EMAIL DETAILS

Let's get together next week to discuss.

RHB
202-333-1880

> On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Jared Genser <jgenser@perseus-strategies.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Hunter,
>
> Hi! Hope you are well. So our mutual friend is coming into town on March 30-31. We are close to completing, after a massive effort, a highly-detailed platform with 50 specific commitments if he is elected. Of course it has a strong exec summary and ten highlighted commitments up front.
>
> Taking this public, as he will, on around April 7-8th, will actually be historic – regardless of how the race turns out — given that no candidate for the position has ever published anything about their vision in running, let alone something like this. And the platform will drive discussions among the candidates for SG.
>
> He is making his way around the world consulting with the P5 about the ideas in his draft platform to seek and secure their input.
>
> I’ve asked for meetings for him with Tony (or Tom Shannon) at State, Ben Rhodes/Steve Pomper at the NSC, and then chair/ranking on SFR and foreign ops approps subcommittees so Corker/Cardin/Graham/Leahy and Royce/Engel/Granger/Lowey.
>
> It would seem to me that this might be the right time for our guy to have a private substantive discussion w/your Dad, if you thought that made sense. While our guy has had to walk a delicate line with nods to the P5 on their core interests, the platform is very strong and progressive overall, embracing fully sustainable development and climate change efforts, addressing the most urgent issues in peacekeeping around responding to the threat of terrorism and rebuilding failing states in MENA, and on human rights and UN reform. Securing his input now to make sure his priorities make it into the final draft would be invaluable of course.
>
> Best,
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Jared Genser
> Managing Director
> +1.202.466.3069 (o)
> +1.202.320.4135 (m)
>
> I’m now tweeting!
>
> The UN Security Council in the Age of Human Rights
> Cambridge University Press, 2014
> Co-Edited by Jared Genser and Bruno Stagno Ugarte
>
>
>
> For decades the UN Security Council skirted human rights, addressing them sporadically, reluctantly, and typically without reference to binding standards. That began to change with the end of the Cold War, as easing political tensions allowed the Council gradually to act on the fact that upholding the norms against atrocities is intimately connected to its classic mandate of defending international peace and security. Yet even since then, that evolution has been contested, particularly when the Council’s permanent five members fear the topic might come back to haunt them or their close allies. This exceptional volume of essays provides a comprehensive assessment of the Council’s conflicting views on human rights with more nuance, sophistication, and historical memory than anything else around. It helps us to understand how the shifting battles over human rights are being waged in the Council and provides guidance as to how the Council can more effectively defend our rights in the future.
>
> Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
>
> During the last 20 years, the UN Security Council has embraced the protection of individual rights as a matter of international peace and security. That said, progress has been uneven and there have been both great strides forward and terrible setbacks. This timely and important book provides the first comprehensive assessment about how the Security Council works to address major human-rights challenges around the world and recommends ways it can do so more effectively.
>
> Luis Moreno Ocampo, First Prosecutor, International Criminal Court (2003-2012)
>
> The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message.
>
>=2