some have surprised the late coffee anon for example on the issue of the iraq war but generally people who are. known as strong leaders like myself. they're probably a little bit threatening particularly when they're women because strength and women assume a little bit differently from the strength of men but having said all that i have no regrets i think it's important that many women ran the majority of candidates were women from what i know it was the u.k. that supported t.r.e. can do this it. one hundred percent sure that it was only due to your professional qualities and not the change of commonwealth solidarity. loosely the u.k. always simply thought it was time for women secondly he also were on the record as saying they were looking for leadership qualities so i wasn't the only person they supported they would have supported all those as well but certainly they were very open to me you. very well qualified for the job of former prime minister your.

largest. agency but other people also have pretty much. what similar characteristics i mean i'm tony harris and had almost an identical resume you sound a little bit like a maybe the impression i get from how you describe it is that temperamentally he had a match over you that. the member states didn't feel like they wanted somebody very forthright in that position isn't there a logic to that because the state relations are very troubled in this day and age and perhaps they they don't want somebody who won't rattle the boat even more willow is also known as someone who was always reasonable had good relationships across the range of of member states but you know look the made that choice and tony good to as has been known to me for

a very long time we were social democratic prime ministers at the same do you think he was a good leader will he has all the attributes of a good leader he'd be in a prime minister he'd lead the un refugee agency successfully so of course he was highly qualified for the job as you say his resume it was a sense the same as mine the difference was was that the sudden difference there's also a difference of temperament because he is much more. i would say so spokane person than you are and i'm. not sure that there's so much a gender attribute as a personal attribute. i'm not known as someone who shouts all right. but you know one is somebody who is pretty assertive. but you know depending on the role you have you calibrate to that now two thousand and sixteen was a year when another very accomplished and ambitious woman lost her beat two presidents i'm talking about hillary clinton and in her book she i thought was

a little bit bitter and put it all on me while clearly there were also other things to consider do you think a woman when she gets so high up in the system can she really. call john their cart at the end the point when she is so accomplished. will she was a highly qualified candidate to be president of the united states absolutely. the only thing that you see it is hard for someone from the same party to seed and come from that party and so that was always going to be an issue would a democrat president followed him a president is think think back over the years recent times you had george bush sr succeed ronald reagan but it's not so common the pendulum does swing so probably always it was more of an up hill battle than perhaps would have been a pair you mentioned her formal qualifications but clearly she also had

a fairly controversial professional track record because for example as secretary of state she was very active pushing for policy which in your own war it's turned into a how on earth with so many militias controlling its capital in a state of anarchy i hope you're not saying that gender is a more current in than you know consideration than something like this i mean she objectively was a leader whose policies were. his policies produced a destructive result in some places in my experience anyone has held a leadership position is going to come under attack for for something and. we all come under the but sure there would be things that hillary clinton the i wouldn't agree with but on balance i think she was a very well qualified person to be but when you talk about qualifications and it is

as if you're talking about the resume the bullet points on that resume but we also have to consider the outcome and the impact of the position that the person has think she would have been losing the presidency on that particular issue i think if you look back over the many many years that both hillary and bill clinton been in public life they have come under. by the time hillary was running for president. and up. proved to be extremely difficult now going back to. the u.n. leadership you talked in previous interviews. about how the current structure of the u.s. doesn't allow the secretary general to be a fact if you said that he and it's usually he. up until now you know it's been a he he is constrained by member states micromanaging things you said that you

believe it would be a bad idea to limit the mandate to one term and in increase the secretary's discretion one that make it even harder for member states to have any faith in neutrality because that's the main consideration as far as i know that's from the russian point of view that's the main consideration in choosing a person who would leave this are going to be the main consideration i think the person needs to be fair but i think in these very troubled times in which we live the. also a need for leadership in the major organizations and the general and the secretariat micromanaged. it's. the u.n. organizations enjoy greater scope to run our organizations and the secure general does with the secretary and so i think that's something the member states should reflect on it i also heard you say that the secretary general should be apparent

