tv C-SPAN Weekend CSPAN September 25, 2010 2:00pm-6:15pm EDT
single federal entity charged with that responsibility but their work will have to be reinforced at the state level by the state authorities with -- who we expect to have to play a key rule in enforcing these rules on a range of let's call them consumer credit finance companies. >> so with respect to those kinds of entities, you envision that the consumer financial protection bureau will be playing the same kind of regulatory role that the other regulators are playing with respect to the traditionally regulated institutions. is that what you're saying? . .
of the process, but we want to expand their roles. >> we have had a lot of discussion about taxes and jobs. let me touch quickly on the free-trade agreement. the president has made his call to double exports. can you explain why the administration has not encouraged the majority party to act on the free trade agreements that are pending? i know there has been progress on south korea. europe has already come to an agreement. when will this hurdle move forward? >> i agree review, and the president agrees with you. one of the most important things we can do is to make sure we are playing a major role in those growing markets. in june, the president committed to bring to a conclusion of free trade agreement with korea, so he can present to congress by the end of this year.
to make that possible, we need to demonstrate it is a good deal for americans, and find enough support in this body and the congress. it is very important to us, as a country, that we do not leave those markets to our competitors. >> it would be your opinion that the ratification of those agreements would create jobs? >> we have to make sure that we have agreements in place that provide a good deal for american businesses and american workers. where we have strong agreements that meet that test, it will be important for us to make them law. >> with the basel discussion on the capital standards, i want to ask about capital formation. the financial reform bill changed the net worth test for meeting the accredited investors standard. did you support those changes,
believing that altering the standards will impact the ability to raise capital and take companies public? >> you are testing my memory of the origin of that provision. i would be happy to look at it in more detail and come back to you. my general view, and i think it is supported by how the broader investment community reacted, is that this will provide a better system for companies to go raise capital, and a better way for us to make sure that the businesses of the future can raise capital at attractive terms. >> i spent time talking with folks bid to private investing. they include the assets of their homes as a part of the standard. with the changes, there is a concern they will not have the liquidity. they have invested in companies,
helped create companies that provided job growth. it is part of the uncertainty collation, which is why i raise it. >> i would be happy to take a closer look at the provision. we share the same objective of making our system more stable. we saw how devastating it is when it is not. we want to make sure it goes back to the business of providing people the ability to raise capital in appropriate terms. >> without access, business slows. without uncertainty, capital disappears. in november, the sec will convene a gathering on small business capital formation. in advance of that meeting, can you tell us whether you believe to small companies should be subject to the same regulatory demands a fortune 500 company might be required to shoulder?
>> i believe that small banks should not be subjected to the same basic standards that are necessary for the large, systemic institutions. we proposed a much tougher set of rules on the larger institutions -- tough enough to pay will be more stable, but still competitive. a lower standard of protection for small banks. >> to lead, mr. secretary. thank you, madame chair. >> thank you. let me say the secretary test to leave at about 4 -- has to leave at about 4:00 p.m.. >> thank you, chairwoman. i want to go back to my colleagues opening argument about the light bulb. the government did not invent a light bulb. it was the private sector.
it was the government's job to protect the patent, and our government did that effectively. today, i don't think our government would protect that patent from being duplicated in china. that is a huge problem. on top of that, back when the private sector was robust, and we did that have the growth of government that we have, we had a different situation than we have today with the massive, massive increases in the size and scope of government, with the corresponding shrinking of the private sector. i do not think it is an enlightened position. i think it will leave us in the dark. from the standpoint of us in the tax collector for the welfare state, do you think it is logical -- the comments you made, not increasing taxes would be treated the same as
government expenditures, i think, under your assumptions. human reaction will not be the same. if you increased tax assessments on people to 100%, would keep that 100% of that revenue, to you think? >> this is a complicated set of issues that i know we will not agree and completely. we do not believe that governments create jobs. businesses create jobs. our job as policy makers and people involved in governing is to make sure we are providing better incentives for businesses to invest here, at home, and create jobs. >> that is right. one of those issues as tax rates. remember, there are taxes on income at the state and federal level. if that goes up over 50%, the
idea that you are going to get over 50% -- the economic studies i have seen is that the maximum, when you set them at 28%, about there is where people give it their all in terms of their overtime, what they're willing to risk, and you, but we did you collect more. if you hike it up over 50%, as we are going to do, all of a sudden you diminish the amount of the take. i do not buy into your basic thesis that automatically, you'll be able to hike the rates up, and see that kind income. another concern i had was basel three treating many high-risk sovereign's as essentially risk- free.
do you think battalion that really is risk free? we have the same -- that an italian debt is really risk free? we had the same problem with bezel two. it helped collapse -- collect the financial institutions. >> harvested, we need to balance two objectives. we want to have the best incentives for growth and investment in the united states by individuals and businesses in a way that is fiscally responsible. if we agree, and i think we do, that our challenge is to find ways to give more reinforcement to economic growth investment in the united states, we should have the debate about how to do that. our judgment is the most responsible way, the biggest return on the dollars would be to give business more incentive,
and not to extend the tax cuts that are set to expire for the top 2% of americans. of course, marginal tax rates matter for incentives. we have good experience to look to. for the time that i was left in treachery, in the late 1990's, -- i was last in treasury, in the late 1990's, we had the best record of private investment, the best record of practice. productivity growth, the best gains in income, and a remarkable growth. >> even in a recession, you believe in hiking taxes? i get it. let's get to the last question. do you think that the italian debt is risk free? >> that is important, and i respect your concern. >> we are going to have to move on to mr. campbell, please, so we can get the secretary out.
>> for the record, and when to ask on another issue of the new regulations regarding alternative investment firms. i'm calling to ask for some response. >> this new basel agreement does a much better job of making sure banks hold or risk, and that is very important. >> there are a bunch of us on this committee that are perplexed as to why, given the current environment, that in fannie and freddie, we are not selling off some of that portfolio. we wrote a letter to the director of fhfa, and he says "other than a few limited
extractions', assets cannot considered ordinary business require treasury's consent. are you in favor of doing that, against, and what is the reason for either position? >> i should probably respond in writing, but i will say the following. it is very important to us that we do everything we can to reduce the ultimate losses we are going to face because of the decisions that were made before conservatorship. the basic business today, we believe will be profitable. we will look to maximize the ultimate return of the taxpayer.
beyond that, i do not want to say more in public, but i would be happy to do it carefully in writing. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> very quickly, monday alternative management directive, by an understanding is that have proposed some protection. i also understand some of them are ill-informed and that you wrote to the commissioner on this. two quick questions -- what was the response, and are you still concerned, and are you committed to make sure u.s. firms have complete and open access as we are providing to foreign firms? >> yes, we are concerned, and yes, we are committed to
achieving an outcome. my basic sense is that they have listened to our concerns, that knowledge them, moved in some ways, but i do not believe we have solved this to our satisfaction yet. we are on it. >> also, proposed legislation on legislative and derivatives market -- my understanding is it is different than dollars. if they will not subject end- users to clearing market requirements as we see in the dodd-frank belt. -- bill. i understand some of our regulators are considering subject in some end-users to bank-like regulation with respect to derivatives put in place to manage risk. very quickly, do you believe our regulators over here have that authority that we hear they are considering to put in place, and
would that be in contravention if they are, to what the letter from.com and lincoln -- from dodd and lincoln expressing concerns -- limit just get a quick answer on that. >> it is not clear what the european union is going to do yet. i think they moved close to the broad outlines of what is in the dodd-frank bill. we will work very hard to make sure those regimes are as close in design as possible for the obvious reason that we do not want to see the stuff migrate over there. >> right. >> we have a team of people that are not just worried about designing our frameworks, but to making sure that the different frameworks are closely aligned as possible. >> if that does not happen to
the extent that you are satisfied with, does that put us at a competitive disadvantage, and do you believe our regulators have the authority to put margin requirements on all end users? >> i want to respond to that question in writing. it is a complicated question. on the first question, if we end up with a system that puts our firms a disadvantage, how can we reduce the risk, and i'm very confident we can, but we do not know how it does point to come out at this point. it is important is our as closely aligned as possible. we do not want creek and arbitrage opportunity for people to evade the tougher rules here. >> going back to the issue with elizabeth warren -- what we heard, paused to -- paul lee
enough, constitutional the vision was actually part and parcel to the drafting of the bill. we understood that a confirmation would not be done for some time. therefore, he wanted to make sure we would function before the senate made those appointments. >> gentleman, yield? >> sure. >> that was a ranking member that said the senate makes appointments. the senate does not make appointments. >> what the chairman did say is that you want to have this function before the appointments are approved by the senate, which, is in essence trying to evade the constitutional requirements. specifically, as to where we are right now, you talk about executive privilege and being compelled to testify. does she have to comply with the administrative procedures act? >> i will talk to waldo lawyers
about that. my basic sense this, -- to our lawyers about that, but my basic sense is, of course. >> a sheet in violation of the next? >> i do not believe so, but i would be tempted to respond to that in writing. maybe i can -- i would be happy to respond in writing. the law, carefully crafted, to resist a set of recordings for trying to improve consumer protection -- gives us a set of authorities to try to improve consumer protection. it is important to recognize that most consolidation of authority only happens when there is a transfer date established, which we have set for next july, and the additional authority is only
come when it confirmed director is in place. it is in our interest, and that of the congress, to have it confirmed director in place. we can only nominate. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having me, mr. secretary. when we have the regulators in here, we ask them about common- sense without forbearance, and they're all about that. what they told us, and what is going on in florida right now is not the same. regulators will mark down a performing loan because they did not think you should be able to make it. the evidence of a performing loan used to be whether or not it is performing. now, it is whether or not in the examiners' imagination it should be performing.
>> i agree it is a problem still. it is a heart problem to fix. the tendency is to overreact in a crisis like this. if they overdo it, it is a problem. >> one question i have is whether or not you agree with academics who claim the recession is over. >> i am not an economist. i am not an academic. i would say the following. this is a tough economy. >> i know, but you are supposed to be the smartest guy on the nation rich in the nation on the subject -- -- in the nation on the subject. do you think we have bottomed out? >> the best measures we have tell the following story. the economy has been growing, incomes have been growing, for more than 12 months. the private sector, not the
government, has been creating jobs. >> please, to the best of your knowledge, flag it. tell may i think it is over, or i did not think it is over. >> i am very confident the economy is on a path to a gradual, steady improvement to economic growth. >> i think we all are. if we do not but we will recover some day. >> it is the gentleman's time. the gentleman may talk. >> i was hoping you would shock is a bunch of people and men up and say yes or no. >> it is a question of what economists think about the recession. >> i do not care what economists think. i know what retire people think, what husbands and wives think,
but i want to know what you think. you are the secretary of the treasury? >> we are in a tough economy, and we are still living with the deep scars. we have a lot of work to do. i think we are agreeing, not disagreeing. >> it is an incredible effort to get a yes or no out of anyone in washington. that is what freshets the public. again, you are the highest authority in the land. i asked you what time it is, and you want to describe a clock. i just say, i think we are out of it, where no, i do not think we are out of it. >> we are absolutely out of the worst most gravest stage. absolutely. >> we are getting warmer. >> will the gentleman yield?
i will give the gentleman extra time. i'm disappointed you would pursue it in that fashion. we had thoughtful debate. i would hope we would have a serious economic discussion. >> this is not a guy you, mr. chairman. i get asked by my people back home every day when our weekly to get out of the recession. i am asking the person who i believe is the formal authority. >> his try to give you a thoughtful answer. >> if i ask you a question that is a yes or no question, and you want to dance -- be honest approach is to refuse to answer the question. >> that is not a very thoughtful question. that excludes the ability give a good answer. economic research is a private
group. that is not the government. >> they have an opinion. i have an opinion. i'm sure you have an opinion. i was wondering what the secretary is opinion is. there is nothing diabolical or evil about that. i wonder if he personally believes, like the academics do, that the recession is over, or if he does not agree that it is not over. this is supposed to be the smartest guy in the world and i asked him a simple question. >> it is an interesting concept. it is an insult by excessive complement. i am disappointed that it takes that town. that kind of denigration by hyper-complement does not advance the discussion. >> mr. chairman, it is not a hyper-complement. my question is sincere. there is no ulterior motive.
