and others to be an together and don't think a decade ago we would have considered doing joint military to discard the idea that is now happening much more frequently it is important to even though china makes it difficult and especially on the military issue that is the hardest thing to resolve. and one of the things that he said that he is quite proud of as a great initiative to persuade the p la that the chinese sailors need those of other nations

that is allowed to speak by radio which they're not previously that is in such a big deal but that alone makes accidents less likely everybody is on the radio practicing mandarin and english and look much less likely to shoot. i agree we need more and more. >> with the board of directors. >> with the chinese building and does a dynamic involvement and infrastructure to see where

we are committed to benefit south india and asia. >> india is ambivalent about the initiative for similar reasons that america is ambivalent. from china's perspective that makes perfect sense that you move to bring that material you need other ways .

they need infrastructure investment. to make the asphalt smoother and the rails pastor and that benefits all of us. because the big first deal under one belt one road was the announced $46 billion of infrastructure to pakistan it is not clear fall that is invested and they are asking that chinese and some of that is happening but and croats -- increasingly talking about investment in india. >> china is willing to do a

lot of the investment but through the asian infrastructure investment bank whenever i see the ceo talking i think he is quite sincere, very smart and talks about having standards as good or better of the world pain of labor standards were environmental standards and when we were leading the foreign policy to be a responsible stakeholder that is hitting simple of china wanting to be a stakeholder. >> my question far away from

those centers does the book should the u.s. and china. >> the answer is yes. when we help the clients we often tell them it is an enormous country with very different standards and some of them are on of pro growth platform to tell people you want to think about four or five other indian states.

the with those high seas since that became a nation and that has been over 220 years of the south china sea that is probably the most viable with china's increasing assertiveness what of what - - device which you give up president well not provoking china. >> >> they have done so much work it.

>> with bad u.s.-china dialogue to say the problem is the united states has framed as a navigation issue. is that framing something as a sovereignty issue? because you want to go down in history with that strategy? so we have to insist on international standards what we are doing with maya understanding we failed to do this we are trying to make up for lost time.

you don't need to be provocative but it does need to be done so to have in place communication channels of concept avoidance and the civilian chain so where to use the captains get into bad that they want or can to avoid such to park those sovereignty issues but to address those issues to lead to future generations, and if we can get back to that. >> one of the things america does that do very well is

long term subtle policy. it is very hard with our electoral system. . . there is a on the issues but on

the other hand, we know that if he's going to have the economic performance he wants implemented, he has to have good economic relations with his neighbors and the europeans and that if there's a confrontation those economic relationships are at risk. my hope is that he pushes a bit because of domestic pressure but he recognizing economic back pressure and he doesn't wanted to providecould jeopardize the future. it requires diplomacy as i've said that short supply during the election campaign i have to ask

you about technology policy. in particular on the cybersecurity and of the deal that was made on the espionage business purposes. >> thinks for coming. i set it to someone earlier when we were upstairs on the roof that i thought the technology companies relationship with china in the business community relationship between china and the u.s. used to be one of the back. i just spoke to the conference and the sentiment is universally negative, very worried and very frustrating in how they treat

the companies in the way that the law is enforced around the western companies and chinese and native companies into the whole litany of complaints. the espionage i think was the number one thing that made it difficult for the u.s. business community to support china and it's taken a toll. we know many companies that personally suffered from this to the fact that she came in september and acknowledged openly that what they're going to do some thing about this are stepsisour steps in the right direction. we need a lot more dialogue and i am not privy to what's going on behind the scenes. i know there's a dialogue that's continuing. it's slow and painful and steady but that's the work at a for

this kind of relationship so we should continue the dialogue on that and this should be a wake-up call to china that the part of america that has always been pro- trade with china and open relationships is in a way turning against the relationship and both sides need to do something to fix it. >> in the department of defense my question you've already touched more of the security relationship in the united states and china and india. my question is if these states are defining the way forward in asia pacific and beyond, where does that leave the crimes

international security order is defined by the relationships and where does that leave the u.s. allies like japan, australia thailand but are increasingly caught between the interest of powers that are considerably greater in terms of the geopolitical? >> i'm not advocating that we change the alliance system and this is the 21st century where there is a superpower and the rules of order altogether. that is highly unlikely to happen. i think the current alliance system will continue largely the way it is. i don't think that we will enter into a formal alliance even though the partnership has become closer to the past decade including on the military side. i think a formal alliances and something india wants so i don't see an enormous change in the