and should have a mandates you engage with troubled or trouble some ladies like bashar al assad moammar gadhafi or i think what's more the relevant for today nicholas might do or what are the chances of the u.k. or the united states ever signing up for that. who in the charter of the specific reference to the good offices of the secure general and i think he could be used. actually. i was very pleased to see. personally go to tripoli my goodness couldn't have been with a more difficult time and he went to he didn't gauge with this including general have to so he put himself out there and i think that's important now my question and the next question may be a bias but i think it's not controversial to say anymore that the united nations is often used not to prevent conflicts but to flame them. when that doesn't happen

members of the p five sometimes goal their own way and enact their own vision on the ground with a more empowered secretary general or run interference with that kind of model i don't think the u.n. ever inflames conflict exists to try to resolve conflicts at the moment i mean member states do try to subvert it for him alone agenda and we can all think of examples involving great pearl. longview sardi of the security council also. on all sides so again in a case i think for reflection of the major powers they have that power from the charter to have the veto hell you use that can either the. station or or diminish it who wants of the must we need a un small i think a lot of powers would say they diminished you and i mean those powers who conduct

the policy i'm not very supportive of so here's where i have to raise the flag for all the small slights because most member states are small states and with international rule of law you have nothing small states have no might of the power of the voice of the vote they very much depend on the international rules based order and that's what countries like mine and other such countries will always work for now i want to ask you a few questions about syria i heard you say in one of the interviews that syria was very authoritarian but it had kids in schools and health care and people productively employed and as a russian i have to say i think it's very bold of you it's you have that bought because usually much of the discussion again in the west if it stops at. characterizing your regime as authoritarian and everything else is kind of. you

know. very important do you face any rational act for that but because it's because i controversial because throughout my life as a leader had to interact on behalf of my country and mobilization with the widest possible range of political systems and i have in the course of that seen thora here and systems whose hue people's human development is very low but i've also seen authoritarian systems where human development is high and rising. so you need to give credit for that but i do think that what makes for a noble human development in the long term is where people can express their opinions i mean the truth is democracy is a bit of a safety of people and vent but it doesn't fall over and my concern is that the certain people do get a chance to have a say about with they want the country to go the peaceful way but since you run

a major development agency i think probably you also understand that democracy is a process of development this is not something that you can happen to you actually sometimes invent years if not decades into. riving at that place the security council and the un in general have often been criticized for allowing syria the state it is today to be part of the u.n. family do you think that was a mistake that was that an example of the u.n. system failing or was that something that actually could be counted as an achievement of the united nations that syria is still a u.n. recognized member state the u.n. has no practice of throwing else. a member state because of issues like that and i think that's a good thing because at least it keeps the basis for the dialogue. and bester still able to go to the u.n. and make the case with whether one agrees with anything he says or not that that's

the right of a member state madam clark we have to take a very short break now but we will be back in just a few moments stay tuned. because i live here if you don't then. leave them. we have other things in this world and this is you know for everyone why some

peoples wants to take our thing all the power just for themselves and for the. humans we will. join me every thursday on the all excitement and i'll be speaking to us of the world of politics or business i'm show business oh so you. are. welcome back to worlds apart with talent clark former prime minister of israel and

for my administrative hearing development program madam clark in one of your interviews you made an interesting point that the u.n. has three parts to its mandate development and humanitarian work human rights and conflict resolution and it is the last one on which it is being charged wouldn't it be more able to do. good stuff if that conflict resolution part was taken out of its mandate altogether because it paralyzes so much of its other work. will that let's remember why the u.n. was set up was set up after a devastating war devastating two to russia. to my country which contributed troops and so on and people said never again that said never again when the league of nations was set up but that didn't work on so conflict resolution peaceful resolution to streets has always been the heart of the man that and that has to stay that we work for