>> the gentleman sincerely believes is the smartest man in the world? >> on this subject, i sure hope he is. >> that is the problem with yes or no. >> i as 10. >> i will tell you yes. he is the second smartest man in the world. you have to be the smart start >> i might have been, but not after engaging in this conversation. time has expired, and hearing is over. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> still to come, and remarks from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke on the 2008 financial crisis, and the current u.s. economy. later, we will head to the united nations to hear speeches from president obama, the iraqi president, in the iranian leader. tonight, a white house medal of honor ceremony for a soldier killed in combat in march of 1968. he was finally recognized for his combat actions by receiving the nation's highest honor. we will hear comments from his son. you can see the ceremony tonight o'clock p.m. after that, a dinner hosted by
log cabin republicans, which calls itself an advocacy association for gays and lesbians in the republican party. that is starting at 8:30 p.m. eastern. >> jane addams devised a present from mckinley to fdr and was a vocal advocate for civil rights and justice. this weekend, a biographer of the contributions of jane addams on booktv. >> the c-span video library is in the news this week. in a coat the washington post" media notes column, he notes that journalists are using not so secret sources. you will find it, all free, on-
line, any time. >> next, remarks from federal reserve chairman ben bernanke on the 2008 financial crisis, and the resulting changes. the chairman says the new regulations should reduce the risk of fnn to crisis in the future. hosted by princeton university, this is more than an hour important for research. particularly in this time of economic uncertainty. the center is also a magnet for undergraduates and graduate students who wish to immerse themselves in a world of quantitative finance, helping them to understand the complex interaction of instruments and forces that define today's financial markets. to all who played a role in the creation and growth of these
centers, especially family and friends, i would like to extend my warmest thanks. i am also grateful to a man who was present at the creation. let me be clear that i am not referring to the former ceo of goldman sachs who someone once confused him with, but the chair of princeton's department of economics. during that time, he played a central role in building our current academic string in finance while burnishing princeton's department. i use his own words, "making major policy decisions such as whether to serve bagel or doughnuts at the department of the hour." [laughter] were it not for him, the center
may have languished in the realm of good ideas rather than becoming what my predecessor called a vibrant environment that created innovative and multidisciplinary teaching and research.ri i am speaking of ben bernanke, who served on our faq you see -- on our faculty when he took a short leave of absence to join the board of governors of the federal reserve. i wish i could say that this brilliant economist who taught himself to oculus and attended harvard and mit returned to princeton. in the best traditions of our university, he heeded the call a public service and stayed in washington were he assumed the
chair of economic advisers in 2005. less than one year later, he returned to the fed, much to the delight of his princeton colleagues. as allen put it at the time, "by virtue of his incredible knowledge of monetary theory and history, his honesty and integrity, his cool temperament, his attention to detail and his previous experience at the fed, then bernanke has all the ingredients to be a great fed chairman." and so he has proved to be. if our speaker was the right man for the job, he was also the right man for the time. he soon went from good to bad
and then to the potentially disastrous. an authority on the great depression, then had the unenviable task of responding to the worst financial crisis since the 1930's and recession that continues to adversely under his leadership, the fed responded novelty of the crisis. as the vice chairman of the fed observed, new central bank and abated more dramatically than the federal reserve. be it through the emergency liquidity facilities or the unprecedented target of 0.25%.
that was for the large-scale purchases of security and lower long-term interest rates. the full impact of these initiatives will not be known for some time. it is not too early to say that were it not for the actions taken by the fed and its chairman, the crisis and confidence that marked the great recession would have been far worse and the larger economic fallout more destructive. in the words of president obama who nominated bernanke to a second term over a year ago, then approached the financial system on the verge of collapse with call and with wisdom, with bold action and help that the box thinking that that the brakes on the economic freefall. thank you, ben, for all you have done to strengthen regulatory
standards both domestically and internationally and to nurture the recovery that is so important to our nation paltry economic and social well-being. it is a pleasure to have the on our campus once again. i would like all present to join me in extending a warm welcome to one of princeton's own, then bernanke. -- ben bernanke. [applause]
it is very good to catch up with old friends and colleagues and keep up with the changes and continuities on campus. i am particularly pleased to see the center is driving. when we founded the center a decade ago, we intended it to be a place for students to learn not only the technicalities of modern financial theory, but also about the broader economic context of financial activity. recent -- recent events have made clear that understanding the role of markets in the economy and the effects of economic developments on demand is more important than ever. the financial crisis that began more than three years ago has proven to be one of the most difficult challenges for economic policymakers since the great depression. the policy response to this challenge has included important successes, most notably the international efforts to stabilize the global financial system after the crisis reached
its worst point in the fall of 2008. for its part, the fed worked closely with other policy makers both domestically and internationally to develop a response to the crisis. they provided the opportunity for financial and institutions that was needed to stem the panic. the fed also developed a special lending facilities to help restore normal functioning to financial markets including the commercial paper market and the market for securities. the fed ran stress test that cynically improved confidence in the u.s. banking system. in the area of monetary policy, aggressive and innovation actions were taken to stabilize the economy and lay down the groundwork for recovery. despite these and other policy successes, the episode as a whole has not been kind to reputations of economists and
understandably so. almost universally, economist failed to predict the severity of the crisis. this the view issued early warnings generally identified only isolated witnesses in the system, not anything approaching the full set of complex -- complex linkages and mechanisms that and provide the initial shock and resulted in a devastating global crisis and recession. all the financial markets are up for the most part functioning normally now, a concerted policy effort has so far not produced an economic recovery of sufficient vigor. as the result of the developments, some observers have suggested the need for an overhaul of economics as a discipline arguing that much of the research in macroeconomics and finance in recent decades has been of a little value and
counterproductive. although economists have much to learn from the crisis i am going to discuss, i think it calls for a radically reworking of the field. in particular, it seems to me that current parts of economics template three overlapping yet separate enterprises. i will call them economic science, and economic engineering, and economic management. economic science concerns itself primarily with the radical and empirical generalizations about the behavior of individuals, institutions, markets, and national economies. most academic research falls into this category. economic engineering is about the design and frameworks for achieving specific economic objectives. examples of such frameworks are the management systems of financial institutions and the financial regulatory system of the united states and other
countries. economic management involves the operation of the framework during a period of time. in the private sector, the management of complex management institutions. as you may have already guessed, my terminology is intended to invoke science and engineering. undertaking any scientific or engineering endeavor such as the construction of a skyscraper, or first fundamental science and technology, principles of design and engineering derived from experience in the application of fundamental knowledge, and the management of a particular endeavor all and including dealing with myriad uncertainties. success in any practical undertaking requires all three
components. the fight to control aids, for example. finding scientific knowledge about the causes of mechanisms as the disease -- of the disease, the development of helped strategies -- that is the engineering application -- and the implementation of those technologies and strategies for specific communities and patience, that is the management part. 20 years ago, aids mortality rates reflected scientific understanding. today the problem is likely to be a lack of funding or trained personnel to carry out programs or provide the treatments. with that taxonomy in hand, i would argue that the recent financial crisis was more a failure of economic engineering and economic management than what i would call economic science. the economic engineering problems were reflected in a number of structural weaknesses in our pension system.
in the private sector, they included inadequate risk management and risk management systems at many financial firms as well as shortcomings at shoreham -- shortcomings that some firms. in the public sector, gaps and blind spots in regulatory structure in the united states and most other countries proved particularly damaging. these regulatory structures were designed for earlier errors and did not adequately adapt to the changes in the financial sector such as the -- such as what is taking place outside of regulatory deposits institutions. in the realm of economic management, the leaders of financial firms, market participants, and government policymakers either did not recognize the structural problems or merging risk, when they identified them, they did
not respond quickly or forcefully enough to address them. shortcomings in what i have called economic science, in contrast, were, for the most part, less essential to the prices. many economists did not foresee the near collapse of the financial system. economic analysis has proven and will continue to prove critical in understanding the crisis and developing the policies to contain it in designing a longer-term solutions to prevent its return. i do not want to push this analogy too far. economics is a discipline that is different from science and engineering. the latter, dealing as it does with inanimate objects, rather than the growth of human beings can be far more precise in its predictions. the distinction between economic science and economic engineering can be less sharp than my analogy suggest. economic research is a direct
policy implications. i do not think the crisis requires us to rethink economics and finance from the ground up. it revealed shortcomings of our understandings of some aspects of the economy as a whole. the crisis should leave, and indeed is already planning, to greater focus on research devoted to financial stability. in the remainder of my remarks, i will focus on the applications of the crisis and what i have been calling in economic science -- that his basic economic research and analysis. i will provide a few examples of how economic principles and basic research, rather than having misled us, have significantly enhance our understanding of the crisis and are informing the regulatory response. the crisis did reveal some gaps in economists acknowledge that should be remedied. the financial crisis represented
an enormously complex set of interactions, indeed, a discussion and ball abilities in the financial system and financial regulations that allow the crisis to have such devastating effects will more than fill my time this afternoon. the complexity of our financial system and the resulting difficulties of predicting relevance in one financial markets and how it affects one system as a whole part -- presents challenges. in retrospect, economic principles and research are quite useful for understanding key aspects of the crisis and for designing appropriate policy responses. for example, the dependence on some financial firms on a stable short-term findings led to
applications for the functioning of the system as a whole. the fact that dependents -- dependency on short-term funding could lead to runs, -- it has been a central issue in monetary economics sense someone wrote about this question in the 19th century. the recent crisis bears a striking resemblance to the bank runs from that era. in this case, the run occurred outside the banking system in the shadow banking system, such as securitization vehicles and investment banks. prior to the crisis, these institutions have become increasingly dependent on short- term wholesale funding as had some globally active commercial banks. examples of such funding include commercial paper and purchase agreements for repossessions and
security funding. in the years before the crisis, some of these forms of funding grew rapidly. repossession liabilities increased by a factor of 2.5% in the four years before the crisis. in his shortly -- retail depositors who heard rumors about the health of their banks whether true or untrue would line up and withdraw their funds. if they continued, intervention by the central bank or some other providers of liquidity, the bank would run out of the cash necessary and would fail as a result. often the panic would spread as other banks with similar characteristics or which had a relationship with other banks would come into suspicion.
money-market mutual funds and other investors as well as other providers of short-term funding with the economic equivalent of short-term depositors. shadow banks depended on these estimates. after it began to decline, the quality of the securities that had been packaged -- although many shattered banks have limited exposure to subprime loans and other question of credit, the complexity of the securities involved in the of bigness of the financial arrangements made it difficult for investors to distinguish relative risk. in an environment of heightened uncertainty, many as investors concluded that were showing their funds was the easier and more prudent alternative. in turn, financial
institutions, knowing the risk held, began to hoard cash which dried up liquidity and limited their willingness to extend new credit. because the runs of the shadow banking system occurred in a historic the unfamiliar concepts -- context, but the private sector and the -- the private sector underestimated the risk that these runs would occur. two centuries of economic thinking on runs and panic were available to form the diagnosis and the policy response. in the recent episode, central banks around the world followed the victims to avert war contained panic, central banks should lend freely. the federal reserve acted quickly to give liquidity to the banking system by easing lending terms at the discount window and a status thing regular auctions.
invoking emergency powers not used since the 1930's, the federal reserve found ways to provide liquidity to critical parts of the shattered banking system including securities dealers, the commercial paper market, money market mutual funds, and the securities market. for today's purposes, my point is not to review this history, but to point out that it is policy response to well- developed economic ideas with historical roots. the problem in this case was not a lack of professional understanding. rather, the problem was a failure of both private and public sector actors to recognize the potential to run a context quite different from the circumstances that have given rise to events in the past. this was partly the result of a
regulatory structure that had not adapted adequately enough to the rise in shatter banking emplace insufficient evidence on systemic risk as opposed to risk to individual institutions and markets. economic research and analysis have proven useful for understanding other aspects of the crisis. one of the most important developments in economics of a recent decades has been deflowering of information economics, which studies out incomplete information or differences in information affects market outcomes. an important branch of the information of economics called principal agent theory considers the differences of information in the principles of the relationship, say the shareholder and the firm, and the agency work for the principles, say the firm's managers. says the agent generally has more information than the and because the
principles are not perfectly aligned, much depends on the contrast between the principal and the agent and in particular about the contract. currently structured incentives were pervasive in the crisis. compensation practices at financial institutions, which often tied bonuses to short-term results and made insufficient adjustments for risk, contributed to an environment in worth -- in where excessive risk were taken. serious problems with the structure of incentives also emerged with the model for the subprime mortgage market. to satisfy the strong demand for securitized product, but the mortgage lenders and the receipt package the loans for investors were compensated primarily on the quantity of projects they
moved to the system, not equality. as a result they pay less attention to credit quality and many loans were made without sufficient documentation. conflict of interest that credit agencies were another example of bad incentives. consistent with key aspects of research and if information, the public policy response to these problems has focused on improving market participants incentives. for example, to address problems of compensation practices, the federal reserve in conjunction with other agencies has suggested compensation practices to supervisory review. the inner agency supervisory dinettes supports compensation practices that induce employees to take a longer-term perspective such as paying part
of an employee compensation in stop based on sustained strong performance. to animate the problems with the model, recent legislation requires regulatory agencies to develop new standards that better align the incentives in the various stages of the securitization process. the securities and exchange commission has been charged with developing new rules to reduce conflict of interest in credit rating agencies. information economics or also essential to understanding the problems caused by so-called "too big to fail" institutions. prior to the crisis, large, complex, firms would not be allowed to fail during a financial crisis. authorities in the united states
and abroad did intervene to prevent the failure of some firms. this was not out of consideration for the owners, managers, or creditors of those firms, but because of legitimate concerns about damage to the financial system and the broader economy. all the instability caused by the failure or mere failure of some large firms did prove to be very costly, in some sense the real damage was done before the crisis. if creditors in good times believe that some firms would not be allowed to fail, they would weaken market disciplines. in addition, predators would not have much incentive to monitor risk-taking. as a result, firms thought to be too big to fail tend to take on more risk and they face little pressure from investors as they expect to receive assistance.
