Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hudson Institute Discussion On International Organizations 20240713

From the Hudson Institute, this is an hour and a half. Good day, welcome to the Hudson Institute, and thanks for showing up for this panel on Multilateral Institutions, indispensable or irrelevant to global peace and prosperity. I will be the moderator, im a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who put together this panel, which i think is on a key issue in d. C. And globally indeed. Its talked about a lot, but there arent that many panels about the topic around town. So i look forward to this discussion. So as i mentioned for the past couple of years, theres 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 these institutions and also giving rise to alternatives to the old ones. And one question that arises then, does that make the 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, et cetera. Although we have spent decades on Development Aid on Peace Keeping, et cetera, from the institution such as world bank and the u. N. Does that mean that the institutions have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and quality of life . Then there is also the issue of the human rights situation in countries such as mali and south sudan, it continues to be disastrous despite u. N. Peace keeping. Does that mean that these instruments have failed . Does the Multilateral Institutions not do their 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 . Thats some of the key issues that i hope we can talk about today. Few people seem to think the institution should be left as they are. Some demand pragmatic reforms, others call for wholesale transformation. And yet, others total destruction of the global framework that we have now of Multilateral Institutions. And this panel will address the pros and cons of preserving a system of Multilateral Institutions at a time where we have plufluctuating alliances, trade wars, rising authoritar n authoritariani authoritarianism. We have four speakers to address these issues. We have katherine lavel, professor of World Affairs at case western reserve university. Shes written numerous books on International Organization and u. S. Politics. And her most recent book is called the challenges of multilateralism, its come out at Yale University press and addresses the history of domestic and International Politics that have helped or hindered global cooperation. Prior to this she has been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars and she also held numerous other positions as researcher and she was a staff at the House Committee on Financial Services. Then we have eli whitney, hes currently a partner at a law firm. But prior to this position, he served as an executive director of the world bank from 2007 to 10. He has extensive experience in Major International Financial Transactions in the Capital Markets and functions at the forefront of trade liberalization advising with respect to world trade organization, panel procedures. Earlier this month he served as a witness on the u. S. House committee on Financial Services hearing on Multilateral Development institutions. Third we have blaze mishtoh hes a fellow, and lemost recently served on a congressionally mandated project convened by the u. S. Institute of peace. Prior to that he was director of the by partisan Security Center program where we researched policy recommendations concerning a variety of National Security issues including iran and its nuclear program, u. S. turkey relations, cyber security, and state fragility. And last but not least we have Martin Bilham who took up his post as ambassador of denmark to the United Nations in january of 2019. Before taking up his position, the ambassador served as state secretary for development and policy in the Danish Ministry and foreign affairs. Prior to this appointment he served as ambassador to indonesia and was accredited to new quiguinea. Hes also been the head of the department for asia and Pacific Region in the department of foreign affairs. The panel will spend about an hour debating the issue of Multilateral Institutions. And after that we will open it up for questions from the audience. I will start. Katherine, youve just written a book on the Multilateral Institution Multilateral Institutions that is about to come out or has come out. Can you describe how you see the role of Multilateral Institutions in todays world order where we have fluctuating alliance patterns, trade wars rising, does these trend means 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 economic and human rights principles or how should we read it . Thank you. Thank you for that question and thank you for inviting me and having me here today at the Hudson Institute. Its been really a privilege to meet my copanelists. I look forward to the discussion. I think that youre raising really good questions that might the book is forthcoming. And the book really looks at the, wed say kind of the long view of multilateralism and the history of the organizations. I think when you take a longer view, i mean end of the napol n napoleonic war long. The things that are the same are the nationalist tendencietenden controversies about the organizations themselves have certainly always been there. The way i look at the history of the organizations is they have been intermingled with the history of scientific progress and the industrial revolution. As scientific progress has evolved states had to figure out how to handle whats going on and discover but also the International Community has had to discover that. If you want to think about like an environmental issue back in the 1800s, the issues of migratory birds were important, when you look at disease, cooperation and health, what was important was trying to grapple with cholera on the British Trade routes. The problems in the 1800s had to do with science. But madison had to come to terms with what caused cholera and how to treat it. Once you could get that agreement you could figure out what nations could handle and what the International Community would handle. We know as students of International Relations that then World History has had intermittent episodes of war. And i think if you want to look at it as more the optimistic hopeful side of the picture is in some of the darkest hours people have tried to figure out what to do about multilateralism, how can we make those institutions better. Im not sure i would have the instinct as world war ii was winding down to figure out what to do, but thats been the history. The way i look at the problem, is scientific progress has continued. Two things have happened since the 1960s, the digital revolution and also massive advances in global health. And the World Community trying to come to terms with how those benefits are going to be distributed and whos going to pay for them as welfare systems have evolved. We know the institutions fostered the National Welfare systems but then coming to terms with that now, our problems. These are real challenges that these organizations confront. So i dont know if i would say its so much an either or, in terms of whether they need to go or come or Something Like that. They have to adapt to the new realities of the problems. Of global immigration and taxpayers and advanced industrial democracies, but i think theres reason to be somewhat hopeful that theyve been able to adjust in the past and probably will be able to do so in the future. Thanks, kate. Whitney, you have been executive director of the world bank and a lot of contemporary critics of these institutions point to an imbalance 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 experience, to what extent these Multilateral Institutions such as the world banks are becoming tools for corrupt governments than how they protect the people they tend to serve . Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. Its a pleasure to be here today, particularly among such distinguished company. I think that we cant reach, you know, definitive judgment on a Multilateral Institution like the World Bank Without remembering its one player in a Larger Development landscape. And that the landscape includes the countries themselves that are clients of the bank. But 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 25 to 30 years, than in all the rest of human history. So that, to me, is a fairly remarkable measure. And i think that the multilaterals have made a significant contribution to that. They also have accumulated a lot of knowledge about the Development Process and disseminate that around the world. Its interesting when i was testifying two weeks ago up on the hill, i got any number of questions about why does china continue to borrow from the bank . And i think 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 are they borrowing . I personally think its time for them to graduate and they can do what saudi arabia does, which is pay for whatever knowledge, Technical Assistance they want as they go. On the other hand, if you understand anything about the political model of at least the ibrd component of the World Bank Group, and i have to point out there are five parts of the World Bank Group and each one of them has its own separate Financial Model and you need to understand those models before you Start Talking further. But in the ibrd side, which is where china borrows, a very large component of the annual budget comes from the interest which is earned on the loans, and if you said china repay everything tomorrow, there would be a big hole if that budget. Now some people, theres always room to cut budgets of institutions like this, and even knows 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. But i think a phase out would b appropriate in terms of the institutional approach. There are also other aspects of multilateral stupgss which i think institutions which are important to remember. They can provide a lot of knowledge about public Financial Management. These lessons are not learned instantly by every country on the world. But on the whole i think there is a lot of progress. One aspect of the 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 United States has appropriated four times as much money on an annual basis to the world fund nan it has to the world bank. The world bank though manages the trust funds. And thats in itself a valuable service. Now, as to your question about capture and so forth, i mean, there is politics at the world bank. I mean, its a little bit like kass blank an. Im surprised there is gambling going on here. Its constant. I had a question when i testified two weeks ago about how could it possibly be that one of the managing directors of the world bank today sfr china appear 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. But these are things that need to be dealt with. There is a legitimate question as raised by our moderator about whether the institutions are captive or within the political interests of other countries, are there more to serve the Civil Servants or the elite as opposed to the people of the country. I think in your question you left out one dimension, which is the entire development community. You know, when i went to a country in africa on one of my e. D. Trips at the world bank. Ip met with the head of us achlt d and i said how much is your budget. He said 80 million a year. I said how much of that is earmarked and he said 78 million of 80. Earmarked means for the beltway contracts around here who have their contracts and so forth. He was at a disadvantage to the head of difid, the Uk Development agency because that country head had a discretionary budget of 10 million available to him. So that when the president of the country has problem he wants help on, the uk had 10 million and the United States had two. There are captives. I remember looking at a lan for a road project in niger, lets say a 20 million loan. And if you look back on page 57 in the annexes you found that 500,000 of that was to buy four toyota land cruisers. So, yes, there are as in any political situation people whose interests are at the play. But as i reached the point of capture and we have alternative organizations, think of the organizations started by the bricks. 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 own new bank called the bricks bag baepg or now the new Development Bank. But look at what they did in the monetary arrangement. As a headline number of x, if you are an individual country and you want to access the monetary facilities of this new arrangement you can only take 30 with no questions asked. The other 70 requires an upper tranche imf program. So even the bricks when forming an organization are depending on another multilateral to establish important criteria and so forth. So i think ill leave it there. And we can hear from other panelists. But obviously there is no black or white answer to the questions being asked. All right. Thanks, whitney. Moving to blaze. You have done a lot of work on fragile states. You arguably fragile states seem to be continuously bogged down in poverty, lack of education, all the usual development problems, despite years of spending from the world bank, also from the United Nations. Does that mean that they have failed to contribute to raising basic individual welfare and quality of life . Or can any still be helpful . Do they need reform . Or can we use them as they are . Thank you, lisa, for putting together this event on this important topic. Thank you to the audience for joining us for in discussion. Im honored to join this distinguished group of panelists and flattered that you think i can solve the fragile states questions in five minutes or however long ive been allotted. Let me give some context why i think its important to think about fragile states and discussion the multilateralism. Thats both because the problems surrounding fragility are particularly problems well suited to or driven by the sorts of issues that Multilateral Institutions are meant to solve. So Something Like 90 of all conflicts in the world today are happening in fragile states. We know the United Nations devoted to International Peace and security in trying to minimize conflict. Increasingly poverty occurs in fragile states. Ten years ago Something Like 15 of the worlds poor lived in fragile states. Ten years from today its going to be 60 of the worlds poor live in fragile states. For the world banks Poverty Reduction mission fragility is increasingly important issue. But its also an issue that matters to awful us. The afblt Multilateral Institutions to address fragility is something we should care about, were problems like the spread of extremism and terrorism into fragile states, civil conflicts that displays hundreds of thousands if not millions of people causing refugee and migration flow that is have impacts beyond their borders, whether its the spread of pandemic like recently ebola in fragile states, the lack of institutions to address the issues on their own causing them to become global and Transnational Health threats. The fragility will be a driver of the sorts of National Security issues we as the United States and broadeder Global Community will face in the decades to come. Its important to think about how we deal with it. And i would say that thus far the record of the Multilateral Institutions has not been great. Partly because the emphasis on fragility hasnt been there, even within our own u. S. National security policy, fragility is a recent phenomenon. We are thinking about failed states up until maybe a decade ago, whether thats sort of somalia as the classic the example or assumption going in the post 9 11 phase that afghan was the the harbor of terrorism. The idea of fromg fragility of states that havent failed or decomposed but are on the brink is a recent one. And what we have seen is that the sorts of solutions that have been applied thus far trshlly by the United Nations in terms of trying to promote peace and security or by the world bank in trying to achieve Poverty Reduction goals either havent been applied to fragile states or havent been able really to take root in fragile states. For example, when you look at Peace Keeping operations most of the Peace Keeping operations conducted by the u. N. Are not in the places you would think of when you come up with a list of the top fragile states. There is no peace keep nfrpg in offing opinion being yemen sooir, nigeria aband libya. The first state you would hit if you go down the