 Like a morning. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bill Burns. I'm the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and it is a pleasure to welcome all of you here this morning. It's a special pleasure for me to welcome my friend and former colleague Assistant Secretary Sheba Crocker to Carnegie to discuss the US agenda and priorities for the 70th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly. My last official act at the end of last year as Deputy Secretary of State was to swear in Sheba as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs. And I have to tell you it was hugely reassuring as I made my way out the door of the State Department to launch someone as capable and decent and deserving as Sheba in one of the most significant positions in the State Department. Sheba, as many of you know, is an immensely talented and experienced professional with service at the State Department, the White House, the United Nations, and in the world of foundations and think tanks. There's a lot that I do miss about diplomacy, especially working with people like Sheba. But I have to tell you that my nostalgia for the United Nations General Assembly remains under control. I've always thought that UNGA, especially the high level opening week of it, was a little bit like the diplomatic equivalent of speed dating. With a constant rush of 20 minute meetings and a kaleidoscope of issues and personalities and all I can say is that the US government is very lucky to have Sheba to help navigate that whirlwind. It is appropriate, I think, for Sheba to be discussing the US agenda for the UN General Assembly at Carnegie. Carnegie, as many of you know, has a long and rich history with the United Nations since its founding. Our headquarters used to be in New York at the UN Plaza, and many of our scholars and trustees, most notably former Secretary General Kofi Annan, have been an integral part of the United Nations. So I'm delighted to continue that tradition today. I'm delighted to have all of you here, and I'm especially delighted to welcome to the stage Sheba Crocker. Thank you. Thank you for that kind introduction, Bill, and thank you all for coming out today. Apologies, we're starting a little bit late. I got stuck in some pretty horrendous Washington rush hour traffic this morning. So I know I'm here to talk about the US priorities for the upcoming high level week of the UN General Assembly, or as we love to call it, UNGA. But I thought since this is the 70th anniversary year of the UN that it would be interesting to take a step back for a minute and talk about the continued salience of the UN system that was established and launched in San Francisco in June of 1945, including a little discussion of where that system is fraying or not meeting today's needs and challenges. Today's most urgent diplomatic needs, I think, clearly remind us of the continued relevance of the United Nations and the larger international system. We see across almost every pressing issue how much we need the unique legitimacy that the UN bestows on global efforts. And we will use this year's UNGA not only to take part in events and lots and lots of meetings that will advance key US priorities, but also to make a strong case that member states have an obligation, a financial obligation, and a political obligation to continue to underpin the credibility and viability of the UN system. This year's UNGA priorities for the United States, which I will outline in a few minutes, underscore the UN's continued relevance. But the Iran negotiations and resulting joint comprehensive plan of action, I think, are instructive. The effort to apply multilateral diplomatic energy to Iran's nuclear activities began nearly 10 years ago with repeated and increasingly robust Security Council sanctions targeting officials, government agencies, military, and businesses linked to Iran's nuclear program. The resolutions created travel bans and asset freezes on Iranian companies, individuals, and banks. This effort found its high point in 2010 with the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed tough new additional sanctions in response to Iran's continuing failure to comply with its obligations and address the international community's concerns about its nuclear program. Now clearly these actions influenced Iran's calculus at the end of the day. In addition, however, the Security Council's leading role here helped establish the path and the framework for negotiations, negotiations that were by their very nature multilateral. By pairing tough sanctions with a good faith effort that relied on the good old P5 plus one, the international community demonstrated a crucial unity of vision and showcased the continued preeminence of the 70-year-old institution. Now as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action enters its implementation phase, the International Atomic Energy Agency, another international organization assumes a central role. And this is not only a role for which it was expressly designed, but it further underscores the fact that these negotiations would not have been possible without the unique capacity and credibility of our existing multilateral tools. These mechanisms, agencies and processes are not only relevant for today's diplomatic needs, they are indispensable. And I think if we take a look for a minute at the many multilateral framework negotiations that are going on this year on key global issues like climate change, internet governance, financing for development and the post-2015 development agenda, we will see that. There have been or will be major framework negotiations across all of these issues this year. And so far the system and its member states are showing that they can deliver with important new agreements. Now intergovernmental negotiations, as Bill will fondly remember, are never easy. And they are especially never easy in the often toxic political environment up in New York. But this diplomatic landscape too is shifting and evolving in ways that could be important for the United States. Nonetheless internal and external stresses are challenging relations among member states. They're challenging the UN system ability to evolve and reform. And they're challenging the UN's ability to address issues ranging from the high politics to humanitarian emergencies. The evolving refugee crisis is a sign