alliance structure. what we do need to think carefully about in this time where the rhetoric has gotten so heated and it has become so unpopular they need to think about what happens when you go down that path. if you have a trade war with china or a military confrontation to be wanted a new cold war or do we want something where certainly we have disagreements certainly we would've national interest that diverge from each other but we are by and large in the lower the rhetoric and solve our problems as much as possible behind the scenes and where we emphasize cooperation because it is in all of our interests to

make sure that this triangle gets along. >> richard, last question. >> thank you. >> the thinking of both indians and chinese today because i think that this conversation happens in if the pastor would have predominated more and the indians would have thought about pakistan more concretely and more often as in the length of the competitive relationship. they also would have thought about their relationship with the prism of pakistan. are you sensing that they are retreating from the forefront of the policymakers and beijing and new delhi or how do you see that fit into the countries that you are talking about today?

>> lee might have a similar view on this. i do think that india is looking up strategically where they used to be preoccupied with their neighborhood to some extent china. pakistan will continue to shape a lot of the thinking because the terrorism comes from pakistan, the nuclear weapons are still a concern especially the new smaller ones they are building. but it's not predominate. and the more and more when we talked to the indian government officials, they want to talk about china and they want to talk about the world beyond asia and i think that is a positive thing that we should welcome. >> we have come to the end of the talk. i want to thank u. for

sponsoring this great event and for coming and giving us a chance and all of you for coming. [applause]

journalist oscar martinez talks about the origins of violence in central america and u.s. involvement in the region. region. his pick of the history of violence living and dying in central america. this was held at new york university.

thank you so much for coming to this event. i am the managing director of the institute of politics and my colleagues are delighted and very proud to be pupils who organized this book event for the newly released second book called the history of violence living and dying in central america. his work is hugely important. but i think for the english-speaking public in the united states the circumstances of central american refugees and migrants as they make in their own countries and as they make their way through mexico into the united states are absolutely

a humanitarian crisis with many dimensions. the work in writing and investigative journalism is one of the key voices bringing circumstance to life and we are again honored and delighted to be able to host the launch of the book and have him here with us with our distinguished guests who will be introduced by diana in a few minutes. before continuing, i would like to hand it over to sofia so she can say a few words. >> we first published the piece in english and it was one of the most critically acclaimed books ever. we are so proud to publish a second book. it's based in london where the largest independent radical

press and we see this book as politically important and central to the conversation for the refugees and central america at large. >> our moderator today is a a university professoruniversity professor and professor that performance studies in spanish at new york university and the author of numerous books including performance recently published by duke university press and performing cultural memory in america. she's theshe is the recipient of numerous awards including the vice president of the modern language association and will be the incoming president in 2017. also the founder and director of the institute of performance in politics and so i asked her to please cop on the stage and introduced the speakers and

participants. thank you very much. we are excited about this conversation and happy to welcome our guests so if you could come up here. they are going to be speaking some english and spanish and a lot of spanglish. martinez works for the first online newspaper in latin america. the book was published in a second edition in 2012.

in 2008 they won the national journalism prize in mexico and into 2009in the 2009 he was awarded the human rights prize to central american university. he is most recently the author of the history of violence living and dying in central america though we are here to discuss and of course the books are on sale here. and francisco here to my left has published four novels and one book of nonfiction. his most recent won the

[inaudible] keys correctly back to work on a novel the writing of the interior circuit. he is currently back to work on the novel. francisco has been a guggenheim fellow, center fellow at the new york public library and at the american academy. he's written for the new yorker, "the new york times" magazine, harper's mother the leader -- libyan leader and many other publications. he developed the prius and every year teaches one semester at trinity college in hartford connecticut, and then hightails it back to mexico city. and jon lee anderson to my left

is a journalist investigative reporter and correspondent and correctly staff writer for the new yorker. he's particularly known for his reporting on latin america and as we know from the numerous profiles on political leaders including hugo chavez fidel castro. he is also involved in the internationally recognized teaching in journalism and working to safeguard the rights of journalists and as the chairman of the columbia-based foundation for journalism and regularly teaches workshops for latin america reporters. anderson has written several books including the lions grave from afghanistan in the fall of baghdad and is the co-author inside the league from the