list of the worlds fragile states that has a u. N. Peace keeping operation is mali. Similarly the world bank hasnt had a focus on fragile states thus far. And when it did it applied its mostly technical Poverty Reduction methods in trying to solve just the problem of poverty in fragile states. So for example, as of 2012, half of of the programs that the world bank was running in fragile states were geared towards infrastructure development. So something that didnt have a lot to do with fragility in the first place. The good news is that that is starting to change. There is an increasing recognition that fragility is a political problem. We define it as the lack of or the breakdown of the social contract between the government and the people. The lack of legislate macy, the lack of trust, the lack of delivery of services and accountability to the population. And the nature of that political problem of fragility has been recognized by the u. N. And world bank. In fact one of the most astounding and positive developments in the multilateral space was the cooperation of those two institutions on a report that came out i guess two years ago now in 2017 called pathways for peace which looked at the nature of fragility, the nature of conflict and violence and how to start addressing it. And they recognized that its a political problem and a political problem that is going to bedevil traditional attempts at either Peace Keeping or development unless you recognize i want a political problem and try to develop political slugs to undergird attempts to either keep the peace or build prosperity. And you have seen a large commitment in the most recent replenishment of the ida, the development fund, the world bank doubling the amount of money it gives to fragile states sfr 7 to s. E. 14 pl billion. The world bank is in a new strategy to solve fragility. But we are seeing the limitations of the approach which are emblematic of the limitations we have when talking about multilater institutions and some of the challenges laid out. And fundamentally i think it comes down to the question dsh that kathryn sort of suggested, is progress possible on sort of a along a enlightenment scientific technical track . Can we solve the problems of framinglety by just investing in building capacity in trajle states and training more Civil Servants, Building Government institutions . Or is there sort of sort of a darker side to things, you know, as bob kagan put in the recent book, the jungle grows back, the long arc of history doesnt always bend towards justice unless we will it there. I think some of the findings we have had in fragile states is that they are kept fragile because the people ruling them orp the people invested in them prefer to keep them fragility, fragility is a strategy by corrupt elites or outside actors who prefer to deal with corrupt and autocratic governments or prefer disorder to order. And unless we figure out how to solve the problem of political will, that keeps the countries the mired in fragile we were for the able to address the fragility. The question is can the world bank, United Nations create programs that start dressing political will and governance and values in the country, or do they remain purely technical solution sns that gets to the heart of the question of are Multilateral Institution as currently structured capable of addressing the challenges that we have, because i think what fragile states show us is the challenges are political. Theyre challenges of really how we think society should be ordered and the way that Multilateral Institutions functioned thus far promoting sovereignty, sort of with the u. N. System, promoting sort of technical id say governance governance ignorance solutions within countries doesnt really begin to answer those questions. Thank you very much, blaze. You raised a number of interesting questions, i think about Economic Security and values as well. Ill move on to martin. And martin is an ambassador to the United Nations the. Presumably you have a lot of insights on u. N. Peace keeping operations and contributions to peace and stability. And we have now heard some critique of those institutions. I wonder if if you could comment on that, if you agree with that. Is Peace Keeping more about the image, welfare and cooperation of peace keepers and Peace Keeping countries than about making a difference, on the ground, for example, and also the things blaze addressed as problems . Well, thank you, lisa, for luol allowing me to join the panel and for the opportunity to discuss but of course our danish ambassador to you and tremendously important issue. I arrived at in new york almost almost 11 months ago one of the thins first thing i did was putting up on the wall in nigh office a quote from the second secretary general of the u. N. , swedish who wrote we should mind ourselves the purpose of the u. N. Was not to take mankind to hef. But to save mankind from hell. When we talk about the u. N. Or Multilateral Institutions in general. Its important to adjust expectations to what they can do and how long it takes. I mean, and they are dealing with extremely complex issues. You asked me specifically about Peace Keeping operations. And Peace Keeping operations is sort of one of the sort of instruments of Multilateral Institutions of the u. N. And that is the World Community. That has an extraordinarily bad name which is a little bit odd actually. Because if you look at the facts, its the story of what you might call a tremendous success. But actually also a story that looks to a future thats going to be very challenging. Now if you look at the data dsh i mean its difficult to derive any conclusion but the fact that u. N. Peace keeping operations are cheap, relatively effective and lacking into the future they are absolutely indispensable in the future. Now today there is around 100,000 troops under a u. N. Security council mandate for Peace Keeping operation. The cost of a soldier with a blew helmet or blue bera is around one tenth. But lets be jernsds. One quarter the cost of a nato soldier. And more importantly they work in areas that nobody else wants to go. Now and the annual cost of Peace Keeping operation is around 7 billion u. S. According to my numbers thats 1 of the u. S. Budget for defense. Around, you know, half of what spains budget for defense is. Now it seems to me thats a fairly thats a fairly good investment. It covers an area of around 3 million square miles. You know, did with a population of 100 Million People. Now you can do the mathematic yourselves. You can imagine that u. N. Peace keeping troops are spread fairly thin. Thats one of the reasons perhaps they dont always do what we implicitly expect, not only to keep peace but address the realities. They are deployed in areas where often there is no peace to keep. First part of the problem with Peace Keeping operations is that they are not deployed in areas where there is a peace to keep. Secondly, that actually they are spread so thin they dont have resources, personnel and the equipment to actually enforce peace. So often youed up what you might call not Peace Keeping was but freeze keeping. You have to ask, is there not a value in that, keeping conflict somewhat under wrap, protecting civilians, doing what you can to mitigate the human the human suffering . But my most important message, we tend to forget actually that Peace Keeping operations have been a success, no . There are 72 completed Peace Keeping operations. And many of them very successful. There are around 13 ongoing. Difficult ones but they do important tasks. Now blaze mentioned all the places where there are no Peace Keeping operations. And where you could i suppose argue well there ought to be a first of all a peace do keep but uthe to be an International Military presence you know, libya, syria, yemen, although there are u. N. Operations. But lets be clear. Its not the u. N. Its not the secretary general that doesnt want to deploy rmts troops there. Its the u. N. Security council that cannot agree that actually you ought to deploy troops there. And thats the second point is we have to remember that Multilateral Institutions, International Cooperation is not them. Its the us. I mean, we are all part of making that machinery work. Now, i think the debate today around International Cooperation and multilateralism is absolutely fascinating. It seems to me that we live an in age i think kathryn you were hinting that we are more connected than ever before. You know, the world is more connected than ever before. And not only by smartphones or digital technology. We ares are 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. Now, i suppose denmarks approach would be that demands of us more International Cooperation not less International Cooperation. Because, i mean, there are no boundaries that are going to stop ebola, no . There are no boundaries that are going to stop the resistant bacteria. We need to work together. But working together and this is blatantly clear after working 11 months at the u. N. Working together for 193 countries is extraordinarily difficult thing. And there are bound to be areas you dont necessarily agree in all the details on that particular case, or that particular file. And that i suppose is where your true commitment to International Cooperation is brought to the test. Do you actually believe in 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 if you like,er time . Now i suppose for a country of 5. 