of this. Internal stresses that limit the UN's ability to perform are well known and include management and reform issues. Inefficiencies, lack of transparency, mismanagement, sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers, and a stubborn clinging to outdated issues like the anti-Israel bias. External stresses are equally troubling and threaten to chip away at the UN's credibility. An unfortunate trend in recent years suggests that some member states have an inconsistent dedication to the UN's central purpose, with examples of politicization of UN bodies and particularly those bodies with historically technical or humanitarian missions. Evidence of this trend includes UN humanitarian agencies being denied access to populations in need or to critical logistical facilities, and more broadly a humanitarian system that is badly stretched at a time of historic highs of major humanitarian emergencies. Attacks on UN peacekeepers in missions in Africa and peacekeeping missions being denied resupply by host governments. Special envoys of the UN Secretary General being accused of political bias is a means of justifying denial of access and humanitarian coordinators being expelled. Efforts to politicize technical bodies that need to be apolitical in order to work, and indeed bodies that have been so apolitical throughout their decades of existence that they literally have no practice of voting and are now being uncomfortably forced into it. For example, Middle East political realities too often find traction, even in lesser known entities such as, wait for it, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, where Israel's application for membership was recently blocked. This trend is disturbing. It threatens to undermine the assumed neutrality of the UN and UN agencies, and this in turn undercuts their value, in some cases their ability to function and their credibility, which is at the end of the day the UN's most valuable currency. At its worst it creates the circumstances where the denial of access and support can be used as a weapon against vulnerable populations. But in the world of today, where needs are outpacing the system's capabilities, we need to reaffirm a broad commitment to the founding ideals of the UN. These challenges surface I think the need for us to make the case in New York later this month for the continued worthwhile pursuit of this shared enterprise. And we are structuring our engagement to focus on four key objectives, locking in renewed commitment to UN peacekeeping, engaging a broader range of actors on countering ISIL and violent extremism, and advancing goals on climate and sustainable development. All of these are instructive examples of our continued reliance as the US on the multilateral system to advance our objectives, of our commitment to strengthening and updating that system, and of our leadership across it. We approach UNGA this year in the shadow of the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II. In a way, it is a sad example of how not dealing effectively across the four themes I just noted, plus weaknesses in the humanitarian network have all come together to produce this massive movement of people. We will use UNGA this year for important high level discussions on that crisis. And our engagement at UNGA this year, like last, aims to use this venue more strategically to seize the advantage of diplomatic opportunities and use multilateral meetings and speeches to push US priorities deliberately. Last year we advanced our priorities on big issues of the day including ISIL, Iraq, Ebola and climate. President Obama, for example, chaired a UN Security Council session on foreign terrorist fighters which resulted in a UN Security Council resolution that laid out a new policy and legal framework for dealing with that crisis and imposed obligations on member states. Senior level interactions between the P5-plus-1 and Iran propelled the nuclear negotiations. Secretary Kerry hosted an oceans conference that resulted in meaningful commitments by member states. The first resolution in the new General Assembly last year focused on the crisis of Ebola and there was a Security Council resolution on the same issue. The Vice President last year hosted a summit on strengthening UN peacekeeping at which 30 countries came together and made new commitments to that exercise. And there was Security Council action on CVE and events focused on the destruction of cultural heritage and property. Some of these themes will certainly recur this year with our strong intent, again, being to employ UN the thoughtfully and strategically with definitive action anticipated on several fronts. And in that context, I will briefly discuss the four thematic priorities we will take into this year's UNGA. Peace and security, global development, climate change and countering violent extremism. 2015 marks the expiration of the Millennium Development Goals or the so-called MDGs, which registered some significant successes focusing largely on eliminating poverty, hunger and disease. And the MDGs revealed the benefits of a common approach to development goals. For example, extreme poverty has been cut by more than half since 2000. Per capita incomes in the developing world have more than doubled and malnutrition rates have been cut by 40%. On September 25th of this year, so a week from tomorrow, more than 150 world leaders and the Pope are expected at the launch of the UN Sustainable Development Summit, at which Member States will endorse the so-called 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an ambitious inclusive development framework that serves as the successor to the MDGs. The 2030 Agenda, it must be said, is much larger than the MDG Agenda, which included eight goals. The 2030 Agenda includes 17 goals, the so-called Sustainable Development Goals, and 169 targets. For the United States, this summit serves as a point of departure. U.S. development priorities are included in the 2030 Agenda, including ending extreme poverty, the role of women and girls, inclusive economic growth, good governance and accountable institutions, and environment and sustainability. And importantly, the agreement breaks the age-old development mold. It reflects the creative input of all Member States and of impacted civil society experts, academics, and implementers who all came together. It wasn't just