 Good evening. My name is Paul Hedgecroft. I'm director of the School of International Political and Strategic Studies here in the College of Asia and the Pacific. And I begin by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians on whose traditional land we meet and whose cultures are among the oldest continued cultures in human history. It's my great pleasure this evening to welcome and to introduce Assistant Secretary Esther Brimmer of the US Department of State. Her first time to Australia, as I understand, welcome to the ANU. And we look forward to her lecture on US multilateral engagement at the UN and other international organizations. We welcome as well our distinguished guests from the US Embassy here in Canberra, along with other distinguished guests from the diplomatic community. And of course, the broader public. This event is co-sponsored by two occupants of this building, the Henley-Bowl Center, our School of International Political and Strategic Studies, our IPS, as well as the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, represented this evening by its director, Professor Bill Maylee in the back, as well as Dr. Jeremy Ferrell, who will be overseeing our question and answer this evening. I trust Dr. Brimmer that you will feel a special kinship to us already, given that she holds her D-FIL and master's degree in international relations from Oxford University, the institution to which Professor Henley-Bowl moved after leaving the ANU in 1977. I'd like to say that I missed him, but that was quite a while before I moved to Australia, indeed, before I ever became an academic. But we certainly honor him with this building that just opened four years ago. Since the early months of the Obama administration, Dr. Brimmer has held the post of Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. In this role, she leads the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, which advances US interests through international organizations in areas including human rights, peacekeeping, food security, humanitarian relief, and climate change. As a compatriot, I applaud you for this role, as it doesn't take a very long memory to recall a time in which the US was less than wholehearted in its relationships with multilateral organizations. Prior to her appointment, Dr. Brimmer was deputy director and director of research at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Paul Nietzsche School of Advanced International Studies, SICE, at the John Hopkins University in Washington. There she specialized in transatlantic political and security affairs. In other words, she was an academic. And in this capacity was the author of a book entitled United States, the European Union, and International Human Rights Issues, published in 2002. And she's also the editor or co-editor of three additional volumes all relating to Europe and transatlantic ties. She has also held previous posts in the US Department of State and worked as well with the US House of Representatives and the Carnegie Commission. Given your academic focus on Europe and transatlantic issues with Assistant Secretary Brimmer, we're all the more grateful that you took the time to visit us here at the College of Asia and the Pacific. After her prepared remarks this evening, Dr. Brimmer has kindly agreed to take questions from the audience. So welcome again and forward to you. Good evening. Thank you for bringing the rain and the winter weather. And thank you very much for that introduction and that warm welcome. And I would especially like to thank you to the Australian National University for hosting me and for the hospitality I've received in Canberra today. It is especially meaningful for me to be here at the Hedley-Bowl Center, as you indicated, not only after his distinguished career here, then you did go to Oxford. But I'd be honored to be one of his last students. In his last year, as you know, he died in 1985. And in his last year, when he was dying of cancer, he took four students and we met in his house and we both made his tea every day. And he said, we're going to make sure that the four of you complete your degree. So it's extremely, personally beautiful for me to do yours. Thank you for letting me speak here. And there's a point to our part about so much of what we do together. And so I think that it's maybe because we've talked about the nature of society in the States, the archival society, the variety of things that have been so instrumental to our thinking that's particularly relevant that we speak here about the many challenges that the United States and Australia and other countries have been addressing. So I'll talk a bit about our overall multilateral diplomacy, but let's put it in context. Let's step back and say first that the close alliance between Australia and the United States has really been the bedrock of our foreign policy issues here working in the Asia Pacific region. And although you commented much on my career as we're working on transatlantic relations, it's a lot of it's been about how friends work together on global issues. There's very much of continuity here. And although Canberra and Washington are 10,000 miles apart, our two countries share a closeness, given our shared values, our common language, and our commitment to human rights and democratic governance. We both see diversity and freedom as strength. As a result, perhaps, both our countries look forward to the future through a lens of hope, not fear, and see globalization and engagement as bringing opportunity, not really danger. And the distance has been no impediment to our cooperation in every dimension of human and diplomatic activity. As we often say, Americans and Australians have fought side by side from the First World War through Afghanistan. But also, our diplomats work shoulder to shoulder across the globe. We've joined forces so many times on humanitarian relief when natural or imaginary disasters have struck. And whether it's space exploration or working on climate change, increasing cultural exchange, the United States and Australia are committed to one another. So as with this foundation of friendship and alliance in mind, I want to take a few minutes to talk about what I've seen as US foreign policy has unfolded from our spirit perspective of the Department of State. And then, of course, I'm happy to have a question and answer session, so I'm trying to make sure we have enough time for our conversation afterwards. Now, as you know, in January of 2009, President Obama took office facing serious questions about the future of US global engagement. The United States was deeply committed and involved in too long and expensive wars, which at times has strained the fabric of global cooperation and hurt our own ability to achieve our national goals. At the same time, some fear that our traditional alliances and long-standing commitment to international institutions risked being incapable of handling the number of difficult and complex global challenges and threats. And let's not forget that also the President inherited an economy that has worse states since the Great Depression, which