5 Million People its clear the pursuit of National Interests we only leads to case conclusion we must look to international conclusion. Setting up rules of engagement, the respecting the need from time to time to compromise. Does this make me a believer in the fact that what we need to to preserve is the u. N. Of yesterday . No it does not. What we must invest in is invest in actually developing, seeing an evolution of the u. N. Because the world is also changing. Now, when the secretary general uttered the famous words, the main challenge was that we were going to keel each other by arms. Thats not the only challenge out there today. There are many other challenges out there today. And some dont originate from states or governments. They originate from what you might call nonstate actors whether you want to call it violent extremism orp fan at i. Or terrorism. But there are some originating from the fact that we are 7 billion and counting and as such much closer than we ever were before. Now, so i arrive the at sort of to some extent the painful conclusion that there is no alternative. There is no other option but also that its going to require a lot of strategic patience in the sense that things are not going to be resolved resolved tomorrow but there is no other option. Its going to be next to impossible to the go it alone. 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 how, you know, their role in the world bank. And what we see now a lot of people would say is a china that as you said on the one hand can get favorable or loans on favorable terms from the world bank, but on the other hand china is also a global power with a 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 condition. Its not very transparent. Some people say it sort of doesnt have all the other elements we would like to see at least from the old institutions point of view in order to perform in function of development and contributing to world prosperity. Can you comment on this and how that influences the whole working of the system, in 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. Well, thank you. I mean 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 Development bank and china xm on one hand and aiib on the other hand. If you look at aiib its largely populated by alumni of the age j bank, agen Development Bank the European Bank and bank for reconstruction and development and they have environmental and social safeguards and most projects have been cofinanced with the other main line institutions. China the Development Bank and mcxm i think are a 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 you know 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. Thats pretty good leverage in any institution. Imagine that same equation from denmark perspective. What they put in compared to the with what the world puts in is infinityis million man and they use the world bank to in her trust funds to great effect. They dont have a Huge Development agency. They have of an institution they can be proud of and made a lot of good contributions. But any also leverage the trust fund dmfrts capacity of the world bank to do their development work. So for 5 million or 10 million put into the trust fund they get someone else to run it and off they go. They dont have to have ten more Civil Servants to do that. So leverage is a big word in any multilateral. So for china. And they are learning the lessons and now setting up Multilateral Institutions in which they can be the predominant voice and it wont be any surprise as that proceeds. I mean, you can imagine as the u. S. Director at the world bank, the suspicions that come with any initiative that you take. On the other hand, u. S. Leadership at a multilateral like the world bank is extremely important in setting the tone is important. And i think thats you know where we have some real contributions to make as this sort of competition uchlds around t unfolds around the world. I think the the point of fragile states is an important one. The entire World Development report in 2010 i think was devoted to fragile states, because at that time if you looked at africa, 45 subsaharan the countries at the time. Were in conflict or about to go into conflict and some of the cases that were the most challenging. I think there is a cross. If you look at liberia, for example, you know, the former leader of liberia was the worlds darling. And did a lot for her country. But a lot of people dont know that there was a u. N. Force there to with an annual price tag of 600 million a year, to keep the peace in that country and to permit some of that development to happen. As, you know, i think was suggested here by blaze, if you if the Security Council could authorize similar types of operations in about 10 other places we might see very different results. And the question really is whether the world is willing to pay that price tag. Are we willing to pay 600 million a year to keep liberianss from shooting each other and allowing them to have a chance at Public Institutions that allow good financial and Public Management and allow them to the develop. Thank you. Katie. I agree with what you said and i think ib maybe 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 the institutions to reach out in industrial democracies and make them understand why they matter. Thats the reason we were able to get into the imf appear world bank and we had the failure or the problems we had getting the league of nations through when they think about constituencies matter im from ohio. I have to go to ohio and explain to the yungstown United Organization as one of my jobs as a professor getting on talking about these things i have to explain this to them why the u. N. Matters why the imf matters my mom will watch on the internet and say what is the imf and world bank. And they look at china and they say why do you want support an organization taking jobs from workers in yungstown, ohio . And what i think the organizations job to do in the digital era 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 rules rulesbased system. If we 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 chinese policies. I think it needs to the message needs to get out in a way that i dont like the expression ordinary americans because i think of myself as one of them. But we need to get out. And i think that politicians understood that in the interwar area. Its great we didnt have a another class chris mick war with the digital era and we understand its one ecosystem. We didnt know that at the time. When we want organizations to work on these things and try to make a case for china to matter we need to explain that to people. And i think also we have a lot of success from we have a lot of Chinese Students studying in american universities. The opportunities are there. We need to reach out and grab them. Thanks, katy ut you had a point. Thanks sure if i could key off two things martin you said that compromise is an important value in the u. N. System giving a bit of yourself to get Something Better