tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 19, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
disparity in terms of convergence sector by your, like in autos, it could be more advanced than others. this is my experience when i worked on the transatlantic regulatory business dialogue, the regulatory standards by sector and we could harvest on this much quicker than others. can you give us your views on a map. >> we have a number of sectors that have agreed to this on what they think is needed in the specific center. and that gives you a formidable
stopping point. the risk of disparity, i think, by addressing the aspects and the political aspect, you will have to develop discipline that become the backbone and you cannot have this one to another. i believe that if in a pragmatic way the backbone of that kind of regulatory convergence or existing measures were measures that we have to take for the future. we should develop it in an organic and pragmatic way. but if we want to keep this manageable for the future, it's important that we also converge
depending on the sector and once it is accepted as a discipline, it also means that people are inspired and they already tried to put into place regulations. of course the economy is something that we will start asking for. and you need to make a political choice in the decisions will be taken. the fact that you have an agreement between the companies on each side is a very important thing. >> on behalf of the board, chairman jon huntsman, but to offer three quick words of thanks. number one, two fred kemp, derek
and other members of the staff will put this together. and second to all attendees, to have you turn on the first day after a three-day holiday with a little bit of snow on the ground. and thank you, commissioner for joining us. and not all take time to go public soon after a set of negotiations like this. we take that as a remarkable respect for the council and are open dialogue in this important areas. we wish you and your team, mike aheadis team, the best of uck [applause] [inaudible conversations]
the white house says it's monitoring the situation in ukraine and we will consult with european partners on the next steps including sanctions to end the violence. clashes between police and antigovernment protesters in the ukrainian capital have left at least 25 people dead and hundreds injured. the union called a member of its 28 member countries for tomorrow. cnn is reporting secretary of state kerry talk about sanctions during today in paris. we can also hear from president obama on the situation according to cnn. live coverage on c-span2 will continue at 1:10 eastern with a discussion on the relationship with arab countries in the persian gulf.
the title is down to the crossroads civil-rights black power and the march against pear. at end three weeks later in jackson and you could need an argument the movement in any way chance forms and approaches the crossroads. the call for black power was first heard on the march. stokely carmichael unveiled
midway through the march and generate controversy and immediately generate a great swelling of enthusiasm among many people and the black politics those changes might have happened over the course of time but with the march of it is dramatized the mischief because it brought together civil rights leaders and regular people, white and black from all over the country and put them in the sort of laboratory of black politics through mississippi. mississippi. it created these turmeric moments that highlighted the key divisions into some of the key tensions but also some of the key strengths that have animated the civil rights movement.
>> ambassador to the u.s. discussed his country's road to democracy in a discussion held at american university on tuesday. he talks about iraq's political climate, the transformation from dictatorship to democracy in the relationintorelations with the . after remarks he took questions from the audience. this is just over an hour. >> [inaudible conversations]
i want to welcome you all here today. i am jen at the school of international service and it is such a wonderful honor to be hosting the iraqi ambassador here on campus. we were delighted to welcome the ambassador fayli here to washington last summer, and it's an incredibly interesting time to have the ambassador here in the united states working on such an important set of issues and he is certainly the right person for the job. he previously was serving as iraq's ambassador to japan, and prior to joining the diplomatic corps, ambassador fayli lived in the united kingdom for 29 years working in the it sector for several transnational companies during his last ten years in the uk he held senior management positions in major american companies. while in the uk, he was an extremely active leader within the community there and he
played an active role in advocating for democracy and the rule of law in iraq during the perco when iraq was under the dictatorship of saddam hussein. fluid in arabic and kurdish, ambassador fayli was born in baghdad and you can follow him on twitter at @fayliluqman. of any student who has ever been to sis knows the professor because he has been with the school since its founding in 1958, and as i always tell him whenever i come back from visit to meet with alumni weather in this country or overseas, he remains a rock star among the
sis community. all of the alum want to know how he's doing and if he is still teaching and when i assured them he is your quite pleased to hear that. he has a variety of areas of expertise including the middle east as well as broad issues of peace and conflict resolution and has been a mainstay of the graduate program in international peace and conflict resolution, and in fact his work on peace and conflict resolution is being honored in march at the international studies association meeting in toronto, where there will be a panel that includes professor sayid among the honorees. so to abdul thank you for organizing this and coming back to campus and we hope we will have you here often to continue your service as ambassador. thank you all very much. [applause] >> the ambassador will speak for about half an hour.
we will have questions and answers for about a half an hour, and then the whole event is recorded. [inaudible] >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you very much, professor sayid, for giving me the opportunity to share with you our iraq project and democratization and also to dean for allowing us this great opportunity at this great university. i am very much privileged and looking forward to the q-and-a after i give you a quick overview of the democratic process in iraq with its challenges with drawbacks and
aspirations as to what is taking place and what should take place and why it took place to give you a historical perspective of that as well. just to give you a higher level it talks about the impact of dictatorship on society and we talked about in our short talk with the professor about the 40s and 50s the key difference is that in the adverse impact of dictatorship on the societies themselves and to talk about the social transformation of the dictatorship on iraq and the other region as well. i will talk about the democratic process in iraq primarily after 2,003, and talk about the foreign policy of the government and the role of the embassy to
give you a perspective of what we are doing to cement the democracy is about the relationship in the united states and iraq. as a country as a jail murphy is in the heart of the middle east and in the heart of the old land where the civilization started from. it is a sort of geography in relation to the various faultlines protested with the geographical faultlines, the oil lines and the big sisters and brothers next-door and importantly, it's where mainly
the various civilizations of iraq and of humanity either started, or was an interaction with. and it's one of those countries in which it is constantly being inhabited by the civilization. it's never been deserted. it is narrowly with one fourth of the south. just to give you a flavor of the various civilizations which occupied iraq for the west at least 10,000 years around -- these civilizations were coexisted in the same geography more or less, and also they lived in which it wasn't occupied by an army from innovators and reoccupied are
taking back. it's the same process to the land that is the key difference between iraq and any other country on top of each other and have a mark or significant signature on the iraq e. character. no single province can say they are represented or true in iraq because of the diversity of the civilizations so forth to occupy the various parts of iraq. that is the key difference between iraq and any other country. the character is developed there is some signature of the character.
if you look at the country from the data point of view of the populations about 42 with a 53 million is increasing by 1 million every year. so it is one of the highest population growth in the world is around 3%. the diversity of ethnicity also enriches it. the language as well, the dialect. the regional aspects of it as well so you have the sectarians and religion which is significantly young and the population which i talked about as well. these are the high level of numbers that present a society which is developing in the population growth and it has the culture with the diversity into
the religious aspect of it and most importantly it has different nationalities as well. it is applied to a province across iraq. whether they are arabs or kurds or christians or muslims or sunni and shia and so on. they are now the kurds and to shia and sunni. it is simplistic understanding of the i'm not unique in iraq as a part of the normal sort of paradigm of iraq if you look at
the historical perspective, you have the key cities of basrah. the british mandate after the first world war for independence, iraq is a country was always rich within the region. in the gulf country at the university and so on tha because another key member of the united nations or the league of nations before the arab league as well until 1956. you had the military for about five years and from about 63 for
a few months and then back in 68 there was a political party. 22003 they sat down in the vice president's rule and he was useless. they had an adverse impact on the character of the iraq he as well. it changes the fabric of society into the desireand of the desirh into the vision of the dictator and not what the people want. from 1990 followed by the united sanctions is the harshest country that had the sanctions against it. in 2,003 you had the u.s. invasion.