generated calls in some quarters for the United States to focus inward, to turn our back on our global commitments in the favor of addressing the two challenges on the home front. I'll say what a difference three and a half years has made. As we gather together tonight, I would say few would doubt the US global leadership is back. We've not only ended the war in Iraq and begun a transition at Afghanistan, we've spent these years reinvigorating our traditional alliances in partnership, revisiting the need for better cooperation with emerging powers and reengaging across the United Nations system with other end and other multilateral and regional organizations. The end result has been a stronger and more engaged American. And frankly, that reinvigorated US leadership couldn't come at a more important time. Our world today is more interconnected, more networked, and more complex than ever before. National economies are intertwined and interdependent. And new technology spreads information and influence to people and to more people than ever before. But at the same time, global power is more diffused than at any time in history. Emerging centers of influence with aspirations to global leadership are bringing their own perspective to global governance. And non-state actors are increasing their impact and influence. As I mentioned earlier, the strength of both our countries is found in our own domestic diversity. For the United States, and I would believe her for Australia as well, we see the growing diversity of perspective on the global stage as an opportunity to strengthen the international order and welcome the sharing of global responsibility among an increasing number of stakeholders. But they must be willing to take on the burdens that come with responsibility. So even as we face the twin forces of integration and diversification, our most pressing challenges have become more complex and even less responsive to unilateral action. Unlike in centuries past, we are not facing a totalitarian threat. We should be thankful for that. Yet, when we're not facing the impending conflict between two major powers, yet the challenges are real. Instead, as we find whether we're grappling with non-proliferation, our terrorism issues, or climate change, or pandemic disease, or dealing with challenges to freedom or to human rights, or dealing with man-made and natural disasters, these challenges and threats continue to face the United States, Australia, and other countries. And we recognize that these types of challenges face across national borders and are often beyond the capacity of one country to address a loan that's often more effective to address together. Given all of this, there was ever a need for a US foreign policy anchored in a cooperative response to share global challenges and building coalitions for common action. This is it. As Secretary Clinton has said, we face a world in which America cannot solve a loan to the world's most pressing problems, nor can the world solve them without America. Well, although quick action averted the worst of our economic crisis and our economy is now heading in the right direction, the recovery has not been as strong as many would like. So even as the United States works to strengthen our foreign policy tools for this new era and to address global crisis and invest in our common future, we are not alone in facing some tighter foreign affairs and development budgets as a real challenge. Since 2009, the Obama administration has sought to address this multitude of challenges through a foreign policy anchored in global engagement. And in a moment, I will turn to the administration's efforts on multilateral engagement in the UN system, which is really my area of day-to-day responsibilities. But first, I'll take a few minutes to address a core tenet of US foreign policy in this century, namely on increased emphasis on building a system for sustainable cooperation and partnership in the Pacific region. In so many ways, US engagement across the Pacific has been a constant for more than half a century, if you will know. And Australia and other close US allies in the Pacific have been partners of first resort, the countries with which we share values and our commitment to global security, and with whom we work most closely whenever we need to address a shared challenge. The same global trends I mentioned earlier threats the increasingly transnational, changing geopolitical balances are clearly apparent in the Pacific region. And to address these challenges, the United States is working with Australia and other Pacific nations to build the sort of regional architecture cooperation that's proven so effective in other regions. We're strengthening our bilateral security alliances, deepening our relationships with emerging powers, engaging in regional organizations such as ASEAN, expanding our trade and investment, building a broad-based military presence and advancing human rights and democracy. And to do all this, we're investing diplomatically. As you know, Secretary Clinton out broke out with convention when she made her first official trip abroad to Asia. President Obama was the first US president to attend the East Asia Summit last year in Indonesia, discussing importance of cooperation to addressing political and security challenges, as well as opportunities to improve, improving regional capacity for humanitarian response. And as you know, we hosted the APEC forum last year in Harlew, where leaders from both sides of the Pacific committed to measures that will increase economic growth and job creation, expanding trade and investment in the Asia Pacific region. So when President Obama was in Australia last year, he reiterated that with the war on Iraq ending, the Afghanistan summit winding down, the United States was looking toward the future that we need to build, and in doing so, looking towards the Asia Pacific region. And although we will still need to build this shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies in the region, including Australia, we do not aim to exclude any country, nor to create any undue fissures. The United States has spent the past three years working to build a cooperative relationship with a variety of countries, including China, and will continue to do so in the years to come. Every Pacific nation has a state, a secure, peaceful region where rules and rights are respected, and every Pacific nation will benefit from regional architecture that promotes our common goals. Now what we're seeing in the Pacific region is also true to our international globally as well. As the one international organization with a global mandate and scope, the United Nations remains central to confronting the shared challenges we face. And US engagement at the UN has been one of the cornerstones of this administration's foreign policy. In 39 short months, we've come a long way, reversing years of neglect, indifference, and zero-sum international politics, instead engaging in the painstaking, time-consuming diplomacy needed to mobilize the international community and to take effective action to address our shared threats