The program today, the idea for this program came from something a question David Roosevelt asked to last year where he said whatever happens to my parent United Nations . Ae idea was that there was vision president roosevelt and mrs. Roosevelt had about how the world would respond. Would try tod prevent a catastrophe like world war ii. President roosevelt did not live long enough to see it come to. Ruition Eleanor Roosevelt did and was one of the United Nations first female representatives and wrote the first declaration of human rights. Today, we look back that they had a vision. The United Nations was created, and what happened to it. Linda, i turn it over to you. Thank you. First, i would like to welcome you and say it is an honor to be here on the 70th anniversary of the human i find it exciting you are here in the home of fdr and mrs. Roosevelt. One can only imagine, i believe they came to work here or lived here in 1941, the u. N. Charter was approved in june of 1945. I can only imagine, and think, fdr was planning and thinking while living here about the nature of the u. N. Charter, how he envisioned the u. N. To be. As stephen so eloquently discussed in his book, it really was fdr who was the pivotal force behind the u. N. That he did here, without that they would be no u. N. Towas a realist, and he had njole, barter, and push churchill to a certain degree. I think it is appropriate and special we are here for the 70th anniversary. Saidcovered the u. N. Since on the invaded kuwait in 1990. That was my first serious experience with the u. N. It was the end of the cold war and the first Major Mission of the un Security Council. Russia was the soviet union and china was on board, to deal with probably the last traditional kinds of war. Saddam invaded kuwait. The Security Council jump into action. They imposed sanctions. Dust dozen year they there were u. N. Weapons councils going back and forth. There, the good, the bad, the neutral. I find it fascinating here we are in 2015 and still high on the agenda is iraq. I started with saddam hussein. He is long gone. We have major problems with iraq, isis, civil war in syria, and the major problems. Wantis a little of what i to say about myself. On a lighter note, while we are discussing the role of the u. N. , the around the world the u. N. Has launched in celebration of the 70th anniversary, something blue. Turn the world u. N. As we speak, the Empire State Building is in blue light. The great wall of china, the egyptian pyramids, the Leaning Tower of peace, you name it. Festive partythey atmosphere in terms of celebrating this event. I am pleased we have such distinguished speakers. Author ofgin with an about the founding of the United Nations. He is a lawyer by training. Journalist with time magazine. He coedited letters of his distinguished father. More recently, he headed up the World Policy Institute and is a fellow at the century foundation. A great pleasure to introduce. [applause] you for the nice introduction and for having me at this auspicious occasion. I am delighted to be honoring the institution of the United Nations on its 70th anniversary. Is a remarkable anniversary. The league of nations only lasted for 20 years. Most have short shelf lives. For a modern day Security Organization to be around after seven decades is a next ordinary accomplishment. We know the survival to the vision of the man at whose library we are visiting, Franklin Delano roosevelt. Roosevelt almost singlehandedly brought this organization into existence. He had kept the idea of a live boy World Security body for three decades following his the Woodrow Wilson administration under the secretary of navy and was a big component in the league of nations. The Security Nation for the world was his most important legacy. The thing he care the most deeply about. He first enunciated principles by which it would come into being. In his famous 1941 speech, putting forth the 4 freedoms, freedom of speech, worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. People everywhere in the world should enjoy. He askedmultaneously his own state department in secret to draft a charter for a u. N. And United Nations organization. Ifwas very careful because anyone knew we were involved in that it such a charter might defeat the whole idea. It began in 1938 and 1939, when he gave that division to the state department. The two closest wartime allies where Winston Churchill of Great Britain and josef stalin of the soviet union. Churchill was first lukewarm about the u. N. He had an idea of small regional u. N. S rather than a central body. Joseph stalin is another major ally. He felt it could be used against him. He had fears about it. Eventually, a number of wartime to arences, they agreed meeting in San Francisco in june in april of 1945. The notion of the u. N. In 1945, it is the most powerful country on the earth after the Second World War. We dont need a primitive security facility. He had a longer vision. He knew after the catastrophe of two world wars within a 20year span, a war which killed 90 Million People together, the u. N. Security could not be a matter of a fortress usa. We needed allies. If there is any proof of that it was that we needed allies to when the Second World War. Announced byuld be a security body. Roosevelt would have to choose a time to create the body. A way to get countries interested in doing something of a colossal nature. All the states would be clamoring for a protective shield against future conflict. If you try to do it any longer when the warmest oh going on or later, especially after the cold war began. The war with japan was still ongoing until august. Reason why this body has survived for 70 years is because roosevelt from the beginning had a key sense between realism and idealism and creating the organization. He learned the lessons from the failure of the league of nations and did not replicate its failures but kept its key features. He places no restrictions on the admissibility of nations and the u. N. Except yet to be part of the coalition. Tinazi they do not have to be democracies. They did not have to uphold human rights. 