this is a moral hazard. the resulting buildup of risk in "too big to fail" firms increase the likelihood a recession would occur. one response to excessive risk taking is stronger oversight by regulators. in recent legislation, systemically critical firm shall be subjected to stricter supervision and requirements. the federal reserve is also involved in federal negotiations to raise the capital of liquidity that banks are required to hold. however, the problem of "too big to fail" can only be eliminated when market participants do not intervene to prevent failures. if the president believes that the government will not rescue firms with their desk of that, did the creditors will have more
appropriate incentive to limit their risk taking in those firms to which they land. the best way to achieve such credibility is to create institutional arrangements under which a failure would be allowed to occur without collateral damage. the failure can take place more safely. the authorities will no longer have an incentive to try to a boil them. -- to avoid them. we took an important step by creating a resolution under which large financial firms can be placed into receivership. it also gives the government the flexibility to take the actions needed to safeguard the stability of the financial system. this new regime should help restore market discipline by putting a greater burden on creditors and counterparties to monitor the risk of large financial firms. the insights of the economists prove valuable to policy makers
in other contexts as well. capital standards and the decision to provide the market with information during the stress tests in 2009, in the design of liquidity facilities for non depository institutions, the announcement of the collapse of the securitization market, and in the measures taken to protect consumers just to name a few areas. many of the key ideas were quite old, but some reflected recent research. recent work on monetary policy helped the federal reserve provide accommodation despite the constraints imposed by the interest rates. economic principles and research have been special to understanding and reacting to the crisis. with that said, the crisis and its lead up also challenged some important economic principles
and research agendas. let me briefly indicate some areas that i believe would benefit with more attention. most fundamentally and most challenging for researchers, the crisis should motivate economist about how they model human behavior. most economic researchers continue to work within the classical paradigm that a sense rational self-interest and behavior and the maximization of expected utility -- a framework based on the formal description of risky situations at individuals was that has been very useful in many concepts. however, an important assumption of this basic framework is that in making decisions about uncertainty, economic agents can assign meaningful probabilities to alternative outcomes. during the worst days of the financial crisis, many economic actors including investors, employers, and consumers metaphorically threw up their
hands and the admitted that given the extreme and unprecedented nature of the crisis, they did not know what they did not know. or is donald ross film may have put it, "there were too many unknowns. this resulted in panicky selling by a investors, sharp cuts to payroll by employers, and increases in discretionary savings. the idea that at certain times decision makers cannot assign meaningful probabilities to outcomes and cannot think about the possible outcomes is known as nightean uncertainty. although economists and psychologists have long recognized the challenges this presents an have analyzed the distinction between risk aversion and ambiguity of version, much of this work is relatively abstract and little
progress has been made in describing -- research could renew -- another issue that needs more attention from economists is the formation of propagated asset prices bubbles. a lot of work was done on bobbles after the collapse of bubble.com bubbles exist and expand in situations where we think they should not.
as it was put by my former colleague who has done research of bubbles out, we do not have any convincing models that explain how and why bubbles start. in understanding this process will be very helpful in the design of monetary and regulatory policy. a third issue brought to the fore by the crisis is the need for better understanding of the determinants of liquidity in financial markets. the notion that financial assets can all -- always be sold is built into most economic analysis. before the crisis, the liquidity of major markets were often taken from iraq -- for granted by participants and regulators alike. the crisis shows that risk aversion and market dynamics could scare away buyers and
impair price discovery. market illiquidity interacted with financial panic in dangerous waste. we should -- a circle sometimes develop in which combustor -- investor concern led to runs and firms were forced to sell assets quickly and drove down prices and reinforce investor concerns about the solvency of the firm's. and the circle continues. this dynamic achieve it did to the propeled blurring of liquidity and solvency during the crisis. setting illiquidity and liquidity is difficult because it requires: beyond standard models to examine the motivations and interactions of buyers and sellers over time. as regulators prepared to impose new liquidity requirements and to require changes to the shirt normal functions during times of
stress, the research in this area would be most welcome. i am been discussing research, but have not yet touched on macroeconomics. standard macroeconomic models did not predict the crisis and nor did they incorporate very easily the affect of financial instability. these failures mean that they are irrelevant or significantly flawed. economic models are useful only in the context for which they are designed. most of the time, including during recessions, serious financial instability is not an issue. the standard models were designed for these non-crisis periods and they have proven quite useful in these contests. the report of the intellectual framework that help deliver low inflation and macroeconomic stability to mr. countries in
during the two decades that began in the 1980's. with that said, understanding the relationship between financial and economic stability in a macro economic context is a critical unfinished task for researchers. earlier work that intended to incorporate credit into the study of economic fluctuations and the transmission and monetary policies represents one possible starting point. to give an example that i never particularly well, much my own research as an academic focused on the role of financial factors in propagating and amplifying the cycles. others have further developed the basic framework and look at the macroeconomic effect of the financial crisis. i am encourage to see the recent studies that have incorporated banking and credit creation in standard macroeconomic models. most of this work is still some distance from capturing the
complex interactions of risk- taking, liquidity, and capital in our financial system. it would also be fruitful if macro economist with look more carefully at other countries. join us essential experience, international economist could examine the origins of the banking and currency crises in some detail. they have devoted considerable research to the international contagion of financial crises, a related topic of obvious relevance to our recent experience. finally, macroeconomic modeling must accommodate the possibility of unconventional monetary policies and number of which have been used during the crisis. earlier work on this topic relies on the example of japan, now, unfortunately, we have more data points. the experience of the united
states and the united kingdom with large-scale asset purchases could be explored this is that we can understand the affect of these transactions and how they could be incorporated into modern models. i began my remarks by drawing a distinction between the scientific, engineering, and management aspects of economics. for the most part, the financial crisis reflected problems in economic engineering and economic management. this private-sector arrangements, for example risk management and funding, and the financial regulatory framework were flawed in design and execution. these witnesses were the primary reason that the financial crisis had its economic -- and its economic effects were so severe. disasters require urgent action to prevent repetition. engineers seek to enhance the reliability of a complex machine through improvements to
basic design. economic policymakers efforts should proceed along analogous lines. first, the recent reform legislation has improve the design of the regulatory framework, closing important gaps such as the lack of oversight of the shadow banking system. likewise, in the private sector firms have taken significant steps to improve their systems for managing risk and liquidity. second, to reduce the probability of severity of a future crisis, the system will be monitored more intensely. the recent legislation creates a financial stability oversight canceled made up of the heads of the -- oversight council made up of the heads of the regulatory agencies. they will identify regulatory gaps and coordinate the efforts
of the various agencies. enhanced market discipline is the result of the new regime. a number of measures to increase as mayor terence c. -- to increase transparency will complement the oversight. we will work to make our financial system more resilience to shock. examples include rules that will strengthen key utilities, toughen bank capital and liquidity standards, and require that more derivative the estimates be standardized and traded to exchanges rather than over the counter. in economic engineering is effective only in combination with good economic management. for its part, the federal reserve has revamped its operations to provide more effective --
we are focused on risk to the system as a whole as well as risk to individual institutions. together, better designed a private, public sector framework for managing risk, better managing and supervision do not guarantee a crack -- a crises will not occurred. they should reduce the risk of crises and mitigate the effects. in short, the financial crisis did not discredit the usefulness of economic research and analysis by any means. both older and reset ideas drawn from economics have proven invaluable to policy makers attempting to diagnose and respond to the financial crisis. the crisis has raised an important question. as i have discussed today, more work is needed on the behavior
of economic agents in times of profound uncertainty. much of that work is already underway in the department of economics here at princeton. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. this was as good a capstone to the conference that took place today and a beginning of the conference that the starting right now. it will continue tomorrow.
the students in the audience can extrapolate from this that this was a very good teacher of economics. it is a pretty interesting job that you have right now. the only thing i want to take issue with is that i can assure you that economics 101 has never been offered at 8:00 a.m. [laughter] that is an exaggeration. [laughter] a small sum. we have a lot more back up. [laughter] the floor is now open for questions. we'll start right here in the front. >> [inaudible]
the answers rate on long-term securities. what was the exit strategy, i suppose, would be one way to describe it. i am not sure i can answer that question. we are trying to oppressed conditions as they arise. i would first began by saying that the fed now has about $2.40 trillion balance sheet and with the exception of a small portion of that, it is not toxic assets that we hold. we hold government guarantees securities. we hold mostly either treasury securities or fannie and freddie mortgage backed securities that have a government guarantee and are traded on liquid markets with the strong presumption of safety. the fed? she is actually try to secure from a credit perspective. the reason that we purchased the additional securities, and as
you point out we purchased $1.50 trillion relative to our balance sheet was before the crisis -- had to do with the fact that conventional military policy methods ran out of room. we had reduced the federal funds rate which is the typical tool for monetary policy. we reduced it to its lowest level ever almost two years ago in december of 2008. as a result, this standard conventional monetary policy is no longer available. there was a view some years ago that was the short-term interest-rate was so severe that the central bank was out of ammunition. i argued that that was not the case. we demonstrated that there were other things the fed could do, in particular by buying
mortgages backed securities and treasurys we did additionally stimulate the economy. the research supports that. we did that in a couple of ways. first, the purchases of reduced interest rates directly by raising the prices of the assets that we purchase. secondly, the with all of the supply from the market pushed investors. as we pulled mortgage-backed securities out of the market, investors who would normally like to hold a safe, liquid, longer-term fixed-income estimates moves into high- quality corporate bonds, thereby lowering yields over there. we have been able to, through this process, these financial conditions broadly above and beyond the usual policy of
reducing short-term interest- rate. the reason we have such support for monetary policy is because the economy continues to need support. as you know, the recession was officially declared over as of last year. that just means that the economy is contracting. it has been growing, but not very quickly. we are using these tools to support economic growth and to maintain price stability. we guessed that a lot of time -- and i think it is constructive because, for example, lower interest rates in the corporate bond world make it easy for firms to finance investments and to improve their balance sheets, which is mother to for growth. the day will come, as you indicated, when we have to exit from this situation. it is not a permanent state of affairs.
we spent quite a bit of effort developing -- we have been quite creative in figuring out a wide range of tools we can use to exit from the situation over and above selling assets. we have found other ways we can tighten policy rates at the appropriate time. i want to be very clear, when we talk about extra set -- will we talk about exit strategies, it was never a point to say we were about to exit, rather it was important to say how we could exit so we would have the competence of investors in the public that we had control of the situation and we would be able to exit at the appropriate time. at some point the time will come. i do not know where that is. the time will come when the fed will normalize monetary policy. at that point, we have a list of tools that will allow us to drain reserves from the system
and normalize interest rates to bring us back to a more normal water policy. -- in normal monetary policy. >> is that correct? there is a microphone right behind you. >> think you for your remarks. i wanted to ask you briefly, in regards to the shattered banking system which he spoke at length about, what have we learned about -- what have we learned and what do we need to learn about how the -- about the traditional understandings of monetary policy. >> as i discussed in my remarks,
the main problem -- there are many problems, but the single most important problem is we have a regulatory system which was designed fundamentally for the 1930's, which was a period when our financial system was essentially banks. there were some innovations and changes in financial regulate -- regulation. we tried to monetize the financial regulatory system. unfortunately the animation in the system which created the use of off-balance sheet funding and the use -- and original as the distribute model which brought subprime mortgages and the securitization of vehicles which were sold with aaa ratings, all these things have developed and
were innovations that were either not cover appropriately by the the financial regulatory system or were not addressed adequately might regulators and not by the private sector either. one reason for that besides the fact that there were gaps in the structure that did not keep up with the innovation is that our system was designed to the -- regulators were focused on individual institutions. a bank regulator might say that the bank get rid of the subprime mortgages and everything is fine. the question is where? there was nobody looking at the whole system and try to figure out how to change the regulatory response as these innovations
occurred. the shadow banking system had is particular problems with credit quality and with funding. those were at the heart of the crisis. although they were a direct ways for various regulators to look at parts of the system -- for example, bank regulators to look at the off-balance the vehicles -- our system simply did not catch those problems. the shot that hit the system -- the shot that hit the system allowed it to become severe. what is new and different about our regulatory approach is going forward as was captured in the new legislation and in the new federal reserve practices is
that from now on we are going to be much more aware of the system. what risks are emerging that could bring down the overall financial system? we have a bunch of mechanisms to do that. we had the oversight council. within the federal reserve, we are restructuring our supervisions. we have explicit attention to the whole system. financial stability is the primary goal. that change in perspective and the new skills we are bringing in, -- nothing is ever guaranteed. the system is complex and this can happen. but this will give us a fighting chance to identify any problems that arise as the system evolves and innovates. >> a question right here on the aisle. >> thank you. what i am is wondering, i think the next financial crisis will
have to do with the social security trust fund. it is my understanding that the social security trust fund has been added to the 1.3 jury in dollar deficit. i am wondering if there are any plans to rescind the upper end, limits for social security. i have asked this question of everyone from washington. i think it is important that we pay attention to this now. 14% of americans 65 and over depend upon what better% from social security, about another 50% -- i am wondering if that is something that may be addressed? >> there is a much more general, broad based problem in which the security is part and that is the long-term fiscal stability of the u.s. government. every analysis done by every responsible party of any stripe,
including the congressional budget office and the office of management and budget's and everyone else, shows that on current policies, the u.s. federal debt will become unsustainable within a few decades. that is a very serious concern and one that needs to be addressed. as i once put it, the only all that i want to stand up for is the law of arithmetic which says that the deficit is equal to the difference between spending and taxes. you have to figure out some combination of spending and taxes that adds up. the question then is what they do to try to address these long- term deficits. ultimately, it is a decision for the american people and for the
congress. the federal reserve does not make fiscal policy. we do not advise, at least on specific aspects of this policy. an issue that will have to be addressed is the issue of entitlements. we have an aging population, we have a situation where no costs are rising more quickly than incomes -- where medical costs are rising more quickly than incomes. all the entitlement programs together in not too many years will be the entire federal budget. most people believe that in order to solve the long-term fiscal issues, we will have to do something about entitlements one way or another. social security is actually a much more manageable program than medicare, medicaid, etc. there have been a lot this suggestions about how to address
that problem. the president appointed a commission that is supposed to report later this year. one of the things they may be looking at, i do not know personally, will be tools for stabilizing the long-term finances of social security. there are lots of ways to do that. one thing i would say in relation to your question is that i trust that if they make any changes, they will not make changes that affect people who are already retired or close to retirement. obviously those people are dependent or have not had time to plan. it is unlikely that those changes would have significant impacts on our deficit in the next few years. we will see what they come up with. that is one area where they may want to look. the budget is a big thing as lots of other components as well. >> one last question.