killing grounds. the next book project is a biography of fidel castro's think you very much for joining us. >> it is a great honor to say i really consider him the great journalist of our time. to briefly say a few words in his new book comes after the beast which is interesting because it narrates the journey

of migrants through mexico into the united states primarily and it more or less takes us back to the world that they are fleeing from providing a narrative that goes backwards in a sense to say a few words about the two books together. one is in some ways a great artist that both books are unbelievable torture of human cruelty and more so than joseph conrad or any book you can think of that makes us confront the of

this when the migrants have the only route they can avoid the migration check planes and he chronicles you see so many along the path here. it's the prophecy of the future. you're going to be like that probably. as he tells we are so used to, these are local people preying on the migrants. these are farmers and ranchers to realize people were traveling through the area and if anything was done to them they are likely to go to the police so they

realize we can rob them and and rape and murder them and we are all humans get anything any human does in the sense of who we all are of course they are great examples of the bravery and resistance. they get food to the migrants along the way but this is a central fact of his writing, the stark truth. so it just fills me with joy to read it because i love to encounter finally the truth. this is what he read. admiring you can bring us the truth with that mix of bravery

and artistry that oscar had to make a scene. it also reminds us anyone that reads the beast and cds that terrible journey they undertake and understandundertakento understand that anytime a central american migrants comes across the border and get into the united states, there's a great victory. that is something we should stand up and cheer for because every single one of them is so brave and resilient they have to have so much to make you so proud of the human spirit and what human beings are capable of and you have to understand why they are doing it to do better for their families.

another aspect we can't overlook they go through so much. we will talk about this more later but he's so eloquent at portraying the damage left behind in the 80% of 80% of the women that made the journey are sexually violated along the way. these our brothers and sisters all around us who at this moment are being in the political discourse these are people that have been through so much and who have to live and go on and have been through so much and are heroes of our society is in many ways. at last the new thing in the book especially yukon front so eloquently to describe this is

all our problems. the united states, every citizen of the united states is so complicit in this situation and in the history of the situation. we see this deep culture of violence that has so many in its roots in the central american war of the 1980s and this incredible distraction that was never addressed in any kind of positive way. we are not just the great consumers but it's we also provide the arms and i'm sure we are going to talk a lot about how complex the issue is and how we are so intertwined into

triangle. [applause] thank you all. it's a pleasure. my sentiments, hello, can you hear me? now you can. i would just like to echo -- can you hear me now? his sentiments express as it is

safe to say the foremost interlocutor of the brutal reality. he is the person who is braving the situation and has the extraordinary not just reporting skills, but the writing talent to bring us testimony and chronicles from an extraordinarily harsh and usually overlooked, ignored, neglected reality. it's been there for a long time. it's getting worse. i don't mean this as a kind of chicken little statement but it's always been overlooked even when it is said to be the number

one national priority for the united states years ago by the then president. the brutalization that went on in the name of warding off communism in the name of holding back the red tide and notionally building democracy in the 1980s was gothic and extreme. of those those ofto those of us that reported it can never forget it. there's nowthere is now a time that everybody that has access to youtube is aware of the kindest cruelties that humans put upon each other. about 30 years ago this was happening in el salvador on a daily basis and in guatemala over quite a long period of time

time. it was part of our population here in the united states aware of what was going on. some demonstrated against it and some tried to help out as humanely as possible. but our government tended to side with the military in the country which visited evil upon those populations. the numbers of people fled. how many were given asylum in this country i don't know if anybody was. i think nobody was. possibly there were one or two. i don't know. it was arguably an extreme violence into something you were saying about what happens to people who.

just as no woman in guatemala for that matter fell into the country's security forces without being raped but usually sexually mutilated before being murdered. the degree that it went on has never been punished. it's never been castigated. it's still in the air. though more in the early '80s and 90s ended with the oblivion following the model of spain post-franco. but in this case there wasn't a 40 year dictatorship to become a

benevolent dictatorship. although tons of blood was still fresh on the ground. and as we have seen in all of these countries, honduras being a country that didn't have a war but was nonetheless used by all parties in particular to subvert others and especially nicaragua. they've also come to a kind of tunnel shop of horrors in which the pastor urged the present. if before we had a situation where people were being killed in the name of democracy or in the name of the anti-communism, they are now simply dying because they are dying. and we don't have a kind of