19 he was concerned about in 45 was maintaining security, security, security around the globe. To make sure that happened, he wanted to involve all the of the that were part antinazi and antijapanese coalition. He formulated language for the u. N. Charter that made the u. N. A global behave like police force. That is what he wanted. If you look at the key passages in the u. N. Charter in regards to military action in chapter seven, it proposes armed actions like blockades and sanctions. Air and sea assaults. An arsenal of military tools designed to defeat aggressors. Franklin roosevelt did not shy away from the use of force with the United Nations. Adays a security designed to block aggressions. Roosevelt recognized the states rather than elected representatives had to form the basis of the u. N. If the organization would operate successfully. That the recognition old formula of sovereign nations still dominated the way the world works. The u. N. Is not a formal democratic body. It is a reflection of different nations, each with their own political structure. This is Franklin Roosevelts realism about the world. Of 2 organizations in the u. N. The Security Council and the General Assembly. The Security Council reflects the truest realism about world power in foreign policy. This is the body that makes all war and peace decisions at the u. N. They are binding on any member treaty. Hat signs the any resolution that the 2 Security Councils passes. Only five nations are given the veto power. League, they were not obligatory on any nation, and all states in the league had the veto. That meant a single world state could block any action. That was Franklin Roosevelts biggest change from the league. He wanted to have a realistic grasp on the power realities in the world than the league did. This has created a controversy ever since about the five countries with the veto power. Even today you hear protests about why those should have been selected. On the realistic side, he General Assembly, where all states, no matter how big or small, rich or poor, had equal votes and could debate World Problems publicly. The resolutions were not binding on Member States. The General Assembly, when it passed the resolution, really had a moral force but not an Obligatory Force for the rest of the membership. Final, which i think is important in the way that roosevelt addressed the u. N. Charter, he made sure the charter itself was very flexible. Much like our u. N. Constitution. Able to be responsive and that may notcrises necessarily have been predictable in 1945. Since 1945 the u. N. Pioneered notrams and departments mentioned in the original charter on peacekeeping, Environmental Protection urbanism, economic development, nuclear energy, nationbuilding. All growing out of the central charge of United Nations to maintain International Peace and security. As a result, roosevelts vision of the u. N. Has survived the and expansion from 51 states to 193, and the refusal of some states not to pay dues oftenweaknd the responses to crises as we know today in syria, yemen, and north korea. Scapegoatingtable that comes with an organization taking on responsibilities. In the end, countries have faith the u. N. Would find its way to find solving problems and securing the peace and has done so on multiple occasions. Whether it is bringing peace to guatemala, mozambique, el salvador, it goes on and people forget that. But, that is where the u. N. Is focusing the most talented diplomats to bring conflict to an end. This does not mean that the u. N. Is a flawless body. We know it has its weaknesses, and obviously it still needs , changes. Even the american constitution has required amendments from time to time. In the end, it is a tribute to a Great American president , franklin roosevelt. It was truly his greatest gift to this planet. Let us hope the vision never dies. Thank you. [applause] host thank you. We now turn to a guest who has been involved in the u. N. For 35 years. She was the new york city commissioner to the nine and nations. Run there, she worked for 10 years with the secretarygeneral Boutros Boutrosghali and kofi annan. She led the commemoration and is she led the commemoration for the 50th anniversary. She is an expert in dealing with experts of public policy, public outreach, and did this for 2 secretaries general. She is an advisor to the u. N. A giftedn and is quite speaker, who goes around the country talking about the United Nations. [applause] good afternoon and thank you for the nice introduction. It is wonderful to be on the podium with you. And with stephen. We have been friends and colleagues for a long time and it is a pleasure to see them. Stephen gave remarks and i am reminded of his brilliant book, act of creation about the birth of the United Nations that is required reading for anyone who was to know about the organization coming about. I still have my copy, well marked and annotated, that i will go back to from time to time. We were talking a bit about ,ranklin roosevelt and the u. N. Then and now. I thought i would reflect and surprises that he might not have expected, or he may have been disappointed or saddened by. Wasuld begin by saying, he a visionary. The fact that he started thinking about this organization so early in his political career even when the war was going fulltilt, he was committed to seeing that this happened and that legacy would be there, is extraordinary. The people that were put to work on the early drafts of the vision. Also share that i think the charter is an extraordinary document. That the core of it is still the heart and basis of the u. N. , but it has been flexible enough to evolve over time. Remembering San Francisco and the charter in 1945, you might recall there were 52 Member States participating in the drafting of this charter and, in this country, there was surprisingly bipartisan support for it. Republicans and democrats. Roosevelt had worked hard to bring over some of the isolationists, including the senator from my home state of the war had turned making themroup to receptive to the notion of having an organization