Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hudson Institute Discussion On International Organizations 20240713

From the Hudson Institute, this is an hour and a half. Good day and welcome to the Hudson Institute and thank you for showing up for this panel on Multilateral Institutions. Indispensable or irrelevant to global peace and prosperity. I will be the moderator. Am Liselotte Odgaard i put together this panel which i think is on a key issue in d. C. And globally indeed. It is talked about a lot although there are not that many panels about the topic around town. I look forward to this discussion. I mentioned to come up for the past couple of years, there has been a lot of debate about Multilateral Institutions and on chinas influence and how that is quickly growing and leading to changes in the fundamental rules of the since to two nations and also giving rise to alternatives to the old ones. And one question that arises the is does that make institutions that we already have counterproductive to preserving a liberal world order when authoritarian states rise within the institutions . And partly take over responsibility for them . Another key issue is the one on fragile states. They seem to be continuously bogged down in poverty, lack of education, etc. Although we have spent decades on development aid, peacekeeping, etc. From the institutions such as world bank and the u. N. Does that mean the institutions have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and quality of life . There is also the issue of the human rights situation in li andies such as molly ana south sudan. To be disastrous despite u. N. Peacekeeping. Does that mean these instruments have failed . Does the multilateral inns to to share in not do its job well enough . Have they instead become money machines for corrupt governments and for employees instead of assisting the civilians that they pretend to serve . Issuesre some of the key that i hope we can talk about today. Few people seem to think the institutions should be less than they are. Some demand pragmatic reforms while others call for wholesale transformation and yet, others call for total destruction of the global framework that we have now of Multilateral Institutions. And this panel will address the pros and cons of conserving the system of Multilateral Institutions at a time when we ,ave fluctuating alliances trade wars, rising authoritarianism, and other developments that fundamentally affect how they work. We have four distinguished speakers to address these issues. First, we have Kathryn Lavelle of worlde professor affairs at case western reserve university. She has written numerous books and international on International Organizations and u. S. Politics and her most recent book is called the challenges of multilateralism. It reviews the history of domestic and International Politics that have helped or hindered global cooperation. To this, she had been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars and she also held numerous other positions as she worked as staff at the House Committee of financial services. Duboise have eli whitney who is currently at the law firm but prior to this decision coming he served as executive director for the world bank from 2000 seven until 2010. Mr. Dubois has extensive experience in Major International transactions. With respect to wtos and proceedings and regional trade integration. Earlier this month on the 13th of november, he served as a witness at the u. S. House committee on the financial hearing on Multilateral Institutions. Misztal. Have blaise a fellow here at hudson. Most recently, he served as the executive director of a transcript of a task force on fragile states which is a congressionally mandated project. Prior to that come he was bipartisan the policy centers Security Program where he managed a team responsible for researching and developing policy recommendations concerning a variety of National Security issues including a ron and it iran and its nuclear program, countering extremism and state fragility. , we havebut not least a speaker who took up his position as ambassador from denmark to the United Nations. Position,ing up that the abbasid are served as state secretary for development in the ministry of foreign affairs. Appointment, he served as ambassador to indonesia and was also accredited to ease to more or and papa new guinea. And before that come he worked for the undp. The panel will spend about an the issue of Multilateral Institutions and after that, we will open it up for questions from the audience. Kathryn, youart have just written a book on multilateral in dictations. That is about to come out or has already come out i think. Can you briefly describe how you see the role of Multilateral Institutions in todays world order where we had these fluctuating alliances and trade wars rising, authoritarianism . Do these trends mean the institutions are counterproductive to preserving a liberal world order . Are they for example taken over by authoritarian regimes with little respect for basic liberal market and human rights principles . Kathryn lavelle thank you. And thank you for that question and thank you for inviting me and having me here today at the Hudson Institute. It is been a privilege to meet my copanelists. I look forward to the discussion. I think you are raising really good questions but thats the book is forthcoming and the book really looks at we would say it takes the long review of multilateralism in the history of these organizations. , andyou take a longer view by longer i mean and of napoleonic wars, when you go back that far, you see so many things that are the same and a few that are different. Those that are the same are the nationalist tendencies. The controversies about the organizations themselves. Those have always been there. When i look at the history of the organizations it is that they have been intermingled with the history of industrial revolution. As scientific progress has a vault, states have had to figure goingys to handle what is on but also the International Community has had to understand that. If you want to think about Something Like an environmental issue, in the issue of migratory birds was very important. And in health, what was important was grappling with cholera on the trade routes with the british empire. The problems encountered in the 1800s had to do with a lot of the science going on. We were talking about telecommunications. Madison had to come to terms with what caused cholera and how to treat. Once you could get that agreement, you could figure out what nations could handle and what the International Community would handle. We all know as students of International Relations that the then World History has had intermittent episodes of hegemonic war. If you want to look at it from a more optimistic side, it in some of the darkest hours, people have tried to figure out what to do with multilateralism. Would have that instinct as world war ii was winding down to figure out what i would do but that has been the history. To the present era, the way i look at the problem is the scientific progress has continued. Two big things have happened since the 1960s the digital revolution. Ofare aware in realtime what is going on. And massive advances in global health. The World Community trying to come to terms with how those benefits are going to be distributed and who will pay for them. As welfare systems have a vault. We know the institutions foster the National Welfare system but coming to terms with that now is a problem. Challenges these organizations confront. I dont know if i would say it is whether or not they need to go they will have to adapt to the realities of the problem of global immigration and taxpayers in advanced industrial democracies. But there is also reason to be somewhat helpful that they have been able to adjust in the past and probably will be able to do so in the future. Liselotte odgaard thank you. , you have been executive director of the world bank and a lot of contemporary critics of these institutions point two and imbalanced between the financial contributions made by Member States on the one hand and then the actual tangible benefits of Multilateral Institutions for a common interest in prosperity and stability. Can you tell us from your theseence to what extent Multilateral Institutions such as the world bank are more ending up being two goals corrupt governments or authoritarian governments than they actually help the people they pretend to serve . Thank you and thank you for inviting me. A pleasure to be here today particularly amongst such great company. Cannot that we a a definitive judgment on Multilateral Institution like the World Bank Without remembering how one how it is one player in a larger landscape. And the landscape includes the countries themselves that are clients of the bank. If we do take a longer view, i