donors this time to influence the shape of this new agenda. It connects crucial issues that have too often been addressed in isolation, bringing environmental issues together with development issues. And it also includes thoughtful treatment of issues not always tackled in development circles like peace and security and governance. Because of its broad inclusivity, the agenda has global legitimacy, and it presents a real opportunity to tackle these challenges more effectively in the coming decade. Together with the agreement reached this summer in Addis on financing for development, the 2030 Agenda enshrines a new model of development that is as much about the right policy-enabling environments and mobilizing domestic and private resources as it is about official development assistance. There will be dozens, literally, of associated events at UNGA around the 2030 Agenda. It will be agreed by Member States on Friday the 25th, followed by two days of plenary sessions, high-level speeches, and interactive dialogues, and many, many side events, two perhaps to highlight are that the U.S. will host a side event on so-called Goal 16 of the SDGs, which is on peace and governance, and the Secretary General will host a side event on the connections between the refugee and migration movements and the SDGs. Turning now to peace and security, today's challenges show the demand for nimble, effective UN peace operations. It has, in fact, never been greater. We have today over 120,000 blue helmets serving in 16 peacekeeping missions from Haiti to the Congo, and they are deploying and operating in ever more difficult circumstances. In that context, on September 28th, President Obama, the Secretary General, and several other heads of state and government will host a high-level summit on peacekeeping, at which a significant number of countries are expected to attend. Over the last year, the United States has used the momentum generated by the Vice President's summit on peacekeeping at last year's UNGA to encourage new commitments from Member States to expand the pool of resources available to peacekeeping operations. And we anticipate that this year, participating nations will announce significant new commitments during the summit, as well as make political-level commitments, both to important doctrinal issues, like protection of civilians, and to much-needed reforms in UN peacekeeping operations, including those spelled out in a report by the high-level panel on peace operations that was released over the summer. The summit is an example of our leadership and our commitment to helping the system evolve to meet today's challenges. It's as much about filling gaps in current peacekeeping missions as it is about ensuring that we get troops involved in UN peacekeeping, either re-involved or involved for the first time, who are capable and willing to tackle today's challenges and threats. As we seek these new commitments, we must be similarly committed to addressing shortcomings in peacekeeping, and nothing in that category is more corrosive than the appalling and horrifying allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. To date, efforts to address these issues have fallen short, and we are looking at how to re-energize our own efforts in terms of addressing this issue with the United Nations, as well as bilaterally with countries that commit troops and police to UN peacekeeping missions. This crucial issue is among many that require attention in order for peacekeeping to serve its modern purposes. The Secretary General's high-level panel on peace operations identified many others. These included the need for missions to be mandated, to have mandates that are tailored to context, the imperative of protecting civilians, improvements in headquarters strategic analysis and planning capacity, and the benefits of investing more in prevention and mediation capabilities. We indeed have to remember that peacekeeping is just one tool on a spectrum that includes conflict prevention and post-conflict resolution and peacebuilding. And the role of civilians in those efforts is essential to our peace and security efforts. On climate, of course, the big-ticket issue this year will be the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Meeting in Paris in December, at which we and many other nations are determined to reach an ambitious, inclusive and durable agreement designed to combat this urgent challenge. In advance of that meeting, events this year at UNGA and Interactions will serve to galvanize the highest-level political support as we head toward Paris. On September 29th, there will be a special Foreign Minister session of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate that Secretary Kerry will host, and the event is intended to encourage participating countries to build a sense of common cause in the lead-up to Paris. And finally, on countering violent extremism, which remains at the top of the President's agenda. And the UN is a key platform for the United States to strengthen multilateral cooperation to counter terrorism. At UNGA this year, we will be looking to strengthen global initiatives to counter ISIL, foreign terrorist fighters, and violent extremism. We will convene a Leaders Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism on September 29th in New York to highlight strides made against ISIL this year, as well as progress made since the February White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism. The summit and various related side events will also serve as fora to announce new commitments to support these efforts. UNGA is to be sure a mad dash. I was going to use the line about diplomatic speed dating, but Bill stole my joke. We all show up and load more and more events onto its calendar every year. But this in and of itself proves both the uniqueness and the value of the multilateral system. No other venue provides so many opportunities to get stuck in really bad New York traffic. But frankly, last year we had ample feedback from allies and partners, broadly praising the robust U.S. engagement and demonstrating leadership across a range of priorities. And that is our aim again this year. But I think it's also helpful to remember, of course, that U.S. leadership and engagement of this system matters more than just for one week of the year in New York. And in that light, I'll talk for just a