for peace. He was determined not to make the mistake of Woodrow Wilson in not creating the Political Support necessary to ratify this. He did that with enormous success. When you go back and read about that, there is more than enthusiasm, it was almost in a fouryear it was almost a euphoria, about with you new United Nations would be. You look at the details and the numbers participating are astonishing. There was Something Like 1000 journalists covering this and delegates from all parts of the world. I will come back to that in a moment when we talk about the actual drafting. The number 52 Member States is important. Later, therer are over 150 Member States. Fdr was a visionary. Would he have believed that there would be 192 states over time . The second would the, the secretarygeneral. We have had 8 over 70 years. The first was from norway, the second from sweden, then burma, austria, peru, egypt, ghana, and south korea. Would he have been surprised that a secretarygeneral comes am a member state that was not a member that was present at the creation of the u. N. Or how , small states have put forward some of their best leaders to lead the United Nations . Would he have been surprised in the coming choice for secretarygeneral, which happens next year, that there would be intense discussion about whether the next sg would be a woman. He might be surprised, but i like to think he would have supported that notion. [applause] i wonder if he would have been surprised where the United Nations found its home. Of 1945, it did not have a home base. It floated for a couple of years. It really did not happen until the Rockefeller Family put together a parcel of land, 14acres or 15acres on the east side of manhattan in an area that was slaughter houses and tenements, and offered it to the u. N. As a gift if they would make their home there. They accepted that and in 1950 they moved in. New york city became the host city, an official and legal commitment. Our hostay, given connection over the next 70 years, it will be the home, and hopefully will be, for the next 70 years. I think he would have been surprised about the role of Regional Groups. That was debated quite a beat. The African Union had a different name, and so forth, access to the United Nations. It turned out to be the case, and is very helpful. If a Regional Group can solve it, all the better. That is where it should happen. He also, i am sure, would be surprised about what was then called consultants. Today, we call them n. G. O. Consultants2 observing the drafting of the charter. Groups that you know well, the council of foreign relations, the American Jewish conference, the american bar association, the chamber of commerce, the naacp, the american legion, and so on, and so on. There were 42 of them, each with major delegations. They made major contributions during the charter in pressing for the inclusion or references on education, human rights, and a formal recognition of their consulting roles. That wasroup deliberately excluded was called the world federalists. They were the ones that talked about a world government. Something else altogether, and that was not welcomed or appreciated by most of the Member States. Consultants, now number 4000. They cover every area you can imagine. There are citizens groups, organized by themselves, usually singleissue groups that are passionate about what they are committed to, covering everything from issues relating to the environment, the elderly, the disabled, and across the spectrum of global issues. Ofy have become a force peaceful arming in support of the United Nations. Speaking of conferences in regards to their issues the peacekeeping role is in the original charter. Would be surprised about the range of things they do now. Not just peacekeeping and enforcement, but monitoring elections and supporting failed states, working on nuclear nonproliferation, bomb inspection, and so on. The peacekeeping efforts, you may know, only constitute 20 of work, but makes most of the headlines. Certainly, soldiers from many Different Countries who have volunteered for this effort. In my talks there is no u. N. Armie as such. It has had a military function, or peacekeeping function, from the beginning and it has expanded. One other thing that would have surprised fdr, i think, is the expansion of the humanitarian role. Education, supporting refugees, assisting victims of disastersnd national that comprises 80 of the u. N. s work, and it does not make so much news. We all know good news does not make news. ,hey do extraordinary work changing lives and saving lives. It is very important. Another issue that does not appear in the charter is Climate Change. We did not even have such a term then. They did not occur back then to the drafters of the charter that it was an issue of importance enough to be included. We know that we are all ,onnected to the air we breathe and how important it is to address these issues of Climate Change and the consequences. Which brings in mind the conference in paris in december, where we hope all nations will come together to look at these issues and to make change in that direction. A few more points, and there is certainly reference to human specificity does not take shape until a couple of years later. It was Eleanor Roosevelt leading the delegation on human rights that drafted the charter on human rights, which is such a historic document. Over time, of course, the u. N. Has affirmed the role of international law, the International Criminal court, the worlds court, and so forth. It has become a focus, or center, for the delicate web, the network of law that can next us around this planet, and we hope all nations observe. As for the u. N. s budget, how would they have known at the this would develop . The u. N. Does not work on the dues. We hope they meet their obligations, but there is no trust fund. No sugar daddy. No one to endow the u. N. In a way that we wish might happen. I do call your attention to ted turner who made a 1 billion gift, but that was outside the you when intending to help from achieve strategic goals. A couple more things. ,he issue