think you could say that we have made huge progress on this planet. We brought more people out of poverty in the last 2530 years than in all the rest of human history. To me is a fairly remarkable measure. And i think that the multilaterals have made significant contributions to that. They also have accumulated a lot of knowledge about the Development Process and disseminate that around the world. When i wasesting testifying two weeks ago up on the hill, i got any number of does chinabout why continue to borrow from the bank . The primary answer there is not because they need the money, obviously, but because they do value the Development Expertise that the bank has. That may beg the question of why they are borrowing . I personally think it is time for them to graduate and they can do what saudi arabia does which is pay for whatever knowledge, Technical Assistance that they want as they go. On the other hand, if you understand anything about the political model of at least the in the World Bank Group and i have to point out there are five parts of the World Bank Group and each one has its own separate financial model. And you need to understand those models before you Start Talking further. Side which isrd where china arrows, there is a large component of the annual budget that comes from the interest earned on the loans. Repay said china everything tomorrow, there would be a big hole in that budget. There is always room to cut budgets of institutions like this and have a nose, when i was u. S. Executive director, we were one of the budget hawks constantly and consistently. We were on the audit committee. Always trying to improve things. Would benk a phaseout appropriate here in terms of the institutional approach. Also other aspects of Multilateral Institutions which i think are important to remember. Lot ofn provide a knowledge about Public Financial Management. Not learneds are instantly by every country around the world that on the whole, thankfully there has been a lot of progress. One aspect of the Public Financial Management is the management of trust funds. And i think i would submit to you that perhaps one of the more successful multilaterals has been the global fund fighting disease. The u. S. Has appropriated four times as much money on an annual basis to the global fund as it has to the world bank. So the world bank though manages those trust funds. Itself a valuable service. Aboutwer your question capture and so forth, there is politics at the world bank. It is a little bit like casablanca. I make im surprised there is gambling going on here. And it is constant. I had a question when i testified two weeks ago about how it could possibly be that one of the managing directors of the world bank today is from china and he has responsibility for ethics. And my response was he is an International Civil servant. If he is not doing his job, the president can fire him. These are things that need to be dealt with. There is a legitimate question as raised by our moderator about whether these institutions are captive or just within the political economy of different countries. There more deserved Civil Servants or a lead as opposed to other people in the country . I think you left out one dimension in your question which is the entire development community. When i went to a country in africa, on one of my trips with the world bank, i asked how much was their budget . And he said 80 million a year. And i asked how much of it was earmarked . Of 80said 78 million million. Your marks for the beltway bandit around here who have their contracts every year they are at a disadvantage to the head of the u. K. Development agency because that country had a discretionary budget of 10 million available to him. When the president of the country had some problem he hads help with, the u. K. 10 million while the u. S. Had 2 million. There are captives. I also look at a loan for a road project in niger. It was 8 million loan. And if you look way back on page 57 in the annexes, you found that 500,000 of that was to purchase four toyota land cruisers. As in any political situation, people whose interests are in play. To the point of capture there are alternative organizations. Think of the organization that was started by the brits. They were frustrated that the u. S. Congress took so long to approve a quota increase at the imf. It took them five years. So they formed their own monetary organization and their own new bank called the brex bank. Look at what they did in the monetary arrangement. It has a headline number of x but if you were an individual country and you wanted to access the monetary facilities of this new arrangement, you can only with no questions asked. The other 70 required an upper imf program. Even the brits are depending on another multilateral to establish important criteria and so forth. I think i will leave it there. And we can hear from other panelists. No black orhere is white answer to the questions being asked. Liselotte odgaard thank you. Lisa thanks. You have done a lot of work on fragile states. You arguably, fragile states seem to be continually bogged down in poverty, lack of education, all of the usual Development Problems despite years of spending from the world bank, also the United Nations. Does that mean they have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and qualityoflife or can they still be helpful . Do helpful . Do they need reform or can we use them as they are . Thank you for putting together this event on this important topic. Thank you to the audience for joining us on this discussion. Im honored to join this distinguished group of panelists and flattered that you think i can solve a fragile states question in five minutes or however long i have been allotted. Let me just give context as to why i think it is important to think about the problems of fragile states and the question of multilateralism, and that is both because the problems surrounding fragility are particularly problems that are wellsuited to or driven by the source of issues that Multilateral Institutions are meant to solve. Something like 90 of all conflicts in the world are happening in fragile states. We know that the United Nations are devoted to trying to minimize conflict. Increasingly, poverty is occurring in fragile states. 10 years ago, it was Something Like 15 of the worlds poor lived in fragile states. 10 years from today, it is going to be 60 of the worlds poor living in fragile states. Fragility is an increasingly important issue. Fragility is also an issue that matters to all of us. The ability of Multilateral Institutions to address fragility is something we should care about, whether it is problems like the spread of extremism and terrorism into fragile states, civil conflicts that displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, causing refugee and migration flows that have impacts well beyond their borders, whether it is the spread of pandemics like most recently, ebola in fragile states that like institutions to deal with those issues on their own, causing them to become global and Transnational Health threats. Fragility is going to become a major driver of National Security issues in the decades to come, so it is important to think about how we deal with it. I would say that thus far, the record of the Multilateral Institutions has not been great, partly because the emphasis on fragility has not been there, even within our own u. S. National security policy, fragility is a relatively recent phenomenon. We are thinking about failed states up until maybe a decade ago, whether that is somalia, the classic example or assumption going into the first post9 11 phase. Afghanistan and failed states and were the sanctuaries rors of terrorism this idea of the fragility of states that havent decomposed, but are on the brink of it. What we have seen is that the sorts of solutions that have been applied thus far traditionally by the United Nations in terms of trying to promote peace and security by or by the world bank and trying to achieve Poverty Reduction goals either havent been applied to fragile states or havent been able to take root in fragile states. When you look at peacekeeping operations, most of the peacekeeping operations conducted by the u. N. Today are not in the places that we would think of if you are to come up with a list of the top fragile states. There is no u. N. Peacekeeping mission in afghanistan and somalia and libya and so on. I think the first estate you would hit if you were to go down the list of the worlds fragile states that has a human u. N. Peacekeeping is mali. When it did, it applied its mostly technical Poverty Reduction message in trying to solve just the problem of poverty in fragile states. For example, as of 2012, half of the programs that the world bank was running in fragile states were geared towards infrastructure development. Something that really