and challenges. Australia and many Pacific nations have been among our closest partners in addressing the global issues of shared concern. So let's turn to some of the particular issues on the agenda. No doubt, perhaps, the ongoing violence may be very much on your minds about the situation in Syria. For more than a year now, the United States and our partners have worked to try to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. The Assad regime continues its unconscionable assault on the Syrian people. For now, Russia and China continue to protect Assad and defy the overwhelming majority of the Security Council and the broader international community, who, by contrast, have stood with the Syrian people in their time of need. Even as the United States works with partners across the globe to increase pressure on the regime, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, to enhance the capacity of Syrian and international organizations to document human rights violations being committed and to provide the opposition with communications equipment and other forms of non-lethal assistance and direct financial assistance. We continue to believe that political transition in Syria, led by the Syrian people and supported by the international community, is the best path for Syria's future. But even as we continue to seek solutions to the crisis in Syria, it's worth recalling the number of successes we've achieved in just a few short years. Atop the U.S. priority for this administration has been our work with partners the world over to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Over the past three years, we've worked to guard our support in the U.N. Security Council for unprecedented sanctions against Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs. President Obama has carried forward his proud vision and his personal commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. He was the first U.S. President to chair a session of the United Nations Security Council and at that session, a resolution was adopted that unanimously underlined his support for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the role of the International Tongue Energy Agency and the importance of reducing nuclear weapons. And the President has operationalized this commitment through extensive support the U.S. has provided to U.N. efforts to improve state capacity for preventing nuclear proliferation. Over the past three years, U.S. leadership at the U.N. has also been essential to a number of cases of effective international action to protect civilians and to prevent armed conflict. In Libya, quick action by the Security Council saved countless lives. And today, the international community is working with the U.N. to help the Libyans build a prosperous and stable future that respects their rights and reflects their aspirations. U.S. multilateral leadership and broad coalitions have also been key to addressing other crises. And for example, trying to prevent the return to open war between Sudan and South Sudan. The United States has worked hand in glove with the U.N. to facilitate its rapid response to the devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti. And the U.N. has been essential to the international community's efforts to stabilize Somalia and reduce the country's destabilizing exports of terrorism, piracy, extreme poverty, and migration. Well, as you well know, that one of the hallmarks of U.N. action has been United Nations peacekeeping efforts. And U.N. peacekeepers, whether military, police, or civilians, are increasingly taking on complex, difficult mandates to protect civilians of remote stability in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Darfur, and Lebanon. We send U.N. peacekeepers 120,000 of them are deployed right now to many of the world's most persistent and dangerous conflicts, where there are frequently little peace to keep, where the challenges are too thorny and deep for any one state to fix single-handedly. Their task was not simply to restore order, but also to help build the conditions that will support and sustain peace over the long term. We worked closely with Australia and the United Nations to promote understanding and acceptance of the importance of civilian security and democratic, reliable state institutions to restoring and maintaining stability. And of course, you know firsthand the challenges and the need for U.N. peacekeeping. Ever since 1947, when Australians were part of the U.N.'s first group of military observers, your forces have deployed as U.N. peacekeepers and in some of the U.N.'s toughest missions. Now, peacekeeping missions are not the U.N.'s only field deployments making a difference these days. United Nations' political missions are working in dozens of post-conflict settings, trying to prevent the return to armed conflict and the untold cost. That brings both economically in terms of human lives. And U.N.'s civilian missions are bringing critical, state-building expertise to fragile governments and often help mediate and diffuse political conflicts so they do not prompt a return to arms, including places such like Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places as well. And these are the places where new admissions are important partners for the United States and our other allies. In each of these locales, multi-level action has been the key to the global response. And although many of these challenges persist, it's almost impossible to imagine how more insecure we would be without action through the U.N. system. Now, our engagement at the United Nations has not only been in pursuit of international action on pressing threats to international peace and security. The multi-level diplomacy has been an important part of efforts by the United States and our partners to promote universal human rights and to advance shared values. When the Obama administration took office in 2009, few parts of the U.N. system were as a need of change as the United Nations Human Rights Council. For three years following the creation of the HRC in 2006, the United States sat on the sidelines as a result had little influence to prevent the HRC from sliding into a body that spent more time criticizing Israel than it did all of all other countries combined. By 2009, this administration ran a run and won a seat on the Human Rights Council so that it could seek to improve the council from within. And the short time since then, U.S. leadership at the Human Rights Council working in close collaboration with partners from all corners of the globe has resulted in a transformation of that body into one that now regularly responds to pressing human rights situations with timely, concrete action. In just this short period, U.S. leadership at the Human Rights Council working with our partners has led to a series of important advances with the protection of human rights worldwide. From launching commissions of inquiry to investigate human rights violations in Syria, Libya, and Quote du Bar, to the establishment of the first ever special repertoire on human rights on abuses in Iran, the HRC has worked to shine a global