of Family Planning which used to be called population control, has become very important. The u. N. Fund for population birth,includes safe training midwives, and contraceptives. That may have been something unthinkable in that day, but it is needed and requested by many countries. The u. N. Is very proud of offering that support and service. What is totally different and he could not possibly have imagined is the internet age. How, even 20 years ago, did we know how it would change life . Speed of information, the instant knowledge of crisis, conflict, famine, how that would ed . Nge the way the u. N. Work the downside, the recruitment of young people to joining terrorist causes. Dont know who would have imagined that in 1945 , but it has had a major impact. N how the u. N. Works the u. N. Bureaucracy, he would astonished at how big it is. The u. N. Bureaucracy has offices in geneva, nairobi, bangkok, etc. Some would say it is too large and unwieldy. It has responded and grown to that size today. Been, i think, inmayed to see how, particularly this country, the United States, the u. N. Is sometimes a target to be disparaged, diminished, or attacked. U. N. Bashing became a popular sport among some politicians. Im sorry to say it still is. It is not entirely new. Even in 1945, there was a right wing that opposed this. Towardsnch has moved the center, which i regret very much, and fdr would as well. We need public support and awareness to have a successful United Nations, and we hope we can achieve that. The u. N. , served and indispensable role. He did understand that. It is a place where everyone comes, talks, and meets. He valued diplomacy. He knew important that was. He wanted, im sure, still be a believer still think that the next 70 years there was more to do. He was, as stephen said, a realist, a pragmatist, as well as a visionary. He would say it is to be more efficient, we need to do something about the veto, it could be more effective. He would say the win belongs there, and we need to make it the best we can possibly be in the interest of all. Thank you, very much. [applause] host i thought i would ask steve to react to some of the how she saw fdrs reaction. New thehem was that fdr United Nations first and foremost as a security body. He was adamant that this be an essential role. Do you think 70 years later, how would he evaluate the role and success of the u. N. In this area . We know there is a plethora of crises. Been would have disappointed. With the cold war did from 1945 stymie any basically action by the Security Council among the 5 countries with the veto power, had all been members of the antinazi alliance. Was that those five countries in 1945, Great Britain, france, china, the soviet union, and the United States should have the veto because they provided the troops and military equipment, air support, and so on for any u. N. Missions. There are the only countries in 1945 that could do that. They should have the privilege of the veto the guys they would not want to have to commit their troops unless it was a decision by their own government. Forcedd not want to be into a crisis they did not want to be involved in. What thee felt cold war did for 45 years was blocked the collective action by the five countries. The soviet union, representing a communist nation, would block any action by the United States, and vice versa. Meant that the Security Council for the 45 years was not acting as an enforcement body, which had been with the founders had dreamed the council would do. Is not until the fall of the berlin wall and the changeover to ais soviet Union Country called russia for the Security Council for the first time acted in unison. All five veto countries agreed there should be a u. N. For sent oustwait two outs to the invading forces from iraq. From 1989, the Security Council was fulfilling the goals that the Founding Fathers and mothers tot about the u. N. Stop aggression around the globe. Here is a clear case of aggression. Country, iraq, invading a neighboring country without any basis for their action. Be,e then, i think he would obviously, happy that this first occasion happened in 1990 1991. The joint action against iraq. He would have been disappointed the following year, all the way to 2015, there have been fewer instances of togetherness among those five countries. Obviously, for example, russia did not like any u. N. Action in kosovo and blocks it. On the other hand, on sanctions on iran, all of those five countries did dissipate and agree did participate and agree sanctions should be imposed. It has been a casebycase, ever since. Maybe he would feel from his realistic perspective, that that would have been normal in human affairs. It would have been a bit of a disappointment to him. Today, about 80 of the u. N. Efforts are devoted to refugees, humanitarian efforts, and development. How do you think fdr would have responded to that . Would he have regarded it as a clear purpose for the u. N. Or other agencies . Or that it might be split up so could do with those issues, and the u. N. Deal primarily with war and peace . Stephen he would have been very proud that the u. N. Supported it. Roosevelt had supported the creation of the world bank, the International Monetary fund. He realized that the globe had changed after the Second World War. That we were a community of nations. There were no formal borders in that sense. With global to deal problems was to have transcendent organizations that could bypass frontiers and deal with common issues that afflicted all countries. Therefore, he would be very, i that weelighted to hear had a World Health Organization that could deal with outbreaks of diseases like ebola and others. He would have appreciated Something Like unesco looking and greatments historic lineages. And other temples that ofresented the history america and world civilization, and preserved them, and made them special in terms of the way the humankind looked at them. I dont think i think that would have been a reflective glory of his creation, to think it had expanded in all these different areas. Linda can we go to the controversial area of the veto . Invariably, people who follow in u. N. Are interested the Security Council veto. The prefive are the only that have it at the moment. 