since we had a number of milestones in the democratic point of view, we have the provision, the national election three times for the constituti constitution, and in addition to that, the transformation of the society from the dictatorship to democracy to transform that means that you have to evolve from one place to another. the evolution process may not be controlled and should not be compared to make sure the democratic process in the u.s. or the uk or france. that transformation over the last decade has been from a number of the elections 60% which is quite high. it's always been an issue for
people wanting us to participate has also been very high. people want democracy. they are willing and they are eager to embrace it. is it the right process and the right dosage to move into the democratic party we will discuss that later. by the way it would take place in april ended april and this would be the fourth national election for the parliament. if we talk about prior to 2003 to put things in perspective, the key issue has been mac adverse impact of the sanctions in iraq and it's more or less the whole middle class. by 2003 you know longer have the middle class in the society which means that you no longer can change the society into a
manageable process. you cannot transform the society. that is a key issue and that happened because of the un sanctions and because of the various war and for other sort of the social political business as well. so that means the economic infrastructure of the country with more or less be impacted increasing the national debt by $200 billion because of the sanctions and the world following the invasion and because of other un sanctions we talked about as well. it was one to 10,000. at that time in 1980 iraq was the cold to $3. by 2003, 3,000 cold 1 dollar.
so that was on the economic side. on the dictatorship that also had a significant impact on the country with distinction for an relation ttherelation to health, education, social welfare, dependency on the state with the food program and so on. the current political climate in iraq is democratic, federal, representative parliament, and it has as i said decades of dictatorship. it is incoherent but the political groups are in the constitutional procedures. reaching the construction on these vital issues, the
political manifest is of the country's new democracy. it's not the most effective system because there is no opposition party. all the parties have positions in the capital and in the parliament because you have to get everybody into the system and any sort of place with the adverse impact of the dictatorship on the society. the reason i talk to that that is in the regulations and procedures for the wishes and the needs of the dictator and not of the society. that is the key issue and i will talk about that later. succumb to transform into the democratic process, you have to go through a very painful process. you can't just -- people do not adapt to the democracy as a new
fashion or any new sport. it's much more fundamental and it impacts the belief in society and responsibility of the citizens and of the government. if you look at the growth in iraq, the growth is just between nine to 11 and forecasted in the next few years as also a significant increase in the oil production for the gdp per capita but the unemployment numbers it is more or less the same. it hasn't significantly changed and that is prematurely because of the over dependency on oil as a generator for the country. it counts for less than 1% and is high in labor-intensive or
agriculturally any of that. so that means you have to find other jobs for people over the government is doing is currently subsidizing it with increased employment by the government. that is counterproductive to the constitution that stipulates the market so you have the key challenges in the economic development, the government into the core infrastructure. so the economy has to be managed better. reality perception. people come to me for is it safe to go to iraq or do you feel sort of the life expectancy of other aspects in iraq that is to
dhasto do with the perception ad not the reality. if you go to the north and go to the south outside of baghdad you don't find that image that people perceive in all of iraq so in relation to the security and the development of people. please bear that in mind and do not accept the normal cnn or al jazeera discourse that people cannot live or are not able to function. we are. the circumstance from the social science point of view, people are so used to changing their lifestyles. people are getting about the normal lifestyle and so on. from the social science point of view it's not healthy that people are used to so much. so bear that in mind, please.
i don't see a lot of studies on that and it does articulate why the arab spring is taking place. people are after the new social contract. they are unhappy with the adverse procedures, rules, organizations, policies dictated on their society. why? it creates more into the moralizers -- demoralizes people mentally and culturally impacts, adversely impacts societies so people become more self-centered, short-term, inward looking and so on. these are signs of dictatorship
and the longer that his rule, the more impact you will have on that society and that is too serious and so on so keep that in mind as well. also, ngos in the civil society and so on. they are by the nature of dictators so you cannot rebuild the democracy in as fast a pace as you would like because the foundations are not there, the culture and the procedures and the resignations of the the government are not supportegoveo you have to bear that in mind. this is what it needs to be as well. then you have the issue of the democracy.
it allows for the difference of the opinions to emerge and interact with each other and to nourish. also provides you the tools to be able to transform that society. that is the key element. it is not easy. it is not painless. it is a prolonged process. here i put just a short analysis of the democracy in iraq. you can see when you look at the issue that it is a vibrant democratic process taking place, hard representation, the internationally fair election. people are buying into the process and media websites from the article.
however, the response abilities of the citizens are still not clear. people think it is finished. no, they need to prolong the. when you have a child that is a teenager you can say about that is the responsibility of the parent company have to keep nurturing that child in the stage as well. this is what has to take place. there are the adverse proposals between the citizens will end up a government role as well. the democracies have to be more active. for the four years or five years as well to build up that case as well. the key issues is people's expectations because they have a high demand and they are using
the rightful and expect a higher return on that investment quickly. investing in the key challenge. the region itself isn't known for the democratic development. it is for the western free democracy. the regional element has the support as well. you have to build up to the mind as well. you have the diversity of the society. you have to learn how to interact with each other in a democratic process. you have to sort of nurture each other and agree on a set of procedures or policies to create
the culture to nourish and to be developing the country into a more democratic process. we have decided that in iraq. we decided that democracy is a painful process because we have seen the impact of dictatorship. a lot of the discussion should we have a third term or not. we want to move away from the dictatorship regardless of how good or bad that is. we only agree on the two terms and with others as well. that is the key issue. the nationbuilding versus the state building. i have not seen a great deal focus on that key differentiat
differentiator. there are two different concepts. from the u.s. perspective you are a nation built in the same time that the state. but from the civilizational culture such as iraq and egypt, the nation and the state are two different entities. they are of citizens for the state and different than that of the nation. where the nation lies is different. is it the egyptians or iraq is and so on. it was primarily on the nationbuilding and the state building it is confusing for us because we are involved as well.
so unfortunately, that is a bit late to realize that and i think it is important to understand that when you have this process taking place in syria or egypt or others as well. we have to differentiate with it. the state is clear. the source of power and unfortunately i've not seen a lot on the process with a great deal of papers on that or books or articles. i think it is worthy of understanding because of the different backgrounds or even newer states in iraq.
the other aspect is the change required in a society what is the level of change. how deeply do you want to change. at the head of the state to rewrite the kind mr. and ambassador or do we want the government where we are not happy with this party governing or are we asking for a change at the state system of government whether it is democratic or are we unhappy with the state itse itself. we don't want to believe in one state and we don't believe in the state as that concept as well. the question isn't what level of change but it's what have we
agreed to on the change. aspects of society are promoting governance while others are promoting the system unfortunately the recommended this course. in egypt you have the issue of what was system where the government or the actual system of the government to change. we have resulted that with democratic expectation from a parliamentary committee administered with certain responsibilities and so on for the discussion that we have in iraq is not. we are talking about a different level of change or does the system of government have to change. the key challenge has been a certain society.