didnt have a lot to do with fragility and the first place. The good news is that that is starting to change. There is increasing recognition that fragility is a political problem. We define it as the lack or breakdown of the social contract between the government and its people. The lack of legitimacy, trust, the lack of delivery of services and accountability to the population. The nature of that political problem of fragility has been recognized by both the u. N. And the world bank. A report came out in 2017 called pathways for peace and looked at the nature of fragility and conflict and violence and how to start addressing it. They recognized that it is a political problem, and a political problem that is going to be double traditional attempt s at peacekeeping or development unless you recognize that it is a political problem and try to develop Political Solutions to undergird attempts to keep the peace or build prosperity. You have seen large commitment in its most recent replenishment of the development fund, the world bank doubled the amount of money it is going to give to fragile states from 7 billion to 14 billion. The bank is in the process of developing a new strategy for investing in fragile and conflict and violence states. I think we are also going to see the limitations of that approach, which i think are emblematic of the limitations that we have when we are talking about Multilateral Institutions and some of the challenges that have been laid out. Fundamentally, i think it comes down to the question kathrynsci . Can we solve the problems of the fragility by just investing in building capacity in fragile states and training more Civil Servants and Building Government institutions, or is there sort of a darker side to things . As things . Kagan put it in his recent book. The jungle grows back, it doesnt always bend towards justice unless we will it there. I think some of the findings we have had is that fragile states is that they are kept fragile because the people who rule them or are invested preferred to keep them fragile. Fragility is a Government Strategy by corrupt elites or by outside actors who prefer to deal with corrupt and autocratic governments or who prefer disorder to order. Unless we figure out how to solve the problem of political will that keeps these countries mired in fragility, we are not going to be able to address the sources of conflict and violence in them. The question is, can the world bank, can the United Nations create programs that start addressing these questions of political will, of governance and values or are they going to remain purely Technical Solutions . I think that starts getting to the heart of this question of aretilateral Multilateral Institutions, as they are currently structured capable of the challenges we have. I think what fragile states show us is that challenges are political. They are challenges of how we think society should be ordered. The way that Multilateral Institutions have functioned thus far, promoting sovereignty about the human system, promoting technical governance, ignorant solutions within countries, it doesnt really begin to answer those questions. Lisa thank you very much. You raised a number of interesting questions about Economic Security and values, as well. Ill move on to martin, and martin is an ambassador to the United Nations. Presumably you have a lot of insights on u. N. Peacekeeping operations and their contributions to peace and stability, and we have now heard some critique of those institutions. I wonder if you could comment on that, if you agree with that. Is peacekeeping more about the image, welfare, and cooperation of peacekeepers and peacekeeping countries then about making a difference on the ground, for example . And also, the things that are addressed as problems. Martin thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss what is, for a danish ambassador to the u. N. , a tremendously important issue. I arrived in new york, and one of the first things i did was to put up on the wall in my office a quote from the second secretarygeneral of the u. N. , who wrote we should remind ourselves that the purpose of the u. N. Was not to take mankind to heaven, but to Save Humanity from hell. I think when we talk not only about the u. N. , but Multilateral Institutions in general, it is important we adjust expectations to what they can do and how long it takes. They are dealing with extremely complex issues. When you asked specifically about peacekeeping operations, and peacekeeping operations are one of these instruments of Multilateral Institutions, of the u. N. That is the World Community, that has an extra nearly bad name, which is a little bit odd actually, because if you actually look at the facts, it is the story of what you might call a tremendous success. But actually, also a story that looks at a future that is going to be very challenging. Now if you look at the data, it is very difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than that u. N. Operations are cheap and relatively effective, and are indispensable for the future. There are around 100,000 troops under the u. N. Security council mandate for peacekeeping operation. The cost of a soldier with a blue helmet or a blue beret is around 1 10, but lets be generous, at least considerably below 1 4 the cost of a nato soldier. And importantly, they work in areas that nobody else wants to go. The annual cost of the peacekeeping operation is around 7 billion u. S. Dollars. According to my numbers, that is 1 of the u. S. Budget for defense, around half of spains budget for defense. It seems to me that is a fairly good investment. It covers an area of around 3 million square miles. With a population of 100 million people. You can do the math yourself. You can imagine that the u. N. Peacekeeping troops are spread fairly thin. That is one of the reasons perhaps they dont always do what we implicitly expect them to do, and that is not only to keep peace, but to address the realities, they are deployed in areas where there is no peace to keep. The first part of the problem with peacekeeping operations. They are not deployed in areas where there is peace to keep. Secondly, they are spread so thin, they dont have the resources, the personnel and equipment to actually enforce peace. So often, you end up with not peacekeeping, but freeze keeping. But you have to ask yourself, is there not a value in that, in actually keeping conflicts somewhat under wrap, predicting protecting civilians, doing what you can to mitigate the human suffering . But my most important message, we tend to forget that peacekeeping operations have been a success. There are 72 completed peacekeeping operations, and many of them very successful. There are around 13 ongoing, difficult ones. They do an important task. He has mentioned all the places where there are no peacekeeping operations, and where you could argue, well actually, there ought to be a sort of military presence. You know, libya, syria, yemen. All of those are u. N. Operations, but lets be clear. It is not the u. N. , it is not the secretarygeneral that does not want to deploy troops there. It is the Un Security Council that cannot agree to deploy troops there. The second part is we have to remember that Multilateral Institutions, International Cooperation it is not the them, it is the us. We are all part of making that machinery work. Now, i think the debate today around International Cooperation is absolutely fascinating. It seems to me that we live in an age, and you were also inferring, that we are more connected than ever before. The world is more connected than ever before, and not only by smartphones or digital technology. We are also more mobile than ever before in human history, whether it comes to people, diseases, or those that actually want to overthrow our way of life. Denmarks approach to this was that demands of us more International Cooperation, not less. I mean, there are no boundaries that are going to stop ebola. There are no boundaries that will stop the spread of resistant bacteria. We need to Work Together now, but working together, and this has become clear to me after 11 months at the u. N. , it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. There are bound to be areas where you dont necessarily agree in all the details of that particular case or that particular file. And that exposes where your true commitment to International Cooperation is brought to the test. Do you actually believe that International Cooperation is so important to solve some of the Biggest Challenges that you are willing to invest a little bit of yourself in not winning every time . I suppose for a country of five and a half million people, it is quite clear that pursuit of National Interests can only lead to the conclusion we must invest in International Cooperation, in setting up and respecting the rules of engagement