spotlight on persistent violators of universal human rights. And passing the first ever resolution in the U.S. system establishing rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people and saying that rights are in fact human rights and having a broad cross-regional group of HRC members took a historic step in ensuring that the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration are protected for all men and women regardless of their sexual orientation. And since 2009, the United States and our partners on the Human Rights Council have expanded the international mechanisms to monitor and protect core human rights including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the rights of women to live without discrimination. None of this has been easy. And the work is not done which is why the United States is running for a second term on the Human Rights Council this autumn. But Americans, like Australians, believe that these universal rights are the birthright of every man, woman and child and no matter their nationality. And we know that the suppression of these rights is not only a consequence of armed conflict but can be the cause of armed conflict as well. I've walked briefly through several of the challenges in the peace and security and human rights realms where the Obama administration has worked multilambularly through the UN system to promote effective international action. I want to take a moment to highlight the important transition that's coming up regarding how the Aegean Community organizes to improve human wellbeing through economic development. For 12 years, we've been working through the framework known as the Millennium Development Goals or the MDGs which set targets for dramatically reducing poverty by 2015. And much real measurable progress has been achieved in that time. Extreme poverty has been reduced by half, five years ahead of the 2015 deadline. And we've reduced by half the proportion of people lacking dependable access to clean drinking water. And there have been remarkable improvements for more than 200 million people who live in slums. These are huge, huge advances in human wellbeing the world over. And they wouldn't be possible about the kind of international engagement and cooperation I've been discussing tonight. Yet there remains much work to be done in the next three years on the other MDGs and the international community is also already discussing the following efforts, the post-2015 period and how to continue these efforts. But the very real achievements made are another example of why the Obama administration plays such an emphasis on global engagement because we recognize the complexity of so many contemporary problems that are too difficult to tackle alone. Over the long term, sustaining these and other efforts to mobilize common international response requires serious attention to the fabric of global cooperation. While we agree with the emerging powers who state that the international order must be renovated to better reflect the contemporary landscape, we also know that in too many ways the UN's operations remain stuck in the last century. In this vein, the United States has gone to great lengths to build a more sustainable, just and effective international order, including working to approve UN effectiveness and operations where it counts. We've spent years in close partnership with UN leadership and a number of countries, including Australia, to increase transparency, oversight and accountability for results across the UN system. And as a result, we see real, tangible improvements at the UN in New York, as well as with the various funds, programs and agencies that comprise the broader UN family. And importantly, for the long-term stability we've made clear over the past three years that our UN reform efforts are driven by a shared understanding, namely that we need the UN to adapt to the 21st century if it's just to use to bear the weight that we increasingly are putting on it. I hope tonight I've given you not only some insights into how the United States has approached these remarkable changes that we're finding in the 21st century world, but also shared some of the thinking behind all the attention we've been paying to Asia and Asia-Pacific region. And there are also so many issues that I haven't touched on and I hope you will have a touch if you have to discuss it in the question and answer session. As I've said, we're lucky to be living in remarkable times and with just a little perspective. I think it's accurate to say that we're witnessing some of the trends that maybe long-term ones put for the century ahead. For our part, the Obama administration has sought to address these tumultuous times by forging conditions for effective multilateral action and drastic cooperation, by reinforcing the global and regional architecture to better stand the tests we know it will face. And with that, let me conclude my remarks. Again, thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. And I look forward to our conversation in the question and answer session, thank you. Thank you so much, Assistant Secretary Prima for that tour of very impressive breadth and depth of the extent of US engagement globally, going from Australia through our region to the Middle East and around the world, the United Nations. I am Jeremy Farrell from the Asia-Pacific College of diplomacy. It's my great pleasure to moderate this Q&A session. And it's wonderful that our presenter has presented such a depth of ideas in such a brief space. So we actually have quite a bit of time for questions and answers, which is absolutely terrific. So we have about 20 minutes before refreshments will begin in the foyer. Perhaps we might take questions in clusters. So if we could have perhaps three questions to start or roll in, please. Don't be shy. Yes. You briefly mentioned, yes, if you could just say your name and our organization. Sure. I'm Garen Schmidt and I'm doing a Bachelor of Arts here at A&E. And you briefly mentioned China and the engagement, multilateral engagement that US and Australia have been engaging with China on. I was wondering specifically in relation to the central core incident between Japan, Korea, and China, what stance can you see America taking in trying to deal with that situation in a multilateral way? Thank you. Shall I go ahead and answer you, or do you want me to take? Perhaps we could. OK. Perhaps we can just pass it on. Absolutely, absolutely. First off, to say that they indicated that we think that an increasing role for China internationally is very much a welcome one. As I say, for the states to take on more responsibilities and support the system within the section, I should go ahead and think the question is how to build the right network of international organizations that are part to help sustain the values within the region and globally on that issue in particular. On the particular issue of the challenge, I would think it's important that the countries themselves work with each other diplomatically to resolve that situation within the diplomatic tools that need to be dealt with and the direct