5 are the only that have it at the moment. Can i direct this to both of you . If you would like to begin first in terms of what you think the prospects are, and perhaps, reading the mind of fdr, how he might respond to the changes . Question ofl, the reforming the Security Council, enlarging it, giving others the power of the veto, has come up many times it is almost a informally,cussion and has come up formally several times. The permanent 5 have had the power of the veto since 1945 and are not about to give it up. You can make an argument to why it would serve us all to have certain other countries have permanent seats or the power of veto, something they may have earned by their population or commitment to the u. N. The contribution of peacekeeping forces, or their status in the world hear the permanent 5 are not going to do that. Conversation goes round and round. I do not see it being resolved soon. That said, the Security Council, i think, works reasonably well. Although, there is a proposal that is interesting that would hold those with the veto power to not use it in instances of genocide. Whether that would get through, if they would accept that, im not sure. The veto is the most controversial aspect of the United Nations. Issue,ple new to this remember there are 5 permanent members, and 10 others whose seats rotate all the time. Over the course of time, almost every country has had a chance to serve on the Security Council. The presidency of it changes every month. You could have a small country presiding. They do have a chance to be front and center, and to influence in a visible way what is going on. Been from, and has the beginning, that the permanent five have a special status and power. Some say it is excessive, but others say it is a reflection of reality that goes back to the beginning. Stephen i certainly dont disagree with anything said. There have been periodic efforts to reform the Security Council. 2005, and was in proposals were thrown out. For example, maybe have countries the four countries that are the most interested in being on the Security Council as permanent members are brazil, india, japan, and germany. Those are the ones considered to have risen to the level of power and economic strength to at least be on the same level as britain, as the weaker members of the permanent membership. Many different reforms suggestions was good terms. Countries 10year allow them to be reelected at the end of every 10years. They would not have the veto. They would be on there for at period. 10 year they would bring the Security Council back into a position where it would better reflect the power of reality of the world in 2015. Here is that, i remember to talking to kofi anna about this once, if brazil was going to be representative of latin america, you would have argentina, venezuela, and mexico say we want to represent latin america. What makes you the country to make that decision . His point is that regional rivalries the between each geographical area makes it difficult for any country to be wrought on to the Security Council on a different configuration rather than the 2year rotating term to a longerterm. In africa, south africa or nigeria might consider to be the representative body to come on, but you will always have another country protesting that action. So, you not only have the issue of the veto powers themselves exercising the veto against a change in the Security Council, but you have regional rivalries at work, preventing change going forward. , i dont seement athange happening with least so far in with the veto power. There may be a change in the sense that the 15member Security Council could be expanded to 20members or 21members. The additional five or six would be rotating twoyear employments. It would involve a number of countries that would be represented on the council as it made a decision, and give those decisions more legitimacy around the world. You add inr hand, if 6 more countries, you may slow down the process of decisionmaking on the Security Council. Against to be weighed the immediacy of a crisis and the need for a decision right away. That balance is delicate. All the criticism of the 5 veto countries that have held that position for 70 years decisions are made fairly quickly on the Security Council. Not is not to say you do have a situation like syria or you cant get any decision because the russians keep blocking any action on syria. Inevitable. A lot of the peacekeeping operations are backed up, past, and is supported the Security Council. There can be a quick action in that regard. That is my take on it. Just to react, i think it is something that could linda to react to this, i think it is something that could solidify, something called a working group on the reform. In the corridors of the u. N. , there is a general clip called the neverending, openended working group reforming the Security Council. It might reflect what a lot of countries really think. I guess we should move over to another issue of controversy. That is the selection of the next secretarygeneral. Be leaving atll the end of next year. Recently passed has made the Selection Process variousect, so that ther countries know. It is usually done behind closed doors. The Security Council plays a pivotal role, because they will decide who the candidate will be. Other countries are getting into the act. There are ideas to have potential candidates meet with members of the General Assembly to develop modification rules here it at one point, some members of the General Assembly would like to have the Security Council give a choice. Members, then the General Assembly would decide. T is dead on arrival, but at Security Council will not give up that prerogative. A little bitalk about the changes occurring in terms of, will they really be changes in terms of the election of the next secretarygeneral . By tradition the posts rotate from one region to another. It is Eastern Europes time. A push toed, there is have