the key challenge objective but has been hijacked because the objective wasn't clear. i'm unhappy with what i have but i'm not clear what systems i want. i want to change my social contract but i don't know what the social contract would look like, how representative or how free is. that is certainly taking place in the whole region and more in syria. the social contract between the citizens it would remain important strategically. that is because of the geography and because of the rich history and we talked about the resource element. so, regardless how much the
discussion in the united states should we be in iraq or one it would remain important for some time because of the geography and so on. the social reform transformations are required. the constitution stipulates we shouldn't interfere with other neighbors affairs. if we have a major problem and the challenges in the last ten years was fair in the iraqi politics. sometimes it was justified because they are not confident of the system in iraq and sometimes in the history of the dictatorship they are bringing
people that are unfamiliar with iraq and they have their own reservations. so that is some of the regions. however, i want all constitutions to point not to interfere in other neighbors, but to promote strong relationships with the countries. put the neighbor countries and jordan and turkey and iran. we have a good representation of the ambassador level into saudi arabia to try to use that issue for example. but we are working with our regional friends and international firms in the united states. we are eager to make the sort of energy sector of the global supplier on the right projection talked about.
it's increasing its revenue and it is increasing its ability to develop its core infrastructure after the decades of neglect. chapter six or seven ... syria. we have set up serious sort of providing on the funds by all sides with a special regime and the oppositions won't help. it is the only solution to serious. this is something that we would be promoting for about three years now. and maybe the only in the regi
region. we are also very vocal in saying that we are after a weapon free zone. whoever has that should not so we would be very vocal on that as well because we be the any new weapons whether it is chemical, biological it won't be a destructive elements to the region and to sustain and the new elements to be added to it. i have a number of challenges and one of them is to keep them interested in iraq on the long-term predictable to the relationship which means it is still dependent on a single element for the institution into
the mutual interest and opportunities in the united states also back to 2008 but we talk about into the military security, culture, energy, transportation, salon. they might be calling the fatigue this does not apply to that. we have the eagerness in the lonlong-term, the house relationship in the united states and here in the united states after the troop withdrawal people are discussing the strong relationship and the security threats in the region, the areas of cooperation in relation to the comments in
relation to energy has proven that profitable inadvisable individually beneficial to have that relationship. they are eager to send their skills and most of the transportation sector and healthcare so we are eager for having that. the relationship has to go beyond the president of the feminist or in has to be more institutions and so on to strengthen that relationship and that will require some time, but it is doable.
in the middle east. what they have witnessed in the spring it is a process of empowerment, they do not feel powerless as they have in the past is a sense of empowerment. the challenge that they are facing for the affirmation. the affirmation and vaults i'm responsible, single-minded, and through you, your leadership, that is what is unveiling now. how do they move from the end
power meant affirmation? as you mentioned, democracy is a process. it is based upon the participation. it requires safeguards. so i would like to have some of your comments on this process but you have been talking about. >> what you have is the region of the south transforming from one in which the governance process, which was a dictatorship, people are unhappy with. and they are saying what we have now is not good enough. we have a substantial increase in our population growth. we have a reduction in our gdp in proportion to any other countries. so, the egyptians start talking about in 1950 we had the same
economy as south korea. so why don't we have that? in 1850 we had the same economy is japan. the sort of under of japan and mohammed ali talked of the reform. these are the fundamental questions in the recent comparative questions. the same with iraq and any other i talk about. then you have an issue of the style of governing in which people call themselves republican, but they want their children to move. you have that in yemen and iraq and syria in the sort of egypt and in tunisia they were talking about it, so you have people
that call themselves republicans and there were areas that they wanted their children to. if the people were unhappy, the population growth of the social media, so people are aware of what is taking place. you cannot have the iron curtain situation. so, that chance formation is unhappy. however do they have the infrastructure or other infrastructures of society to transform? so the transformation of freedom is the question and the power of the authority and in the society you have the power of culture that is dominant yet you have a democracy which the power of governing should be the dominant process.
so there are conflicts. the cover of religion or sectarianism you also have the emergence of al qaeda which doesn't allow the existence of the physical existence of others versus the globalization that promotes diversity and communications between the various communities, coexistence, interdependency. so that is where the key challenge is. you have the organizations that are much more effective on the ground to take advantage of that situation, of that transformation. so if you ask me are the arab countries moving in the right direction, the answer would have to be what direction do they want to achieve.
that is the difference between iraq and others. with all of our dysfunctionality of the government institutions that might be the case o but the vision of a society is clear. no one is asking for the change of the system, the fundamental change of the system or for the return of dictatorship. >> we are opening and fortunate to have you. yes please. >> thank you for your comment. i teach the u.s. foreign-policy. you mentioned that democratic project in iraq can be perceived as the neighbors by a threat and
i wonder if he would speak to relations in iran and saudi arabia. >> at the frat element is that the democracy is not cemented in the region to the extent people of the region want. so that's one aspect. the other aspect is in the democracy you have a transformation that needs a certain level of unpredictability. and people are fearful of unpredictability. we talk about the government in the region are fearful of the unpredictability. they know what to give to the dictator. i would like to increase my production to be six, seven, eight. i would like to have a sort of
interdependency in the region but also i would like to have some dependency in my own foreign-policy. so you have that issue. you have a fearful iran on one side or turkey as well. they already started against the countries so they have their own legacy to deal with. in iran if the sanctions plus the animosity. in a saudi arabia you have the key issue to do with the sectarian element. people may be unhappy with that because of the various discoveries with a lack of trust
and the people developing the society in which they can have control and mutual beneficial relationships with their neighbors. that would be the key question. as a new democracy it has been different. what is the decision-making and the source of power in iraq? that's what i'm talking about, not the threats of the region as invading the country and that is no longer the case. it is fragile and therefore we need to have an influence and safeguard against that fragility. that is what the key driver has been.
so here our approach is we need to have a strong relationship. we cannot afford to have a weak relationship. we have too much need and too much desire in the relationship. we are no longer going to draw lines. we cannot see any benefits to that. we have cultural interests. we have waterways and so on. and we make our own decisions based on our own interest and therefore it's with iran and the united states. there is such a perfect relationship with the countries but because we are choosing it
it isn't being dictated. >> historically, iraq and egypt are the powerful significant. what happened in iraq and how iraq moves whether it has an effect -- >> it is in relation to the geography or the sectarian culture history that means a seismic shift will take place if anything moves en masse -- moves on that.