measuring rod in this country or a feeling of imperative to force a debate about it. the only debate we seem to have here involves the people once they cross the border. i returned to el salvador as one of the handful of people that covered el salvador. i met frank many years ago and also in nicaragua all those years ago i never really thought about it but i didn't return to el salvador and i realized i didn't want to go back to el salvador. i went back to el salvador because his brother that works within and this sort of team of reporters that are the next

generation on our unique and quite extraordinary in that they have heart and passion and soul, they have anger. there's a lot of anger in what he writes and it's absolutely justified anger that comes through crystal clear. he controls it at times better than others. i think that's wrong. i think that he is driven by a kind of deep indignation that i would have to say i think it is worse before there the further was a war in which you would go out and you kind of knew who was killing you. there were notional ideas but

now even more people some days in el salvador are dying. there've been people put behind bars for barbaric crimes that they organized were committed themselves. it is as if a country lets its serial killers walk free and not just the country but the whole region. they are sitting at the same bar and café and in some cases they have to see them in uniform. that's what we left behind. it's worth noting by the way that it was built after the earthquake in 86 and they built the biggest embassy in latin america through the huge white

elephant that sits there with no real purpose of course that the war was over and there for everything could be devolved into this idea of the chronic criminal insurgency in the same kind that we live in with our cities and many of the other countries in the hemisphere now. many of the countries that were safe for democracy are now failed states or experiencing theirwere experiencingtheir own kind of a war or violence. those are very few exceptions and that itself is worthy of an interesting discussion and why that's the case. in any event i could go on a long time about this. i feel well represented nothing but here is a person who is an old-fashioned term we don't use much in this country but i would

say he's the patriarch. in the sense that nobody uses anymore he feels the righteous indignation of the country that had its entire destiny taken away from it and it's still being chewed up. it's still not a country that we would want to live in. when i go back to see them at their annual event and i talked with them about what they can just as reporters 30 years ago they live under the threat and assassins. they are the very same people that he sometimes needs and chronicles that can be turned on a dime including people who write about them so it is a great act of valor and courage

in what his friends are doing and they deserve a much wider audience for the political debate in a much greater way. they are all around us everywhere and they are not a given visibility and place in society that they deserve. we placed them here. we placed them here and that is a -- that comes with a lot of baggage. i think that is the underpinning if it can be called a mission to somehow make us see what's going on and get the conversation going. [applause]

>> first i cannot speak in english, i can speak spanglish if that's okay. i'm going to try to speak in my language to explain my ideas. first of all, thank you in particular [inaudible] i consider you friends of mine who is a problem of this book make the product of the latest book a history of violence.

i consider you not just friends but journalists and writers. the process of the two books why do you think that, because in 2007 in mexico i started to understand and i have several problems with time. i started to understand how the people cross mexico in 2007 meadlo.

it's the brutalization of organizing crime that i saw in my cookie or -- my career to sell with the north border north border and extortion migrants. so in 2007 i know i'm starting with the piece, that i'm going to verify that a history of violence. it's at the top of the train and starts to be a problem with organized crime. that happened since 2007 as

anybody went there and saw what happened on the field. i don't know why that is but that is a kind of behavioral belief i never saw a migrant in the press conference. it's important to understand what the government thinks that it's more important to the field. so i would say it's like a roadway because i started for three years to understand all the things i migrant suffered two come here and try to get into the united states with

nobody and i remember in 2008, a priest from the united states asked me in the gulf of mexico he asked me okay if they're going to ask you all these things would have been behind in central america and i start to feel i cannot answer that question at the moment. journalists in central america and think that is part of the problem to explain for example

guns. we don't know where they come from or how they started or when they arrived in our societies. that happened i realized in 2010 during the central american form of journalists. i asked that question and started to understand that it wasn't to migrate but to flee, to leave because the situation generally in 2011 i started to try to answer that. what happened and how it's possible.

some people ask me what happened after the peace agreement and why we are not a peaceful society. they think it needs and their components but my answer is and how we've become a violent society or how can we be so violent for example, last year maybe you can understand that way that one of every 972 person was killed.