for the global good. And katey you talked about bringing china into the rulesbased order. Both 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 board games right now. And my 5yearold loves to memorize all the rules, knows all of them and adheres to them and more importantly policies the 4yearold to make sure he dmeers. The 4yearold on the other hand just wants to one. He rolls the dice moves 12 spots. If he gets called out he throws the board over and leaves. And i think thats a good analogy for understanding this issue of china or russia or other actors in the international system. It is a system thats built on the idea of following rules, compromise and cooperation. But those are themselves political values that are not necessarily shared by the actors who are parts of the system. And so i think you are correct that we followed this policy ever since the fall especially since the fall of the berlin wall of entanglement, of the idea that if we bring countries outside of the rulesbased International Order into that order in various means that order will then perpetuate from the inside from the outside into the countries and will minimize some of the most damaging or corrosive or dangerous behavior. And so we have tied ourselves to china through the wto and thinking that economic interdependencies make us safer. We brought countries into International Organizations hoping they will follow the rules. We who hoped that economic liberalization leads to political liberalization at home. And i think we have seen that that theory has largely failed that in fact rather than rather than sort of bringing them into the rulesbased order, rather than compromise, rather than just the regular use of leverage as denmark uses in the world bank system, what we have had instead is colinization of the multilateral system by countries not afraid to not follow the rules appear use the fact that those of us who do follow the rules use that against us. And i think the perfect example of that is the fact that where we send our Peace Keeping forces is determined by votes at the u. N. Security council. And i think, you know, we have this interestijukts position. The george w. Bush said the greatest threat is no longer countries invading its nonstate actors. 2017 the Trump Administration said the greatest threat to National Security is no long nonstate actors its now states trying to invade one another. And the answer is it lies somewhere in between. The two cant be separated from one another, which is why i think the case of fragile states is so interesting, because there are places where conflicts overlap and civil ethnic tribal conflicts are taken over by translation national jihadis groups armed for the purposes of geopolitical actors trying to achieve their own ends. Syria is an incredible example of the new type of both interand intrathe state warfare happening at the same time through the use of proxies. But its happening in libya. Its happening in the horn much africa. Its happening in the sahel and increasing feature of the world we inhabit. So if we are talking about trying to some of the nonstate threats you mentioned, martin, the nature of geopolitics and the fact that state backers using the conflicts to further their own ends is going to be a major problem. And so if we are committed to the idea that and i absolutely agree with you that we want u. N. Peace keeping missions in the places that where there is both a peace to keep and there needs to be a peace to keep. But the question is are the current rules we constructed and the current mechanism we have for using the forces, or are the current means we have for making investments and in poor and fragile states actually capable of solving the problems as they currently exist . And 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 bound by them thats ultimately going to fail. And as much as i admire the peace keepers one need only think to srebernits to see the limitations of the system as imposed by outside great powers that have interest in hout how the conflicts unfold. Martin you waited isht pennsylvania mri. Thank you blaze, and cath kathryn. A lot of trying ares for me. I think that conflict you mentioned is perhaps example of u. N. Peace keeper put in a situation that actually the mandate did not at all sort of quip them to handle. Traditionally u. N. Peace keepers thats how the worlds countries designed them is to put in between two armies that have agreed not to fight each other for the moment. Thats what peace keepers are. Look at all the theaters in which you deployed the Peace Keeping operations today, none well at least very, very few look anything like that. It doesnt mean it shouldnt be deployed. Just need to recognize that its an extremely complex environment. Just on on china which i suppose you can expand to on india, on indonesia, on ethiopia, on south africa, the fact that a number of of these countries have first of all grown economically and politically, i suppose is actually a happy occasion. I mean, at least thats part of what my profession who worked in development for many years have been striving for for decades to see people lifted out of poverty. And it is no surprise that countries that have gained in economic weight and importance will also demand, you know, more of say at the table. And now the challenge of course is those if you like those aching pains to say a little bit in blazes kparcomparison, the aching pains are difficult to challenge and we have more challenges to handle than before. But the answer of course is not walking away from the game but to stay in the game. I think that was the point you were making whitney, that a lot of the new institutions that come occupy that quasi Multilateral Institutions have imported standards procedures, approaches from the multilateral system from the world bank ant imf, from those institutions because they have an awful lot of experience. And i think we have a profound interest in that and recognizing that actually part of our history of our legacy is not only sort of the spread of ideas and values around liberal democracy, its actually also about what do we know about Sustainable Development . You know, what mistakes have we made we can actually share with others so they dont make the same mistakes . I think for me and i multilateralism is not an ideology. Its a method of work. And i think thats extremely important. Sometimes the discussion around it is International Cooperation becomes a bit sort of do you believe in it . Almost sort of religious issue. For me its not an ideology. Its not a religion. Its a method of work. Its a method of work thats not perfect. But im yet to find somebody that can give me Something Better. And i think the big change here as i tried to say before is that this is no longer an altruistic project. I mean if you look at denmark i would perhaps assert that 20, 30 years ago many people looked at the u. N. As an altruistic project, the u. N. Was good for the world didnt matter for denmark. But the u. N. Was good for the world. I think, you know, events over the last five, ten, 15 years have changed that calculation. You know, multilateralism and International Cooperation is no longer a altruist project its a projects of selfinterest. When you come to that recognition you may realize its not working as well as it ought to. Its not working as well as it should. But there is only one answer to that. And that is to engage and to invest to make it work better. Because if we abandon it well then god knows who is going to influence it. Thank you. Before we turn it over to the audience, i want to i would like the speakers to address two important issues. First, how do you concretely envisage reform of the current institution sns blaze, you you mentioned the link between security and economic concerns. And 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, you know, et cetera. This link, is that part of the institutions or not . And if it isnt, sudden should it be . You also mentioned values. That would be another consideration. Do we need to have some element significant element of common values . Or can the institutions work in the absence of that . The other issue id 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 toward the policy