and respecting the need to, from time to time, compromise. Now, does this make me a believer in the fact of what we need to preserve when it comes to the u. N. Is the u. N. Of yesterday . No, it does not. What we must invest in is developing, an evolution of the u. N. , because the world is also changing. When he uttered those famous words, the main challenge to human kind was that we were going to kill each other by arms. That is not the only challenge out there today. There are many other challenges out there today, and some of them dont originate from states or governments. They originate from what you might call nonstate actors, whether you want to call it violent extremism or fanaticism or terrorism. But there are also some that originate from the fact that we are 7 billion people and counting, and are much closer together than we ever were before. So i arrived at that, to some extent, painful conclusion that there is no alternative. There is no other option. But also, it is going to require a lot of strategic patients in strategic patience in the sense that things are not going to be resolved tomorrow. But there is no other option. It is going to be next to impossible to go it alone. Lisa thank you, martin. I will return to you with some questions, but i want to go back to whitney now because you several times mentioned china and their role in the world bank, and what we see now, a lot of people would say, is that china, as you said, on the one hand, can get loans on favorable terms from the world bank, but on the other hand, china is also a global power with the belt and road initiative, coupled with Financial Resources from the Asian Infrastructure investment bank. It has an alternative form of development system, and even a system to support that or developing it that doesnt have human rights conditions. It is not very transparent. Some people say it doesnt have all of the other elements that we would like to see from the old institutions to view with point of view with this form of development of world prosperity. Can you comment on this and how that influences the working of the system, this role of china and what should be done about it, if anything . And if the other panelists can chip in on that, that would be great, at your convenience. Eli thank you. I mentioned china because you had mentioned it in the introduction. I do think there is a distinction to be made between several actors in the chinese firmament, if you will, between china develop in bank and aiib on the other hand. Aiib is largely populated by the alumni of the world bank and they have environmental and social safeguards in most of the projects so far have been cofinanced with these other mainline institutions. The China Development bank i think are a different different story. But i think that this is the story of any rising power, when there is a multilateral organization. They will try to assert their influence using that tool, just the way denmark does at the world bank. The magic word for the relationship between denmark and the world bank is leverage. Right . The United States has leverage at the world bank. The United States has put in, if the new Capital Increases go through, we will have put in exactly 3 billion of capital, and with that 3 billion, that institution has done 800 billion of lending. That is pretty good leverage in any institution. Imagine that same equation from denmarks perspective, what they put in compared to what the world bank puts in is infinitesimal. At the same time, they use the world bank capability to administer trust funds to great effect. They dont have a Huge Development agency. They have an institution they can be very proud of and has made a lot of good contributions, but they also leverage the trust Fund Administrative capacity of the world bank to do their develop network. For 5 million or 10 million that they put into a trust fund, they get someone else to run it, and off they go. They dont have to have 10 more Civil Servants to do that. So leverage is a big word in any multilateral. So it is for china. They are learning those lessons, and now setting up Multilateral Institutions in which they can be the predominant voice, and it wont be any surprise. As that proceeds. You can imagine, as the u. S. Director of the world bank, the suspicions that come with any initiative that you take. On the other hand, u. S. Leadership at a multilateral light the world bank is like the world bank is extremely important in setting the tone. I think that is where we have some real contributions to make as this competition unfolds around the world. I think the point of fragile states is a very important one. The the entire World Development report in 2010 was devoted to fragile state, because at that time, if you looked at 45 subsaharan african countries at the time, a good 17 or 18 of them were either in conflict, coming out of conflict, and they were some of the Development Cases that were most challenging. I think there is a cross. If you look at liberia, for example, the former leader of darlingwas the worlds and did a lot for her country. A lot of people dont know there with ann. Force there annual price tag of 6 million a year to keep the peace in that country and to permit some of that development to happen. As i think was suggested here by blaise, if the Security Council could authorize similar operations in about 10 other places, we might see different results. The question is whether the world is willing to pay that price tag. Are we willing to pay 600 million a year to keep liberians from shooting each other and having a chance at developing institutions that will allow them to have good Financial Management and actually develop . Liselotte thank you. Katie . Katie i agree with what you said and because i did work in congress for a stint, one thing that impresses me with the history of multilateral organizations has to do with developing constituencies, and getting these institutions to reach out in industrial democracies and make them understand why they matter. Thats the reason we were able to get in the imf and the world bank, and had the problems that we had getting the league of didnt have the problems that we had getting the league of nations through. When we think about constituencies matter, im from ohio. I have to go to ohio and explain to the youngstown United Nations organization, go to them and explain why the United Nations matter. Country and ask why would we want to support an organization that is taking jobs from workers in youngstown, ohio . The Organization Shop to do in this digital area and many of us who are knowledgeable about these organizations is to try to make that argument and explain why they matter, and absolutely they matter because china is brought into this rulesbased system. If you want to talk about environmental policies, labor policies, even though china might not get exclusive funding from the world bank, when china participates in a world bank package that gives the Global Community an opportunity to influence some chinese policies. I just think that it needs the message needs to get out in a way that i dont like this expression ordinary americans, because i think about myself as one of them, but we need to get out. Politicians understood that in the interwar era. It is great that we didnt have another cataclysmic war after the digital era, another we understand the global environment, and we understand it to be one ecosystem, we didnt know it at the time. When we want these organizations to work on these things and try to make a case about why china matters, we really need to explain that to people. And i think also, we had a lot have a lot ofwe Chinese Students studying in american universities. I think the opportunities are there. We just need to reach out and grab them. Blaise martin, you said that compromise is an important value in the u. N. System, and giving a little bit of yourself for something that is for the global good. Katie, you talked about bringing china into the rulesbased order. I think both of those points reminded me of my children, and i apologize, when you have young kids you see the world completely through them, but they are very much into playing board games right now. My fiveyearold loves to memorize all of the rules, knows all of them, and adheres to them, and polices the fouryearold to make sure he adheres to them. The fouryearold, on the other hand, just wants to win. He will roll the die, get a four, and move 12 spots. If he gets called out on it, he throws the board over and leaves. I think that is a good analogy for understanding this issue of china or russia or other actors in the international system. It is a system built on the idea of following rules and of compromise and cooperation, but those are themselves political values that are not necessarily shared by the actors who are parts of the system. So i think you are correct