this 330,000 if it was the homicides last year. my answer is that we never live in peace or have a society with peace. i can remember for example how we get into that in 2009 as the most violent country in the world. it is a construction of society of the strong components it on

one side and there's a few people that the construction of the state is made for the few people. it's made to resolve the problems and for example it's the most murderous country in the world right now. it's one of ten that go to trial. one of every ten has the possibility of a good result and i don't know to tell you that number of the poor people or the working class to the construction in the state is in

a lot of time and a lot of people are fleeing from that situation. they have no response from the states and they try to leave for natural reasons they try to come here because there is an effort from a lot of years ago. so the second book talks about that situation and one of the missions of journalism tries to put life on the darkest corners of society. if people experiment day by day it's 20 years ago but it's still a dark corner of our society.

if anybody told the situations that's what i try to do in the book because it's different if you hear that there's a country so violent if you can read about the last name so i try to get close to the situation by myself the question why this pic is in question here in the united states. what's important is that you read the book and i'm going to be honest with.

i'm not talking about people who don't live here i'm talking about you people who are in contact with you all day, i'm talking about people like francisco said a few minutes ago they lived a quiet life around you and they are part of this society. and in second place because i think i vibrate too much about that but you can make it or answered about that.

but i don't have to say to you that the society is in the north of central america have a lot a lot to see what the politics of the united states. but you have to put the name of a president if you are going you're going to find a lot of huge examples. but i'm going to put one example about how the government of the united states or some precedent i expect to do it.

take a decision like at the end of the 80s and the beginning of the '90s 4,000 gun members from the south of california to the three countries that guy didn't understand the process of migration. right now you have some members who were found in washington for example. so, that is 4,000 gun members at the end of the 80s and beginning of the '90s. right now they become in 60,000. the second reason to read the book is because i think the

government of the united states have a moral responsibility about the constitution of the society in central america and guatemala. we started one in the 80s. for a group of military that's how it started in the 80s. the united states supported the 12 more years. that army that committed that crime, 12 more years. so i need to pass on to the questions because i've already said all the words that i know in english. [laughter] so please, help me a little bit. thank you for being here.

[applause] >> thank you so much. before we open it up to questions and answers that we would love of course to have a conversation that's mainly the point of this, i want to ask just a couple of questions because we have three great journalists here have covered the same area of the world in different moments. i would like to ask the first question picks up on the history

history. the violence and the criminal politics, the very misguided political decisions that have led to this crisis and the racism, sexism, all the things that are particularly violent. so what's the role of journalism has been broadly construe as a public to pay attention to. the information isn't out there. why don't we know it in a way

that we somehow feel obligated to do something about it. so that's the challenge journalists face and that's one of things i would like to reflect on. >> i think that journalism is an answer in a certain way. i mean, you used to ask what's the solution and that is a difficult question of journalists at least it is a difficult question for me but to the society is part of the solution.

i don't understand why, and that's what i want to ask the united states to look at the corner of the world. why did they leave after the war, what happened in the process of peace, what happened in that? there is a historical explanation and that is the soviet union collapsed. they have been won.

there was a huge event. the guerrillas in central america sue for peace under the auspices of the un and they now turned into a goodwill ambassador for as i was saying before a kind of spanish hear no evil see no evil transition in which the transitional justice wasn't contemplated. things were frozen in place and nobody got punished and everything was supposedly hunky-dory. the united states had a major shift in its access. it looked east and was also the gulf war. there were a couple that had to deal with america's

frankenstein's. those were the only two that became an interventionist power with grenada in 83 the first time since vietnam. central america had been kicked us, so america looked east and i was a young reporter then. i wasn't one of the big media. i was a nobody. i began going to see the rest of the world as a freelance reporter. but, what i can say with certainty in the intervening years is that there is a pattern of this happening. after the soviets were pushed out of afghanistan there were no reporters left their either. i remember in 89 there were four reporters, tens of thousands of people fighting for the reporters. nobody was looking.

the station apparently we learned that after 9/11 they went home because there were not not anymore for aany more for a while. we have as a nation at every level politically and every other way. i think the pattern i'm getting too into that i've seen in the course of my career the media interests, theinterest, the decisions of where the media should cast tends to be set in washington. the editors of course there are the better editors than others and there are contrary ends and right wing and mainstream. but pretty much everybody follows whatever is uttered out of the white house and central america ceased to be imported into pretty early on those of us

who heard it became a story that was not of any national priority and it remains so to this day. for the occasional incursions to the national agenda in the campaign and donald trump's remarks and those that arrived on the border for america to react that's the case. this is the ultimate land of free speech. and you know, by and large that it's a fairly true statement. but it's incredibly oriented on how the agenda is set in