a woman elected. Even secretarygeneral ban kimoon has insinuated this could be a good move. The question that we dont know what will happen. Maybe there will be a great woman found in Eastern Europe that will take care of things. I want to get both of your reactions, looking ahead to what could really happen. Gillian this does come up next year. There is a Movement Underway that is gaining traction. That is the movement that says that this choice should be opened up. That it has always been done behind closed doors. That it is time there be more transparency. That there be candidates people are aware of. Members a group that has states numbering over 50 who have already committed themselves to finding the best candidate in the hopes that that best candidate would be a woman candidate. There are other groups that have put together a pool of names of women of stature from around the world who have the credibility, experience, Foreign Affairs skills, leadership skills, political and diplomatic experience, that would give them the qualifications necessary. Area did choice probably will come from Eastern Europe. That is not a rule of regulation , that is a tradition. Conceivably, that tradition could be broken or changed. It probably wont. Usually, nothing happens until selection. Ar of the we are about one year out. Madenk the choice will be by late next spring. Those of us who care a lot about this are pressing. We know at the end of the day, the decision will be taken in the Security Council. We think there are ways to persuade, to influence, to make the case that it is time for a to leadoman candidate the United Nations. That would give a very dramatic message to the world. It would be historic after 70 years. I, for one, hope that happens. Gillian are you not involved gillian i am involved. There are interesting and experienced women. Some have served in the u. N. Others are academics. Others are feminists who are watching from a distance. Sense the moment is right. Were not in any way suggesting to lower the standards. No one can say that, we are sorry but we cannot find any women. Of really deep pool remarkable candidates, women candidates of real stature already out there. They are taking note of this, and it goes this way. Linda is there any way you mind to mention a few that may not be frontrunners, but their names have been tossed about . Say specificll not names, because we are not standing behind a specific candidate right now. That will come when the new year arrives. We are throwing in loose names of women with stature and experience. For the moment, i think that is the right place to be for now. Stephen i would add there is a group called the elders. Distinguished leaders of Different Countries around the world. They are called the elders because they are no longer in office, but they give advice to the United Nations, because most of them care about how the u. N. Survives in the future. They have come up with proposals themselves, which affect the whole issue of the secretarygeneral. And the configuration for the future. One proposal is the secretarygeneral should no longer have a fiveyear term followed by another fiveyear term. They think another effective way of being secretarygeneral is to have a single sevenyear term, which you would not be reelected after. The advantage of the sevenyear term is you and not have to worry about reelection and could be a much more honest broker for a lot of the issues. You would not be worrying about getting reelected after the first fiveyear term and having to please the five countries of the veto, and therefore your morengness to take courageous stands on issues would be amplified. They have verye, much pressed the idea that the Security Council produce for the candidates General Assembly to decide on, rather than what they have historically done coming up with one name. The General Assembly at that point has no choice but to ratify that one name that comes out of the Security Council. That is a thing that only really p5. From the if the candidate does not get the approval of those veto countries, the candidate is obviously going nowhere. They also have emphasized that it is time for a female candidate to be considered. , 8 white or black males in any period. There should be a representation of the other 50 of the globe, a long time back. What can i follow up on human gender about the secretarygeneral having 17year having onemark sevenyear term . With the charter have to be changed . Stephen the charter says fiveyear term in the charter. May there may be legal ways around it. Are you familiar with this . I think it has to be a charter amendment, which is a complicated process. Getting as not only number of votes from the General Assembly, but going to each country to get the right ratification percentage in order to get the final amendment passed. You do not find there are very often any amendments to the u. N. Charter. It is interesting to reflect on the skills needed for this job. It is called secretarygeneral, but they want a person who is more secretary than general. He does not have military power to command. He has to be responsive to the Member States. Pulpit and they ability to raise issues and the is not the same as being the president of a country, for instance. When i think of these skills, of course demonstrated leadership, political and management skills, foreign languages, and i would add communication skills in this media age that is important. Who is the person that combines all of that with this worldview and ability to bring people together . It is a challenge. Gillian the term ends in december. I hope it will be decided by next spring. Linda i guess at this point, shall we open the room to questions . There is a mic right here if you are interested. Go over to it. We would love to hear any questions on your mind. Raise your hand, and we will bring the microphone to you. Linda here we go. Has there been any response to the whole thing with syria . Especially with the refugee crisis . Stephen i think the u. N. Gets short shrift. There is an emissary trying to negotiate peace in syria and libya. There