discussion on hate crimes and the rise of white supremacist attacks. it is hosted by the lawyers understand the law, 3:00 eastern. >> once, tv with three giant networks and the government supported service called pbs. in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea your let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all, bringing unfiltered congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. the landscape has changed. ,o monolithic media broadcasting has given way to narrow casting, youtube stars are a thing, but c-span's big idea is more relevant than ever. no government money supports c-span. nonpartisan coverage is funded as a pop test service by your

cable or satellite provider. c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. >> the energy in the room -- preventr 1: a way to violent extremist in countries with struggling governments. journalists and foreign development authors share their experience. this event hosted by the u.s. institute of peace is one hour. roger: good morning. kumar. is roger i am the chief here. i am delighted to be here on what is an important occasion in this town and others around the world where this topic deserves much more attention. i remember many years ago i tried to understand how the u.s. government organized its foreign systems activities.

i wrote a paper on it, and i counted 49 separate programs. that may be a little out of date. it may be bigger now. this morning's conversation has been a lot about that complexity. just how do we as the u.s. government get organized? we will make things more complex right now. we are going to bring in the international perspective. how does this play around the world in a particular context with other donor counties and with other nonstate actors, ngo's and private-sector? we think it is a critical component to any future state where we are focused on preventing extremists. in order to have a conversation like this to be successful, it is important i think the take that complexity and frame it. firstreading this report, which i think is a big contribution the report is trying to change , the narrative in washington and around the world. the narrative has long been terrorism is a problem, better go and root out terrorism.

the narrative shift this report is trying to make in this town is to say let's take the focus itself, just terrorism which is a symptom, and consider what is the environment allows terrorism to grow. once you do that it changes your , perspective, once you say what is that environment you get much closer to issues of justice and of governance and really of development. so the people sitting next to me on the panel today are by and large people who work on development issues, wearing various hats but have spent much of their careers working on those issues in many countries we are here to talk about. so let me briefly introduce them and jump into the conversation. ambassador diane horner is a counselor. she has spent her career across the great lakes region in africa, most recently the deputy ,ead for the mission in cr worked around the world. theing next to her is

deputy general secretary of the g7 plus, which is a great organization to have represented today because you represent 20 of the most fragile countries in the world like haiti and to more -- timor-leste where you are best -- you are based. before this he ran stuff for the government, so he has seen these up close and personal. this is the assistant secretary-general at the u.n. and director at the bureau for external relations and advocacy and have a -- has spent a long career working with many countries that we will be talking about today. they play a big role because they can operate in many places where we can't be. next to her is ambassador martin who is the swiss ambassador to the united states. before taking that role, you may have seen his name many times when he was the director of the swiss agency for operations and

spent much of his career working on these issues we are talking about today and sam worthington at the end of the panel, he is well known in this town. he leads the largest association of nongovernment organizations in the world, 200 some members, the big brand names of nonprofits you are very familiar with. let me begin the conversation here, because i would like to go from washington where we spent time and energy to get to what you have seen on the ground. you spent time growing up in a refugee school, coordinated in your country of afghanistan and now see issues across many fragile states. give us some grounding how this works for you. habib: first of all of it like you -- to congratulate you. this really speaks to the priorities we have been advocating. intergovernmental organization of 20, as you

mentioned, conflict affected countries. i would like to start with the statements of the problems. fragility and its associated problems are not the inherent features of these countries. these countries are victim of terrorism, extremism, fragility. and most of these countries, are as you are aware, on the crossroad of some important geopolitical positions where some of these problems like colonization, foreign aggression and civil war, and the resultant problems of you know, like extremism, which took roots there as a breeding ground, they were exposed to these challenges which were not their own willingness. the point is we have to see these countries are tackling terrorism or fragility as a way countries andse

providing partnership because it is a common problem and a common challenge. everyone is being the victim of terrorism and extremism, and the people have been, the people in these countries have been deprived of very basic needs. the basic needs like which are provided in other countries which are luxury for us. when you grow up and suffer such deprivation or such a deprived environment, you become habitually radical in your thoughts. you lack the schools, the basic services of health and education and everything, and you can imagine, millions of afghan refugees grew up in schools where we were taught, the primary schools, the mathematics, pictures of bullets, counting one bullet or two bullets or three bullets. these are the challenges with which we grew up. and the second problem was the fragmentation that was imposed.