minute about our leadership and engagement over the past six years at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, which also happens to be meeting this year for one of its sessions of the year. And as we near the end of two consecutive three-year terms on the council, I think it's a good time to take stock of the positive developments that we've seen in Geneva over the last several years, all of which required strong and constructive U.S. leadership. And these include reducing the structural bias and exaggerated focus on Israel, sustaining focus on the human rights situation in Iran through a special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, the creation of special rapporteurs on North Korea and Belarus, a special commission of inquiry on Syria, and in fact the action on North Korea in Geneva led to North Korea being, the human rights situation in North Korea being put on the agenda of the Security Council for the first time ever in a historic meeting last year. And I actually learned yesterday that North Korea is now on what's called the so-called seizures agenda of the Security Council. Little known fact, but I now understand what it means when the Security Council says it's deciding to remain actively seized of a matter. We have, it's nice that my parents laugh at my jokes. We've taken complementary action to illuminate the impact of violent extremism and we've made groundbreaking efforts on violence and discrimination facing LGBTI persons worldwide. It's hard to believe that at this time last year, Ebola was at the top of the global agenda. The UN mission for Ebola emergency response or UNMIR was established last year at UNGA in September of 2014 and having achieved its mission of scaling up the international response and coordinated action to the outbreak, it closed at the end of July. Oversight of the UN system, Ebola response is now being led by the World Health Organization which is working with partners and working with countries, the affected countries to continue the intensive efforts to free West Africa of Ebola. Liberia has been Ebola free for more than 50 days and cases are more limited in Guinea and Sierra Leone. The successful transition from UNMIR to WHO serves, we hope, as a promising precedent. Certainly runs counter to the narrative suggesting that the UN never ends a program, project, initiative or mandate. Though it may be the only such example. In this case, with strong US leadership and our own robust bilateral commitment, the need was met through an innovative UN-led initiative. It was the first ever mission focused on a health issue and then the initiative was retired. So while it's a lonely example for now, it's an important signal of the system's ability to evolve and adapt. And the UN is trying to learn from it through one of many high level panels the Secretary General has launched this year on looking at lessons learned from the Ebola response. Other high level panels in this very busy 70th year of the UN include ones the Secretary General has launched on peace operations, on peace building, on women peace and security and on humanitarian financing. Another sign of evolution is the changing dynamics we might be seeing within regional blocks. These often make negotiations more challenging though they remain salient because at the end of the day we have to have negotiating partners. And in the post-2015 development agenda negotiations we saw some interesting developments with increasingly loud voices of some of the subgroups like the small island and developing states and others within the G77 that definitely helped shape the context and contours of where we ended up in that agreement eventually. The United States is at the forefront of efforts to drive positive evolution in the management cultures of the UN and there have been some encouraging results. We have improved budget transparency and accountability, stronger investigation tools, progress on whistleblower protection and internal review mechanisms and audit transparency but there is much much more to be done in this effort. And the slow footed response on the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse only makes clear how much more work there is to be done. We mark 70 years of the UN this year and in doing so it's important to pause and consider the institution's role in global affairs. The United States this role is clear and while the system's weaknesses and failings demand action we should tackle them in the interest of strengthening an indispensable partner. As we gear up for UNGA we are looking at a series of events that will showcase steadfast, clear-eyed and instrumental U.S. leadership, a commitment we are also demanding of others. The conflicts and crises of today are of course many and we need the UN as a credible bulwark against these global challenges and indeed with the evolving refugee crisis in New York the UN Secretary General will now host a high level event against seizing the opportunity with all UN member states being in New York in the coming weeks and demonstrating the important convening power and the credibility of voice that the UN has. We obviously won't get all of that done in New York in one week but we will certainly make the most of our engagements there this year across a broad range of issues as I've laid out today and now I look forward to a discussion with all of you. Good morning everyone. I'm Tom Carruthers. I'm a Vice President for Studies here at the Carnegie Endowment and it's my pleasure to serve as the moderator for the question and answer session following Sheba's speech. Sheba, thank you for a wonderful speech. You're ready for UN speed dating with UN speed speech making. You have put forward a tremendous amount of information and a short amount of time which is great because we like to really get a sense of what the agenda is and how the administration is thinking about this extraordinarily wide range of issues that are presented by UNGA and in a sense by the world. So I know this audience represents many different points of view in terms of areas of interest and kinds of organizations that are represented here and so we're just going to start calling on people. And as always I want to ask you to identify yourself in the organization that you're with and keep your question focused and to the point. I'll probably take two or three to start with and