camp david accords, and the fallout of the 1979 iranian resolution. i think he is the second most important member of his family, after mika. ifer will make some

comments. steve and i testified together a few weeks ago before the senate foreign relations committee, which is focused intently on what strategies could he successful in ukraine. for any of that happens, that's me introduce wilson scholar ger.ssador wolfgang ishin he has chaired the munich security conference since 2008. he was ambassador to the u.s. turning the 9/11 period and then ambassador to the u.k. the book that he produced which was released includes chapters written by several folks. i was honored to write the chapter on -- and to be involved celebration of senator

sam nunn for his contributions in the area of nuclear security. the conference each february is thus security event in the world. our congress and saying major delegation there. wolfgang.hing about among his other extraordinary was,iments, -- a compost he is the grandfather, but also a father of a 9 --year-old, as i have been waiting to wish you happy father's day. please welcome ambassador wolfgang ishinger. >> thank you. thank you so much, jane, and steve, forzbig, and allowing us to have this session here this morning. both jane harman and zbigniew brzezinski were participating once again after many previous

sessions at the munich security conference earlier this year, and i remember that you, zbig, participated in a session on ukraine at a moment when many of us were still considering .kraine a problem of ukrainians of course, now it has become a problem of not only european, but global dimensions, and he will talk or about that. so thank you for allowing me just to make a few brief remarks. i want to sort of present to you this book. hall, a outside in the few copies of it, and there is also a sheet where, if you want a copy, you can order a copy from a u.s. distribution company. if i may say,,

very modestly, a really good book. i know a very few -- of very few other collections of essays that offer such a comprehensive overview of foreign policy and global affairs. bookve in this contributions from -- and i will just give you a few names -- npov, chuckva hagel, john kerry, helmut schmidt, senator mccain, sam hoagland,nye, jim nato secretary-general rasmussen, but also bildt,ricans like karl and most importantly jane harman.

the book. it is worth reading it. there are really some real gems in the book. worked onroud that we it for almost a year, to come up with something on the anniversary of munich. for those of you who have not had a chance to be in munich, about make one comment the munich security conference. it is at its core a transatlantic event. there are not many events around the world annually where you will find up to 10 active u.s. senators and a number of members of the house in one place for together.all that is a rare thing to see. i have checked with many of my american diplomatic colleague's,

and it is something that does not happen very often. so there is strong participation, not only by all u.s. administrations since the 1960's, by the congress, by those in the congress who lead on foreign policy, is a huge asset for the conference. the conference was founded by a person who was until he passed away last year the last surviving member of the group of people who tried to assassinate hitler in 1944, and he had quite a story to tell about how he escaped death and how inortunately the attempt 1944 failed. one or two words about our topic before i hand over to our

dr. brzezinski. i had a few weeks to spend in the month of may leading up to the residential elections in ukraine. i have to tell you i did not meet many separatist's, and i tried very hard. i went over the country and i found that there was huge the toisfaction, enormous satisfaction, by many citizens with the conduct of their own government over the last decayed or so, because of corruption, because of lack of unity. was somebody from the east or somebody from the west, running the country from a western point of view, etc. but i did not encounter a great deal of support for the idea that ukraine should the carved up. neither, by the way, did i find a lot of fascism or

anti-semitism, which is something that russian pop again that has dented to suggest over the last period. so we have to be careful that we do not let ourselves be driven in the wrong. second point, my view, and i andct that dr. brzezinski ambassador pifer will hopefully correct me if i am wrong, my view is that russian action on an actions not been motivated i strength -- by sense,h and a strategic but more out of weakness and anyway almost out of a sense of panic that certain things were sort of drifting apart that russia thought was important for them. whoussian friend, represents the carnegie endowment in moscow, has

recently said russia has three options now. unfortunately, the only good option is the least likely one. he said the first option the russians have is self-improvement, self-reliance, more democracy. that is not likely. the second option is russia will tend to rely more and more on military options. certainly not a big war, but fomenting unrest, continued fomenting unrest in ukraine and other crisis spots in europe and beyond. and the third option for russia, as dmitri put it, is for russia to leave the west and to go more to china, which they have already tried in a certain way. but that would be tantamount to russia surrendered hearing -- surrendering to china and would

not be such a good option. so i tend to agree with dmitri. problem, and has created a problem by the very behavior that we have seen. finally, let me say that transatlantic coordination on how to deal with ukraine on the sanctions issue and beyond has actually been relatively good. together.ayed on the day i left tf, i asked the prime minister of ukraine what if he had one wish, what would it the from the west? and he said to me, and i think i am authorized to quote him, he said, ambassador, there's one thing you need to do -- they sure everybody understands that what we need is western cohesion. do not allow yourselves to be within apart once again, europe and between europe and the united states.