that we have followed this policy ever since, especially since, the fall of the berlin wall, of entanglement. The idea that if we bring in countries that were outside of the rulesbased liberal International Order into that order in various means, that order will perpetuate from the outside into those countries and minimize some of their most damaging or corrosive or dangerous behavior. So weve tied ourselves china through the wto and singing thinking international will dependencies will make us safer. We hope that economic liberalization will lead to political liberalization at home. I think we have seen that that theory has largely failed, that in fact, rather than bringing them into the rulesbased order rather than compromise, rather than the regular use of leverage as denmark uses in the world bank system, what weve had instead is colonization of the multilateral system by countries who are not afraid to not follow the rules and use the fact that those of us who do follow the rules, use that against us. I think the perfect example is that is the fact that where we send our peacekeeping forces is determined by votes at the Un Security Council. We have this interesting juxtaposition where the 2002 National Security strategy by the george w. Bush administration said the greatest threat to interNational Security is no longer countries invading one another, it is nonstate actors. In 2017, the Trump Administration said the greatest threat to interNational Security is no longer nonstate actors and terrorists, it is how states try to invade one another. In reality, it lies somewhere in between. The two cant be disconnected from each other, which is why i think the case of fragile states is so interesting because their there are places where conflict overlap, where civil, ethnic, tribal conflicts are taken over by transnational jihadi groups who are armed for the purposes of geopolitical actors who are trying to achieve their own ends. Syria is obviously an incredible example of this new type of inter and intrastate warfare happening. Through the use of proxies. It is happening in libya, and in the horn of africa, and in the sahel, and it is going to be an increasing feature of the world we inhabit. So even if we are talking about trying to solve some of the nonstate threats that you mentioned, martin, the nature of geopolitics and the fact that state backers using these conflicts to further their own ends is going to be a major problem. If we are committed to the idea, and i absolutely agree with you, that we want u. N. Peacekeeping missions in the places where there is both a peace to keep and there needs to be a peace to keep, but the question is are the current mechanisms for forces are the means for making those investments in foreign fragile states actually capable for solving the problems as they currently exist . I think as long as we are under the assumption that we play by the rules and everyone else plays by the rules and is going to be bound by them, that is ultimately going to fail. As much as i admire the peacekeepers, one need only to think back to see the limitations of the system imposed by outside great powers that have interests and how this those conflicts unfold. Liselotte thank you. Martin, youve waited patiently. Martin thank you. A lot of triggers. Perhaps u. N. Peacekeepers being put in a situation that there is a mandate, did not equip them to handle. The u. N. Peacekeepers, that is how the worlds countries designed of them, is to put in test. Test. Peacekeeping operations today. None well, at least very few look anything like that. It doesnt mean they shouldnt be deployed. We just need to recognize that it is an extremely complex environment. On china, which you can expand to on india, ethiopia, south africa, the fact that a number of these countries have grown economically and politically i suppose is actually a happy occasion. At least, that is part of my profession where i have worked in development for many gears has been striving for for decades. To see people lifted out of poverty. It is no surprise that countries that have gained in economic weight and importance will also demand more of a say at the table. The challenge, of course, is, if you like, those aching pains are difficult to handle in a situation where we have more global challenges than ever before. But the answer, of course, is not to walk away from the game, but to stay in the game. I think that was the point you were making, whitney. A lot of these new institutions, these quasiMultilateral Institutions, have actually imported standards, procedures, approaches from the multilateral system, from the world bank and the imf, because they have an awful lot of experience. I think we have a profound interest in that, in recognizing that part of our legacy is not only the spread of ideas around liberal democracy. It is actually also around, but what do we know about Sustainable Development . What mistakes have we made that we can share so that the same mistakes arent made . For me, multilateralism is not an ideology. It is a method of work. I think that is extremely important. Sometimes the discussion around International Cooperation becomes, do you believe in it, almost like it is a religion. Almost a religious issue. For me, it is not an ideology, a religious institution, it is a method of work. I think the big picture, as i tried to say before, this is no longer an altruistic project. If you look at denmark, i would perhaps assert that 20, 30 years ago, people looked at the u. N. As an altruistic project. The u. N. Was good for the world, actually it didnt matter that much for denmark. But the u. N. Was good for the world. Events over the past 10 or 15 years have changed that calculation. Multilateralism and International Cooperation is about enlightened selfinterest. When you come to that recognition, you may realize that it is not working as well as it ought to. It is not working as well as it should, but theres only one answer to that, and that is to engage and to invest, to make it work better. Because if it we abandon it, god knows who is going to influence it. Liselotte thank you. Before we turn it over to the audience, i would like the speakers to address two important issues. First, how do you concretely envisage reform of the current institutions . Blaise, you mentioned the link between security and economic concerns. It seems to me that in the current system, security concerns is the premise for a lot of economic decisions, who to give development assistance, who to give preferential trade access, etc. This link, is that part of the institutions or not, and if so, then should it be . You also mentioned values. That would be another consideration. Do we need to have some significant element of common values, or can the institutions work in the absence of that . The that . The other issue i would like you to address is the role of the u. S. During the korean war that was fought by the u. N. , and it was possible because the soviet union had a policy of nonappearance at the time in the u. N. Security council. So what about the u. S. . Are they moving towards a policy of nonappearance, or what is therir position on these Multilateral Institutions, and is that have a positive role to play, in your view or how do you see it starting with katie. Kathryn thanks. Ive got the seat at the end. I appreciate that. I think they are great questions. I think the biggest problem Going Forward i see, trends that are problems with multilateral organizations is that as we understand these problems, we understand how interconnected they are, and the old system of International Organization set up after world war ii was for specific problems as we understood them at the time. For example, when we talk about environmental problems, theres a lot of overlap with human rights problems. The climate refugee problem, or the problems of health that interact with the environment, when we talk about arctic ice melting. Another project we are working on, problems of disease coming out of that, problems with Mental Health of people that live in the region. Our system is very ill equipped for these institutions to interact with each other and address these problems that dont just require a state solution, but require the web. At one point, someone said that the World Wide Web is an International Organization, but that isnt an inadequate solution of the tasks that need completed to meet the needs of the world right now. We dont want to have to have a war to redesign the whole system. With respect to the United States, the question is out because, as you pointed out with the council of world relations came out this year in the last year or so, the biggest partisan split in u. S. Foreignpolicy is on the issue of china. Forort in america membership in these organizations remains consistently strong. It always has been strong. I think there is a lot of