right over there. i cannot see who it is. >> thank you, chairman. what the things you mentioned it was the fact that all the deep recession is officially over, the economy is growing slowly. earlier, you said there was some uncertainty about the economy. an interesting manifestation of this is the fact that among your colleagues there seems to be a wider variety of opinions. i am thinking about the distinction between government science -- economic science in economic management, your colleagues of a different view of how the world works. what is it that you think about the fed having a more optimistic view about where the economy is going than others in the economy?
is the question one of a difference between how this will work? on the receiving different information? what is it that the fed is saying that is not being seen in the market that makes you more optimistic than some survey measures and market expectations and things like that? >> first of all i would stay your premise a little bit. you can try to defer what markets thing by looking at things -- you can try to infer what markets think by looking at inflation rates in things like that. those are barry didn't -- indirect references. the reflect a whole range of views that are being abrogated in the market process. if you look at private sector forecasters, they are typically
qualitatively as similar to what the federal reserve believes on a quarterly basis. i do not think it is really true that the fed is more optimistic than private-sector forecasters. i think they are pretty comparable for the most part. in particular, we have followed the view that most private- sector forecasters have. since the spring, there has been something of a slowing within the economy. that is something we have taken careful note of. the question about why it is lowe is a good question. we have a lot of evidence that recovery is that followed a financial crisis tend to be slower than other recoveries. unfortunately this is an observation that comes from looking at lots of different
experiences. it is not necessarily tell you why. it could be that financial crises lead to slower recoveries because of the head winds created by be leveraging, by bad assets, but problems in the banking system. i am sure there is some of that. we try to incorporate that in our forecasting. there could be some episodes in the past where governments and policymakers were not aggressive enough in fixing their financial systems. the federal reserve has been quite aggressive. we try to be very proactive, both in addressing financial issues and in addressing the macro economy. we hope for better results. certainly it is the case that given the tremendous blow that our financial system took, i
think it could have been much worse. we avoided what could have been a global meltdown. even so, we got a taste of how powerful a financial crisis is on real activity. that blow which not the world economy into a deep recession in the second half of 2008, we are only recovering from back a pace slower than we would like. >> we will continue to monitor this and do our best to understand. i think it is an issue that all forecasters at of those that would be making investments are faced with, there are many aspects of this episode that are not the same as previous episodes. we have to draw inferences based on what we have seen and using economic science that i discussed in my remarks.
conservatives and moderates in his party and the expiring bush- era tax cuts. you can see "newsmakers" on sunday on c-span. >> i really underestimated how big the job was. i have not even been the minority leader. i jumped from minority whip to speaker overnight and from kind of a minority party that no one thought would be in power to leading a wave in the biggest one-year party increase in history. >> newt gingrich's on his tenure as house speaker and a possible 2012 presidential bid on sunday. >> the c-span local content vehicles are traveling the country. we look at some of the most
closely contested house races leading up to the november midterm elections. during a swing through arkansas, we caught up with the rnc- sponsored bus tour as it came to little rock. >> we're welcoming the bus tour. the republican national committee is traveling around the country to over 100 cities. nancy pelosi is just one portion of the big obama-pelosi-reid agenda that is ruining our country and causing skyrocketing unemployment. people are tired of it. we're going around making sure that people are aware of the damage that they have done.
he is going to become the next governor, right? >> i hope so. >> how is everybody doing? >> we saw you when you were here last. >> good. >> doing all right? exactly. >> good to see you. >> doing okay? >> very well. >> it is good to be with you. staying out of trouble? i love it. going to get some action on goinbefore the election? i hope so. >> how are you? how is she doing? >> great. she is doing great.
>> please give her my best. i know how that is. i hope she is doing well. thank you. how is it going? >> tonight, i represent people from all around the state, conservative leaders, and conservative republicans ever were welcoming to arkansas. i want you to give them a rousing arkansas welcome, the chairman of the republican national committee. welcome chairman michael steele. >> the work we have to do now is of such great importance. it revolves around candidates, ideas, and issues. at the end of the day, it is going to be people. it is going to each one of you. it is the little bit for the great amount that you do between now and election day. the reason we are out here is
that we want to make sure that people are listening. we have heard a great cry from the american people. the cry is simply, "enough." at what point you think that $13 trillion in debt is too much? at what point do you decide the definite -- deficit is too much? how much burden to expect a newborn today to carry in their lifetime? right now is about $55,000. that is what we're talking about. that is what the fight we are engaged in is about. [applause] let's get to work. >> got a very animated talking about being tired of nitpicking. >> let me be clear. i am tired of the backbiting and
nitpicking within our own ranks. i do not think it will spoil us unless we allow it to eat up on us and take control of our efforts. the focus for me right now in delaware or anywhere else in the country is nominees in very competitive races. they stand a very good chance of winning. i refuse to allow anyone or anything to stand in the way of that. the goal of the party is to win. it may be to the congressional seat, senate seat, gubernatorial seats. whatever it is, we're putting our best team out there. there is an enormous group of candidates running. for your, you could not find anyone to say the republican let alone run for it. we have come a long way. i am not happy with those who sit back and find reasons to blbalk for our candidates.
no one is perfect and no one is trying to be. the people get to decide who wins. it is not some group of people in an ivory tower in d.c. or elsewhere picking and choosing. let's focus on winning. let's focus on supporting those who have been nominated. then we can worry about the other stuff later. i blame anyone out there complaining and nitpicking. that is the slippery slope i am trying to avoid people getting on. everybody knows who they are. you read them. the reality is that as a party for the first time since 2004, we are winning. it has taken a lot of work by this chairman, the republican national committee and the right leadership, our national committee chairman and leaders
around the country to get us there. that is our mission and focus at the end of the day. but let's be very clear arkansas conservatives want change in washington. >> absolutely. >> what about money? >> yes, have you heard otherwise? >i do not have to account to the "new york times." we will have more than enough money. keep in mind that we have done things a little different. we did not play by the old rules where you sit there and present to "the new york times" cash on hand to start spending in september. we invested over $20 million starting late last fall and early this year in the victories
centers like this. i took the risk of saying to look at the cash on hand. we have contacted 15 million voters because we spent the money not two weeks ago but 10 months ago. that is a big difference between winning and losing. you can go the old school way if you want. you can put all the money in a basket and let it sit there and then brag to people how much money you have, but that is not helping to get the candidates elected. you are not organizing the volunteers you need to organize. folks in washington want to appease them. i decided to do it differently. i have faith and trust in the leadership of the state to spend it and put it to work on the streets. the democrats are bragging about contacting 400,000 voters. really? call me when you get to 1
million. we are already at 15 million. the money was invested long before now. i am very proud of that. we will have more than enough to carry us through november and make sure that we turned out our vote and get our voters to the polls because we have made that investment. i want to take you inside ensure you have the brain trust reworks. come on in. welcome to our little haven. it is a real pleasure to have you come aboard and be a part of it. it really started from my conversations over the past year or so around the country. you listen to people. they are saying that no one is listening to them. i decided working with our team that we needed to go back out
and be bold representation of the frustration of the american people. it is a desire to bring about their kind of change. a colleague said they needed to put me on a bus and send me across america. here we are. it is one step of many steps we have been taking this year to be engaged with the voters, bring new ideas to the table. we want to fill a showcase our candidates. we have some incredible talent of candidates this year. it is exciting to see them. last year, watching bob macdonald and chris christie emerge and become a kind of governors that they are, it is tremendous to see how their leadership takes off. watch what happens after this november with the crew that we have coming at the local level and nationally. >> had to decide where you would take the bus?
-- how did you decide where to take the bus? >> the question was what route to take in the 48 contiguous states. angela was part of the management team for the bus. we started mapping it. most importantly, when we decided to do it, we called up the state parties. we said the chairman was coming on a certain date and ask what they wanted us to do. you can see that we have computers, printers. we are wired and wireless. it is a great workspace. we have a press shop right here. this is our media shop right here. this is sort of the growing --
grilling pad. our guests will come on. we have the captain's chair. the lieutenant governor was in the chair earlier today. we got to chat a little bit. we were at any event. everyone was inside. when we came back out, this was on the bus on the windshield. another alabama voter wants to fire pelosi. is the response we're getting. it is a humbling. >> are you sleeping on the bus? what is life on the road like? >> it is rather monotonous. you are just driving from one place to another. it is not like you have stops every 20 minutes or half hour. you really have long stretches
you get used to that. it also gives you a chance to work. there is a lot of emailing and phone calls. the business of the rnc is going on. i have my files and stuff that i need and am in constant communication with the chairmen run the country on issues pertaining to their states. everybody will now. you fall asleep and take a break. -- everybody will nap. it can be draining. you may rest while you are driving to the next city overnight. it is a lot of fun. it is a great space to work in. at the end of it, we will be done. we will get off the bus. the voters will vote. you hope you have accomplished the mission. >> the pledge to america today. is that something that is going
to be a house strategy? >> it is a policy that will go across the entire party. i mentioned it tonight. we now have a legislative agenda set out by our legislative leadership. i think it is a very important agenda for us with the american people. the democrats have spent over a year -- instead of investing in jobs and wealth-feeders in the country -- they have vilified them. they have not partnered with republicans. they've called us the party of no. it is a great tagline, but it is meaningless. unemployment is still at 9.6%. the debt is that $1.3 trillion and growing. the deficit is $1.3 trillion.
it is mind-boggling what has not been done. the republican party has been the you are listening to americans -- has spent the year listening to americans. i think we have come up with a working agenda for one week hopefully become the leadership in the house and senate. they can move the country in a positive direction, investing in small businesses, lowering taxes, giving the government regulations off the backs of people, and the like. >> the seats and local content vehicles are traveling the country region but c-span local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at the country leading up to november elections. for more information, visit our web site.
>> tonight, a white house medal of honor ceremony for the vietnam war soldier. he was killed in combat in 1968. he was finally recognized for his combat actions by receiving the nation's highest honor. we will hear remarks from his son the spoke with reporters afterwards. you can see the ceremony tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. after that, and dinner hosted by log cabin republicans. because it's often advocacy organization for gays and lesbians in the republican party. we will hear from several members of congress. that starts at 8:30 eastern. >> for all of the people in the book, there are many mistakes they might have made in their lives. moving from the south was not one of them. >> nearly 6 million african- americans migrated from the south.
on sunday night, the pulitzer prize winner on their journey. that is at 8:00 on "q&a." >> you do not get to choose when the opportunity to shape a country comes your way. all you get to choose is what you do when it is done. >> nick clegg defends the decision to form a coalition government. that is sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. >> world leaders continue their work at the united nations general assembly this weekend. we will show you a discussion on the past, present, and future role of the u.n. and its relevancy in the post-9/11 world. this is 45 minutes. host: joining us from new york is bruce jones of the new york university. he is with the center of
international corp. director and serve as a former senior adviser for the caucus -- for the office of u.n. secretary general. can you give us an elanation of what you did at the u.n. as far as your role there? guest: i helped on the israeli- palestinian negotiations at the time and then i came back in 2004 and help to the then secretary general put together a series of reforms. he wanted a series of changes made to have the u.n. do business. i help him put that set of ideas on the table. host: you were quoted earlier this week. this is a little bit of what you said. you said, -- expand on that? guest: ike was saying, in the
old debt -- in the old days of the u.n., they could push decisions through. the big factor in international politics right now is the rise of the new powers -- china, india, and brazil as well as south africa and turkey. they have greater influence in regional politics and a greater influence in global politics. it means the united states and europe needs to find new ways, new alliances, and strike up new relationships to get things done. that is only the beginning. i think this administration has done a good job in forging a new relationship with india at the u.n. on issues like peacekeeping. we are still in the early days of that. the efforts to find new paths of cooperation is being seen outside of the u.n. i think a lot of the issues will come back precisely because it
is the only place where the united states and emerging powers can cperate on security issues. host: you mentioned china, india, and brazil being those that are withholding their power. can you give us an example of their influence? guest: i am less concerned with their influence in the un but more concerned about their influence in the world. china is an enormous economic actor, second biggest economy and the world. they have a great deal of influence. india is also a huge new economy and rising rapidly. it has a great deal of influence and its own region and in international diplomacy. they can block issues and obstruct u.s. decisions in the u.n. the united states will need to find new ways to negotiate with those actors.
india is one of the largest contributors to peacekeing operations at the u.n. it is something similar to what happened in this country, no taxation without representation. they are not going to continue to put all this energy into peacekeeping operations without having more of a vote. host: as far as reforms go, what would you advocate as #one to make the u.n. and more effective body? guest: i think the big reform out there it is the reform of the u.n. security council. the united states will continue to veto. two european countries have a veto. russia has a veto. and china has a veto, which is a
historical accident in a sense. the question now, how do you bring india, brazil, south africa, indonesia, these countries that play major roles, how do you bring them io the decision making of the security council to take on more responsibility? is a question of taking on responsibility and being able to pursue objectives of the u.s. and in the region. -- of the u.n. in the region. host: the countries that currently hold the power have to shepherdhese countries or bring them into the body? guest: that is right. i think the u.s. has to take the lead in this. the united states will not give up seats.
none of the emerging powers can forge a deal around these issues. i think the longer it wai, the worst the deal will be for the united states. think it should act soon to forge a deal and bring these news actors into the security council on terms that are beneficial for the u.n. and for the united states. host: why do you think there is reluctance see? guest: i think there is a hesitation. if you have less power than you did before, there is a lot of discussion in the press about the relative decline of u.s. power. the united states is vastly still thmost powerful country in the world. in the world. i think the united states should geover the discomfort and move forward actors that will be coming in.