conversation between the great and most effective in dealing with that. But as I said also in my comments, I would think the overall in terms of creating which architecture of all countries, irrespective of size, should have an active role in the regional structures and have their voices heard. Three questions there. Gentleman. Dr. Brewer, just with a... You mentioned the... Oh, sorry, Alex Edwards from the University of New South Wales. You mentioned the requirement to reform the United Nations and bring it to the 21st century. I'm just sort of pairing that with the recent events in Syria and the fact that the Security Council has basically been unable to act, given the actions of Russia and China and so on. Just on the base of that, do you feel, or your personal perspective and the U.S. perspective that it's time to perhaps change and reinvigorate the Security Council as it stands, given that it's still basically in the power paradigm of 1945 would be very high powers that they stand? Do you think it's about time that changed? Well, as the President has been very clear, the United States does support a modest increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council. We think it is an essential institution for international peace and security. We think it's an essential institution now. But we also want to be sure that it retains its effectiveness and therefore we stress a modest increase. We also note that, as you know, there's only been one charter change to the structure of the Security Council increasing the numbers to 15. So it's not something we take lightly. And so we think it's serious that as all member states, that obviously any change of charter would have to be voted on by all member states. And we have to think about whatever reforms that might be made to it and whatever modest expansion would have to be sustainable for decades to come. So therefore we also think it's important that whatever increase there might be to the Security Council would be to states in their national capacity. We do not see a role for regional states. We think that countries take on their responsibilities of being a member of the Security Council or the permanent or non-permanent because of their commitment to international peace and security. So we do see the space that the president has talked about that in particular. We do not see a case for a change in the status of the data. Thank you so much. I'm Jason Lamczak and I'm a student here as well. I'm a PhD student at the School of Humanities. My question is regarding multilateralism, it seems that many of the critiques focus on the issue of international justice, particularly the perception that the previous administration not only did not take seriously international justice but actually committed international crimes in Afghanistan, for example, or in Iraq. And it's still a big thing that the US is not part, for example, of the International Criminal Court. And so you have people like Julian Assange trying to mobilize the world to be aware of this continuing position of the United States that's somehow immune from international justice. So I wonder if you have, if you think, for this administration, for the bio-administration to be taken seriously in its rhetoric, that it's, again, taking multilateralism seriously, that it needs to be part of international justice. Thank you, I guess. Perhaps we might take a few questions. Okay, sir. I wonder how long it might take for Julian Assange to rear his head in this morning. We have one question over here and then another one. I'll just end your mark. Graduate studies in international affairs. Ambassador, which of Asia's institutions do you feel is best able to manage some of the wicked problems which, for example, Southeast Asia faces? Is the ASEAN regional forum equates to handle the competing claims in the South China Sea? Is the ASEAN framework itself, can ASEAN itself be trusted? Okay, to us manage this. And then final question. Is it true that the secretary of the South China Sea and the student of Congress, is it true that the secretary of state, he will be addressing South Pacific forum leaders in the fall time, in the weeks time? And if so, that is a fairly high level delegation, I think, addressing the South Pacific forum. Does it have anything to do with the rise of China's influence in the Pacific? Okay, thank you. Very many, yeah, that's it, that's it, that's it. So, questions. But people have to unpack each of our questions. First off, let me unpack your question. You actually, I think, conflated three completely separate issues. So let's unpack them a little, we'll look at them, of course. The first was the question of the conduct, and you're probably particularly thinking about the conduct toward people who are held as prisoners. And I think you should note that, of course, that President Obama, very clearly in his 2009 speech at the National Archives, talked about the U.S. recommitment to not use torture and the mistake of using waterboarding. He was very clear and made it very clearly, United States would no longer conduct such activities. A clear break with previous practice, and a clear statement by the President, which has been implemented, I think that's important to notice. The second thing you talked about was the International Criminal Court. The United States is an observer, not a member of the International Criminal Court. As you know, in our system, that you have that in order to accede to any treating, we have both an extensive diplomatic process and an executive legislative process. So we're not, and now taking on the issue of whether the United States deserves to become a member of the ICC, but as observers, we're very active observers. And under this administration, the United States has been an active member and participant at the state's parties. As you know, when the state's parties meet, the observers also have an opportunity to speak and be involved, and we've sent high-level delegations. My colleague Harold Coe, who you will know is the Dean of Yale Law School, and I'll leave as the legal advisor in the Department of State, leads our delegation, usually accompanied by Ambassador Steve Brown, who's our ambassador for war crimes. So we send a high-level expert delegation to participate as active observers at the International Criminal Court in a way that is appropriate as an observer. We're also, in when appropriate, on a case-by-case basis, been willing on the Security Council to vote for resolutions that talk about the International Criminal Court again in a way that we think is appropriate. So I think it's important to notice those really important changes and approaches that are taken by this administration. The third thing is you raise the issue of Mr. Assange, and I think that you mischaracterize his participation. I think we have to differentiate a couple of these. There's a current flurry in the news issue about his extradition issues. That's not an issue for the United States. It's an issue for the countries that are involved. But the underlying issue really has to do with the unauthorized leak of classified material. And