goodve actually been quite at it, but it has not been easy, and one of the reasons why it is not easy, if you look at certain elements of the german and european republic is the loss of trust created by the "snowden-nsa affair." that is a handicap, apparently. and i keep saying it, while i'm in this country, you should not take it into news to blow over. it continues to be a serious and capping factor for european government trying to work with united states in handling these types of emergencies. you might think looking at ukraine that this ambitious title toward mutual security was maybe an illusion. i believe, and i am interested in hearing what our speakers

will have to say, i believe that even if this is now a vision that is more remote than we thought two or three years ago it would be, it would be an appropriate vision for a future where europe is not going to be as divided as it is currently between the west and russia, but where we will have a europe with and free, including security architecture that works and with that kind of relationship of mutual trust that would help us to renew in thens with russia months and years to come, hopefully. with this, i stop, and hand over to our keynote speaker, dr. brzezinski. [applause] thatsident harmon --

sounds pretty good, doesn't it? distinguished panelists, it is a pleasure to be here. discuss theo implications for the european security architecture of what er justg isching addressed, namely, the problem of the relationship of russia to the west and ukraine. what we are seeing in ukraine in eak, but at is not a p symptom of a more basic problem, namely, the gradual but steady emergence in russia over the last six or seven years of a quasi-mystical chauvinism. this has taken the lead in

, and it has a great deal of content of significance for the totality of russia's relations with the world, and the west in particular. the russian international affairs council, an institution in moscow composed of very reputable and significant scholars, not dissidents, independent thinkers, and these do exist these days in moscow, has come up with a report on russia's national identity transformation and a new foreign policy doctrine. and it reports in some detail on the process of creating a wholly new conceptual framework for defining russia's relationship with the world, a relationship that the russians feel is needed because of the collapse of the soviet union and the partial

disintegration of the long-established russian empire. report, but it is worth reading for those who are interested in international affairs. it deals particularly with that thisy concepts, new view of the world contains, a view of the world created by the need the russians around putin have felt around a comprehensive interpretation of what is the nature of russia's position of the world and its relationship with the world and the west in particular, and it is in this context that that ukraine is an issue becomes significant. and the key concepts of it, this report, written by people of prominence in moscow, involves four basic concepts. that of a divided people, secondly, this theme of

protecting comparing two hits -- compatriots abroad, and then world,oadly, the russian and the importance of technology and of sustaining, embracing, and promoting the great russian civilization. i mention this because i think it would be an error to think that crimea and ukraine are just the products of a sudden outrage. they are to some extent in terms of timing. it would've been much smarter for russia to have what has been happening happen about 10 years from now, when russia would be stronger economically, more solid, but it happened to and these concepts are important. a divided people is the point of departure for the chauvinistic claim that russia's sovereignty

embraces all russians, wherever has for, and that anyone familiar with european history some ominously familiar ii.ds, prior to world war it leads, of course, to the concept of protecting compatriots abroad, and that has special meaning for those countries which do have russian ethnic nationals living in their society and who border on russia. people in the protecting of compatriots abroad then raises the question of the russian world, and the notion integralf an organic unity between all russians, irrespective of their and thatal location,

their territorial location can be altered favorably in reuniting the russian people. think of the baltic states. last, the conviction that russia is not part of the western civilization, is also not a part of china. it is not part of the muslim world. russia itself is a great civilization, a world civilization, which fantasizes a which principles, some of are not unfamiliar to our own society, such as, for example, strong commitment to a but muchr religion, stronger than in the west, where religion is part of a more thelex social arrangement, notion that the great russian civilization stands for certain basic values, not only religious, but it terms of interpersonal relationships, to some extent, for example,