these are not crazy countries by any stretch of the imagination. these are perfect sensible countries with major contributions to make. host: bruce jones is our guest from new york university. we will talk about the u.n. and if it is still revant. you can contribute by phone. theumbers for democrats, republicans, and independence e on your screen. c-span.org is the ema host: >> when the secretary saw the need for change, did he in this in these types -- and is in these types reforms?
to see be put in place? guest: he proposed a reform for the security council to bring in some of these new actors and propose tough new measures on terrorism. he proposed a very controversial idea known as the responsibility to protect the notion that if a country like zimbabwe or sudan failed in its domestic responsibility to protect human rights of its own citizens, the security council could intervene to protect those human rights. that was endorsed by the general assembly. he wanted a new work, tougher measures on nuclear non- proliferation. those were blocked ironically by th bush administration. he proposed a number of measures to strengthen against nuclear proliferation, terrorism, those kindof issues, and at the same time, to bring these new actors
and capture their interests to assist in those functions. host: has those traditions been carried on? guest: one of the other things he argued, and was criticized publicly for, was around the magement of the u.n., which is quite weak. there were accusations of corruption and of a scandal. he has not been as focused on the substantive rorms. it in my mind, that is a mistak you have to continue to improve performance on the key a threat out there. host: memphis, tenn., our democrats line. caller: i think it is becoming irrelevant -- relevant.
countries around the world are trying -- are forming alliances. i think the u.n. could become irrelevant if it can show that it can settle some of the issues with countries without standing armies and settle with them in their favor. the palestinian issue is one of the most leering examples of what the u.n. needs to finally show that they can solve. everybody is seeing that it needs to be solved and the injustice there. thank you. guest: i agree with half of your comments. i served in that arena for years. i disaeen the point of view of -- i think the u.s. veto remains critically important at the u.n. the united states will not bring it important issues to the u.n. unless it knows its interests are protected.
that is what the veto it does, it ptect u.s. interests. that is important. that is important. international organizations work wednesday at mary the interests of powerful nations with key principles. that is what the u.n. was founded to do. it does not always get it right. it is that marriage of power and principle that makes it function when it does. i think the veto is extremely important. host: columbus, ohio, james on our independent line. caller: the u.n. continues to undermine the sovereignty of the united states and of the middle- class. it is becoming a pawn to the chinese and indians and globalization. china is a communist country. 51% of every company is owned
by the chinese government. we need a policy that represents the interests. we need to fix the imports. let's importrom massachusetts or india. let's make things here. if the price of a t-shirt goes up, if you don't have a job, it does not matter what the price is. that is my opinion. i think the united nations is helping to undermine our middle- class and our power in the world. ho: why don't you start with a claimed that the u.n. undermines the united states? guest: it is quite wrong. the united nations is foued on the concept of sovereignty. in many ways, it is too conservative on sovereignty. in some extreme circumstances, the security council could vote
to intervene against the country's sovereignty to protect human rights. that is the only circumstance that the u.n. to intervene. other than that, sovereignty is the key principle of the united nations. the u.n. has no power to intervene in the united states whatsoever. this is a myth of the u.n. on the economics, the u.n. is an organization that tackles international security questions. it has an economic arm but it is pretty powerless. the concerns about globalization are real. they do not have much to do with the united nations. the have to do with the world bank and the world trade organization, the institutions in which the global economy is being regulated. there is very, very little that happens in international politics that the united states does not agree with.
that is the reality of world power and is reflected by these institutions. host: san diego, calif., think you for waiting. john, democrats line. caller: i would like to talk about ahmadinejad's speech. the news guy said how could we allow this to happen? how could we allowhmadinejad to speak at the u.n.? i think that is a very biased view presented by fox news. he is supposed to be a news die. host: what is your question? caller: it goes back to the previous call. they get one side of theiew about the u.n. i think mr. jones -- i thank mr.
jones for coming on and presenting the other side. if you only watch the one if you only watch the one channel, all you are going to get is negative stuff. the guy that was in the un in the previous administration, he a regular guy. that is virtually the only view that you get from that station. host: mr. jones, to the thought of ahmadinejad being able to speak at the u.n.? guest: it is a routine criticism. i am not one of thosehat think it is a bad thing. i think he looks crazy. i think there are very few things that undermines his argument more than being out there inront of the world speaking. he looks nuts. his arguments are outrageous and
he has to say them in front of the entire world. i think it helps undermine what shred of report he has with other countries. so i do not have a problem with ahmadinejad speaking at the u.n. i think it displays his views to the entire world. this is an issue that the united nations is still grappling with. does it try to say you have to conform to certain standards in order to participate with certain kinds of decision making? i am in favor of going further in that direction. think the ability of countries to participate in a serious way in major decision ming bodies of the united nations ould be tied to their performance on these issues. that does not mean that countries like libya should not be a part of the human rights council. we could have a human rights council composed of the united
states, sweden, norway, denmark, and canada who would care? what would be the point? the whole point of those bodies is to confront those countries whose behavior is problematic. you have to have the human rights violators in the human rights council, otherwise, there is no point. i think that is with the idea of some standards for performance shouldome in for who gets to sit on what body at the u.n. host: the united nations came into existence in 1945. the current secretary general of the u.n. is -- albert on our republican line, go ahead. obama: why haven't the administration pulled the plug on colonialism? he had a shot to do his legacy
in foreign policy but he has not spoken out against colonialism? could you explain that to me? guest: there is not much of it left. there are few countries left in the world under colonialism. he has talked to the united nations about the need to find new ways of cooperation against transnational cooperative the threats. i think his argument at the united nations has been -- has been pretty compelling. his argument at the un, i think, have been pretty compelling. it host: your criticisms as far as what areas? guest: i am going to pick one, which is peacekeeping. last year, obama came to the united nations and did something
quite unique. he hosted a meeting with other heads of state and particularly chose those countries that were major contributors to peacekeeping operatis. he thanked them for their efforts, pledged to do more themselves. he made the case that u.n. peacekeeping -- he pledged to then find new ways for america to contribute to u.n. peacekeeping. there has been an effort to look at options, but it has not gone very far. there are good reasons for that but i think more could be done. he came back this year and said now is the time to reinvigorate u.n. peacekeeping. host: we have a question off of twitter for you. a viewer asks --
guest: two answers because it depends on what kind of budget. we will not go into the boring details. the former budget of the u.n., the united states pays about 22%. then there are parts of the budget which are voluntary. the united states is often 40% or 50% of that funding. the united states is a huge founder of the u.n. i would highlight that it is instructive, when it is a voluntary question, the united states pays more. they don't have to contribute those voluntary funds, but they do it because they see it the
united states interests. i like to use the analogy is like the military analogy. he might have your largest defense along your borders, but you want somebody on a distant hill to see what threats are coming around the horizon. that is what the u.n. does. the united states is very preoccupied by an increase of the presence in somalia. if they were not there, the united states would have to be there themselves. the united nationsoes the distant-horizons security. the the u.n. also has an infectious disease monitoring mechanisms all over the world. host: colorado, good morning. our independent line.
caller: a quick question, observation. i am one of those that believe that these problems are so transient across the glo, 25 years from now, people will look back and say obama really did do a great job in terms of bringing american exceptional listen, helping to form coalitions, helping with middle east peace, the speech in egypt, all of those i think have been great things. it will be 25 years from now. my question specifically -- china becoming so powerful economically and in the military. they have t asserted themselves on the economic scene. is there a reason that they have not become engaged? guest: there is a big debate about china and it is a really important question in international politics right now. they are enormously powerful economically.
there are 20 years behind the united states in the military. when they say, and there are some reasons to belve this, they recognized that their economic growth came as a function of their integration in the global economy, a global economy underwritten by the united states, its rules written by the united states. they profid from that system. they have no interest in undermining that. when they argue is they want a "peaceful rise pirko they are not going to cllenge the basic system. there are some reasons to believe that. they are buildingp their military capacity and their foreign policy capacity. 10 years from now, they would be an imposition to challenge that basis. i am more of an optimist because think the basic economic reality is there growth is
dependent on an open, global system. there would be in real trouble if that broke down. i think we saw the proof of that during the financial crisis. it was the united states, europeans, and china that really put together the package of measures that slowed the global economy and began the process of economic recovery. china was an extremely active an constructive participant with the united stas in forging that response. that was a critical test. they could have acted differently. they could have allowed the system to collapse but it would have suffered just as much as we did. it was in their interest to rescue the global economy. you see the proof of the economic situation. that does not mean there will be a whole host of issues that we disagree with china. there is going to be a whole host the places that we disagree
with china, but the underlying basis is going to be one that there are deeply shared interests within the global economy and with some aspects of global stability host: bruce jones is our guest. he was a former senior adviser at the office of the u.n. secretary general. we are talking about the role of the united nions and if it is still relevant. still relevant. caller: as far as the globalization of imports and the land here in the u.s., we have so many farms and there are so many people out of work. cheap labor, i think, is a big
problem. yesterday on c-span, they said it would cost us $8 more a year if we paid american workers and a little more money to work in the fields. i think that would put a lot of people back to work. people back to work. if you hire an illegal worker, they should take your company or you should be jailed. host: we will leave it there. i think people are familiar with larger assembly meetings. what goes on behind the scenes? guest: i think the mt important thing that the u.n. does is in the field. it has 20 peacekeeping
operations around the world, 30 dealing with humanitarian crises. it helps countries run elections and fosters democracy in a number of countries. it has agencies that undertake the poorest countries on education and a whole host of things. i think that is what really counts at the u.n. it saves hundreds of thousands of lives every year through its peacekeeping operations and helps maintain stability in critical regions. they don't always succeed. they fail probably half of the time. but the ones that succeed make a huge differenc that is what really matters. i can tell you how many committees, commissions, boards, agencies and all sorts of stuff. a lot of that is pretty
irrelevant, but the key of what the core that they do is the response to an internal war, transnationa threats, and that is very relevant. host: when is the discussions about the millennium been relevant -- benevolent world, how does that fit in to your thoughts of being relevant darks -- relevant? e millennium and development goals were a set of international goals established in 2000 which e very noble aims. they said, let's all agree to cut poverty in half, to improve maternal health, child health. all of these are extremely important goals. our criticism is not with the goals.
our criticism is that it had become to link these simply to discussion of aid spending. i do not thk it is development aid spending that is actually helping to achieve those goals. this is about ending war, promoting stability, reforming the governance in side these countries, access to finance. this is really not development aid being the central part of the story. the obama administration in their speech got this right. their speech got this right. ey said this is not just about aid but a whole broad approach to economic reform in the four countries. give them access to trade it global finance and a whole sweep of the issues they need to be able to grow. development aid is a small part of the story. host: 10 more minutes with our guest.
add on our line for democrats. caller: hello. caller: hello. i saw the president's o speech in front of the u.n. they cut short on the is really speech. i have not heard any reason why they were. why were they not there? why have we not heard about it darks guest: this is the first i have heard of this. i can only guess they had a bilateral meeting with the palestinians or something along that. i would be surprised if there was any kind of intended snub. host: on our independe line from cambridge. caller: what is the real purpose of the uted nations darks -- nations? [unintelligible]
guest: the answer is very few. the united states has 53, 52, or a tiny number of soldiers fighting under t banner of the united nations. china has about 1000, mostly engineers, police, in haiti and another police -- and other places. that comes to an old tradition that peacekeing should be undertaken by other countries not by the united states, u.k., russia, and france. that came about after the cold war. the long tradition is that it is countries like canada, brazil, sweden, that contribute the forces. the logic being they have a huge competitive interests in these conflicts and you do not want them putting soldiers in to fight th out if you want more neutral countries helping to police stability.
i forgot the first question. host: i did not take a note of it. is house to do with the budget question off of twitter. what percentage of the funding of the u.n. and its agencies is spent on political aspects vs. technical and humanitarian assistance? guest: it depends on what you countdown how you count the peacekeeping operation. their budget is about $8 billion per year. the regular budget is $6 billion per year. a small percentage goes to political issues. then you have to add in the world food program which is $5 billion per year which is purely humanitarian. the u.n. development plan which is about $5 billion, unicef is about $2 billion. the estimate is around 30% of the budget going to peacekeeping, political mediation, and those types of issues.