of nonappearance . Or what is their position on the Multilateral Institutions . And does that have a positive role to play in your view, or how do you see it, starting with katy. Thanks i got the seat at the end. I appreciate that. I think they are great questions. The biggest problems Going Forward i see trends problems with multilateral organizations is that as we understand the problems we understand how interconnected they are. And the old system of International Organizations that was set up after world war ii was for specific problems as we understood them at the time. So, for example, when we talk about environmental problems, there is a lot of overlap with human rights problems, so the climate refugee problem. Or the problems of health that interact with with the environment when we talk about arctic ice melting. In another project we are working on problems that disease coming out of that problems of health in the region. And our system is very ill equipped for the institutions to interact and address problems that dont require a state solution but require the web. At one point someone said the worldwideowide web of International Organizations but thats of an inadequate solution to get the tasks completed in a way to meet the needs of the world round. In the past we had wars. We dont want a war to redesign the system. With respect to the United States, you know, the question is out. Because as you pointed out with china, the number one the Chicago Council on world releases for those of hue follow in data came out this year and the last year or so, the biggest partisan split in u. S. Foreign policy is on the issue of china. Actually support among americans for multilateralism and membership remains strong. It always has been strong. And so i think that there is a lot of widespread support in the American Public to cooperate and collaborate, like you poibted out, you know, certainly when were taken advantage of if we promote a rulesbased order and others are not following it, that needs to be addressed. And something needs to be done about that. But i think that American People are pretty pragmatic. I think you know a couple of us were saying before, you know, you can have the conversations about trade, certainly trade is a hot issue. But understand we understand american jobs are dependent on trade. And trade needs to be made fair to all of the people participating in it. And there are certain things that the United States government can do. But also certain things that you need to World Community to do something about. And i guess, yeah, its its anyones guess with respect to you know how a next administration would handle it. Once again, i think the problems that we see right now with multilateralism and the American Population really 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 where we had the the antiglobalization movement appeared. But then we had 9 11. So they were kind of underground for a always will be. Thank you. Whitney. Well, fu donif you dont min just sort of meld your two questions because i think the question of reform is also related to the role of the United States. And i think the key there is tough love. I mean, thats what were seeinn currently with the World Bank Capital increase. The Current Administration in the popular view, or certainly in this is ntown, is not seen a administration that isis deeplyn love with Multilateral Institutions. And yet the ease f United States treasury really took the initiative in the negotiation ou this most recent Capital Increase for the world bank. Re i and they saidng fine, you thinke you need a Capital Increase, but here are some things thatt need to change. You know, were going to have richer countries pay more for loans than poorer countries, were going to cut the budget. The toplevel salaries are going to be limited and so forth, down the line. And certainly i think that if one has a leading role in a i tn multilateral, its incumbent upon you to exercise leadership and to do it well. And i think tough love is probably usually the most appropriate approach. Blaise thank you. Blaise. I think ill also try to meln the two questions together and. Maybe answer the first question byo be try answering the second. I think a year out from a u. S. F president ial election is really a bad time to try to predict nia anything about the directionti t the u. S. Foreign policy. But i think even the criticism that weve seen in this t to D Administration of multilateralism are not in opposition to multilateralism per se, but to different aspects of it. I think theres actually a bit of a tension in something we heard from President Trump,tinc which can be encapsulated in his phrase dont be a chump. F the first is this idea that the United States shouldnt be paying more than other countriei in pursuit of common goals. Se so its not a rejection of cooperation, per se, but its an emphasis on what the president t sees as fair sharing of the burden of that cooperation. So that other countries ool is shouldnt be benefitting undulyl on the backed of the united stas and its taxpayers. On the other hand, theres the t sense that sort of theut wool i being pulled overou our eyes aso the true purpose or the way ghtc these institutions operate, and the things that get trotted out are things like venezuela being on the Human Rights Council or u any number of other countries that have dubious human rights records and things that in and of themselves might not be these systematic or structural issues with Multilateral Institutions, but which seem to american to ne suggest that these institutions are being used or their true purpose is being perverted. And so this balance between making sure that, in fact, then goals andg purposes of the Multilateral Institutions are being properly served, but everyone is sort of investing in them fairly i think is the tension that we have in u. S. N o thoughts. And i would go beyond saying that theres a need for cooperation in solving global challenges Going Forward and sas there is an important rule for Multilateral Institutions in wh actually coordinating global veo responses. So what we see for example whenn we look at fragile states amongo others, is that when everybody t rushesional to say, for examply invest a in countries that requ. International assistance, cies a everybodys international donors, whether theyre lms th multilateral or countrye Level Development agencies are giving to so many goals that it. Overwhel ms the ability of these countries to pursue all these ly projects and use all of the aid effectively. So some offat we the Biggest Challenges is not how much we give or what we give money to, but how we give it. And having institutions that are able togo play air Traffic Controller and coordinate the aid and make sure its united ah behind the commonis strategy an going to the rightht places andl being usedit effectively is important. But in order for that to work, c and this goes back to your first question, you really need sort of a afor coalition of the wila coalition that sees things in the same light. For example, if youre investing in a country where youre trying to fight corruption and youre trying to address governance eea problems, but you have china coming in and giving out sweetheart deals to build ports or other infrastructure that sees them skimming money off tht top to give to corrupt elites, those two things are mutually incompatible. So if we wantion, but to make ai difference, we need cooperation and coordination, and coordination between countries that share thehe sameor goals a objectives and values, which is why i think youve seen the nao United States relyns 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 the harder goals like afghanistan or iraq. Thank you. Martin, you get the final word before the q a. I mean, just on that point, which goes to the heart of its important to recognize and i think there was a former ameri american president , i cant t remember which one, that actually said you have to recogn recognize that the u. N. Is sorte of a little bit of a hybrid. On one hand you have these pillars within the u. N. To some extent, a lot of these valuebased things, the universal declaration of human i rights, eleanor roosevelt, the Human Rights Council, and on thp