widespread support from the American Public to cooperate and collaborate. Like you pointed out, certainly when we are being taken advantage of, if we are promoting a rulesbased order and others are not following it, that needs to be addressed and something needs to be done about that. I think American People are pretty pragmatic. A couple of us were saying before that you can have these conversations about trade, but we also understand a lot of american jobs are dependent on trade. Trade needs to be made fair to all of the people participating in it. There are certain things the United States government can do. There are also certain things you need the World Community to do something about. I guess yeah, it is anyones guess with respect to how a next administration would handle it. Once again, i think the problem we see now with multilateralism and the American Population go back in time to the problems with workers in the 1970s. A lot of the problems are much deeper. They were covered over maybe by the years. The antiglobalization movement appeared, but then we had 9 11 so they were underground for a while. They have been here, but so have multilateral organizations and there has always been a debate about them and theyre probably always will be. Liselotte thank you. Whitney . Whitney thank you. If you dont mind, i will meld your questions because i think the question of reform is also related to the role of the United States. I think the key is tough love. That is what we are seeing currently with the World Bank Capital increase. The Current Administration in the popular view, or in this town, is not seen as an administration deeply in love with Multilateral Institutions. And yet, the United States treasury took the initiative in the negotiation of the Capital Increase for the world bank. They said fine. You think you need a Capital Increase, but here are some things that need to change. We are going to have richer countries pay more for loans than poorer countries. We are going to cut the budget. The top level salaries are going to be limited, and so forth down the line. Certainly, i think that if one has a leading role in a multilateral, it is incumbent upon you to exercise leadership and do it well. I think tough love is usually the most appropriate approach. Liselotte thank you. Blaise . Blaise i will also try to meld the questions. Answer the first by answering the i think a year out from a second. President ial election is a bad time to be trying to predict anything about the direction of u. S. Foreign policy. I think even the criticisms we have seen of this administration of multilateralism are not in opposition to multilateralism per se, but to different aspects of it. I think there is tension in some of what we heard from President Trump which can be encapsulated in his phrase, dont be a chump. It has two competing instincts. The first is this idea the United States should not be paying more than other countries in pursuit of common goals. So it is not a rejection of cooperation per se, but it is an emphasis on what the president sees as fair sharing of the burden of that cooperation. Other countries should not be benefiting unduly on the back of the United States and its taxpayers. On the other hand, there is this sense that the wool is being pulled over our eyes as to the true purpose or the way these institutions operate and the things that get trotted out our are things like venezuela being on the u. N. Human Rights Council or any other number of countries with dubious human rights records. Things that in and of themselves might not be systematic might not be systematic or structural issues with captioning performed by vitac but which seem to americans to suggest that these institutions are being used or their true purposes being perverted. This balance between making sure that in fact the goals and purposes of the Multilateral Institutions are being properly served but everyone is investing in them fairly is the tension that we have in u. S. Thoughts and i would go beyond saying that theres a need for cooperation in solving global challenges Going Forward and say theres an Important Role for Multilateral Institutions in coordinating global responses and so what we see, for example, when we look at fragile states among others is that when everybody rushes to say, for example, to tunisia to invest in countries that require international assistance, everybodys International Donors whether theyre multilateral or country level, Development Agents are going to a multiplicity of goals, giving so much money that it in fact overwhelms the ability of countries to pursue all of these projects, to use all of this aid effectively. Some of the Biggest Challenges, particularly in fragile states that i look at, is not how much we give or even what we give money to but how we give it and having institution that is are able to sort of play air Traffic Controller and coordinate that aid and make sure its united behind a common strategy and going to the right places and being used effectively is really important, but in order for that to work and this goes back to your first question you really need sort of a coalition of the willing but a coalition that sees things in the same light. For example, if youre investing in a country where youre trying to fight corruption, youre trying to address governance problems but you have china coming in and giving out sweetheart deals to build ports or other infrastructure that sees them skimming money off the top to give to corrupt elites, those two things are mutually incompatible. If we really want to make a difference in these countries, we need not just cooperation, coordination, but coordination between countries that share the same goals and objectives and values which is why i think youve seen the United States rely more on organizations that do share its values to some degree like nato rather than the United Nations when it needs to achieve some of these harder goals like in afghanistan or iraq. Thanks, blaise. Martin, you get the final word before the q a. I mean, just on that point on which goes to the heart of the legitimacy as opposed to its important to recognize and i think actually it was a former american president , i cant remember which one that actually said you have to recognize that the u. N. Is sort of a little bit of a hybrid. On one hand you have within the u. N. A lot of these valuebased things. The universal declaration of human rights, human Rights Council is one, and on the other hand its a hybrid because it mixes that with the balancing of the power of states. The respect for sovereignty and on into and that at times produces i suppose in our views seems very odd situations. I think the point that you made on there is a need to adapt. And there is a need to recognize that some of the developments in this world have had unfortunate, unforeseen, unintended consequences for a lot of people i suppose. But the fact that change is on the agenda is inevitable. It is how we handle change, how we engage with change is going to determine not only the fate of the International Coordination and Multilateral Institutions but also the future prosperity of our people. Now, on reform, to answer your question, you have at the helm of the u. N. A secretary general perhaps more committed to reform of the system than any other secretary general in recent history. So back him up too. U. N. Member states are not paying for the u. N. They order. People are walking into a restaurant saying i would like this on the menu and that one and this one and this one but actually we will only pay 30 . And theres less than 40 Member States of the 193 Member States to the u. N. That pay on time and in full what their membership contribution is. Its difficult to ask an organization to reform if it has no resources to or no flexibility to allow it to do so. So i think for all Member States, pay up. And i say this of course as the same. Denmark always pays on time and in full. Third thing is engage. Engage and be consistent. And then to u. S. I was thinking a little sitting here. Being in washington and living in new york. Sometimes in all of the partnerships that the denmark and u. S. Have had, on a number of lets also say very, very tough questions. Danish soldiers have stood shoulder to shoulder with u. S. Soldiers across the world. We have bled together and that is a very, very special relationship and i think perhaps no other relationship is no important for denmark. So i suppose the message here is we need u. S. That reform everybody agrees is needed of the International Cooperation, of the multilateral. I find that difficult to see how that can happen without a strong and committed u. S. And these i can guarantee you are going to be more difficult without doubters. Im not saying the u. S. Is disengaging. But i would say whitneys tough love any day, i think thats the excellent strategy