70% goes to humanitarian or development issues. host: on our democratic line, robert in washington, d.c. caller: good morning, c-span. i was just wondering that people call a ahmadinejad a lunatic and he raves all the time. there is a video that you can google that is called, "the ring of power." this video states that there is a bunch of rich people in this world who started these wars and a profit from all of them. it gives the idea that, you know, this is why we are having these problems because of these certain groups of people. it is called the ring of power. for people to make the
statement that the things that this man is saying, of the things that have happened as far as 9/11, it is not untrue. host: mr. john starks -- mr. jones? guest: i am one of those who think bachman and a java's statements are crazy. -- i am one of those who think walkman and a dried -- rich people always make profits. that is true in history. there are real reasons that some countries go to war. it is rarely. some rich guy tries to manipulate events to go to war. that is in line with conspiracy theory. even if that were true, it has no bearing on whether stockman in the job 0-- his statements are true. host: on our independent line.
caller: i wanted to note the united nations gives voice to north korea still and what is it of their take? guest: north korea has a vote in the general assembly along with all of the other member states. no. career as a country has just about zero influence in the proceedings of the u.n. have to make a distinction between the general assembly where is it one country, one- vote system and the security council and peacekeeping operations where it is the more powerful countries that shape the operations. you can see that in the fact that the security camera has passed resolutions restricting
action the security cards and has been able to act. the fact that north korea has a vote in the general assembly does not restrict the security camera from acting in that way. that is the dynamic guys spoke about before with the dynamic incredible. every country is sovereign, one country, one-vote, etc. they get together in smaller groups to contain the risk posed by a country like north korea. host: she is our you and rep. what is your job? how, in your opinion, do you think she is doing? guest: i think she is doing an outstanding job. she has to represent the u.s. positions in interest that the united nations. there is a second job which is more subtle which is to build coalitions for u.s. interests. she has done an outstanding job with that and it has made a huge
difference in the way the united states is perceived that the you -- u.n. she has built a relationship with the block of african nations. she has done a lot to restore the u.s.'s standing in the u.n. which is great because they need their votes on it all -- on a whole host of issues. to go back to the issues i started with, she has really forged a critically important relationship with the goverent of india which matters because india is such an important peacekeeping operation. on any issue like saddam, the condo, somalia, india is likely to be an important player. she has forged a really important relationship with india on those issues andhe has played a critical role in helping the security care so hold iran.
she h done a very good job but simultaneously pursuing american interests in building the broader coalition for action at the u.n. host: minneapolis, minnesota. go ahead. caller: with the peacekeeping forces in israel, they hold them out. out. what are they feeling about the frustration for them to decide to pull them out? if there are claiming that to be relevant, how do you make sense of that? i will listen offline. guest: this goes to a question earlier. with rare exceptions, the united nations is able to have peacekeepers in ethiopia but only if they agree. if they want them gone, then
they have to leave. a critical point to recognize is the primary responsibility for resolving conflicts challenges rests with the government in question. the u.n. can help and deploy forces to for see. the all the responsibility rests with the governments. it is a matter for governments to act. you would save, and this goes back to the argument earlier, the argument that when you reach extreme circumstances where the government is so irresponsible that it is massively abusing the rights of its own citizens. they should be will the same we're going to stay in the moment this ourselves.
it was adopted by the general assembly and the security capital. in practice, that is a tough thing to do. and takes a lot of money, and governments are not always willing to put that on the table for a country in where human rights are being abused. it is still a controversial doctrine. we are seeing right now in sudan and somalia its failure to implement that fully. it is an important conceptual about that auber to friction over time. host: from vermont, on our independent line. caller: i heard of you work in agriculture in the united states that the employers can pay you less than minimum wage and that is why americans do not work in this field. with the globalization, as wages go up in other countries, our
wages will go down until the whole world's wages are about the same. host: do you have a question about the united nations? caller: it is about the globalization. as wages in other countries go up, ours wl go down. i just want to know how beneficial that is to us? host: mr. jones? guest: united nations has nothing to do with those issues. on a different topic, economic globalization, in my mind we are in an open economy. some of our jobs are overseas and some jobs come here. host: last call from chattanooga, tenneee. go ahead. caller: i am calling regarding
the united nations and their key players being mainly christian countries. countries. but there are killing all of the christians in dar for -- darfur. i'm would like to have his comments about this. thank you. guest: that is a very important question. i would not characterize it quite the way you did because the united nations, china for exampl is a very important country in the united nations. russia is an important country. i would not categorize it in terms of a western or christian influence. neither the united nations or anyone else has been able to stop the killings in darfur.
the rate of killing has diminished dramatically over the last two or three years. the issue here is other countries with a great deal of influence in sudan have not really put their shoulder to the wheel in terms of taking the type of position they should take to stop t government from the actions they're taking in the south. now there is a whole nother question which is the upcoming referendum in southern sudan about a new round of war. this is one of the more bleak episodes in contemporary history. the u.n. does the live there -- does not look good there. and is a bleak statement about the current delegation.
>> sunday on "washington journal," scott rasmussen on his book, how the tea party movement is fundamentally remaking our two-party system. then, peggy orchowski on issues surrounding the dream act, the pathway to citizenship for some children of illegal aliens. after that, dr. gerard gioia on protecting student athletes from concussions. plus, your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal" -- live sunday at 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> experience american history tv, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear eyewitness accounts of events. visit museums, historical
sites, and college campuses, as top history professors and leading historians build and to america's past. american history tv -- all weekend, every weekend, on c- span3. >> c-span networks provide coverage of politics, american affairs, non-fiction books, and american history, available on television, radio, online, and social media networking sites, and find our content anywhere. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. the seas and networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a service. >> i really underestimated how big a job it was. i have not even been the minority leader, so i jumped from minority whip to speaker overnight, and sort of a
minority party that nobody thought was going to be in power to wielding 9 million additional votes, was the biggest one-party increase in american history. >> newt gingrich on his tenure as house speaker, the state of american politics today, and a possible to the 12 american presidential bid. -- possible 2012 presidential bid. president obama talks about the progress of the middle east peace process, climate change issues, and the possibility of talks with iran. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> on behalf of the general assembly, and i have the honor to welcome to the united nations
his excellency, barack obama, president of the united states of america, and to invite him to address the assembly. >> mr. president, mr. secretary- general, my fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen. it is a great honor to address this assembly for the second time, nearly two years after my election as president of the united states. we know this is no ordinary time for our people. each of us comes here with our own problems and priorities. but there are also challenges that we share in common as leaders and as nations. we meet within an institution built from the rubble of war,
designed to unite the world in pursuit of peace. and we meet within a city that for centuries has welcomed people from across the globe, demonstrating that individuals of every color, faith and station can come together to pursue opportunity, build a community, and live with the blessing of human liberty. outside the doors of this hall, the blocks and neighborhoods of this great city tell the story of a difficult decade. nine years ago, the destruction of the world trade center signaled a threat that respected no boundary of dignity or decency. two years ago this month, a financial crisis on wall street
devastated american families on main street. these separate challenges have affected people around the globe. men and women and children have been murdered by extremists from casablanca to london, from jalalabad to jakarta. the global economy suffered an enormous blow during the financial crisis, crippling markets and deferring the dreams of millions on every continent. underneath these challenges to our security and prosperity lie deeper fears -- that ancient hatreds and religious divides are once again ascendant, that a world which has grown more interconnected has somehow slipped beyond our control. these are some of the challenges that my administration has confronted since we came into office. and today, i'd like to talk to you about what we've done over
the last 20 months to meet these challenges, what our responsibility is to pursue peace in the middle east, and what kind of world we are trying to build in this 21st century. let me begin with what we have done. i have had no greater focus as president than rescuing our economy from potential catastrophe. and in an age when prosperity is shared, we could not do this alone. so america has joined with nations around the world to spur growth, and the renewed demand that could restart job creation. we are reforming our system of global finance, beginning with wall street reform here at home, so that a crisis like this never happens again. and we made the g-20 the focal point for international coordination, because in a world where prosperity is more
diffuse, we must broaden our circle of cooperation to include emerging economies -- economies from every corner of the globe. there is much to show for our efforts, even as there is much work to be done. the global economy has been pulled back from the brink of a depression, and is growing once more. we have resisted protectionism, and are exploring ways to expand trade and commerce among nations. but we cannot -- and will not -- rest until these seeds of progress grow into a broader prosperity, not only for all americans, but for peoples around the globe. as for our common security, america is waging a more effective fight against al qaeda, while winding down the war in iraq.
since i took office, the united states has removed nearly 100,000 troops from iraq. we have done so responsibly, as iraqis have transitioned to lead responsibility for the security of their country. we are now focused on building a lasting partnership with the iraqi people, while keeping our commitment to remove the rest of our troops by the end of next year. while drawing down in iraq, we have refocused on defeating al qaeda and denying its affiliates a safe haven. in afghanistan, the united states and our allies are pursuing a strategy to break the taliban's momentum and build the capacity of afghanistan's government and security forces, so that a transition to afghan responsibility can begin next july. and from south asia to the horn of africa, we are moving toward
a more targeted approach -- one that strengthens our partners and dismantles terrorist networks without deploying large american armies. as we pursue the world's most dangerous extremists, we're also denying them the world's most dangerous weapons, and pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. earlier this year, 47 nations embraced a work-plan to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. we have joined with russia to sign the most comprehensive arms control treaty in decades. we have reduced the role of nuclear weapons in our security strategy. and here, at the united nations, we came together to strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation treaty.
as part of our effort on non- proliferation, i offered the islamic republic of iran an extended hand last year, and underscored that it has both rights and responsibilities as a member of the international community. i also said -- in this hall -- that iran must be held accountable if it failed to meet those responsibilities. and that is what we have done. iran is the only party to the npt that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. through u.n. security council resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise. now let me be clear once more -- the united states and the international community seek a resolution to our differences
with iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should iran choose to walk through it. but the iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program. as we combat the spread of deadly weapons, we're also confronting the specter of climate change. after making historic investments in clean energy and efficiency at home, we helped forge an accord in copenhagen that -- for the first time -- commits all major economies to reduce their emissions. we are keenly aware this is just a first step. and going forward, we will support a process in which all major economies meet our responsibilities to protect the planet while unleashing the power of clean energy to serve as an engine of growth and development. america has also embraced
unique responsibilities with come -- that come with our power. since the rains came and the floodwaters rose in pakistan, we have pledged our assistance, and we should all support the pakistani people as they recover and rebuild. and when the earth shook and haiti was devastated by loss, we joined a coalition of nations in response. today, we honor those from the u.n. family who lost their lives in the earthquake, and commit ourselves to stand with the people of haiti until they can stand on their own two feet. amidst this upheaval, we have also been persistent in our pursuit of peace. last year, i pledged my best efforts to support the goal of two states, israel and
palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between israel and all of its neighbors. we have travelled a winding road over the last 12 months, with few peaks and many valleys. but this month, i am pleased that we have pursued direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians in washington, sharm el sheikh and jerusalem. now i recognize many are pessimistic about this process. the cynics say that israelis and palestinians are too distrustful of each other, and too divided internally, to forge lasting peace. rejectionists on both sides will try to disrupt the process, with bitter words and with bombs and with gunfire.
some say that the gaps between the parties are too big, the potential for talks to break down is too great, and that after decades of failure, peace is simply not possible. i hear those voices of skepticism. but i ask you to consider the alternative. if an agreement is not reached, palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to coexistence. the hard realities of demography will take hold. more blood will be shed. this holy land will remain a symbol of our differences, instead of our common humanity.
i refuse to accept that future. and we all have a choice to make. each of us must choose the path of peace. of course, that responsibility begins with the parties themselves, who must answer the call of history. earlier this month at the white house, i was struck by the words of both the israeli and palestinian leaders. prime minister netanyahu said, "i came here today to find a historic compromise that will enable both people to live in peace, security, and dignity." and president abbas said, "we will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause." these words must now be followed by action and i believe that both leaders have the courage to do so.
but the road that they have to travel is exceedingly difficult, which is why i call upon israelis and palestinians -- and the world -- to rally behind the goal that these leaders now share. we know that there will be tests along the way and that one test is fast approaching. israel's settlement moratorium has made a difference on the ground and improved the atmosphere for talks. and our position on this issue is well known. we believe that the moratorium should be extended. we also believe that talks should press on until completed. now is the time for the parties to help each other overcome this obstacle. now is the time to build the trust -- and provide the time -- for substantial progress to be made. now is the time for this opportunity to be seized, so
that it does not slip away. now, peace must be made by israelis and palestinians, but each of us has a responsibility to do our part as well. those of us who are friends of israel must understand that true security for the jewish state requires an independent palestine -- one that allows the palestinian people to live with dignity and opportunity. and those of us who are friends of the palestinians must understand that the rights of the palestinian people will be won only through peaceful means -- including genuine reconciliation with a secure israel. i know many in this hall count themselves as friends of the palestinians. but these pledges of friendship must now be supported by deeds. those who have signed on to the arab peace initiative should seize this opportunity to make it real by taking tangible
steps towards the normalization that it promises israel. and those who speak on behalf of palestinian self-government should help the palestinian authority politically and financially, and in doing so help the palestinians build the institutions of their state. those who long to see an independent palestine must also stop trying to tear down israel. after thousands of years, jews and arabs are not strangers in a strange land. after 60 years in the community of nations, israel's existence must not be a subject for debate. israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the jewish people. it should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at israel's legitimacy will only be met by
the unshakeable opposition of the united states. and efforts to threaten or kill israelis will do nothing to help the palestinian people. the slaughter of innocent israelis is not resistance -- it's injustice. and make no mistake -- the courage of a man like president abbas, who stands up for his people in front of the world under very difficult circumstances, is far greater than those who fire rockets at innocent women and children. the conflict between israelis and arabs is as old as this institution. and we can come back here next year, as we have for the last 60 years, and make long speeches about it. we can read familiar lists of grievances. we can table the same resolutions. we can further empower the forces of rejectionism and hate. and we can waste more time by carrying forward an argument
that will not help a single israeli or palestinian child achieve a better life. we can do that. or, we can say that this time will be different -- that this time we will not let terror, or turbulence, or posturing, or petty politics stand in the way. this time, we will think not of ourselves, but of the young girl in gaza who wants to have no ceiling on her dreams, or the young boy in sderot who wants to sleep without the nightmare of rocket fire. this time, we should draw upon the teachings of tolerance that lie at the heart of three great religions that see jerusalem's soil as sacred. this time we should reach for what's best within ourselves. if we do, when we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the united nations -- an independent,
sovereign state of palestine, living in peace with israel. [applause] it is our destiny to bear the burdens of the challenges that i've addressed -- recession and war and conflict. and there is always a sense of urgency -- even emergency -- that drives most of our foreign policies. indeed, after millennia marked by wars, this very institution reflects the desire of human beings to create a forum to deal with emergencies that will inevitably come. but even as we confront immediate challenges, we must also summon the foresight to look beyond them, and consider what we are trying to build over
the long term? what is the world that awaits us when today's battles are brought to an end? and that is what i would like to talk about with the remainder of my time today. one of the first actions of this general assembly was to adopt a universal declaration of human rights in 1948. that declaration begins by stating that, "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." the idea is a simple one -- that freedom, justice and peace for the world must begin with freedom, justice, and peace in the lives of individual human beings. and for the united states, this is a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity. as robert kennedy said, "the
individual man, the child of god, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit." so we stand up for universal values because it's the right thing to do. but we also know from experience that those who defend these values for their people have been our closest friends and allies, while those who have denied those rights -- whether terrorist groups or tyrannical governments -- have chosen to be our adversaries. human rights have never gone unchallenged -- not in any of our nations, and not in our world. tyranny is still with us -- whether it manifests itself in the taliban killing girls who try to go to school, a north
growth that powers by individuals and emerging markets in all parts of the globe. there is no reason why africa should not be an exporter of agriculture, which is why our food security initiative is empowering farmers. there is no reason why entrepreneurs shouldn't be able to build new markets in every society, which is why i hosted a summit on entrepreneurship earlier this spring, because the obligation of government is to empower individuals, not to impede them. the same holds true for civil society. the arc of human progress has been shaped by individuals with the freedom to assemble and by organizations outside of government that insisted upon democratic change and by free media that held the powerful accountable. we have seen that from the south africans who stood up to apartheid, to the poles of solidarity, to the mothers of the disappeared who spoke out against the dirty war, to americans who marched for the rights of all races, including my own. civil society is the conscience of our communities and america
will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. and we will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless. we will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security. we will support a free and open internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. and it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders. open society supports open government, but it cannot substitute for it. there is no right more fundamental than the ability to choose your leaders and determine your destiny. now, make no mistake -- the
ultimate success of democracy in the world won't come because the united states dictates it, it will come because individual citizens demand a say in how they are governed. there is no soil where this notion cannot take root, just as every democracy reflects the uniqueness of a nation. later this fall, i will travel to asia. and i will visit india, which peacefully threw off colonialism and established a thriving democracy of over a billion people. i'll continue to indonesia, the world's largest muslim-majority country, which binds together thousands of islands through the glue of representative government and civil society. i'll join the g-20 meeting on the korean peninsula, which provides the world's clearest contrast between a society that is dynamic and open and free, and one that is imprisoned and closed. and i will conclude my trip in japan, an ancient culture that
institution more accountable as well, because the challenges of a new century demand new ways of serving our common interests. the world that america seeks is not one we can build on our own. for human rights to reach those who suffer the boot of oppression, we need your voices to speak out. in particular, i appeal to those nations who emerged from tyranny and inspired the world in the second half of the last century -- from south africa to south asia, from eastern europe to south america. don't stand idly by, don't be silent, when dissidents elsewhere are imprisoned and protesters are beaten.