>> [inaudible] my question to you is in the crisis of the resource management with the revenues solution into the financial income. i would like to hear your vision in terms of should the region have more to say in the region and the government. >> of the constitution oil is for the iraqis and the benefit
for iraq can be tremendous over the last ten years we have been able to manage significant production and projected towards that as well. this folder delete the service culture in the production sharing so we have tried to maximize the benefits for the economy or the revenue-generating. in addition to that, you have an issue of substantial requirements and needs to the development of the core infrastructure hospitals, bridges, schools and so on so you have the demand for it so you cannot afford this managing the revenue. so here you need a good government, but you need to buy into the people of iraq and the political iraq including the kurdish government in the north
or the federal entity of kurdistan. it stipulates sharing it so we start by saying okay we will share it and the existing oilfields and the new fields need to be managed with government control. government supervision or government transparency of these contractors. plus the understanding of where the revenue is generated and shared within the iraqi people. and it's clear to us that label is one of the key elements recited together so we use that as a strong incentive. the wealth of the country means you cannot manage that or it's not a very limited wealth.
increase their share of the oil revenue your we have a key challenge in the whole government of the last 10 years, to do with the ability to govern and -- sorry, the good governance which means your legislation needs to reflect your ability to understand the social, economical and political sort of entities and drivers of society. so we have issues with it. recently, let me give you a simple example. there was a retirement took over the last month i'm talking about. the substantial discussion about should the parliament have passed the retirement law or not. and that has to do with the socioeconomic and political element, in which two days ago, i am no longer involved in politics and nobody has
representation of me. political entities as well. so he sort of retired from politics. having good governance is crucial. the wealth is enough to share it and we don't need to have that, too many fights about it. albany to do is get the right policy and working hard on that. >> would you like to comment on -- [inaudible] >> what i'm conflicted about, and i agree with what you say, particularly in building institutions, you know, takes a long time. a long, long time. >> people don't know that. >> it is so difficult.
my conflict is with your statement that the iraqis want democracy. the current debate in iraq right now, what i'm conflicted about is the other side, the security issues. there have been a thousand deaths last month in iraq -- i won't get into the details of that but a thousand deaths so not everybody is in agreement. i'm looking at the security issue as representing non-agreement. >> you can't have a significant destruction to society if certain element of it are diehard. let me give you a simple example. north island, i.r.a. -- northern ireland, i.r.a., they say
membership of i.r.a. was not more than 500. and a restricted, they did what anybody, it was 501, someone has to resign. so you can't have a small element in society but they can be very destructive. and they can be very productive when they sort of move into the political process. so you have that album. you also have a turbulent region, syria, in which provision of arms has not been an obstacle and has not reduced the level of violence in syria. from all sides, political support, media support. so you have that as well. and you also have a society which has made a clear conscious
determination to move away from the leadership or from minority view. so you have that as well. so what you have now is these elements fighting chemical reaction to each other. so that aspect. is what you have in iraq is sectarian war. it's not clear who initiated it. it's not neighborhood war. we had that in 2005, six, seven or eight but we moved away from the. only recently you have two senior so-called sunni leaders come to washington and none of them sort of overtly all covertly discussed the use of violence. no, they were talking about political process, reforming. so you have majority of the sunnis saying we want to be a part of the. the country, the discussion was we were not interested enough in the political process.
not that we want to move away from the. so that's one aspect. you also have ambition and al-qaeda which does not allow the existence, political or physical existence of others. so you have to deal with it. and, unfortunately, even in the united states has challenges with al-qaeda with almighty powerful tape abilities. so you have that as well. and iraq has problems with legacy problems perhaps 2003. some of these issues such as border control were never managed properly even up to now. even with u.s. presence there. had problems from syrian -- [inaudible] so you have these elements. death is unfortunate. that is something we should not live with. true, but isn't stopping the
democratic process? its internet. i i wouldn't say it is stopping it. >> yes, more questions? >> well, since let me think continue the questions. so in tune of regional leadership, egypt's position leader in the arab world is going to challenges. iraq has almost a full role of leadership because saudi arabia and the others are not, don't have the equipment to exercise it. so as a representative of an important leader of the arab world, how do, we know that democratic behaviors is a learned behavior. how do we train people for
democracy? how do they learn it? >> well, and i know you guys are more specialist in this area, but i have a hobby of anthropology. and my own specific background is in organization culture. and i'm aware that when you look at the organization culture, there are three elements you have to work on, or three levels. you have the behavior element of a society. a dictatorship sometimes can change your behavior or force you to change your behavior. you have the lead element of the society. so you have sort of, whatever they believe in. so it's a conviction, and you have the assumption element of the society. what you call assumptions. the region still like the core substance of democracy.
it's trying to have behavior of democracy in place. it's changing its theoretical and conviction of democracy as a necessary tool for social harmony. and it's far away from having democracy as basic assumption of society. it requires a long time. and it's the hardest to ingrain or take out that assumption of democracy in a society. so here you need a bit more interaction, openness, social, we and others. but it has to be in a clear method of a clear vision of what you want extend to that society. most importantly you cannot import democracy, nor can you estimate in as fast a pace as you'd like because of the various drivers of those societies. in united states you don't have the driver of a culture or religion as a key driver. you have a set of
governancgovernanc e of law or respectable as a key driver with diversity of nations and so when. and in japan, you don't have that. you have a junior society and you have a core set of government. in iraq, you have still a confusing picture of who should govern. isn't a tribal leader? is it the central government, or is it the religious leader? and that will take time. that's the same with egypt and the same elsewhere. that's why the most brotherhood works well in secular countries because they were more than one have. it is important that people -- rather than just say, why can't they be democratic? because it's not as easy as you would expect. and even this society had to go through civil wars and so want to try to get some online but of
its various institutions and various societies to work with each other. >> the organizer of our session has very generously provided us with also things here, so let us now linked together, ambassador, if you have time and we will have some -- okay, i didn't see you. go ahead. louder, please. >> hi, thank you for your talk. [inaudible] >> could you comment a little bit about what you mean by that? why giving that is the case? and also if you could comment a little bit about the mindset
that developed under -- [inaudible] that was a very interesting point. could utah coal bit about that? two separate questions? >> i will answer the second one first. a dictatorship as i said, the longer you have, the longer and the more ruthless a systematic airship is our society, the longer it takes to sort of take off back to and move away from that culture. and the same in east europe, seaman middle east and so when. that key issue, ma let me give you a key issue. the key challenge we have in iraq, for example. when people say that the fate is there for the privilege of the dictator, for the wish and the desires of the dictator, and the needs of the dictator, not of ours, that means the people do
not associate themselves with the state. so i would think including takes place, that's no longer the problem. if occupations take place, that's no longer the problem. i said okay, united states human occupied, sat down and tried to defend and we iraqis -- [inaudible] what happened is that people dislodged itself from the state. dislodge themselves from the society because they say this is not our wish. this is not our desires. we did not want this person to rule. wherever he wishes his for his, not for us. there's no benefit for us. the sanctions, which the u.n. imposed on iraq, was more detrimental to the social fabric of iraq and anything else. people associate with the united states with sanctions. not so -- not saddam with it.