to approach this. So tough love, please. Thank you, martin. I will now turn to the audience. Please state your name and institutional affiliation. This gentleman over here. The mic is coming. [ inaudible ] when the u. N. Charter was adopted, article 109 anticipated that within a tenyear period there could be a general conference that would actually take up the issue of reviewing the u. N. Charter in light of, you know, changes in the world. That has never happened. And i think that part of the problem that we have with the United Nations is that the u. N. Charter is a 1945 document and were living 75 years later in a dramatically different world. And so my question to you is, why countries like the u. S. , other members of the Security Council, dont take a leadership role in essentially raising the issue of the need to modernize the United States by essentially rethinking the charter in light of climate change, in light of income inequality, in light of the multiplicity of the global, catastrophic risks that we face today which werent part of the landscape in 1945. Unless we do Something Like that, i think were going to continue to have this debate forever and its not going to be a very fruitful one. Thank you. The u. N. Charter, should we, can we rethink it . Anyone . The ambassador always carries with him. Always, always. The u. N. Constitution is from 1849. It has a lot of stuff in there thats not perhaps not followed word by word, but of course around it has been built, a practice, an interpretation of it. Now i think theres a lot of stuff in the u. N. Charter where you can say actually that the countries of the world dont fully live up to these. I dont know that the articles says it has to be voted by twothirds of the General Assembly to have such a review conference. And then if they fail to do that, then the General Assembly should consider this at the next General Assembly. Theres a lot of that types of voting going on at the u. N. I think its important to recognize that the u. N. Charter and the u. N. Was constructed in such a way that its very difficult to change. There was a purpose for this. U. N. Was created on the ruins of world war ii and the most important thing was actually to prevent world war iii. And so its very difficult to change the u. N. But thats actually on purpose and it will require Member States coming together to begin to alter not necessarily the charter because i dont think theres a huge need for charter changes. We live in an age of its going to be difficult to force countries to do something. But more to change the way the u. N. Works, the interpretation of what are the roles and responsibilities that the charter gives. When it comes to working with the private sector, the Civil Society and others, which is, you know, very difficult for the u. N. The u. N. Charter may start with we the peoples. But for 75 years, its been we the government. And the u. N. Has a difficult time adjusting to a new reality and the types of partnerships thats going to be required. So i dont think well have your conference anytime soon. Thank you. Lets take a couple. Lets one here and one here. The front and one back. Well take the three and return to the speaker. Im peter an Intelligence Analyst and a former io diplomat. I feel that the biggest weakness in the multilateral system is a certain spinelessness. Note that the geneva conventions are shredded by russians using u. N. Data to bomb hospitals in syria. Note that the largest population in the world is attempting right now to eliminate islam and theres no peep, not a squeak from one of the ios, any one of the ios. What is the io role in the responsibility to protect which is a fundamental u. N. Principle and is there any hope of giving the ios some teeth . Thank you. And this gentleman in the front. We found in the recent ukraine scandal that much of the u. S. Foreign policy is based on the president s political, personal desires or theyre based on where he has hotels. Is there any indication that the u. S. Influence on Multilateral Institutions has been bent by financial or political needs of President Trump . And the gentleman behind you. Thank you. My name is andre, serving Foreign Service officer, here on my own behalf. Not touching on the charter but touching on the nature of the institution, the technical aspects of the institution in an environment that has changed so much in the 75 years where looking lets say at an analogy with telecommunications in a environment where 75 years ago it was all based on cable underground, overground and now were in an environment where people are empowered to communicate, to broadcast from their smartphones. The same thing, we have institutions now that are essentially entrenched with an infrastructure from the mid20th century. How do you see this type of infrastructure having to change in order to adequately be relevant in a world that has changed so much . Thank you. Well take those. It was responsibility to protect the ukraine issue and developments in communication, technology. Who wants to take a stab at any of those . Blaise . Im happy to jump in at least on the first one. I think this gets to the heart of this hybrid or dual nature of the u. N. System as it was created. On the one hand, you know, it enshrines in article ii the state sovereignty as a foremost principle but it also aspires to promoting universal human rights. I think the spinelessness as you put it but the conflict within the United Nations goes back to the Genocide Convention that was passed in the 40s and it ratified in 51 where the very active negotiating that convention as a political act, you saw the soviet union exclude political groups, for example, from the definition of protected classes you should the convention and the application of the Genocide Convention has failed to result in the prevention of genocide as it calls for and numerous places and we go through the cries out never again multiple times each decade. Until we resolve this question of is the United Nations an are we the government or we the people. Is there an alternate Multilateral Institution thats going to be focused more on rights as opposed to sovereignty, youre going to keep seeing that the same issue play out over and over again and i think that goes back to the previous question about reforming the charter. I think the foremost issue to get at this is reform of the u. N. Security council and no one is going to agree to that because everyone likes wielding their veto which is ultimately why never going to be able to interfere or make statements on or have the u. N. Have an impact on, for example, the horrors that are going on in xinjiang. Katy . I think its the same that the glass of water half empty or half full. I appreciate what youre saying about the responsibility to protect. The United Nations has had a huge problem with that. But the incredible thing to me is we havent had a hegemonic war in come coming up on a 100 years, we hope. And so on one hand we can point to the success in not having a cataclysmic nuclear war after the end of the second world war. For me, you know, one of the reviewers when i was finishing up the manuscript said to me you didnt mention david mitrany. Hes not always the favorite of political realism in the United States. But i reread mitrany, a british scholar, at the end of world war ii, after all of the horrible things that happened and he said were not building these institutions because we want to police the world as much as were building them because we live in the world. And as people who live in the world, we are doing three things, were trying to fight poverty, were trying to fight ignorance, and were trying to fight disease. And i love that because i think that sometimes like youre pointing out, you want to point to the failures, look at the league of nations, it failed to prevent world war ii, but theres also this broader purpose that multilateral organizations have and similarly spinelessness in some of those areas. But also a lot of success as well as failures. You have a point, whitney . Yes. I would like to maybe answer the first question in this round by going back to the previous round about the u. N. Charter. I personally think that it would be important to update the political arrangements at the u. N. To todays realities. You know, the Security Council today does not necessarily reflect current realities and so i think that would be important and useful and some u. S. Leadership, they are the way it has provided leadership in the multilaterals where there has been albeit for some too slow, but there has been an evolution in shareholdings and quotas in the Multilateral Institutions to reflect those changes and i think thats appropriate. The u. N. Today is a situation in a situation in which, you know, the contributions are expected to be made based on your economic weight in the world but your vote is the same as