I'll try to work my way around the room so please be patient and just keep raising your hand and I'll do my best. Let me start over here on this side. No, I see hands more over here. So I'll start over here right here with this woman in the front. I think we're going to need a microphone to come to you. There's two microphones approaching you, but I think this one's going to get there first and then I'll turn to you next. Thank you. Hi, my name is Lillian Peraza. I'm from Catholic University and my question will be what is the role of Latin America in all of this because I have, I mean first was amazing the way that you summarize. It's great to know that someone can talk faster than me. And I'm just wondering, Latin America has been having a lot of issues and since I'm here I'm just finished my master here and since I'm here I would just hear about Iran. I mean I know there's thousands of things in Europe coming around, but what about Latin America? So, no, go ahead. No, take some questions. Okay, let me take one more. Yes, sir. Yes, please. Good morning. I'm Mark Tokola from the Korean Economic Institute. The example I have in mind is the North Korea Human Rights Resolution, but my question is more in general. Is it better to raise an issue before the UN General Assembly even though you'll lose the vote or face a veto because the attention it raises the issue or so damaging to lose the vote is better not to raise the issue at all. Interesting question. Okay, let's go back to the question about Latin America. Okay, so it's a very interesting question and thank you for asking it and here I thought I was talking slowly so I will try to talk more slowly in my responses. Latin America is playing an increasingly interesting and important role and for me I have to say I extremely enjoy my interactions with my counterparts from that region of the world. I find them practically minded and interested in getting stuff done in the system and not necessarily as interested in playing the politics of the past which makes them really frankly very useful partners and very constructive leaders on a number of issues. The so-called GRULAC group, which is the group of Latin American countries as it's fondly known in the UN system, is playing an increasingly important role in Geneva at the Human Rights Council where they are leading on several important thematic issues including on the issues of LGBTI persons. They are playing an increasingly robust role in peacekeeping. We've certainly seen the Latin American actors, Brazil leading the peacekeeping mission in Haiti and I think we will see a number of them come forward at the President's summit this year and make new commitments to peacekeeping which we're very excited about. In New York they play a very constructive role but what I like about them as partners is that when I say constructive it doesn't mean that they necessarily always agree with the United States because they don't but for the most part they take decisions that really reflect where they are in terms of their own national identities. And that I really appreciate because again I think too much we get bogged down in the UN system with countries taking positions that reflect more sort of political arguments of the past in the UN system, the G77 and the NAMM positions. And we are seeing some shifting in those dynamics as I suggested and I think some of the Latin American countries, Mexico is one that comes particularly to mind is playing a really interesting role in that regard. On the question of the General Assembly, so I think it's important to remember that resolutions don't get vetoed in the General Assembly, the only place that there's a veto is in the Security Council. And so I think it depends on what the resolution is. There are certainly resolutions that run every year in the General Assembly. I think in fact it's an important note to remind everyone that the General Assembly runs for about three months so it will run through the end of December. We all focus just on this one high level week in New York but there is actually an enormous amount of work as many of you will know that goes on in all of the various committees, the first, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, et cetera, committees in New York throughout the course of the next many months. And there the United States does sometimes lose votes on resolutions. And I think it's our sense generally that where we have to be more concerned about really the fact of losing a vote is in the Security Council where if there's a veto situation or if a resolution were to get through because the Security Council has enforcement powers and other capabilities that are different from the General Assembly. But that is not to say that we and all other member states are not focused all the time on what is coming out of the General Assembly and how the General Assembly is speaking on issues. We certainly use it to try to advance issues we care about. One that we'll be pushing this year is an annual resolution that Canada runs on the human rights situation in Iran, for example, where the United States works very hard to secure enough votes to get that resolution passed every year. And we think it's a very important symbol and signal of the continued international community focus on the human rights situation in Iran. There are, I think I've lost count, but way too many resolutions that run anti-Israel resolutions that run in the General Assembly every year that we lose. We fight hard to get as many votes as we can, as many countries as we can to stand with us, but we do lose those votes. And that is something that we will continue to remain focused on. And there are important resolutions that run on budget, that run on non-proliferation issues, that run on human rights issues, and many, many other economic and development issues throughout the course of the next few months and will be heavily engaged in all of those efforts. What's also important to remember though is that the General Assembly often doesn't vote. It's only when you can't have agreement among all member states that something comes to a vote and we run the chance of losing or winning that vote. Many, many, many issues go through on consensus in both the Security Council and the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. And that is generally the preferred course of affairs for all