that is something that we can do, as I think everyone here should, because what is the role of classified material? Usually to protect, for example, human rights defenders. I talked about the important role of advancing freedom of expression and advancing press freedom and advancing human rights. What's often most people who are most courageous who come forward talking about what's happening in their countries, they come and comments to countries who they think will advance efforts of human rights. It's those people who are put in danger by efforts on the unauthorized leaks. I think that also that the efforts on non-proliferation and others are important issues and those who seek to profit from such activities also, I think, do the international community a disservice? Now let's turn to the second set of questions. They are seen in our regional forum. And then here again, one question of course, each of us is ultimately all can only do what their member states really want them to do. And so the question is also on to what extent, what way we're going to put behind it, but we think there have been important developments within the ASEAN community. For example, just go back to human rights. The creation of a commission that's trying to look at some of these issues, that's an important development. I think we'll continue to have to work to try to foster connections between regional efforts and making sure we retain support for the global universality of human rights and don't lose track of that in terms of focus of reaches. But we think there's a lot of potential that will continue to have to work under a very concrete measures. And then the question of the Pacific Uniform, while the Secretary's schedule itself has not yet been confirmed, I'll say that indeed the United States has been very active both in the Pacific Uniform as an observer and along with other organizations in the region, as we have in other regions as well. Obviously what's visible here has been the activity of whether it's a Pacific Uniform where we think it's a good opportunity to talk both to the Pacific Uniform States, with whom we work on so many issues across the UN system. Also whether we're talking about climate change, the state of development, these are important issues in the region and we want to be present as active in service. We're also active in a variety of other organizations, I mentioned the United States Senate and others where we're taking it more advantage. And the people that are out in the region, we're also going to more conferences becoming more active. That's part of multi-level close, attending more sessions and so that we're doing that in all regions, hoping to make a more positive and sustained commitment to our two multi-level organizations. One question. I'm in the front, middle and then I go to the side. Hi, my name is Ben Stier, I work in the International Division at the Department of Climate Change and then should see, so as you imagine, my question is related to the role of multiculturalism in addressing climate change. As you know, we've had negotiations for the past 20 years or so, more now. And we've had a couple of false starts, you could say, but we've had to go to protocol and we've had the Bali road map that's led to the negotiations and kind of carrying those up. And in both of those cases, those processes have failed to lead to what could be characterized as a durable and effective regional region to address climate change. But in German, what has been had as a breakthrough is a new agreement to negotiate a new agreement. And that agreement would come in, would be agreed by 2015 to come in the face after 2020. My question is actually, what do you think can be done differently this time and how can we make this time work? How can you get it right the third time around? My name's Robert Floyd, I'm from the Australian Safeguards and Voluntary Apparition Office. My question is around, what does the future look like, Assistant Secretary, in terms of multilateralism in a world which is increasingly globalized, but at the same time, has greater expression of regionalization. So what is the opportunity and the hazard of globalization and regionalization working together? And finally up. This is Verlach, I'm an international student here and I have two short questions. Firstly, do you think there's a case for reducing financial aid to Pakistan and in order to slow down the spread of terrorism? Because clearly nothing seems to be happening and nobody really knows what the money is for. And part two is, do you think there's a case for pressurizing Bangladesh in their treatment of Muhammad Yunus, the very well-known economist and of course an overlord, because that could pressurize, that could create a mechanism to eliminate poverty even at a faster rate, because Muhammad Yunus has clearly created very great program in using poverty, not just in Bangladesh but in many places around the world. Thank you, thank you. I would take both of them and talk about climate change, then talk about the future, then talk about Pakistan and Bangladesh, that indeed there have been important evolution in the discussion, the multi-level conversation about climate change. Do we think that there's more that we'd like to do? Yes, clearly, we hope that this round will lay and enable us to accomplish our long-term goals of addressing climate change. But I will say that one of the important things, now at least we're having one global conversation, and that wasn't the case for our crisis, or 10 years ago, that we're actually, whether it's the major economies, whether it's the countries we already signed up to previous judge groups, that at least we're having one conversation to try to come with a global group, that is important and important to our development. I think also that whatever country's economic levels that they have an important role to play as part of the effort on climate change, but it's also important that the international has also helped to drive some of our choices in terms of national support for trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. But yes, this will be a lot more to do, and I think it's going to still be difficult negotiations because of the profound change required from a variety of economies, not just my own, but from many economies of the countries sitting around that table. That means that they've got a lot of diligence in these, comes as you identify these are some of the profound questions about economic development, social inclusion, but the fact that we're having one similar conversation because at least it's a part of the forward. Looking at what does the future look like in terms of multilateral level, that is a huge question. You're not, and one's always got questions about trying to predict. So I would just maybe just some things to look at. Greater integration, greater economic integration, then requires our societies to be much closer together, that the, what we've always talked about, the importance of hearing to many standards domestically, that's even more the case now as our societies run into each other's mind, or multicultural