everyone elses vote. And thats a challenge. But i think some updating would help. With respect to the question about personal interest or benefits of the of the Current Administration in the United States, i havent seen any immediate evidence of that but i would note that the then president of the world bank when this administration came to town decided that the administration might not have the most love for multilaterals and so he reached out to take advantage of the fact that a close relative of the president was interested in a certain subject matter and lo and behold, the United States provided some significant money for an initiative of interest. Is that the administration feathering the family nest or is that an astute political actor saying if we want to get resources from the administration, this is the way we go about it. You can make your own decision about that. But on the whole and in connection with this most recent Capital Increase, i would say absolutely not. And i think on the question about 20th century infrastructures, i think we just need to realize that politics like everything is evolves and there are different ways to play politics and when you have a world of social media and other ways of communicating and so forth, it necessarily changes in some ways the way politics works. But it really changes the mechanics much less than the underlying rules which i think have always been there. Thank you, martin. I was just thinking about this, this is what you call this spinelessness. I think its a little bit of a harsh judgment. If you actually go back and look, you will see not only the secretary general but others speaking out in the Security Council against the numerous violations of International Humanitarian law that occurred in syria. But then what do you do about it . The reality of course is that the u. N. , they dont have independent authorities. They rely on the Security Council to reinforce. And i suppose it would be fair to say that what we have seen over the last many years have been a gradual but pretty constant decaying of respect for the most fundamental principles, for instance, how do you behavior during war . Now, i this is of great concern to central figures within the u. N. And i think they have on a number of occasions spoken out against it. And then you mention responsibility to protect which is a topic i spent sometime on and responsibility to protect was introduced the concept was introduced back in 2005. It has had a difficult time. And of course there are those who say that one of the reasons its had a difficult time is because the west used this, you know, as the concept that legitimatized intervention in libya but not in so many other places. So when we engage on those fundamental values and principles, i think consistency is extremely important to maintain legitimacy and credibility also in the eyes of the rest of the u. N. Member states. And i think the point on the digital, i think its a good example of why the u. N. As a way of working needs to evolve. Lets be honest, some of the big actors on the digital development, theyre not states. Theyre corporations. And of course they need to be part of that conversation about what types of rules and regulations that would actually be in everybodys interest. On the charter, u. N. Turned 75 next year. The secretary general has actually said hes going to use that occasion not only as a commemoration but to try and stir a global debate, a global conversation about what hes called u. N. 75, the future we want, the u. N. We need. So i suppose theres an opportunity to engage in that discussion and whether that means invoking article 106, we have to wait and see. Thank you, martin. We have three minutes left. If anyone has a very quick question. You. That will be the last. Hi, i had a chance to work and look, actually, at the peace operations in different parts of africa as well as very quick question. And the infrastructure development. One thing what you will observe from the ground, from the local people is, when the u. N. Goes on the ground, they believe they start thinking and believe, now our problems have been solved. When you talk to the u. N. On when they come to the u. N. With problems, theres no solution for them. Im talking about the reform. Yes, the u. N. Definitely required reform but there was a question in the beginning about the destruction of the institution which is definitely not a choice. And then i have a question which im carrying in my heart from 2007 democratic republic of congo which was asked by an excombatant and it was i asked him, why did you join . And the question was like, why do you think a person like me can afford a thousand dollars worth of weapons, but he cannot afford a dollar food . Thank you. Lastminute remark. Half a minute. Very quick. Thanks. Yeah, i dont know what to say. Im sorry for that response to that question. Anything lastminute you want to say as a concluding remark . No. Thank you for organizing the panel and i think its been a great discussion. Whitney . Thank you. I think maybe what i take away from this session is that theres an Important Role for Multilateral Institutions on this planet but we need we have to work to make them fit for a purpose in the 21st century. Blaise . I think i would just reiterate that i think we all highlighted the needs for continued multilateral cooperation, most of all, i think the continued problems that people face on the ground and the fact that they look to multilateral organizations for help and hopefully there will be lots of discussions in the year to come about how we can make some of the reforms that will make these organizations more viable. Martin . Yeah, i think just is International Cooperation is not a nice to, its a need to. I suppose its not going to be easy but then again, importance stuff seldom is. Thank you. Thank you. Join me in thanking the panel and thank you very much for coming. [ applause ] for change 2020 this weekend, were live in iowa following the democratic president ial candidates. On friday, at 5 30 p. M. Eastern, mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks with College Students at a town hall event. On saturday, at 3 00 p. M. Eastern, former Vice President joe biden, mayor Pete Buttigieg, and senators amy klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and cory booker speak at a labor forum in cedar rapids. And Bernie Sanders speaks in indianola. Live Campaign Coverage this weekend on cspan. Watch anytime on cspan. Org and listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. Cspan student cam 2020 competition is in full swing. Students are creating short documentaries on issues they would most like the president ial candidates to address in their campaigns and we would love to see them. Still working on an idea . We have resources on your website to help out. Our Getting Started page at studentcam. Org has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. Cspan will award a hundred thousand dollars in total cash prizes including a 5,000 grand prize. All eligible entries must be up loaded and received by midnight on january 20th, 2020. Dont be afraid to take your issue seriously. Youre never too young to have an opinion so let your voice be heard now. For more information go to our website, studentcam. Org. American history tv looks at the impeachments of president s nixon and clinton. Sunday starting at 6 00 p. M. On oral histories, former u. S. Representatives reflect on their experience during the impeachment inquiry of president nixon. Heres a man who had an influence on my decision to run for office and was helpful in my winning and that i looked up to as the president. And i wound up having to sit in judgment on him and eventually even have to say that i would vote for an article of impeachment. Then at 8 00, we look at the impeachment of president president clinton with a portion of the House Judiciary Committee debate. I think you denigrate the role of the senate which has the Important Role to weigh the evidence, to study what it wants and agree and disagree and then our Founding Fathers made it extraordinarily difficult to eliminate a president from office by requiring a twothirds vote and thats why i have always said unless this is done bipartisanly and tragically, theres no bipartisanship here, but im hopeful, if, if it gets to the senate, there would be bipartisanship. But absent that, there will god help other president s. Explore our nations past on American History tv. This weekend the impeachments of president s Richard Nixon and bill clinton. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and around the country so you can make up your own mind created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. A live look this morning inside room 1100 on capitol hill where todays House Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry hearing will get under way in