recall your own history. because part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. that belief will guide america's leadership in this 21st century. it is a belief that has seen us through more than two centuries of trial, and it will see us through the challenges we face today -- be it war or recession, conflict or division. so even as we have come through a difficult decade, i stand here before you confident in the future -- a future where iraq is governed by neither tyrant nor a foreign power, and afghanistan is freed from the turmoil of war, a future where the children of israel and palestine can build the peace that was not possible for their parents, a world where the promise of development reaches
into the prisons of poverty and disease, a future where the cloud of recession gives way to the light of renewal and the dream of opportunity is available to all. çxthis future will not be easy o reach. it will not come without setbacks, nor will it be quickly claimed. but the founding of the united nations itself is a testament to human progress. remember, in times that were far more trying than our own, our predecessors chose the hope of unity over the ease of division and made a promise to future generations that the dignity and equality of human beings would be our common cause. it falls to us to fulfill that promise. and though we will be met by dark forces that will test our resolve, americans have always had cause to believe that we can choose a better history, that we need only to look outside the walls around us.
for through the citizens of every conceivable ancestry who make this city their own, we see living proof that opportunity can be accessed by all, that what unites us as human beings is far greater than what divides us, and that people from every part of this world can live together in peace. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> after president obama gave his remarks, iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad accused the u.s. of orchestrating propaganda about the 9/11 attacks. his comments about 9/11 and iraq war. representatives from the u.s. delegations and other nations to walk out in protest. this is 35 minutes. >> on behalf of the general assembly, i have the honor to welcome his excellency president mahmoud ahmadinejad and to invite him to the assembly.
>> in the name of god, the compassionate, the merciful, all praise be to allah, the lord of de universe, and please and blessing - and praise and blessing be upon him and his noble messengers. make us his followers and those who attest in his rightfulness. >> mr. president, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, i am grateful to the almighty god who granted me the opportunity to appear before this world assembly once again. q]+i wish to begin by commemorating those who lost their lives in the horrible
flood in pakistan and express my heartfelt sympathywith the families who lost their loved ones as well as with the people and the government of pakistan. thegovernment of pakistan. i urge everyone to assist their fellow men and women as ahumane -- as a human duty. let me thank h.e. mr. ali abdussalam treki, the president of the he sixtyfourth session of the united nations general assembly, for all his efforts during his tenure. i also would like to congratulate h.e. mr. joseph deiss, the president of the sixty-fifth session of the united nations general assembly and wish him all success. in the past years, i spoke to you about some of the hopes and concerns, including family crises, security, human dignity, world economy, climate change as well as the aspiration for -- disregard for human aspirations for justice and lasting peace.
justice and lasting peace. after about 100 years of domination, the system of capitalism and the existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solution to the problems of societies, thus coming to an end. i shall try to examine the two main causes of this failure and picture some features of the ideal future order. as you are well aware, the divine prophets had the mission to call everyone to monotheism, love and justice and show mankind the path to prosperity. they invite men to contemplation and knowledge in order to better appreciate the truth and to avoid atheism and
egoism. the very nature of the message of all prophets is one and the same. every messenger endorsed the messenger before him and gave glad tidings about the prophet to come, and presented a more complete version of the religion⌟rrh=i %q!"!6 c13 capacity of the man at the time. this continued up to the last messenger of god who presented the perfect and all inclusive religion. in opposition to that, the egotist and the greedy stood up against this clear call, revolting against the message. nimrod countered hazrat abraham, pharaoh countered
hazrat moses and the greedy countered hazrat jesus christ and hazrat mohammad (peace be upon them all). in the recent centuries, the human ethics and values have been rejected as a cause for backwardness. they were even portrayed as opposing wisdom and science because of the earlier infliction on man by the proclaimers of religion in the dark ages of the west man's disconnection from heaven detached him from his true self. man with his potentials for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his
quest for beauty and purity and his capacity to represent god on earth was reduced to a creature limited to the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. human instinct, then, replaced true human nature. human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of others. constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle for survival. the lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love and unity. this widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values
gave way to slavery and colonialism. a large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western states. tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of families were shattered as a result. all the resources, the rights and the cultures of the colonized nations were plundered. lands were occupied and the indigenous people were humiliated and mass-murdered. yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations was recognized. thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived amongst nations. in the beginning of the past century nice talks about
freedom, human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past. today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times worse than before, have been recorded. as a result of the two world wars, the occupation of palestine, the korean and the vietnam's wars, the iraqi war against iran, the occupation of afghanistan and iraq as well as many wars in africa, hundredsiym of millions of people were killed, wounded or displaced. terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. the dictatorial and coup d'etat governments in latin america
committed unprecedented crimes with the support of the west. instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. as a result, the very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round, pursued with a new facade. the league of nations and, then, the united nations were established with the promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in fact meant a global management. one can analyze the current
governance of the world by examining three events -- first, the event of the 11 september 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade. all of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. but then a propaganda machine came into full force, it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into afghanistan. eventually afghanistan, and
shortly thereafter iraq were occupied. please take note -- it was said that some 3,000 people were killed on the 11 september for which we are all very saddened. yet, up until now, in afghanistan and iraq, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding. in identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints. one -- that a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the american intelligence and security, carried out the attack. this is the main viewpoint advocated by american statesmen. two -- that some segments within the u.s. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining american
economy and its grips on the middle east in order also to save the zionist regime. the majority of the american people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view. three -- it was carried out by a terrorist group but the american government supported and took advantage of the situation. apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. the main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some american officials. vgo>it was also covered up and d that due to the explosion and
fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found. there remain, however, a few questions to be answered -- one, would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them? two -- assuming the viewpoint of the american government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group#r$(rq three -- was it not possible to act the way iran countered the riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in iran.
in the iranian operation no innocent person was hurt. it is proposed that the united nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of the 11 september so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden. i wish to announce here that next year the islamic republic of iran will host a conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. i invite officials, scholars, thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference. second, is the occupation of the palestinian territories. the oppressed people of
palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition. on a daily basis, the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. people are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. the zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the palestinian people. the zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in the wars against lebanon and gaza. the zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all international norms and kills the civilians. this regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly
threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination of palestinian figures and others, while palestinian defenders and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti semites. all values, even the freedom of expression, in europe and in the united states are being sacrificed at the altar of zionism. solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the palestinian people is not taken into account. would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the occupation, the sovereign right of the palestinian people had been recognized? our unambiguous proposition is the return of the palestinian refugees to their home land and
the reference to the vote of the people of palestine to exercise their sovereignty and decide on the type of governance. third, is the nuclear energy nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels. the non-proliferation treaty allows all member states to use nuclear energy without limits and the international atomic energy agency is mandated to provide member states with technical and legal support. the nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be eliminated. the npt prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear disarmament. nonetheless, note what some of
the permanent members of the security council and nuclear bomb holders have done -- they) have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the iaea. while at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals. in the current year, the united states administration asked for a $80 million to upkeep its nuclear bombs. this has entailed the following -- not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating zionist regime. i would like here to propose
that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and "nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none". in all these cases the united nations has been unable to take any effective course of action. unfortunately, in the decade proclaimed as the "international decade for the culture of peace" hundreds of thousands were killed and injured as a result of war, aggression and occupation, and hostilities and antagonism increased. ladies and gentlemen, very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the holy quran.
the holy quran is the divine book and the eternal miracle of the prophet oflslam. -- of the prophet of islam. it calls for worshipping the one god, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors, and it names with respect the previous messengers of god, like noah, abraham, isaaq, joseph, moses and jesus christ (peace be upon them all) and endorses them. they burned quran to bum all -- to burn all these truths and good judgments. however, the truth could not be burned. quran is eternal because god and truth are everlasting. this act and any other act which widens the gap and distances between nations is evil. we should wisely avoid playing
into the hands of satan. on behalf of the iranian nation i pay respect to all divine books and their followers. this is the quran and this is the bible. i pay respect to both of them. as both are dear to us. esteemed friends, for years the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and structures has been exposed and the majority of states and nations have been on a quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence ofjustice in global relations. the cause of the united nation's ineptitude is in its unjust structure.
major power is monopolized in the security council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the organization, namely the general assembly, is marginalized. in the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the security council has always been a party to the disputes. the veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation, how could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute? had iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the security council and the iaea director general have taken the same position in the nuclear issue? dear friends, the united nations is the key center for
coordinating the common global management. its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent states and nations be able to participate in the global governance actively and constructively. the veto privilege should be revoked and the general assembly should be the highest body and the secretary-general should be the most independent official and all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the general assembly and should be directed towards promoting discrimination. the secretary-general should not come under pressure from powers and/or the country hosting the organization for his stating the truth and administration ofjustice. -- and administering justice. it is suggested that the
general assembly should, within one year and in the framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the organization's structure the islamic republic of iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready to participate actively and constructively in the process. ladies and gentlemen, i announce clearly that the occupation of other countries under the pretext of freedom and democracy is an unforgivable crime. the world needs the logic of compassion and justice and inclusive participation instead oflogic offorce, domination, -- instead of the logical force, domination, unilateralism, war and intimidation. the world needs to be governed by virtuous people like the divine prophets. the two vast geographical spheres, namely africa and latin america, have gone through historic developments during the past decades.
that have altered their fates. the new approaches in these two continents, which are based on increasing level of integration and unity as well as on localizing the growth and development models, have born considerable fruits to the peoples of those regions. the awareness and wisdom of the leaders of these two continents has overcome the regional problems and crises without the domineering interference of non-regional powers. the islamic republic of iran has expanded its relations with the latin america and africa in all aspects in recent years. and about the glorious iran, the tehran declaration was a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts which was made possible through the admirable good will by the governments of brazil and turkey
along with the sincere cooperation of the iranian government. although the declaration received inappropriate reaction by some and was followed by an unlawful resolution, it is still valid. we have observed the regulations of the iaea more than our commitments, yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so. it has been said that they want to pressure iran into a dialogue. well, firstly, iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice. secondly, methods based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. those who have used intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of
the iranian nation are in real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the security council and the trust of nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the council. when they threaten a great nation such as iran which is known throughout history for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is synonymous to purity, submission to god and seeking justice, how can they ever expect that other nations grow confidence on them? it goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed.