of us. And in the Fifth Committee, for example, which is the Budget Committee, whereas you might imagine relations and negotiations and discussions among member states can sometimes be quite heated, we still nonetheless try as much as possible to operate on consensus in the Fifth Committee and not take issues to a vote because you end up with a bunch of blooded corpses on the floor, and it makes it that much harder for us to get business done the next time we all have to meet, which is sort of on a recurring basis. Good. I have these two men right here, and then I'll come over to this side and move back. Yeah. Right there, yeah. Sir. Thank you. My name is Ed Almondor from the United Nations Association. First, a question about the future Secretary General. I wonder, Madam Secretary, if you could expand on the U.S. position, particularly on possibilities for opening up the process so that there is more of an open competition for the next Secretary General and the possibilities for also some preference for a woman candidate. I'd also like to hear from you about the global goals and their implications for the United States. These are consciously global rather than north-south in design. This leads me to wonder whether there might be the possibility for the appointment of some special coordinator for implementation of the goals in the White House that would look to the goals both within the United States as well as overseas. Thank you. Okay. And the gentleman right to your left. Thank you. Edison Dick, United Nations Association, actually had stole my question for the most part, but I just wanted to follow, ask about the increased role of the General Assembly in the selection process of the upcoming Secretary General. We've now heard from the UN Association, of course. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and take that. Okay. So on the SG selection question, we were pleased to join consensus on the recent resolution on the revitalization of the General Assembly, although my favorite joke around the office these days is I can't wait to see a revitalized General Assembly. But we were pleased to join that resolution and it did, and it does set forth some increased transparency in the process and that's the reason why the United States was pleased to join it. It allows for the Secretary General and the General Assembly, as I think you will know if you've seen it, to send around names of the candidates and resumes. And this will also allow for some increased visibility among all Member States into the process because there will at least be common understanding of the candidates that are out there. It also invites Member States to put forth candidates for the SG position to the General Assembly and the Security Council. Ultimately it did not change in the final analysis how the process will run with respect to the Security Council role in presenting a candidate to the General Assembly. What was also helpful and important about the revitalization memo in those parts in which it addressed the question of the next Secretary General was that it set forth some qualities that we will be looking for. And so the invitation to Member States to present candidates was based on those candidates having certain qualifications, the list of which I will not be able to rattle off right now but you will have seen if you've seen the resolution. But they include a focus on everything from multilingualism to having good management experience which will be important coming into an organization as large as the United Nations is. And on the question of sort of, there are then questions that always arise around both the region from which the next Secretary General should come. And in this year importantly there is much more increased focus on the question of gender in the selection of the next Secretary General. For the United States ultimately as we always have been we will be focused on ensuring that we have the best candidate for the job. And so we will be looking forward to seeing great candidates both women and men come forward from around the world. And we will look forward to taking a close look at them on the basis of the qualifications that were set forth as sort of instructive guidelines in the Security, in the General Assembly resolution as well as those which the United States consistently looks at which is also involved a commitment to the underlying principles of the UN Charter and a focus on management and reform issues. Let me come over to this side. Let me take these two right here and then the third. Yes, this gentleman and then the woman next to me. Question there which I lost the thread of but he had a second question. Hold on a sec. She says there was a second part. On the global goals. On the global goals, right. Thank you. So thank you for raising that actually because it's a very important point. The goals are global and they are meant to be universal in nature. And that means that they apply to the United States and our own look at what we have in the way of extreme poverty and development issues in this country. And we are very much focused on that. We are turning now. We're all looking forward to a celebration in New York next week. But then the real work will come in the implementation of these goals. And that will be work for the United States as much as it is for every other country around the world. So importantly, the discussions that we've been having both in the lead up to the agreement on the goals and now as we look at implementation involved, not just for example USAID, the State Department, Treasury and others that will be involved from an international perspective, but also the domestic side of the house. So the discussions are being run both in the National Security Council and in the Domestic Policy Council. And we will be holding ourselves to account in meeting the global goals as much as we expect other countries around the world to do the same. Okay. Yes, sir. Hi, Chen Weihua, China Daily. Could you talk about having Chinese President Xi Jinping to address the general assembly next week and what do you think is the China-US cooperation, the UN? And I want to also specifically mention that how do you think the Libya episode, obviously China, I think Russia, both expressed this pressure over NATO and the US, they believe, abusing the UN resolution for regime-changing Libya. So how much