is a Refugee Organization trying to deal with the refugee situation. The World Hunger Organization is dealing with food demands. The u. N. Is really all over the place. You cannot settle a crisis until the two parties in conflict agreed to negotiate. That is when the u. N. Actually comes in and produces the peace. Right now, you do not have that in syria. You did have it, for example, in guatemala, el salvador, angola, cambodia, countries where conflicts have been going on for a long time. The u. N. Came in when the parties were exhausted and ready to talk. They did produce a peace. That is where the u. N. Can be active. But until then, you are not going to have any resolution of the syrian situation. Linda would you like to weigh in . We have a couple questions from the webcast. One deals with Eleanor Roosevelt. The question is Eleanor Roosevelt is considered the universal declaration of human rights, one of the greatest achievements of her life. In what ways did she affect the organization and the course of its progress . Stephen no question, in 1948, her contribution to the universal declaration of human rights was probably the most important contribution she made to the world. It is an emblematic document with profound influence across the globe. It is interesting that, in 1945, when her husband was trying to get the u. N. Formulated, she was actually behind the scenes, helping him, pushing him on the idea. She did not participate in San Francisco or as part of the delegation to San Francisco. Her contributions, for which she is known, came in 1948, the universal declaration. She also served on a u. N. Delegation under president kennedy in 1961 and 1962. She has had a longtime involvement in the u. N. She should be remembered for her extraordinary contributions in 1948. Gillian i told my two friends that once i was at the truman library. They showed me letters between truman and Eleanor Roosevelt. He was asking her with great courtesy if she would consider being the delegate to the human rights conference. She was very hesitant. Very doubtful she could do it. Asked a series of questions about what that would entail, to whom she would report. When she got into it, she became the leader of it, brought together factious groups and played a Critical Role in the drafting of the charter. She became very involved in what we would call the United Nations association. I think it was the American Association for the u. N. Way back then, and did that for the rest of her life. She was committed to the success of the United Nations. We owe her a lot. Linda should we take any questions from the floor . You can tell us who you are, where you are from. I am from berkeley, california originally. I was curious about behindthescenes of the United Nations right now, with the gender balance you see there. Has it really changed in the last 10 years . Do you think that will continue to change . The second question is about picking somebody from Eastern Europe. Do you think that will be more difficult now, given some of the geopolitical challenges we are facing . Gillian gender balance is certainly an important issue. The truth is diplomacy was a mans world for centuries. Wherever it says in the charter, of the 52 delegates, there was only one woman from the dominican republic. For the first decade we have been in the headquarters, but it was a classic pyramid with the women here. I think the key person that changed hi that was kofi anaan. He really understood it and was comfortable with appointing women to high and challenging posts. He did that. He also organized a mentoring role within the u. N. And opened up promotions within the ranks to women who might have left because they did not see a future. And he really had some amazing women as part of his cabinet and senior team. It may have slid a little since then, but it is a visible issue. When you walk about, you will see more women, that it is not where it should be. Correct me if this is right we have 193 ambassadors. I think about 30 are women. Those are named by Member States. That is, proportionately, pretty few. Linda if i can get back to the on the 15 member Security Council, there are four women. Stephen on the second part of your question, i think the difficulty of the Eastern European proposition is russia will veto any country in Eastern Europe that purports to put up a woman for a position if they feel that particular country is not sympathetic to the russians. Eastern europe historically has been part of the soviet union. It is a dicey situation because it is hard to see any of those Eastern European countries not having a tense relationship today with the putin government. I understand there is a foreign minister of croatia i do not know her name, but i have been told that she is the one that might be available and somebody who might be amenable to the russians as a candidate for the position of secretary general. But i think that gillian may be right. There is this push to have a female secretarygeneral. You may have to break the rules of geographical distribution or geographical rotation and forget about the fact that Eastern Europe is supposed to have its turn this time around. First of all, thank you for this wonderful presentation. I would like to add two things that Eleanor Roosevelt did at the u. N. That would expand the conversation and play to the point you are making about a woman possibly as the next secretarygeneral. She was instrumental behindthescenes in the creation of unicef and argued for u. N. Women three decades before it was put into place. She was instrumental in securing funding for the i. R. C. And to negotiate the, shall we say, moral turf battles related with forced migration. And to dovetail with your point about the struggles for women to get recognition in the u. N. , the last speech eleanor gave as a member of the american delegation to the United Nations, as a major speech she gave during the kennedy administration, was in support of the convention on political and civil rights of women. I would argue that the declaration is, in fact, her greatest achievement. But she was also working very