saddam was not impacted by this. he kept it off for food, getting away with, they smuggle system. he greeted and economy, in parallel, also to do with smuggling. so he in a way legitimized smuggling in iraq. so now that you have all the impact moving onto new chapter, so you need to cleanse yourself of that process. that takes a while. as to the first question, what was the first again? [inaudible] >> the media element. it's easier to sell bad news. that's one of them. it's easier to define a country in a binary way. it's easy. it's a simple as that. it's more complicated to try
hard to understand society, the complexity of the society. and by the way, i'm not saying that we are clearing our own mind which had we are wearing and which others are not. i think we are sometimes unclear as which had we are wearing because of the complexities of the society spent his we will be this event now. we will go to live coverage of the discussion on u.s. relationship with arab countries in the persian gulf. deputy secretary state william burns is one of the speakers. >> i have enormous admiration and respect. is also -- magnificent new building which is a real testament to john henry's vision and leadership. and it's an honor to be introduced by jon alterman, a wonderful scholar, colleague and friend. president kennedy once said that washington is a city of southern efficiency and northern charm. i hope you don't feel the same way about my speech today, and i
did promise john that they would try to be brief. i'm very glad to join all of you today to talk about our partnership with the gulf during a time of profound change in the broader middle east. the dynamics unleashed by the second arab awakening three years ago are still very much with us today. they will continue to unfold over the course of this generation, and very likely the next. these dynamics are hard to understand, let alone navigate. while humility is not our national trademark, he ought to approach this moment with great second section it after all as we can to demonstrate from time to time we have no monopoly on wisdom or common sense. during this time of change and uncertainty, the u.s. gulf partnership rooted in more than seven decades of close and enduring cooperation remains crucial, and it remains strong. but even among friends there can be real differences about what this change means and how we
should respond to it. there's no point in pretending otherwise, and it's important to address concerns honestly and plainly. after a post-9/11 decade dominated i wars in iraq and afghanistan, it's not hard to see why americans would seek to rebalance our priorities. with the united states likely to overtake saudi arabia as the world's leading oil producer in the next five years or so, and with the prospect of genuine energy independence in the next 20 years or so, it's also natural for americans to wonder if we really need to pay so much attention to the middle east. is equally natural for some of our gulf partners to doubt our grasp of what's happening in the region and take issue with our policies. our warnings about the region's unsustainable status quo and are confident talk about energy independence have led some gulf states to question our reliability as partners.
others complained that our diplomacy with iran is naïve and overly fixated on the nuclear issue. and then there is the huge problem of cedar you, were some of our gulf partners believe that our concerns about the day after assad's exit cloud our judgment. i wish i could offer simple answers to these concerns aren't new and neat prescriptions for these challenges. i cannot. but i am convinced that it would be a realistic if we allowed our occasional bouts and differences do we can distort bonds between us. i am convinced that for many years to come, our strategic interest will remain far more aligned than now. and i'm convinced we are far more to gain by working together than working separately. we can and we should seize this moment to renew our partnership, strengthen it, make it more resilient and ensure that it serves our common interest and our common aspirations.
aspirations. as secretary kerry made clear it and how those last month, america's commitment to the middle east is enduring because america's interests in the middle east are enduring. and as president obama will stressed during his visit to saudi arabia next month, our partnership with the gulf will remain a cornerstone of that commitment. the truth is that for all the talk about rebalance and retrenchment, the gulf remains essential to america's national interest, and partnership with the united states remains essential to the national interests of gulf states. we know that increased american energy independence doesn't free the united states from the global energy market. a rise in the price of oil inward means a price in the rise of oil ever. the impact of which neither we nor our allies can escape while some see are a rebalance to turn away from milk these, the exact opposite is true. u.s. and the gulf both have an increasing stake in the stability and prosperity of the
asia-pacific, the most dynamic part of the global economy and the biggest consumer of gulf oil. at the same time our gulf partners know that no country, or collection of countries, can do for the gulf states what the united states has done and continues to do. the challenge facing both of us is whether we can make common cause in a long-term effort to enhance the odds that more moderate and responsible governments will emerge throughout the region, or whether we will work across from one another and enable hardliners and extremists of one stripe or another to the road with some analysts have termed the epicenter the majority of people in leadership in the region who seek a future far different than what extremists have to offer. the founding father of the united arab emirates, one of the wisest and most decent leaders i've ever met in the region, once said the greatest natural resource of a nation is its people.
the vision and drive of the sheikh and his generation of great huge opportunities for the peoples of the gulf despite all of the challenges that lie ahead. we should harness the same spirit of imagination, courage and creativity and put it to work on behalf of of this generations aspirations and ambitions. we should try to build an affirmative agenda, an agenda that focuses on security, prosperity, eating of regional conflict and the promotion of parliament and pluralism. we should work together to convey a clear sense of what we stand for, not just what we stand against. a powerful anecdote of extremists who are much better at tearing things down and building anything up. so let me briefly outline some of the key elements of this agenda. from the cold war to the goal for and the war on terrorism, our partnership has withstood the test of time and i'm confident it can withstand
today's challenges as well, if we continue to place security cooperation at the heart of our agenda. the president address of united nations general assembly and secretary hagel's speech last december reaffirmed our continued commitment to gulf security. indeed, our security commitments and partnerships in the gulf are more extensive today than ever before. our military presence includes more than 35,000 ground, air and naval personnel that are at more than a dozen based in address the gulf. we deploy our most advanced systems to the region, our most advanced aircraft and our most advanced nations, our most advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aspects and our most advanced missile defense capabilities. and we provide to our part of some of the world -- best military equipment. saudi arabia recently purchased 72 f-15s, the largest purchase of f-15s by any single country ever. we've recently notified congress
-- the uae of advanced packages. and just bitching we notified congress of our support for the uae's upgrade of 16th and potential purchase of 30 new f-16 fighters. we've also approved sales of some of the most sophisticated missile defense systems in the world. including the terminal high altitude area defense system, the qatar and beauty and missiles to kuwait. thanks to these capabilities and decades of training and doing exercises, and operations and planning, goal states are increasingly becoming some of her most capable military partners. from the uae and qatar skunk addition to the no-fly zone over libya, to the gcc's participation in the counterpiracy operation in the strategically important arabian sea we're seeing the promise of what an enhanced partnership canducci. while we continue to expand the breadth of our bilateral
security, we are also working to build a more capable unified and effective regional security architecture to address emerging threats none of us can fully address on our own. two years ago secretary clinton joined gcc prime minister to launch the u.s. gcc strategic forum. secretary terry hosted the counterpart in new york. secretary hagel recently announced an expansion of the forum to include for the first time an annual meeting of defense ministers. these high level gatherings have allowed our senior diplomats and defense officials to define a shared set of priorities and practical steps that we can take together to address threats to our security. building an effective regional defense against the threat of ballistic missiles is one of the forum top poverty. already some of our allies have ballistic defense capabilities and others are acquiring them. but enhanced information sharing