that still is in effect impacting on the cooperation between the permanent members. Thank you. All right. Let's take one more. Yes, please. Hi. Anna Eult of One More Hail. I was wondering, do you have plans to discuss Iran's detention of Washington Post reporter Jason Rizan's detention while at UNGA? Okay. Okay, so on the question, yes, on the question of China-US and relationship at the United Nations, we work together with China in a range of fora at the United Nations. And we have been particularly pleased in recent years to see China, as its economy has grown, picking up a greater share of financial responsibility for the United Nations system and increasing its commitment to UN peacekeeping. There are, of course, and we will be with China this year doing an event on Afghanistan, for example, they're joining us and co-hosting that event. And so we see, I think, in particular this year at UNGA, the cooperation that we will have on peacekeeping and on Afghanistan as important indicators of sort of how we will work our partnership in the UN system. But the range of issues that we work with China on a daily basis is enormous. We have a very important relationship as P5 members in the Security Council and a very important responsibility together as P5 members in the Security Council, as well as in the budget discussions where China plays a leading role in the G77 in those discussions, but also plays a role as a member of the P5, particularly when it comes to questions around the peacekeeping budget. And there are obviously issues that we don't always agree on. You mentioned the question of Libya, and I think it's instructive also to remember the number of resolutions that Russia and China have vetoed on Syria, which has held up the ability of the Security Council to take action, to take appropriate action to address the situation in Syria. There are some lingering feelings to be sure among member states, China, Russia and others, around the situation in Libya and the resolution that was agreed, but it's also important to remember that that resolution was agreed at the Security Council. And the question whether it impacts, it has impacted things going forward, those lingering feelings, I think there's no doubt for some that it has. I think it's also important to remember that to the extent that the Libya resolution is held up as by some as being sort of a reminder of why we have to do things like respect, sovereignty and territorial integrity for those countries that make those arguments, those are very long-standing arguments. And so Libya may be one data point, but it doesn't define the whole in the sense that I think those arguments would be held up with when you're looking at a situation in Syria, Yemen and otherwise with or without the experience over the Libya resolution. I think for some other countries that happened to be serving at that time on the Security Council and took part in that decision to agree the resolution on Libya, those feelings have sustained. And that sometimes has made it more difficult for us to come to agreement on peace and security issues, but these are anyway, as I said, issues that we work through constantly with member states in particular in the P5. And so the lines of argument that we see coming out about sort of, oh, we have to be careful not to do another Libya type resolution to my mind are arguments that we've seen for a long time, so they're not particularly new. The question of Jason Rezaian, as you probably know, his brother spoke to the Human Rights Council just this week in Geneva, and we were very pleased to see him use that venue. It's an appropriate venue, a particularly appropriate venue to raise the question of his continued detention. The United States speaks often, loudly and regularly on the question of Jason's detainment and the detention of the two other Americans that are still being held by Iran. We use every available opportunity to do that as a public matter and also in conversations with the Iranians and others who might be helpful. So we were pleased that that conversation got raised this week in Geneva. I don't know now how and whether it will be raised also in New York, but I do expect that there will be continuing discussions on it as there always are. Time is short and I want to be fair to the further back of the room, so I'd like to come to this woman here, the two women on the aisle. Yes. First, okay, you and then next two rows forward after that. Yes. Hi, my name is Alicia Rose from NHK Japan Broadcasting. You mentioned it a couple of times, but I was hoping that you could elaborate on how UNGA will be addressing the Syrian refugee crisis. Okay, and they say two rows forward. Yes. Yes, I'm B Edwards from the government accountability project and we represent UN whistleblowers in the administrative tribunal. You mentioned that you thought there had been progress on protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. And maybe we just see a select few of whistleblowers, but in our view it's been a terrible year for retaliation, particularly at the specialized agency programs and the secretariat and in peacekeeping. So I was wondering if you could tell us what you see as the positive development. Okay, yeah. Thanks. So on the Syrian refugee crisis, I mean I think what we're seeing here is a crisis unfolding obviously top of the news and top of everyone's minds. And we have the opportunity of UNGA coming up to have a series as I indicated of high level discussions on that issue. And so there are some new events that are being put on directly in response, including on September 30th an event that the secretary general will host on the refugee crisis. And there are other issues that were already planned on Syria related questions or on the questions of humanitarian assistance and emergencies. And I think what we'll see is those meetings will become largely about the refugee crisis stemming from Syria. And it's important to remember also other countries in the world and the mass movement of people that we're seeing. And so again I think it just highlights how we can use this venue in a strategic way to really make some progress and spend some time addressing issues. Even late breaking ones, it was sort of the same situation in a way with Ebola last year where we ended up being able to take advantage of the opportunity that we were provided by all