especially, because of the deeper economic integration. We think therefore that some of the time-honored principles such as community universal declaration of human rights are absolutely even more important than they ever were before. And trying to support those mechanisms that help are even more important. That's one of these things like the universal period of review, which is a new mechanism which requires all of us who are members of the United Nations to have our human rights reviewed and our adherents to that single document reviewed, and we all comment on each other, is really important. Those are the sorts of mechanisms we think will actually persist in a part of actual efforts to try to improve human rights in terms of countries because it's not just the three hours you sit in Geneva having other countries comment, it's a process you go to get there. The national dialogue that has to happen in countries with civil society, with non-government organizations, in order to present that. Those are sorts of things we actually think are helpful in terms of helping increase sadness. We also think that if you look at, there's an important role for regional organizations depending on whether choose to, can actually sometimes help their member states meet their global commitments, maybe providing advice, technical support on ways to meet the commitments that are important as well. And the traditional role played by international organizations of setting norms and helping states meet them is something that will continue when you persist everything from aviation standards all the way through to human rights service. I mean, those structures will continue to be important service performed by international organizations and are supported by robust, multilateral engagement. And then you asked me a question particularly about Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now, I'm not a specialist in South Bay and South Asia, but I will say that the important bylaw conversation on addressing extremism on all sides of the border around Pakistan remains an important conflict of conversation. Now, we continue to have our engagement with Pakistan and with Afghanistan as well as well. And your question, particularly about the treatment of monomony in Bangladesh, we of course always are interested in the particular treatment of such leaders on the international stage. I really know through a huge role that the microcredit is playing in so many parts of the world. The model of course has been important in many other places and we continue to think this is extremely important. Indeed, it has then inspired many other programs both bilaterally and in other contexts to try to say how can you more create a course of target of money is in small amounts, action useful. So let's live in a revolution of thinking and usefulness to live that contribution to new value change development. We have time for just three more questions. This is my goal to start with these two in the middle and then this is the end of the video. Yes. I'm from the Redditor General Institution Network. You mentioned something about the leadership role of the United States in terms of vitalizing international human rights mechanism in the form of the Human Rights Council. My question is, how would this leadership role, how would it operationalize its leadership role in terms of moving from the peer pressure to actual implementation or seriously implementing the recommendations of countries in the Human Rights Council and whether that would it mean that the United States would take the lead role in implementing the recommendations proposed by other countries to the United States. And my second question is, how would you respond to the criticism about countries being more focused on Africa in terms of persecuting human rights violations rather than looking at other countries, for example, allies of the US or other countries in Asia who are doing equally massive human rights violations. Right. In particular, in that last part, are you talking particularly about issues on the agenda of the Human Rights Council? It's in general the right. In terms of particularity on intervention in Africa and in the United States, and on intervention in Africa and all that. Oh, okay, let me take it with us. Okay, and other. I'm sure there are two more. Actually, no, no, please don't, please don't, please don't take it away. Okay, yes. Yes. Hi. My name is Elfira, and I'm doing my master's in international relations. And I'm going to touch on the issue of human rights, especially in West Papua, because I come from West Papua, Indonesia. And when Obama came to, President Obama came to Asia, he focused on a show of big calls on the West Papua issue. But then we see that there's part of there because the problem is the torture and human rights abuses there is conducted by states. And when the international advocates, international human rights advocates they want to cover it. These issues actually are banned by the Indonesian government, I say it's our sovereignty. So my question would be what do you think the effective mechanism to handle this kind of situation? Because these people have to plan their rights and they will plan to form a big question. Thank you. My name is Ronald Bargay, so I work in the Australian Parliament. My question is around the Indian Ocean area, which is not being discussed very much. And it's just been discussed at John Hopkins and other universities all over the U.S. My question surrounds, how is it U.S. viewing the Indian Ocean, particularly when the Indian Navy is the biggest Navy's there at the moment, and how is it responding to the situation in Burma as well as the growing maritime trade as well as energy security trade in that part of the world? I'll try to answer, I apologize for being brief. And so that each one of these would be a whole seminar. So I brought you by a little abbreviated my response by one of my chair and get to all three questions. Particularly looking at the International Human Rights Council and I was talking about reinvigorating the Human Rights Council, I talked about the role of the United States and working with other partners to try to make the Human Rights Council to bring onto the agenda of the council issues that are pressing and to try to make it more responsive and more agile body. And so I think that's important to notice that not only was the U.S. willing to raise issues within the Human Rights Council, but increasingly encouraging other states to care about an issue to raise in the Human Rights Council. So for example, the meeting on the Côte d'Ivoire was actually brought by the Africa Group. Because the Africa Group said after the presidential election when there was not a transition of power despite the votes of the euphoria of people, it was the Africa Group said, wait a minute, we care about this issue, why can't we have a special section on something we care about? That was important, important in the Human Rights Council. We think also that the process of the UPR, U.S. was about the response to the UPR, we take very seriously all of the recommendations