between gulf states and interoperability between the disparate capabilities will not only be more cost efficient, will provide the region with better early warning, better coronation and ultimately a more layered and effective defense. we've seen countries in other parts of the world successfully overcome the technical and political challenges of designing a reasonable response to the threat of ballistic missiles. both countries are today safer and more capable u.s. allies. there's no reason the gcc cannot follow in their footsteps. to help get their president obama designated the gcc an international entity eligible to buy u.s. defense articles and services, a designation that will allow the gcc to invest in shared systems for mutual defense. this is the same designation we granted to nato and other important multilateral partners. it demonstrates how serious we are about helping gcc become a
top tier regional security organization and a front-line partner of the united states. more capable gulf partners and more cable gcc will be essential to confronting the many challenges we face in the gulf and beyond. together through the combined air operations center, we monitor the skies over conflict zones in the middle east. and for the gcc maritime operations center, we are working to improve information sharing and coordination on security in the straits of hormuz, a strategic passageway to one-fifth of the world's oil passes every day. together we are also working on a unified strategy for countering the spread of violent extremism, secure national borders, combating terrorism command and protecting critical energy infrastructure from conventional and cyberattacks. and together we are working to prevent the world's most dangerous weapon from getting to some of the world's most
dangerous regimes and actors. and many layers of our security cooperation reflect our many shared interests. we must each do our part to maintain this momentum and to keep pace with rapidly evolving threats in a rapidly evolving international security landscape. as we look across that landscape, no challenge to gulf security is more obvious than iran. we have no illusions about iran's intentions or its conduct. our concerns with iran extend far beyond nuclear issue across a range of dangerous iranian behavior that threatens our interests and those of her friends in the region and threatens the human rights of iran's assistance. while all of these concerns are important and serious, the nuclear issue remains the most urgent. since his first day in office president obama has made very clear that he will do whatever it takes to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. he has also emphasizes readiness and determination to seek a
negotiated resolution. to get their we worked with congress and our international partners to put in place an unprecedented set of sanctions, as pressures have had a dramatic impact on iran's economy. i can assure you that we've introduced diplomatic chapter with our eyes wide open. as the president himself has said, there's probably no better than a 50/50 chance that iran will ultimately accept this agreement that can guarantee the peaceful nature of its program. but for the first time in many years, we now have a real opportunity to test iran's intentions, and we and our partners will pursue it. as we seek to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear agreement over the coming months, we will remain very mindful of gulf concerns. we will not relent in our efforts to confront iran's destabilizing behavior. not in lebanon, not in syria, not in iraq not in the arabian peninsula itself. we will not relent in enforcing
existing sanctions and we will not relent in our efforts to intensify consultations and cooperation with the gulf partners across this whole range of issues. that is exactly what secretary kerry was in the uae yesterday, and it is exactly what the president will visit saudi arabia next month. sustainable security in the region requires progress towards resolving some very complicated conflict. the most poisonous and dangerous of these conflicts today is a bloody civil war in syria. the longer the civil war grinds on, the greater the danger to serious people and to the region. the simple truth is that there can be no stability and no resolution of the crisis without a transition to new leadership. we have no illusions about the challenges on the road to achieving that objective or about the very difficult diaspora are more likely to for difficult years after. and would'v we have no illusiont the rising extremist threat in syria and the risks it poses to
the region. the neighbors already have more than their share of challenges. we all have an interest in supporting a capable moderate opposition that can help build a new syria and confront al-qaeda. given the strong relationship between gulf states and many opposition groups, gcc leadership and guidance is critically important. but continued assistance to the opposition is essential, the only viable approach to end the suffering of the same people is through a negotiated transition and we should work more closely and in a more unified way with our gcc friends to help achieve that objective. as we pursue a diplomatic solution in syria we must also continue to coordinate our efforts to support frontline states bearing the brunt of pressure during the ensuing crisis. and jordan one out of 10 people is a syrian refugee. in lebanon it is one out of four. the enormous strain on host governments threatens to
exacerbate already serious resource, security and economic challenges across the region. the gulf has shown real leadership in raising awareness about the human tragedy of the conflict. kuwait has cohosted to high level donor conference is the click was raised nearly $4 billion of humanitarian assistance. given the protracted nature of this crisis, rss and should be integrated with the region's long-term economic development efforts. we welcome the continued assistance to the gulf to both jordan and lebanon. we will continue to do our part. drinking up to let the second visit to the niceties are this month we announced our intention to offer jordan a second loan guarantee to help sustain reforms while continuing to address the ongoing humanitarian challenge. the palestinian issue has also taken on new urgency. nothing is ever easy about palestinian-israeli negotiations. former sec of state jim baker
for whom i work and have great admiration keeps a whole wall of newspaper cartoons outside his office in houston, reminded of the skepticism surrounding his ninth trip to the middle east before the madrid peace conference in 1991. but he proved his daughter's wrong, diplomacy work. that's our challenge again today and that's the challenge secretary kerry has taken on today's credit in the face of similar skepticism. as the secretary also said, both parties tend to lose a great deal without peace. but they also stand to gain a great deal if they take the courageous steps to agreement. the arab peace initiative stimulated by king abdullah of saudi arabia's vision more than a decade ago still offers israel and its people and its economy new partnerships with 20 members of the arab league, 35 other muslim majority countries. and it offers continued financial and political support to a future palestinian state.
keeping the promise of the arab peace initiative alive and making progress toward a two-state solution with israel is and palestinians both need and deserve remains a significant priority for the u.s.-gulf partnership. finally ever need agenda for our partnership cannot focus exclusively on contending with external challenges. if we are serious about making our partnership more durable, our agenda should include cooperation on strategies to stem threats from inside. strategies that seek to bolster moderate, modernize economy and expand opportunities come encourage goal is him, and ease defense of popular grievance on which extremists feed. the reality is that in our conversations with our gulf partners we don't always see eye to eye on what has caused the revolutions and transitions spurred by the second ever waking. we don't always see eye to eye on the direction these transitions should take, and we
don't always see eye to eye on how best to respond to them. but it is also a reality that when we work in concert we can help shape outcomes that not only advance -- but also advanced stability but as the world's 11th largest economy, the gcc is increasingly a regional power, a dynamic business hub, a critical shaper of the media and culture in the muslim world, and a force in regional politics. the gcc cannot push the region away from conflict and toward a stable future. we want to be partners in that endeavor. u.s. gcc cooperation in human is a very good example of what we can achieve together. our joint deference to end the country's civil strife and help yemen to find a comprehensive transition of course including the recently concluded national dialogue has given the yemeni people a real chance to begin the hard work of reconciliation and reconstruction.