hard, and while she won the battle with unicef, she lost the battle with u. N. Women. She said if we push children without pushing women beside children, children will, in fact, serve the status of women at the u. N. I applaud kofi anaan for the same reasons you are talking about because he got it and it was his work that set up u. N. Women. Thank you all very much. [applause] linda yes, please. [inaudible] linda excuse me. I think the mic is being brought to you so everyone can hear you. Who funded the headquarters in manhattan today . Who votes at the u. N. Today . Linda gillian . Gillian today, it is funded by dues of the Member States. Certain outside agencies have the capacity to receive contributions. But that is a modest share of the overall budget. Dues are very important. As for the construction of the original building stephen most of the money that was supplied was mainly u. S. Money. It was after the Second World War had ended. There was very little money in the rest of the members coffers. The u. S. Had to be the main treasury behind financing the u. N. In its early years. Of course, at that time, the u. S. Had, by then, was contributing 25 of the u. N. Budget. Today, it contributes 22 . It is the secondbiggest contributor after the United States, japan, with 9 . There is an imbalance at this point. The u. S. , obviously, we are probably the richest country in the world, but china is getting there fast. They are not making a commensurate donation of money for the upkeep of the organization. And so every year, there becomes a question about how you rearrange, reconfigure, decisions on which country should contribute how much in order to reflect their economic resources, their strength as a country in terms of population, geographical position, and so on. That is a constant issue within the u. N. Membership. It is never easy to resolve. In any case, i think the early years of the u. N. Were primarily financed by the United States. Gillian if you have not visited the u. N. In a long time, please come. They have just finished the renovation of the building after 65 years. It is an icon of architecture and fascinating to see. You are most welcome. It is really worth a visit. Take some outoftown guests and take a tour. They go almost every day of the week. Six days a week, i believe. Except during the General Assembly. Late september, it is closed. Linda we have time for one more question, i am being told. Someone is interested. Please take the mic. Or i will just conclude by a little note from one person who has been watching this on webcast. I think you will all appreciate this. It simply says, thank you to the fdr library for bringing the event outside the walls to those of us who cannot attend in person. [applause] you are watching American History tv on cspan3. To join the conversation, like us on facebook at cspan history. Cspan campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house for the iowa caucuses. 1 our liveruary coverage begins at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan and cspan2. Well bring you live coverage, taking your phone calls and tweets. At 8 00 p. M. Eastern, we will take your calls. See the event and join in on the conversation on cspan radio and at www. Cspan. Org. Book tv has 48 hours of Nonfiction Books and authors every weekend on cspan2. Here are some programs to watch for this weekend. Charlieat 8 30 eastern, said president obama who came into office has turned back the excesses of the Bush Administration and has picked off where president bush left power warsbook inside of obamas post9 11 presidency. At 10 00 p. M. , performance Senate Leaders on their book crisis point, looking at the current climate in congress and offering recommendations for moving america forward. By formernterviewed congressman of oklahoma. Is incredible demand for more money is one of the issues i think that is exacerbated and made it harder for leaders to bring people together. They are not in town and they are doing all of this other stuff that does not allow them to be the legislators they were elected to be. Third, you have to special interest. This is how we do things. Littered and challenges George Washington almost have to resign. And sayto look forward here are some things we think would make a difference. On sunday night at eight examined thenalist changing world for young women in the middle east in her book x let daughters. She looks at the kinds of choices young arab women are making and how they differ from their mothers. Women are going to university and greater numbers than men all over the region. Especially in the gulf countries, the proportions are even greater compared to the men. Women will tell you this is partly because it is a socially acceptable way to delay marriage or be outside the home that their families will support. , watch book tv all weekend every weekend on cspan2. Television for serious readers. Ive been watching the campaign this year. It is interesting to look at the republicans than the democratic side. That may have something to do with why there is more interest in these candidates and their books. A, aunday night on q Nonfiction Book traded critic discusses the residential candidates. Everyone one of them have interesting stories. Politicians are singleminded in this pursuit of power and ideology. It could be interesting. When they put out these memoirs, they are sanitized. , they areetted therefore minimum controversy. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on cspan q a. Corps major isne the author of save our heroes. A tribute to the combat marines of iraq and afghanistan. He discusses some of the heroic actions detailed in his book at the u. S. Navy memorial in washington d. C. The hourlong program is part of k series. Rs on dec thank you for joining us at the navy memorial. Today, we are happy to honor the marine corps heroes of iraq and afghanistan. Our speaker, Sergeant Major david devaney, has written a book that compiles the stories of these heroes. We are looking forward to him sharing that with us today. David devaney joined the marine corps as an infantry rifleman in 1983