that were made in our three R sessions, you know, both in the session itself and afterwards countries can comment. I think we received, I think, 280, 290 different specific comments. Not only did we then have each agency process to take, to review each of the recommendations. That is, you know, several months after at the next session after we've had the Universal Pre-R Compute, you respond. And my colleague I've mentioned before, how we'll come, big fan of how we'll come. So he's a legal fighter after fabulous work with. And he led the team that went back to respond to the recommendations from the UPR. We take very seriously, as I said, the process before the UPR itself and the follow-up as well, and we encourage many other states to do the same. But then your point also about issues on the agenda. And I was to say that actually both of the Human Rights Council, whether it was addressing the challenges in Sri Lanka, Syria, Libya, all of them, they've either been resolutions or special sessions in the Human Rights Council on a whole range of issues. So it's not solely issues in the Africa region. Do you mean issues on the Security Council? Is that what you're thinking about the question? I wasn't, the majority of peacekeeping operations say about the Security Council, a large number are in sub-Saharan Africa. And in many cases, because that's supposed to be a support for the Josh community for the efforts by people in the country and themselves to look at the large peacekeeping operation is in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Amnusca. That is, one is because the complex mixture of security situations where as seen as a contribution to hopefully help the Congolese make their choices. And if we look at, for example, Sudan and South Sudan, again, where you see both the birth of the new country, South Sudan, it was because it was on the Security Council agenda and the effort to implement the comprehensive peace agreement after 20 years of horrific civil war, that was on the, yes it was on the Security Council agenda, I think was seen as a positive contribution from the, especially from the Southern Sudanese people that it was actually remained on the Security Council agenda. And often we get the reverse problem of being say, why isn't an issue on the Security Council agenda as in why isn't the Security Council allowed to kind of take more rather than less. To take up the question of the NGOs and the ability to participate in sessions in Utah but the interest of, I believe five, five minutes to your question, in terms of civil society and just being able to go and comment on the digital and the other government being able to be part of the participation, is that your question? Indeed, and the United States has been a strong supporter in having non-governmental organizations be able to be heard in the UN system. We already speak out in the committees that provide accreditation for NGOs to try to encourage NGOs to be allowed to speak. We're usually out to the ones along with other important partners who are defending NGOs so they're not excluded because they're controversial that some countries do try to exclude NGOs because they are forthright. We say that their voices should be heard. We often try to encourage multi-stakeholder meetings and we also try to talk about other ways to make the discussions of the Human Rights Council more visible. Obviously, it's public but not American get to Geneva. It's expensive to get to Geneva. It's a long way. And so, one of the things we tried to do just made different countries try to grapple with this but when we had our own UPR, we actually then actually had a session afterwards, also in the Palais, with non-governmental organizations and US organizations came to then question their government's values. You should be able to question your own government. But we also said we had a web link because it obviously lots of NGOs is able to find the Geneva. And so, we actually had a web link so you could actually gather at the Department of Washington so that you could ask questions. Maybe there's some scope for the use of technology to allow voices from at home to be part of the UPR process. There might be some creative ways to address those issues as well. And we're conscious that there are 40 countries that are members, at least 40 countries that are members of the UN in New York that aren't in Geneva because it's so expensive to be there. We think that's actually a disadvantage. Voices should be part of this debate debates about whether it's human rights, humanitarian response and other issues that are on the agenda at India, UN, Geneva. And then, we asked them a question about the Indian Ocean. Now again, that's a much larger question, so I get them. I apologize, we're not really very good at addressing the whole issue. Obviously, we both longstanding supporters of our freedom of the seas issues and access for all through the international waters. I think that we need to be able to do that. You asked me just to pick up one of the different question was particularly about Burma. And obviously, if you think about again, at the time, world historical changes over the past few years, which is this remarkable amount of itself, just looking at the evolution of Burma thing is particularly important. We've both, in our own national capacities, have been looking at or recalibrating both our support for Burma, obviously our secretary made a history trip as part of that, and our national response to the changes in Burma. We also, as a member of the United Nations and the Executive Board of the UN Development Program, have then also changed our approach and been supportive of greater and appropriate engagement by the UN Development agencies in Burma. We've looked at some of the programs, we think that we should support. We also think support that we continue to watch on that, probably on an annual basis, to review what's going on, to make sure that the progress being made is commensurate with what we respect and would still continue to merit our expansion of UN programs in that area. But we're trying to at least also to look at how we, so update our approach, but we also think we have to continue to observe what's going on as part of that as well. Again, I'm sorry, a short answer to a much larger question. Before I draw proceedings to a close and invite you all to partake in refreshments outside, I'd just like to say it's been such a pleasure to host you, Assistant Secretary. Normally very important people who come to speak to a prepared script and that's about all you get and you rarely get the chance to ask questions. But today you've spent more than half your time I think taking questions from the floor and responding to the interests of the people in the room and that is so generous of you and it's a testament to the depth and strength of your own personal knowledge and experience and the way you bring together the policy and the practitioner role in the academic world. So on behalf of everyone in this room and the broader and new community, thank you so much for coming in to be us and sharing your insights. Thank you.