washington and that's the main reason why. so, until the president says as ronald reagan did once upon a time, naming a particular country in central america this is important to all of us. .. >> >> and this is not just meet

you say i think there is a great story in el salvador and i'm talking 1992 we're not talking about which publication but it was not the new yorker. [laughter] nobody is interested you have anything on the middle east? then the same answers anywhere in africa anywhere as a free lancer there was no blogging or internet or self publications that we know of someone out of business some are not what they were but they would still survive but they determine what gets out there those people that run

those publications or back in the '80s and the '90s pretty much determines what people will read it is not a good story they will not get in. but the region of the country may be tangential to the story but again he is in just a good reporter but a good writer we have a unique opportunity to get the story out and the real issues with a straight up reporting that made to read news brief and one of the issues of central america but it doesn't just have the same impact.

"this is it". >> that was all about what has happened and all the countries of the human revelation that happened 57 years ago i would argue and i would bet in the last year-and-a-half since they normalized relations. [laughter] i'm sorry president obama and president castro that there has been more positive coverage of the pages of "the new york times" of the last year-and-a-half not from the previous 56 years

it is exactly what i said before taking the cue from the white house if obama said the embargo was a mistake and everybody starts that is just the way that it works until somebody says central america is important i'm sorry to sound so cynical. >> so to turn this back i will quickly contrast to stories that journalistic persistence as it has forced a story in the media sometimes the ad journalist

editors of newspapers have a story that is where they are made even when the focus is on. so very quickly with a positive story but those 43 students in mexico, two years of persistent coverage determine that the margins not the mainstream press to a level of reporting, if you call it that has broken one aspect of this story after another after another after another working in concert with the journalist and have now made that story impossible to ignore now gets into the front pages of "the new york times" that is the work of journalists. this person wrote that part now to go to the overside which i found so fascinating

we just had months and months of coverage of castillo and el chapo but there is the section where they are murdered and there is a most remarkable job to put the whole context of the miracle and that they wrote about but the problem is talking to all prosecutors he says united states has said obsession with trophies . they cut nin and one after the other then they are extradited any time el chapo is extradited it creates more problems. with an endless supply. and when to talk about those

just as workers bike guatemala has a counterproductive story like why did the new yorker talk about stories of el chapo? what about how this affects? >> i know what to try to complement that with that experience i remember three years ago i was writing an article for a national newspaper we don't say names but in a moment to the board

in central america and i remember the editor told me that is a headline from one century ago but i thought it was incredible that the editor did not know basic information from the south of california. so what they chronicle what they talk about, guatemala with extradited. [speaking spanish]

i would ask the former minister of security i asked if they really want to extradite. he said no. they said he is like the referee he is not the priority and is a priority of another government they give helicopters so i ask in the moment did you use those resources to do something about security in guatemala?

and his answer was the fight against the government -- the gang members. so yes maybe somebody can help me but i remember the investigator of mexico said one thing about drugs and crime in central america. he said. [speaking spanish] and know-how to translate that. [speaking spanish]

>> they have the right to a central america does not but our government can just say yes. and those that started in 2003 s. in 2003 the embassy of the united states agreed with that kind of politics more than a decade before they know that does not work so some moments we feel like an experiment with national security but i think that

happened in terms of those issues involved with those numbers to organized crime but but we the journalists, [speaking spanish] we didn't say nothing about that we did not understand guns in 2003 because we didn't used to go into the neighborhoods but they do. so that is a huge part of the problem. >> in fairness also lot of people have been killed doing this one filmmaker i

remember what year but he goes back and was killed two weeks after resaw him. it has never been an easy task even if you decide you will talk to those people. >> in my particular case because i said i need to more months. but in a lot of countries like mexico the media doesn't kill the journalist because if you are a journalist in the newspaper since it to you and the next morning you have to cover the game of football but in the afternoon you have to go

to organized crime, that is responsible but not for you. there is a lot of journalists who go to places they don't understand anything because in central america a lot of voters of newspapers and radio think that journalist is working in a pizza shop. , and i think that is the reason like even in honduras they died because they have no support for perot even mexico for example some journalists talk with them one journalist his salary is 30 pesos a day that is like