-- namely capitalism. not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the path to the reviving old empires are blocked, too. we have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the american statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the world in this very venue. it is proposed here that in order to have a constructive dialogue, an annual free debate be organized within the general assembly. in conclusion, friends and colleagues, the iranian nation and the majority of the world's
nations and governments are against the current discriminatory management of the world. the inhumane nature of this management has put it at a dead- end and requires a major overhaul. reforming the world's affairs and bringing about tranquility and prosperity requires the participation of all, pure thoughts and the divine and humane management. we are all of the view thatwe are all ofthe idea that -- justice is the basic element for peace, durable security and the spread of love among peoples and nations. it is in the justice that mankind seeks the realization of his aspirations, rights and dignity, since he is wary of oppression, humiliation and ill treatment. the true nature of mankind is
manifested in the love for other fellow humans and love for all the good in the world. love is the best foundation for establishing relation amongst people and amongst nations. as vahshi bafqi, the great iranian poet, says -- "from the fountain of youth, drink a thousand sips. you'll still die if you don't have love's grip." in making a world full of purity, safety and prosperity people are not rivals but companions. those who see their happiness but in the sorrow of others and their welfare and safety but in others' insecurity, those who see themselves superior to others, are out of the path of humanity and are in evil's course. economy and materialistic means
are only some tools to serve others, to create frit and strengthen human connections for spiritual perfection. they are not tools for show-off or means of dominating others. men and women complements each other and family unit with pure, loving and long-lasting relation of the spouses in its center is the guarantee for the continuity and the bringing up generations, for true pleasures, for spreading love and for reforming of the societies. woman is a reflection of god's beauty and is the source of love and caring. she is the guardian ofpurity and -- of purity and exquisiteness of the society. the tendency to toughen the
souls and behaviors of women deprives them from their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. it would result in a more violent society with irreversible defects. freedom is a divine right that should serve peace and human perfection. pure thoughts and the will of the righteous are keys to the gates of a pure life full of hope, liveliness and beauty. this is the promise of god that the pure and the righteous. and the people free from selfishness will take up the management of the world. then, there will be no trace of
sorrow, discrimination, poverty, insecurity and aggression. the time for true happiness and for the blossoming of the true nature of humankind, the way god has intended, will arrive. all those seeking for justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this moment and have promised such?>yd glors time. the complete human, the true servant of god and the true friend of the mankind whose father was from the generation of the beloved prophet of islam and whose mother was from the true believers of the jesus christ, shall wait along with jesus the son of marry and the -- the son of mary and the other righteous to appear on those brilliant times and assist the humanity.
in welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice. -- as would be befitting of men. praise to love and worship, praise to justice and freedom, praise to the true humanity, the complete human, the true companion of the humankind andi! peace be upon you and all the righteous and the pure. thank you. [applause] >> on behalf of the general assembly, i wish to thank the president of the islamic republic of iran for the statement he just made.
hear a speaker from iraqi president jalal talibani, on the elections and the formation of the new government. this is 15 minutes. >> i have the honor to welcome to the united states -- the united nations his excellency jalal talibani, the president of iraq, and ask him to address the general assembly.
>> in the name of god the merciful and compassionate, madame president, allow me at the outset to begin by congratulating you, mr. president, and the people of switzerland on the assumption of the presidency of the general assembly. it is to every effort to operate with him in the performance of this, and we are certain that his experience will be important factors in the general assembly and the goals. i also extend thanks to his predecessor, my close friend,
and his presidency of the general assembly in the previous session. the ongoing political process and the collapse of the regime in 2003 has resulted in radical political change in iraq. this has resulted in the building of the federal, and united iraq, out with respect to constitutional institutions and government in accordance with this. reaching this goal was not easy or simple. at the forefront of these challenges was confronting the forces of extremism, sectarianism, as well as countering terrorist groups and groups of the former regime that are trying to return to iraq to the dark times. these groups have used various means, including the most
heinous crimes, and have allied with organized crime and international terrorist networks across regions and countries in order to reach the goal of destabilizing the security of iraq. the government of iraq is providing security to iraq and strengthening this. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, since last year, there have been significant developments in iraq. this year and the last have witnessed a significant increase in violence -- decrease in violence and marked improvement in the security situation in iraq. although some terrorist acts targeted innocent civilians in different places of the country, the overall improvement to the situation has paved the way for the withdrawal of the united states from iraq, and this was
based on the agreement between the united states of america at and country of iraq on the withdrawal of the united states forces from iraq and the organization of their activities. we stand by both parties. this year has also witnessed the success of elections held on march 7, 2010, with considerable regional and international interests. in the mission for iraq in the observance of the organization of the islamic conference, the league of arab states, the international committee, and civil society organizations all expect the elections have been transparent and fair. the principal political parties
have been in continuous communication in order to have a fruitful session of the iraqi council of representatives, which will elect a speaker for the new council of representatives and president of the president of iraq, after which the president will request the new panelists that form the government. as i thought it will be formed as soon as possible, as any delay in the formation will negatively impact the situation, reconstruction, and prosperity. the improvement of the situation in iraq has encouraged many foreign countries to reopen their diplomatic missions and help develop the relations of iraq as a regional and international -- at the regional and international levels. it has also helped promote these relations.
as well as the arab summit conference in march of next year, also makes the role of iraq regionally regarded as an import step in the efforts of iraq filling its position as an effective and responsible member of the international committee. we will continue to move in this direction and deepen the bonds of friendship, cooperation, and strengthen the chances of security in the region. within this group of developments in 2010, the government of iraq initiated a national plan from 2010-2014. the plan contains around 2000 projects in various sectors and will have a total cost of 186 billion u.s. dollars that will
enhance the quality of services provided to iraqis, as well as create 4 million jobs with positive impacts to decrease the problem of unemployment and iraq. professional development will also helped the return of people to their homes. we believe that this tuition to the problem -- we believe that the solution to the problem is the return to the homeland of iraq and their principal residence. iraq needs the experience of all its citizens to help in building the future of the country. we therefore call on countries, international organizations, and civil society organizations.
iraq will enjoy ample and status in the new iraq and have to import quality. it will have been granted at 25% share in representation in the iraqi council o. additionally, the women. have many important positions and represent their country as ambassadors after having been deprived of these rights for more than six years. the constitution also guarantees nationality. madam president, the constitution of direct formulated the basic principles of iraq's foreign policies, which focuses on the observance of non-interference in other states. the resolution of this by peaceful means and the
establishment of international relations based on shared interest and respect for iraq's international obligations means that iraqi foreign policy -- on this basis, we seek to establish better relations with arab countries and are committed to the resolutions of the arab league and organization of the islamic conference. in this spirit, we support the struggle, including the establishment of a land of palestine as we work to implement the resolutions in order that the occupied areas are returned. it is a practical step in the right direction to resolving the arab-israeli conflict to
accomplish peace and stability in the middle east. we also call for the middle east to be free of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, which will enhance the prospects for peace and security in that region. with regard to the iranian nuclear issue, to their uses of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, they are guaranteed by international convention, and we stress the importance of a peaceful solution in dealing with this issue and that dialogue and diplomacy of the most successful means to achieve that goal. )5ethe most important issue irs saying at this stage is getting rid of the burden of resolutions of the u.n. process
by revealing these resolutions according to the security council resolution 1859 of 2008 and the response to the report contained and documented in 2009. we are working very hard with our friends and members of the security council in order to address all the issues considering the situations in iraq. and at the forefront of these issues are the remaining restrictions in the field of disarmament. the conclusions of the remaining contracts of the program and finding the right mechanism which would guarantee the protection of the development fund and the iraq international advisory and monitoring board for iraq. iraq is very serious about putting an end to these problems
this year. the new elected directly government -- iraqi government will deal with these situations and related issues, such as compensation and missing persons and properties. we will work together with other stakeholders and the united nations in order to reach a settlement that satisfies all parties, without prejudice to our obligation and the security council resolutions which we emphasize. the situation in iraq has changed as a result of emmons positive development -- of the men's positive development. it is drastically different from the situation as the plan security council resolution adopted in 1990. for this reason and after the adoption of resolution 1859 it
into a desolate and in light of the report, in accordance with the aforementioned resolution and documents, we see that now is the right time for the security council to act in response to the report of the secretary general and mandate the above resolution to assure all resolutions adopted against iraq under the resolutions of 1990 in a way that would restore iraq to international position prior to the adoption of these resolutions. madam president, the present political process. -- the present political process in iraq where citizens and constitutional institutions and the role of law and human rights
may i request that representatives remain seated while we agree to president -- while we've read -- while we greet the president? >> we conclude our look at speeches from the united nations with remarks from palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas. he reiterated his call for israel to stop settlement activities it peaceful negotiations are to succeed. from earlier today, this is 20 minutes. >> in the name of god, the compassionate and merciful, the
president of the general assembly, your majesty's, excellences, ladies and gentlemen. it gives me pleasure, mr. president, to extend to you our congratulations on your election as president of this session. wishing you every success in fulfilling your novels lots. would also like for you to extend our greetings to his excellency for his valuable efforts during his presidency of the general assembly of the 64th session. we would also like to express our thanks and appreciation to his excellency, the secretary general, mr. ban ki-moon, for his efforts to strengthen the role of united nations and the work of the bodies in different fields. on this occasion, we highly
appreciate his role and the worked done by the united nations body, particularly the united nations relief and works agency for palestine refugees, which has worked and continues to work to provide essential services to the palestine refugees who for more than 60 years have been waiting for redress of their plight and for the realization of the right to return to their homes and properties. i am fully aware that the agenda of the united nations general assembly is replete with matters and issues of pressing concern to the entire human race and to our planet earth, particularly those related to our conflicts and wars, the story of people's living under foreign occupation, for the realization of the right to self-determination, climate
change, global warming, natural disasters, and the global and economic financial crises. all of this takes place at a time when we are witnessing the calling for the revitalization of the united nations and particularly for the reform of the security council in order for it to become more representative and a truly -- and truly embody the current international situation, especially in light of the emergence of new powers, which must be represented in the security council, to enhance its role and efficacy in maintaining international peace and security. there is also significant discontent over the non- compliance by some states with security council and general assembly resolutions and that is the core of the international community to take vigorous and effective measures to compel these countries to respect these
resolutions and to implement them, to put an end to foreign occupation, to put an end to colonialization and exploitation in our world in order to promote the values of freedom, justice, tolerance, peaceful coexistence, and to combat extremism and terrorism. united nations has a fundamental role to play in promoting cooperative relations between peoples and in guiding them towards investments in community development and infrastructure, and to fight poverty, unemployment, disease, and academics. and to counter the lethal risks to humanity and the future of our planet in its entirety. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, our people in particular and our homeland and our region, the middle east, are
facing extremely serious problems that continue to push them into the corner of violence and conflict, wasting chance after chance to seriously redress the problems of the people of the region and to obtain a comprehensive genuine solutions. due to the mentality of expansion and domination, which still prevails in the ideology and policies of israel, the occupying power that continues to occupy our land, making non- compliance with the resolutions of the international body, including those of the general assembly and the security council, the standard policy. such disrespect has rendered ineffective those resolutions, has undermined the credibility of the united nations, and has
deepened a predominant view that there is a policy of double standards being applied, particularly with regard to the question of palestine, and that israel is a state above the law that can flout all these resolutions and relentlessly carry out oppression, arrests, killings, destruction of homes, blockades, settlement expansion, and the establishment of the annexation apartheid wall violating and undermining the rights of our people in their own homeland. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, the ancient city of jerusalem, capital of the independent state of palestine, designated by a decision of unesco as one of the world's human heritage sites that requires protection is subjected
by israel, the occupying power, to action of alteration and distortion of reality is on the ground, it to destruction of landmarks, cemeteries, and historical identity of this holy city in all aspects, and at an accelerated pace with the aim of erasing its historical character and pre-empting the final status negotiations. this in addition to the continued excavation work under the mosque, the demolition of homes, the deportation of the population, and the imposition of a siege in order to isolate it from its natural palestinian ceramics and in order to control it geographically and demographically. this is a matter that greatly provokes our people and is a
cause for anger in the arab and islamic world. it creates a state of instability in the region and constitutes a serious obstacle to the achievement of peace and security. all these illegal israeli measures and policies must be put an end to. this is also the case, mr. president, with regard to the situation in the gaza strip, that has been suggested to an unjust and unprecedented blockade by land, air, and see, in violation of the international law and united nations resolutions. in addition to being subjected to the grave israeli military resolution that has severely damaged this infrastructure, this illegal blockade and aggression have results in the
destruction of the infrastructure of productive capacity of gaza and destroyed 25% of its homes. nearly 75% of the working force in the gaza strip have become unemployed and are completely dependent on international aid. israeli blockade has prevented our people in gaza from reconstructing their homes, in spite of the fact that the international donor community has pledged approximately $5 billion to finance reconstruction. this blockade against the gaza strip must be lifted immediately, and completely. the tragedy and suffering of our people must be ended as soon as possible. while we welcome the efforts of the international independent fact-finding mission, established by the human rights council, and the conclusions of
the panel of inquiry with regard to the aggression against the freedom flotilla that was carrying humanitarian assistance to our people in gaza, we also hope that the panel of inquiry established by his excellency, the secretary general of the united nations, will submit its report to the security council. i must also, mr. president, add to all of the above the fact that there remain thousands of palestinian prisoners were languishing in israeli jails and detention centers. these are all fighters for freedom and for peace. they're suffering must be ended. they're suffering other folks must be ended. it is essential to do so in order to create a conducive
environment for the attainment of peace. we cannot reach a peace agreement that does not liberate all of these refugees from the chance. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, in spite of all of this, in spite of the historic injustice that has been inflicted upon our people, the desire to achieve a just peace that guarantees the achievement of this national rights and freedom and independence has not and will mop diminish our wounded hands are still capable of carrying an olive branch picked from the rubble of the trees that the occupation of crude daily. our people aspire to living in security, peace, and stability on its national soil in palestine, to build its life and
the future of its generations. we are keen on the establishment of the comprehensive justice and lasting peace, based on what is right, on justice and the resolutions of the international legitimacy. a settlement that leads to the complete withdrawal by israel, the occupying power, from all the arab and palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including jerusalem, so that the state of palestine can enjoy its sovereignty and its authority, resulting in peace and security in the entire region of the middle east, proceeding from our general desire to realize a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in the region, we have decided to enter into the final phase of negotiations. we will make every effort t