just as humans transition must remain yemeni owned and driven, so, too, must buy reins but we all have a role and a stake in bahrain's success. engine with the crown prince took a historic step of convening senior members of iran's political group, including the leader of the opposition to inject new momentum into the national dialogue process. we welcome this step and encourage all parties to participate constructively in the dialogue and renounce violence and uphold their commitments. with its multi-sectarianism and multiethnic population, its vast energy resources and its central geographic location, iraq's success is critical to regional stability. we have an enduring commitment to a stable, secure iraq which does not threaten his neighbors, has secure borders and plays a constructive role in regional peace and security. we continue to support iraq's regional integration through a series of ongoing diplomatic engagements, including a
trilateral dialogue with iraq and turkey, and a more extensive dialogue with jordan, uae and others. iraq has made important recent progress with kuwait. iraq's energy resources linked to its neighbors can deepen the link. and the very difficult challenge posed to al-qaeda makes these efforts all the more important and all the more urgent. prime minister maliki has acknowledged that only a holistic approach that includes security, political and economic elements can provide a sustainable solution to this challenge. we are working to support them in that effort and we welcome the goals constructive participation. in egypt, despite our differences, we can work together to support similar reforms. stable evolution in egypt remains crucial to the evolution of the entire region. but no transition can succeed without a sense of respect for political pluralism and defense
of confidence and a better and more inclusive economic future. gulf countries have been enormously generous to egypt during this very bumpy transition and that support has been critical. the billions of dollars of assistance will produce little sustainable effect without a more oppressive and carefully construed strategy. beyond egypt the u.s. and the gulf should also line our efforts in modern. earlier this month for example, i worked with tunisia, a country that's expect a full range of transition challenges and setbacks that whose leaders demonstrate the courage to come together and put the transition back on track. secretary kerry was there yesterday and emphasized that tunisia can serve as an example for the entire region of what dialogue and compromise can achieve. the united states at and the gulf states are distant neighbors. we have different histories. we come from different
traditions, and we will inevitably continue to have differences of opinion. but we can and we must find common ground and build a common agenda to help shape our share of the future. we have a deep stake in each other security. we have a deep stake in ending the conflicts that allow extremists to feed on the region's bitterness and alienation. and we have a deep stake in demonstrating that reform and stability can coexist. the agenda i laid out today is undoubtedly ambitious, and the obstacles are undoubtedly formidable. but i remain optimistic that much is possible in the years ahead were a renewed u.s.-gulf partnership. now whenever i used to say that i was optimistic during my service in moscow as ambassador, a few years ago, one of my russian friends would invariably remind me of one of the many typically fatalistic russian definitions of an optimist. someone who thinks that tomorrow will be better than the day
after. [laughter] i mean something a little different. i think tomorrow is likely going to be pretty complicated for us and for our gulf partners. but if we can find the resolve and the persistence to work together on the many problems and opportunities on the road ahead, then i'm certain that the day after tomorrow, and many days and months and years beyond, can be a moment of we finalization and great possibility for our partnership and for the entire region. thank you very much. [applause] >> and thank you very much. i'm also grateful you have agreed to take some questions. ask you all to wait for microphones to come to you. because will have a very little bit of time before the deputy secretary has to dash off to the white house, we will ask everybody to ask just one question. i'm going to start, if i may
speak his i will try to give short answers, too. >> in announcing or in the article the new your times printed yesterday -- "the new york times" printed just a, the phrasing, advised president bill clinton on their israel-palestinian talks returning to manage the fraying ties between the united states and its allies in the persian gulf. and i was in saudi arabia last month for a research trip in a few weeks, and it's striking a number people i've worked with inside saudi arabia for many years that said now is a tough time. to do this trip. so i'm asking with either a one or two part question depend on how you like to answer the first part is, from where you sit, is there something going on that need more active management? if you think there is, i was talking with somebody yesterday who said that one of the
problems in out approach is transactional but as we have dealt with our gulf allies we have not devoted enough attention to the sort of visual trust building activities that they often want. and if you agree with that assessment, what would be your advice to the president as he prepares to go to saudi arabia in about six weeks to try to build a broader sense of trust in addition to the sort of transactional -- simek spent very good question, jon. the reality in my view anyway is that u.s.-saudi partnership is as important today as it's ever been. many of my colleagues and former colleagues in the audience have lived through lots of charging times in the gulf and in the middle east, but i think the array of challenges across the region right now that animates the efforts of both united states and saudi arabia is probably as complicated as any
i've seen in the three decades that i've been an american diplomat. objectively, there's a great deal to be gained by working together in dealing with the challenges, even though we are bound to tactical differences. even though there are bound to be mutual suspicion some time to time. but whether it's in dealing as mentioned in my remarks with the challenge of gulf security and the continuing challenge posed by iran's behavior on the nuclear issue but also well beyond it, a huge challenge of syria and the consequences a continuing civil war has for the rest of the region, the challenge of supporting very complicated transition in very different places across the region, whether it's in danish or egypt or in yemen, all of those i think underscore what we have today. the only way we can do that effectively is if we work at it and that means from the very top which is exactly what the president is demonstrating in
his visit to saudi arabia next month while secretary kerry has demonstrated intensively including in his conversations in the emirates yesterday, and what all of us need to demonstrate. it has to be a two-way street. we both need to work at this. but again i think if we take a step back, it seems to me at least it's obvious, and that we have a lot more to gain over the coming months and years if we're trying to work together and try to sift through together these kinds of challenges. >> thank you. >> thanks. barbara slavin from atlantic council. deputy secretary burns, how can you convince the saudis and others that the competence of nuclear agreement with iran is in their interests and that it won't increase iran's ability to
affect other developments in the region to the detriment of the saudis and other? >> that's a very good question. i think part of the answer lies in the quality of the agreement and where it is that we are determined to build on the first agreement reached at the end of november to produce a comprehensive solution that demonstrates conclusively that peaceful purposes iran's program. that's a very tall order as you know as well as anyone, we're determined to test that proposition. because i think the quality of that agreement will go a long way toward convincing others that it's in their interest in the broader interest of gulf security as well. second as i tried is a in my opening remarks, it's very important for us to not only say but also to demonstrate through our actions that we understand there's a whole range of iranian behavior and iranian action that concern us and that can threaten our interests in the interests of our friends, not just in the
gulf but across the region. lebanon, syria, yemen and the rest of the arabian peninsula itself. what we want to do is try to demonstrate through our actions that we not only appreciate those kind of challenges but that we want to work together with our partners in the gulf to deal with them. i think those are the only ways it seems to me to try to drive home the seriousness of our approach. >> right behind barbara. >> thank you very much. josh rogin with the "daily beast." in recent days secretary kerry has spoken public and openly about a new process to examine both old and new options for increasing american involvement in the syrian crisis. it's been widely reported that these options include providing greater transportation and intelligence to moderate searing rebel groups as well as possibly paying salaries of some of the rebels. is that the entire universe of
options that are under consideration? there's also been some dispute reported that u.s. has dropped suggestions to gulf countries providing syrian rebels with anti-aircraft weapons. is that true or is it not true? and is there an expectation that even if these options were pursued that this would be enough to turn the tide or at least maintain the balance between the rebels and increasing aggressive regime, military onslaught? think you spent thanks, josh. and things are trying to bring my checkered career to an abrupt end. [laughter] it's a very good question. and i can't opposite go into a lot of detail about the sorts of things that we continue as we can to try to look at because it's been obvious for some time that the longer the civil war in syria goes on, the greater the danger, not just to the people of syria but to the wider region. you sit in terms of the impact on syria, lebanon, what's going on in iraq today, and it becomes
extraordinary important i think for the united states to continue to look at everything we can do to bolster the moderate opposition, both as a means of trying to create the circumstances in which a negotiated transitional leadership are possible because there's been zero evidence so far in the geneva process of seriousness on the part of the syrian regime. but also bolstering the moderate opposition as an investment in the kind of syria that ultimately syrians deserve. a syria that respects minority groups that represent tolerance and pluralism and that's going to be able to stand against the violent extremist groups who increasingly are drawn to the magnet of bashar assad. so it's a very tall order as i said earlier i don't have any prescription to offer publicly today but i think across the administration we realize what's at stake and the urgency in the situation. >> with him thank you.