condemning some of the changes in the relationship between the sexes and within the sexes that are not taking place in the world. protects thessia integrity of certain basic the leafs -- beliefs that have characterized christianity, but now in the russian view christianity is permitting to slip away. this is a comprehensive and ambitious outlook and an outlook that justifies the conclusion that russia is a world power. and nothing has hurt putin lately than some of the international dialogue with the west than the words of president obama, which credited russia with being a significant regional power. he did not have to say more in order to score a point that hurt. therefore, an important point of departure for dealing with the ukraine issue. ukraine issue is not a sudden

symptom, as i have said, of a basic problem, the emergence of the policies, packaged within the larger, for example, framework, which i have described. what can we therefore expect? if ukraine in fact is its manifestation of that problem will be difficult to resolve, and i think it will take time to resolve. but of course, resolution of it need not be a unilateral solution if the west has a stake in it, and the state has to be then crystallized into policy. will fade if it is contained, and especially if the russian increasingly cosmopolitan middle class, which is servicing, but not dominating currently, becomes politically more important, perhaps repelled

by its sense of vulnerability and his appointment in putin and at some point and assumes a more significant political role when putin has passed from the stage. that is when there is no way of predicting it. it could be soon, it could be a long time, but also a great deal will depend on whether what ukraine has become as a symptom becomes a success or a failure from putin's point of view. so in brief, the stakes are significant. in the most immediate sense, the state involves of course the issue that the use of force in crimea and the ongoing and sustained effort to destabilize parts of ukraine pose as a threat to the post-world war ii notions of international arrangements and particularly the exclusion of the use of force in resolving territorial

issues. that has been a cardinal assumption of the european order after world war ii. and russia has been part of it. including the treaties they have signed. but it now is challenging that. that is a significant threat in a broad sense, and an immediate threat, psychologically at least, but potentially in view of crimea militarily to the baltic states, to georgia, to moldova, and more vaguely, indirectly, but perhaps potentially more successful than the others, belarus, because belarus does not have any external protection. there are others that i have mentioned do in varying degrees. it follows from what i am saying that the ukrainian problem is a challenge that the west, by

which i mean the united states and europe and the nato, particularly, must address on three levels. . .

>> event tankses affected aircraft weaponry. all that is something that even disagreeable, disaffected citizens of a country for which they feel they do not belong will be storing somewhere in their basement. these are weapons providing in effect for the purpose of shaping formations capable of sustaining serious military engagements. it is a form of interstate aggression. you can call it anything else. how would we feel if all of a sudden, they're saying the drug oriented gangs in the united states were on from abroad from neighbors by equipment which would permit violence on that scale on a continuum basis. this is a serious challenge. so that is the second objective. and the third objective is to

promote and then discuss a formula for a compromise assuming that in the first instance the use of force openly on a large scale is deterred and the effort to destabilize is abandoned. that means in turn the following. i will be quite blunt regarding my own views on the subject. ukraine has to be supported. if ukraine doesn't resist, if internal order persists in capacity to organize effective national defense, doesn't transpire, then the ukraine problem will result unilaterally. probably with concentrate believe effects that will

destabilize the states and the totality of the relationships. the forces of a world definition would become more striden. they do represent the most negative aspects of a russian society. a kind of thirst for nationalism for self-fulfill. gratification of the exercise of power. something which is not pervasive in the class which is a long range alternative. if ukraine does have to be supported so it does exist, the ukraine has to help to exist. there's no secret. it is much better to be open about it. to say to the ukrainians and those who threaten ukraine, that

you exist, you will have weapons. we'll provide some of those weapons in advance of the very act of invasion. in the absence of that, the temptation to invade may become overwhelming. what kind of weapon is important. in my view, these should be weapons designed particularly to permit the ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare resistance. there's no point arm the ukrainians to take on the russian army in open fields. there is a history to be learned from urban resistance in world war ii and most recently in

chechnya which resisted for three months. the point is, is the effort to invade was to be successful politically, it would have to incorporate taking the major cities. if the major cities were to resist and street fighting begin a necessity, it would be prolonged and costly. the fact of the matter is, this is where the timing of this whole crisis is important, russia is not ready to undertake that kind of effort. it will be too costly in blood, paralyzingly costly in finances. it will take a long time and create more and more international pressure. so, i feel we should make it clear to the ukrainians, that if you are determined to resist, seemly they're trying to do so, we'll