a world where this is possible it's always been paid lip service to but in terms of actual practice it hasn't been that successful and if we take syria gann there were numerous efforts by the un and by other bodies to you have any go to that conflict at least at three times throughout the. course of that war and it was always rejected by some members of the u.n. security council so clearly everybody praises that aspect but it seems to be hampering things that the u.n. can do i think we need to take a broader view firstly there hasn't been a major war since the u.n. was formed and even in this syria there you've done syria even in the bleakest done is of the cold war there was no war there was still a platform for dialogue at the u.n. now the nature of conflict has changed by and large we're not looking between

countries we're looking at civil wars and we're looking at the role of non-state actors like prices for us and we're also looking at proxy wars as we long hair and so the issue i think for the u.n. the member states has to reflect on held the organization could be more effective with these kinds of wars because it's not no preventing one hopes. nuclear war world war two it's really about these conflicts which begin with within one country some good instrumental unspoilt some don't but they cause protracted misery to this and a great deal of this there are many political and cultural differences among the permanent members of the security council but for me personally the fundamental one is. their risk tolerance i think both russia and china are much more risk averse they tend to be status quo power is the western. of the p five they're far

more. prone to taking risks in the name of making the world a better place i'm going to ask you as a former administrator which of these two approaches conservative status quo or more liberal is conducive to development and sustainable development. when we. came to the role he talked about making prevention his his key objective and prevention is of course development and so the security council has been open to broaden its discussions around the underpinnings of sustainable and peaceful society. we could observe there's always money to fight wars but often not so much money for. i think my plea would be too great and small to really look at the hell they can

support peaceful inclusive sustainable development because that in the end is the answer of the time when issues go security killed the country's other going over the cliff or as close to going over and then it can take decades to get picked even to where you know many of the arguments heated arguments at the u.n. security council is about are about the nature of political system what i whether it's democracy or whether it's authoritarian systems and if you look at countries like russia and china and consider their standing on let's say poverty you can see that there has been a significant progress in both of the states if you look at the western. where power is here was a marginal issue a decade ago today decades ago. those countries and not doing that well and he had to we keep hearing that the west. sort of framework of development is the most is the best is the most beneficial one. do you think time has come. to

perhaps reckon sitter how countries can develop there are many routes of development the way in which globalization has proceeded in recent days has seen a growth of in the course. societies and also concerns about inequality in china not so familiar with the debate in your your own country because inequality high levels over the very corrosive societies and in the end will give the political backlash but i guess the reason why i am asking this question is because at this conference and many others you hear a lot of questions being asked about chinese development model and the main argument again is political that the chinese political system is such that we don't want. the western world are threatened by its spread around the world do you think development could be ideologically free or ideological neutral or you have to always look at the sort of the political underpinnings of the money and the

construction projects that there are different issues on play i mean quarter development is to lift people out of poverty quarter development is every child's school adults should have that are the most important thing these are very important underpinnings but. would be that as countries begin to get these things right. create a desire for voice particularly within the merging middle class organize workers and that my value system says that those awful voice needs to be accommodated for gains to be lost in. i think that may be a good segue to ask here about new zealand because ultimately it's a question of leadership what leadership is like your country has been in the headlines a lot because of the kind of leadership it's been demonstrating. i'm talking about the prime minister just are there and. judging from your twitter feed. she makes

you pretty proud doesn't she yes i'm very proud of new zealand electing just very proud of the way she is performing as a leader as she worked for me when she was younger she helped prepare material for me as a young researcher and in. my office also supported the coleman in the united kingdom and she came back to new zealand with a lot of experience of knowing her as a young leader of the youth wing of my party so she's really stepped up making if it's somebody as the world can see on the tragedy that couldn't cross church when we talked about before and i think with prime minister are there in particular there is a very strong temptation to categorize her as a female leader as a millennial leader as a young leader as a mother in chief whatever is that still necessary or. how we come to