other hand its a hybrid because it mixes that with the balancind of the power of states, the respect for sovereignty and noninterference. And that thenn sometimes produces what in our views seems very odd situations. Now, i think the point you made on there is a need to adapt and there is a need to recognize that some of the developments id this world have had unfortunate, unforeseen unintended the consequences for a lot offa da people, i suppose. W we h but the fact that change is on t the agenda is inevitable. It is how we handle and engage with change that is going to handle the faith of the o answ International Corporations, buti also theon future transparency our people. H 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, u. N. Member states are not paying for the u. N. I mean, its like people walking into a restaurant and say i would like this on the menu and that, but actually well only pay 30 . I mean, there is less than 40 t Member States of theheir 193 me states to thee u. N. That pay on time and in full what their membership contribution is. Its very difficult to ask an organization to reform if it has no resources or no flexibility to allow it to do so. So i think for all members, they pay, and i say this of course. The third thing is engage. Engage and be consistent. Re in and then the u. S. , i was p the thinking a little bit sitting an hered and being in washington d living in new york, sometimes in all of the partnership that s, n denmark and the u. S. Ma have had and have, on a number of very tough questions, denmark, they have stood shoulder to shoulder with u. S. Soldiers across the i world. We have bled together and that is a very, very special relationship and i think perhape no other relationship is more important for denmark. So i suppose the message here is we need u. S. Ed of i mean, that reform that i think everybody agrees is needed of international corporation, i find that difficult to see how that can happen without a strong and committed u. S. At least i can guarantee its going to be a hell of a lot more difficult. Im not seeing u. S. As disengaging, but i would take 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. When the u. N. Charter was adopted, article 109 anticipated that within a tenyear period there could be a conference, a general conference that would actually takecharte up the issu reviewing the u. N. Charter in light of changes in the world. O that has never happened. And i think that part of the problem that we have with the United Nations is that the u. N. A charter isma a 1945 document any were living 75 years later in a dramatically different world. And so my question to you is, you know, countries like the u. S. And other members of the Security Council, dont take a leadership role inn essentially raising the issue of the need to modernize the United Nations by essentially rethinking the charter in light of climate change, in light of income tody inequality and in light of the Global Catastrophic Risks that we take today, which werent part of the landscape in 1945. Fe unless we do Something Like that, i think were going to continue to have this debate forever and i. C. E. N forever and its not going to be a truthful one. Ying should we, can we t rethink . Im glad to see that the ambassador carries with him. I always. Do you want to take a stab at that . The constitution is from 1849. It has a lot of stuff in there thats perhaps not followed woro by word, but of course around it it has been built a practice an interpretation of it. Ay the now, c i think theres a lot ofo stuff in the u. N. Charter where you can say actually the countries of the world dont fully live up to these. I do know that the articles say it has to be voted by twothirde of the General Assembly to have such a review conference. Rs t and ifhis they fail to do that, then the general will say hellt consider this at the next coming General Assembly. Now, theres a lot of that type of voting going on at the u. N. I think its important to recognize that the u. N. Charge and the u. N. Was constructed in such a way that actually it is veryry difficult to change. There was a purpose for this. I mean, u. N. Was created on the ruins of world war ii and the u most important thing was actually to prevent world war iii. So its very difficult to changg the u. N. , but thats actually on purpose and it would require members coming together to begin to alter not necessarily the charter, because i dont think there is a huge need for chartee changes. Wes live in an age where its going to be difficult to force s countries to do t something. But more to change the way the i u. N. Works, the interpretation of what are the roles and responsibilities. It comes to working with civil p society and leothers, which is n very difficult for the u. N. The u. N. Charter may start withn we and people, but for the last 75 years its been we, the governments. And the u. N. N. Has a difficult time adjusting to a new reality and the times of partnership thats going to be required. One hnt think we will have your conference any time soon. Thank you. We theres one here and theres one here at the front and one back. Well take the three and then return to the speaking. Im peter humphrey, an Intelligence Analyst and a former io diplomat. Ltilat i feel that theer biggest weakns is a a certain spinelessness. Note that the geneva conventions are shredded by russians u. S. Ing data to bomb hospitals in syria. Note that the largest populatio, in the world right now is attempting 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, whicn is ay ho fundamental u. N. Princg and is there any hope of giving the ios some teeth . Thank you. And this gentleman at the front. We found in the recent ident ukraine scandal tha much of the u. S. Foreign policy is based on the president s political is the personal desires or theyre based on where he has hotels. Is there any indication that the u. S. Influence on multilateral d institutions has been bent by financial or political needs of President Trump . And the gentleman behind you. Thank you. My name is andre good, serving as an officer and here on my own behalf. Touching on the nature of the mu ch in institution, the technical aspects of the institution in ae environment that has changed so much in the 75 years where youre looking, lets say, at an analogy with telecommunications in an environment where 75 years ago it was all based on cable, underground, overground, and no. Were in an environment where people are em powered to communicate, to broadcast from r their smart phones. The same thing, weve got institutions now that essentially are entrenched withe an infrastructure from the mid 20th century. Relevant 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 . Ukrain thank you. Developm well take those. So it was responsibility to protect the ukraine issue and development in communication technology. Who wants to take a stab at any of those . Im happy to jump in at leasd on the first one. I think this gets to thestate h of this hybrid or dual nature of the u. N. System as it was created. On the one hand it enshrines an article to state sovereignty ase aan foremost principle but also aspires to promote universal human rights. Within t i think the spinelessness, as e you put it, the conflict within the United Nations goes back to the Genocide Convention that ti ratified in 51, where the verye act offi negotiating that on and convention was a political act. You saw the soviet union exclude political groups for example from the definition of protecteh classes under the convention and the application of the Genocide Convention has failed to result in the prevention of genocide as in numerous places and wewe go through the crying t never again multiple times each decade. And i think until we resolve this question of is the United Nations an organization are we the governments, we the osedt people oro if its an alter kn Multilateral Institution thats going to be focused more on rights as opposed tostion sovereignty, youre going to keep seeing the same issue playo 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 no get at this is reform of the u. N. Security council and no one is going to agree to that because everyone likes their or veto, which is ultimately why