of us being up in New York to make some real progress on that issue. On the whistleblower issue there are strong opinions on this issue on all sides and I think there is no question that there have been in particular some high profile cases over the years where the UN has not handled this issue well. It is still an evolving culture and in saying that I think we are seeing some progress I am by no means suggesting that we think the work is done. This is an issue that the US and I personally raise in all of our meetings with UN officials, it is one that we take incredibly seriously. And it is one where I think it's fair to say that there are now processes in place at the UN itself and in the UN specialized agencies which at least set forth procedures, processes and policies that should construct an effective whistleblower policy. Does it always work in practice? No and we recognize that and I am sure you will have seen the report that we recently provided to the Hill in that context and you will have seen how we reported on one agency in particular that we felt had not shown significant management level and significant enough or serious enough management level attention to the question of protection of whistleblowers. There has also been a case which I am sure is one that you are referring to this year on an employee at the High Commissioner for Human Rights who exposed instances of sexual exploitation and abuse in the CAR. What we saw in that case was an administration of justice system in the UN that took up the case fairly quickly and reinstated that employee into his job. And where the Secretary General fairly quickly and at the prodding of member states sent the investigation to an external investigative panel because he understood that the system was not dealing with it in the right way and they needed to get it outside to an independent panel. That obviously suggests that there is still work to be done internally but it also suggests that there is some serious management level and senior level focus on the issue and enough understanding of the importance of it and the need to improve the culture that they quickly sent it outside. That was a different case from the specialized agency in Geneva as you know where it took much longer to get to that point. So we continue to work this issue, we continue to work it hard and we are not satisfied yet with where we are but we do see as we look at years past improvements in terms of the structures and policies that have been put in place. And at several of the, many of the agencies and at the UN itself increased and enhanced senior level commitment to dealing with this issue in the right way. It requires a change in culture at many of these agencies ultimately and that will take time and so we will keep at it until we get it into a much better place. Okay, we have just a few more minutes. I have a gentleman in the way in the back who's got a, he's in his hand then they come down to the front. This woman in the blue has been patient. Let me see if we can fit you in too. Thank you. My name is David DeCruzzi. I represent Georgia Television. Sorry, could you restate? There was a bit of noise here. I'm sorry. Restate your name and organization. Yeah, my name is David DeCruzzi. I represent Georgia Television Station. Restate between Washington D.C. Should I expect any conversation on Ukraine, Russia and Eastern European issues between Washington? It's a conversation between Washington and its European partners in New York. Thank you. My question is in our security sector in the Asia Pacific region, which is related to more popular known in the past, the Spratly Island, but now is South China Sea. Does United Nations have specific instrument of force, formal or informal toward China development maritime missile, which is threatened in the Asia Pacific region, which is still standing now? Would you please elaborate what is the United Nations action for that? Thank you. This will be our final two questions. So first on the question of Ukraine and Russia-Ukraine, I think there will be multiple opportunities for the United States to discuss with our transatlantic partners that issue. And it certainly remains high on the agenda for the secretary and other senior leaders who will be in New York later this month. The secretary will see his European partners both in bilateral settings and in several different multilateral groupings, and I expect that this issue will be on the agenda of all of those conversations. I'm not familiar with the specific issue that you raised, so I'm not going to have a perfect answer for you with respect to the particular issue. On the question of the South China Sea, there is no specific kind of UN use of force that would be brought to bear in that situation. But there have been, and those discussions that I think you probably are aware, the discussions around the South China Sea have mostly resided in the regional context as opposed to being brought to the United Nations. It is ultimately a regional issue, and that has been, I think, a more productive place to have the discussions to date, and so that's where they have largely resided. It has not yet risen to the level where it would be brought to the Security Council as a threat to international peace and security in such a way that the Council would take it up. That is a precursor for something coming to the Security Council and raising issues of use of force. It is also important to remember that the UN doesn't use force in the same way that individual countries do. When the Security Council decides on a peacekeeping mission, that is a decision that the Council has to make and agree on, but also generally involves, almost always involves the consent of the member state for a peacekeeping mission to go in and keep the peace. It doesn't have an invasive force that might be brought to bear. It's not the way that the UN operates and not the way that UN peacekeeping missions operate. Shiba, you faced a wide range of questions today reflecting the agenda ahead of you. I've been with many people on this stage who have been answering questions often from the US government, and few have done so, not just articulately but directly and frankly, which we appreciate. And we appreciate more generally you coming here to present it to us and we wish you and your colleagues well up in New York. Thanks so much, Tom.