a point when she is just a leader without any qualifiers and that's what she. is good i'll just be judged on what i do we're not the yes and we're not the because women leave the still quite quite wary. i remember going to the u.n. as a young prime minister and we had a meeting of women leaders them into three or four of those being present and it's a bit of that now but no no the main slee so as long as women continue to be in such a minority and leadership i think these comments will continue to be made now you mentioned the tragedy in christ church and i think she was celebrated there around the world for her seemingly very authentic and not very pre-planned reaction she was a cause of fascination before because of giving birth to a baby in office and i think what's even more important taking as

a maternity leave while still being on the job. there is a issues of politics but not so much of governance and i wonder whether governance has changed as much as politics has changed because in politics it's all about engaging voters social media etc but the task of doing that job is it really defend these days as it was let's say in your well i think governance has changed quite a lot in new zealand in the last thirty five years people are used to leaders being much more transparent the nature of government is very open it's much more consultation about policy and and legislation and of course we have. in this media so yes that has all had an impact on governance and so because a different set of leadership skills you look back to some of the politicians of the. would they have made it in the sky a little i think you still mean the engaging. and keeping them interested very much

but i think the top i mean the job of governance also involves a lot of pretty mundane pretty boring tasks that somebody can tell you no no it doesn't really involve anything bourg it's always exciting in the least and in my country but it does require you to be very you have to engage with your colleagues with the parliament with the many sectors you can gauge with the public very transparent so the politicians of the present and the future are going to be extroverts they will have to be axed her or i think so i think the. people didn't look people there's no point. another big personality is the current president of the united states donald trump and i think he's the last person to compare the current new zealand prime minister and yet i think they have something in common and that is that they're engaging voters in a very visceral way she's doing that in

a positive way he's doing some would say. in a negative way but both of them i think have capitalized on some degree of protest vote do you think that offer us anything about any lessons about how we can leverage the populist wait wave that we're seeing around the world because most of the commentators say extremely alarmed by it but i think the example of your prime minister shows that you can actually. deal with that in a different way and the results are very different there's obviously a difference between populist of being popular and populous she has papa popularity doesn't last for. relied on the many tools that for example donald trump relied on in. she was an effective communicator she was brought in by her political party seven weeks before the election because they weren't doing so well and she just took off because people are ready for change i think obviously many things are said

about donald trump but he is a community he does. and he's effective communication how do you thing. leaders like this are going to be doing in the future is that a breed of politicians that is going to become more and more popular or do you think this is something that is just i think it's a cycle but i think it's a cycle and cycle swing like we all watch american politics we see the swing from bill clinton the george w. we see this when george w. barack obama we see the swing. we'll see a swing that's the way we're facing is going to be on the. many contenders and we don't know with the dispositional i mean the pendulum will come back again to. someone who is not a disruptor and actually think the president from would probably. be called at the next to throw everything up in the air and then. well madame park it's always

a pleasure talking to you thank you very much for your time and sharing your prospect. encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to see you again same place same time here on worlds apart. my body told me that i belong with the board but my thoughts my mind with that along with the girls. under the surgery starts to be

a very popular. football person's doctor. i was born a male had a sex change when i was thirty years old. i've now been living as a woman for twenty eight years and i fully regret this. my problem should have gone away from by now but they hadn't so these surgeries are nothing more than plastic surgery i've had several female to male friends and you look at it he's disco oh god you paid for that it's horrible nobody can change genders it's impossible. is still luzhin it's a mental illness. this is now one of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called woman because she was taken out of from a. good whole existence to you so you can. put themselves on the line big get accept the

reject. so when you want to be president and. most women want to be honest. it's going to be close it's like that before three in the morning can't be good. i'm interested always in the water as in the. first sip. sleep the air. live.

in. i. dance again. east on political. skis on course to become ukraine's new president early results give him a landslide victory over president poroshenko his vote has sent a strong message to the country's ruling class. headlines at least two hundred seven people were killed in eight explosions in the. hundred small range of hotels and charges were told to during the sunday celebrations. and the week's top stories in all.