$2.50 said day they have to use part of bad to put gasoline in his car so how do you do work under those conditions? it is impossible. >> and other journalists said he was a taxi driver. >> but i cannot help but mention the breakers that come through the journalists on the market and american free lancer wearing the same set of clothes for year or five years. [laughter] a freelance reporter to

discover there was no fire basically and those that were run that of the country and federal police in the case and it turns out freelance positions on the rooftop to discover the film evidence apparently the prosecutor of the case planting evidence. >> should be open for questions? >> there is a microphone over here. >> thanks for being here in the work you have done a lot to touch on an issue in your

introduction that he alluded to the fact you see some of the same thing's happening i just want to ask your opinion there is of book that is very much like the work you have done about the murders in los angeles and her conclusions were completely the opposite of the current understanding of what was the problem in the ghetto. this can now one year ago and is corrupted the urban operating principles of how the justice system should work with criminal behavior in the ghetto. and it is a very substantial argument in should argue

there is no justice system but the homicide rate has dropped the diseases they and the black communities. there is simply not operating justice system. so here we have a reporter who has an entire discussion of the method of reducing homicides in the united states. and if we look at that, at the operating principles is there a parallel or similarities? in this conversation? >> >> yes.

a lot of them are wrong for example, but like two weeks ago the nation's drug summit but it is the war against drugs that was based on nothing but it is a great example have not to construct a country with the study to have a good society [laughter] >> but not now but years ago to solve that problem the

issue of guns is a problem of identity and a group of people a security problem but they still apply the same methods. i don't have an answer but maybe the media are not enough not too strong or maybe society is so divided if anything happens that is something very common in central america sometimes you can show things that anything can happen quetta mollet is not the best example but for example we

have pictures to shrink government and guns march march 2012 and with thatcher's but the opinion of the society will come down the interest is less dead but with bullets to kill them all that is the solution to resolve resolve with bullets not with dialogue.

>> >> i am following up. >> my question basically is the idea of guilt and innocence and this plays out how the four inmate -- aid money is delivered so somehow that they are the ones that can be rescued from their circumstances to make those corrective decisions the same with the attention given to those child migrants i was in washington they said this is

the main thing that matters to forget about the young adults in their 20s and 30s. so that breaks down the distinctions that they are victims of circumstance than they are 18 to be treated as criminals. >> yes. it is very complicated. thinks we're question i will do my best. i talked about the migration of the central american child and in the context. maybe more valuable than someone in other parts of

the world's. but that area from the rural areas but the question of that crisis is that people ask what changed? a lot of people in central america the perception of violence because the dissolution ed

is the lowest. that will include a lot of people of course, you have to display a role. you have to walk to united states just to the border. >> to your question what do i do? >> if i am doing a lot about that because they feel it is very important to explain

the life because it is a complicated age. if you have 20 or 23 years to get involved with gangs you'll have a lot of pressure if you're in the neighborhood you will suffer to suffer as a teenager the

islamic and place to leave. >> and tries to understand i hope the message was not okay. and a number i answered your question. >> rigo because of the international commission does that make a difference? >> i think so phenacite the

national commission established in what amounted 2005 under the united nations. i understand why gives these steps did fact for example that they have a problem of the internal refugees we don't need the help so i

understand of salvador that yes we need that in a country. and of those political parties right now with the security lost so they want to say no to the reform.

>> but if we talk about corruption than the former prosecutor fifth with the highest politician rang now i don't know how to say that. that is the highest level. . .

and so, you know, they had a fully different experience in terms of the state and violence and they're spent work in the communities so that was the first question. but what is the context of the culture and violence and second is that i think most people here to an extent they may or may not know think of us as hispanic

latinos but we also have the whole school and other groups in the region. i don't know if you can speak to some of that from the point of origin to some of these groups. >> okay. but i don't know much to say about that. when i made coverage i never made the difference between that and another group. i understand that's more that i have to do here. when they arrived, for example there is a huge difference for a lot of indigenous people who in fact cannot speak spanish.

so, i suppose that it is twice complicated. but i started last year to make some coverage with the communities they published three articles and i think i'm going to be working on it the next two years without central america and violence. so that's my answer. but i know that for example in the communities of honduras. it's in the first year it had the two or is to assume violence

are not so violent. i have an opinion i don't have the answer but i have an opinion. my opinion is that because one side had one-way, today it creates the society in the first years after we don't have a network of society you have the gang members you have the 2,000 habit tends. how can you explain that because we don't talk for anybody in the

street. for example there is one they tried to escape from prison. the police or rescue him and believe somebody called him. in his community anybody could go.