i'm a consultant. my question is the following. you said that your policy is to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, acquiring you said. isn'is it also a policy to prevt iran from becoming a threshold nuclear weapons state? in other words, one within a few weeks can get a nuclear weapon if it wants to? >> that's part of the challenge for negotiations as you know very well, is to try to translate are brought objected, the one we share a think with our negotiate partners in the p5+1 and the rest of the international community. and that's to insurance that peaceful purposes of iraq's -- iran's program and to translate that into what's being negotiated which is a long-term period in which iran, through limitations and constraints, demonstrates the assistance of its commitment and deals with some of the questions that
breakout and other kinds of questions that are widely shared concerns, not just for the united states but certainly in the gulf as well. and so the challenge, the huge challenge of negotiations which would begin to address in the first agreement but not in a comprehensive solution, are much, much more competent. that's what we're going to have to wrestle with in the coming months. >> and then we have room for just one more question. over here in the red. >> a question to you about russia, which you know quite well. how can russia -- >> can you identify yourself? >> starry? >> please identify yourself spent my name is mindy reiser. i'm vice president of an ngo. i would like to know how with your rich and long experience with russia you think that russia can be induced to put a
more helpful role in a number of the crises that a part of the world we've been discussing faces, and what you think would inspire mr. putin to be more helpful. >> i learned something new about russia every day, so my humility only continues to grow about that very complicated relationship. i mean, i think if you look across the range of issues we've been talking about today, i think we have worked reasonably well with russia on the iran nuclear negotiations. i think we share in general terms they're concerned about the potential for iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and destabilizing effect that would have across the region that matters to both of us. i think on the palestinian issue, i think russia was largest in i die with the united states on important, trying to revive the process, inserting the russians were in supportive
of secretary kerry and present obama's efforts over, especially the past year. syria has been a tougher challenge. we worked together on important asia of chemical weapons, even though the pace of progress on that is not as fast as i think either of us would like the pace of the progress towards the destruction of syria's chemical weapons stockpile. we've had lots -- less success in working together on the geneva process. as i said there is zero evidence so far of syria, and i think russia has a role to play in using all of its leverage to try to move toward what is the goal of the geneva one communiqué which is to produce a transitional governing body with full executive power reached by mutual consent. the key to the kind of negotiated transition that both of us have pledged support for, but i think it's going to be very important for russia to use
all the influence that it can to help bring that about. that's something that's going to be crucial to making any kind of diplomatic progress on that issue. russia seems to me anyway objectively shares the concerns about the growth of a violent extremism across the middle east. a part of the world geographically that's very proximate to russia and that can affect security interests in russia itself. and, therefore, as you look at the growth of violent extremism, foreign fighters have been drawn to city over the course of the last year, there again this should be a shared sense of urgency with russia about trying to produce that kind of political transition. because the continuation of the assad regime is the surest way to make that problem worse, if not the solution to the problem. >> i know you have to run, so if i could ask you all to remain seated so that deputy secretary
violence that has raised fears of a civil war in the country. the european union called a meeting of its 28 member countries tomorrow to address that situation. sector say jon kerry is in paris for meetings and he said he was disturbed by the level of abuse demonstrate by the current government and the protesters. president obama in the meantime was e en route to a summit with the leaders of mexico and canada and he will likely, public on the screen situation after he arrives in mexico later today. a deputy u.s. national security advisor told reporters on air force one to u.s. officials are consulting with the eu on who should be held responsible for the violence in ukraine and whether to impose sanctions. coming up in prime time tonight on the c-span networks, c-span, a debate between evolution and creationism. here in c-span to its booktv in prime time looking at authors, books about u.s. spying it on c-span3's american history tv prime time, the lincoln assassination and that's tonight beginning at eight eastern on the c-span networks.
what is your take on the evolution versus creationism debate? we are starting a debate early on c-span's facebook page but you can join the conversation on this book.org/facebook. >> the title is down to the crossroads, civil rights, black power in the march against fear. it is a civil rights marches begins in memphis in 1966 in innings three weeks later in jackson. you can make an argument for civil rights movement transforms, but it approaches its crossroads. the call for black power is first heard. stokely carmichael unveiled a slogan if you a midway through the march and it generates controversy, it generates a great swelling of enthusiasm among many local black people and a lot of wasted nights a new direction in black politics. those changes might of happened over the course of time anyway
but what the march did was a dramatized this just because a bunch of civil rights leaders and regular people, white and black from all across the country and put them into this sort of laboratory of black politics as it moves through mississippi. a critic these dramatic moments that highlighted some of the key divisions and some of the key tensions but also some of the key strengths that have long animated the civil rights movement spent a look at the civil rights movement saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday at nine on "after words." march 2, more about black power and the civil rights movement. historian peniel joseph we'll take your calls, comments, and tweets on in depth on booktv. and at booktv's book club used the time to comment on february's in depth guest bonnie morris, read "women's history for beginners" and go to booktv.org to enter the chat room. >> arizona congressman matt salmon is calling for more
transparency and privacy with government surveillance programs. he was one of the lawmakers addressed the audience at heritage foundation's a long constructive policy summit here in washington because comments are about 50at minutes. tim? spent thanks, mike. thank you all for being here and i'm excited to be able to introduce congressman salmon to than you. i'm this guy is very special and one of our great allies here. this in a landmark year of 1994, matt was elected to the use house of representatives where he served three terms are during that timf he grew a reputation as being a, watchdog, a guy who went after spending, a real fiscal conservative. but in 2000, he remained true t. his promise to self impose a term limit. so he went home and retired hise seat. but after the passage of obamacare like a lot of conservatives he startedme to rethink what he needed to do for th te country.of at the same time there was massive government regulation am
massive government regulation that was really crippling the economy in his district. so matt began answering the call to serve. in 2012 he was re-elected to the house of representatives and we're prty luckyt he he is here for all the right reasons. and he also has a lot of experience having served those terms in the '90s, see somebody his colleagues looked you for some guidance and to understand the history of the house of representatives. this morning matt will talk to us about one of the big important policies that we are unveiling today. the bill will talk to us about this morning is very simple. it would ensure that the american people have the ability to communicate with one another electronically without the government eavesdropping. very basic but very important. it's in our communications with one another after all with her loved ones, our families, our friends, our colleagues, customers, competitors but within those conditions we share
rds dash to our ideas and passion but in so doing reform the voluntary associations that form the bedrock of american civil society. a government that is big enough and willing to put a chill on these kinds of mutations is a very dangerous thing for the health of a nation. please join me in welcoming matt salmon to the podium to talk about how to address this problem. [applause] >> well, it's really wonderful to be here today. a wise man named benjamin franklin once said, those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. that saying is so important to me that i have my wife and she is on my wall in my congressional office. this man was at the core of a generation that learned firsthand the cost of unchecked power. this experience gained the