were never going to be able to interfere or make statements on or have the u. N. Make an impact on, for example, the horrors that are going on. I think its the same as the glass of water half empty or half full. So i appreciate what youre half saying about the responsibility to protectct the United Nations has had a huge problem with that. But the incredible thing to me is we havent had a war coming up on 100 years, we hope. So on one hand we can point to the success in not having a in t nuclear war after h the end of second world war. Ion da for me, one of the reviewers when i was finishing up the manuscript said to me you didnt mention david butrani. Hes not always the favorite. But i aft reread mutrani, anc all the horrible things that happened, he said were not pel building thesee institutions because we want to police the world, as much as were building them because we livere doi in t world. And as people who live in the diseas world, we are doing threee. Things. Were trying to fight poverty, t 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 of look at the league of nations. It failed to prevent world war o ii. But theres alsoof a broader purpose that multilateral organizations have and certainl. Spinelessness in some of those areas, but certainly a lot of qs success astion well as failures you had a point, whitney . Yes, i would like to maybe answer the first question in this round by going back to the previous roundabout the u. N. Charter. I personally think that it would be important to update the political arrangements at the un to todays realities. You know, the Security Council today does not necessarily reflect current realities, and s so i think that will be ded important and useful, and some u. S. Leadership there, 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 Share Holdings and quotas in the Multilateral Institutions to reflect those changes. And i think thats appropriate. I mean, the u. N. Today is a situation in a situation in which the contributions are expected to be made based on your economic weight in the world, but your vote is the sams as everyone elses vote. He and thats a challenge. But i think some updating woulde help. With respect tof the the quest about the personal interest or benefits of the Current Administration of 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 towr decided that the administration night 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. Sr now, is that the administration fegtering the family nest or ise 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, you know, i think on the question about 20th century we s infrastructures, i think we just need to realize that politics, like everything else, evolves, l 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 baa what you callednd the spinelessness. I think thats a little bit of n harsh judgment. If you actually go back and look, you will see not only the secretary general but also the o chief and othersna speaking out quite clearly in the Security Council against the numerous violations of international humans that have occurred in syria. What is always difficult is what do you do about it . The reality of course is that the u. N. And the programs, theyo dont have, n if you like, theyr independentel authorities. They relyly on the Security Council to reinforce. I suppose it would be fair to say what we have seen over the f lastun many years have been a dg gradual but pretty w constant decaying of respect for the most fundamental principles, for instance, how you behave during war. Now, i not only think, i know this is of great concern to central figures within the u. N. And i think they have on a number of occasion spoken out against it. Now, then you mentioned responsibility to protect, which is a topic ive spent some time on, and responsibility to protect that was introduced back in 2005, you know, has had a difficult time. And of course there are those p that say that one of the reasons its had a difficult time is because the west used this as theon concept that rlegitimizedd intervention in libya but not other places. Nt to so when we engage on those sort of fundamental values and principles, i think consistency isthe re extremely important to maintain legitimacy and credibility, also in the rest of the u. N. Members. And then i think the point on the digital, i think its a gooo example of why the u. N. Also needs to evolve. Some of the big actors on the digital development, theyre not states. I mean, theyre corporations. And of course they need to be part of the conversation about what types ofof rules and ody regulations that would actually be in everybodys interest. On the charter, u. N. Will turn 75 next year. But to so actually the secretary general has actually said that hes going to use that not only as a kmeneration, but to try to stir a global debate, a global conversation about what hes called u. N. At 75, the future, the u. N. We want and need. So i suppose theres an opportunity to engage in that discussion. Thank you, martin. We have three minutes left. So if anyone has a very quick question. That will bewe the last. Ad a c ha i had a chance to work and. Look, actually, the peace operations in different parts of africa, as well as the rom th organization. E very quick question. Were working on infrastructure development. One thing what you will observe from the ground from the local people is whenis the u. N. Goes the ground they believe, they startis thinking and believe li now our problems are solved. When you talk to the u. N. , when. They come to the u. N. With their problems, there is no solution for them. Im talking about the reform, like yes, u. N. Made a 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 from democratic republic of congo which was asked, and it was like i asked him why did you join. And thed him, w question was lio you think a person like me cant afford a thousand worth of a set weapon, but he cannot afford a dollar food. Thank you. Last minute remark, half a minute. Katie, blaise and then martin. Very quick. Thanks. I dont know what to say. Im sorry for that response to that question. Anything last minute you want to say as a concluding remark . No, just thank you for organizing the panel and i thin its beenwh a great discussion. Whitney . Teral thank you. I think maybe what i take away from this session is that theres an Important Role for tt Multilateral Institutions on this planet, but we need we. Have work ahead of us to make them fit for a purpose in the 21st century. Blaise . I think i just reit rate, we all highlighted the needs for multilateral cooperation, most b ofle all i think some of the lk continued problems that people t face onn the ground and the fac 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 reforms to make these organizations more viable. Martin . I think International Corporations is a need to, and i suppose its not going to be easy. But then again, important stuffi seldomce is. Thank you. Thank you. Join me in thanking the panel,l and thank you very much for u vy coming to this event. [ applause ]ng American History tv on c psa n 3 looks at the impeachments of president s nixon and clinton, sunday starting at 6 00 p. M. On oral histories. Former u. S. Representatives trent lost and elizabeth holgtsman reflect on their experience serving on the impeachment committee. Heres a guy that 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 then having to sit in judgment on him and eventually even having to say that i would vote for an article of impeachment. Then at 8 00 we look at the impeachment of president bill clinton for a portion of the 19 8 House Judiciary Committee debate. I think you denigrate the role of the senate which has the 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 that if, if it gets to the senate, there would be bipartisanship. But absent that, there will be no 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 cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. The Trump Administration estimates that Security Forces in iran killed more than 100 people during recent protests. Brian hook is the u. S. Special representative for iran. He briefed reporters on the situation there. From the state department, this is 20 minutes. Good morning. I have three