in different ways humanitarians , do their own things, peacekeepers do their own things without much coordination, and all of them are doing in a compartmentalized way. and that, you know exacerbates , the fragmentation, and that is where the new g7 plus was formed in regards to it. i don't know how many of you might have heard about it. it was the first international agreement or framework which recognized a nexus among all these factors like you mentioned in the beginning. that we should not -- we should stay away from the compartmentalized way of tackling these issues. all the problems of lack of security, justice, inclusive -- politics and economic foundation in these countries have made these countries become a breeding ground for terrorism and extremism and fragility. the challenge then was when we endorsed a new deal, it was endorsed by more than 40

countries, the civil society, the g7 plus, it was then in the circle of technocrats. it did not take political roots. it didn't take the political buying from donor countries. raj: i think that is a key difference with at least the goal of this report. you notice the cochairs are, the institution leading it, the audience, is trying to get that political buy in from the start which is key to this. one quick follow-up question before we go on. you made a very important point that being fragile is not a permanent state. but what would you say thinking , about those audiences, especially here on capitol hill? it seems to me these countries are in an endless cycle of violence and conflict and fragility, and we can't yet out of this. what is your response to that skepticism? habib: you know, one of the biggest challenges is we rarely

consider the potential of these countries have, then we tried to overcome or solve the problems which have taken decades to take root, and we try to fix them with quick fixes. time bound projectile approach. let's take the example of technical assistance. annually $15 billion spent in these countries just for widening the technical assistance. if you compare that to the public spending on higher education, it is a huge amount. what higher education might attract is just a minor portion of that. we assume we can fix these -- overnight,n which cannot be done. my response is first we have to look at the potential in these countries, then we have to avoid or get rid of this time bound quick fix inpatient way of doing things in this country. we have to develop, with the

local leaders, local people, we have to develop locally, contextually sensitive approaches in these countries. that would only be possible when you want to local access. it was mentioned we have to be humble to listen to them. one last point i would like to countering the terrorism, we always look at the hard miss. we don't consider the softer ways of doing. for example, in my countries, for example, first of all, before 9/11 we cannot have -- we could have avoided that. and secondly once we got involved there, there was great chances for peace and reconsideration. we could have solved that. we could have engaged all the parties. it would not be that multifaceted. we have got to adopt a multifaceted approach.

you mentioned this division in the way we work, this military and, there is development and inviting and silently, i am sure -- siloing, and i'm sure you experienced this in many international agencies where your mission might be at a country level, but the funding comes with its own restrictions and requirements. suddenly there is a humanitarian emergency that comes in, where is the funding for that? you come from the sweetest of element agency. how do you see a community organizing in a way that can prevent the extremism we want to prevent? this, we actually led the initiative on the g7 and the deal. i want to say that in order, one of the most important principles are what you spoke about at the

end, namely the importance of local ownership. the united with nations development program, presidents in 170 countries all over the world and many of these being conflict ridden countries with huge programs in iraq, in yemen, and many other countries, we see the importance of being there, working with local resilience in the midst of conflicts because we need to work in pair with the humanitarian colleagues within the u.n. system to see we uphold local basic services. because then it will be much easier to rebuild onwards. but the reason also why i choose to come to the u.n. in these times is because i believe it's utterly important that we work together and find multilateral solutions to these local problems but also have, as you said initially, many root causes

that are within the countries, but also that are victims of the geopolitics that needs to be solved through multilateral solutions. i also believe it's truly important because of the values that we need to safeguard and develop. we were asked from the audience in the previous panel about whether we are pursuing western values. well, i think you have to look at the u.n. and see that the u.n. is actually the house where we create and re-create and safeguard the values. and also the lessons learned, how do we invest the right way with regard to prevention? you did a very interesting report a couple of years back that some of you might have seen that was called journeys to violent extremism, where we also interviewed individuals about their experience, and what actually made them make the

choice to go into violent extremists. and there you would find us, we all would know, many of the circumstances, lack of hope for the future of course, given not enough access to opportunities, education, jobs and so on. but also 70% of these people, many of them being very young, had experienced also what they felt was injustice in relation to relatives or close family or friends, and that was also what sparked them to move into the other side. raj: it is a striking report. if you haven't seen it, it is worth reading because you hear from the voices of the people themselves who are radicalized about why they are. i just wanted for the local organizations that up and brought up a couple of times. for them, what i see them and talk to them, there's often this frustration about the international organizations like the ones that are represented

here because of the fact that the funding is so siloed. one of the recommendations that comes out of the report that's maybe the most important and significant action items is the idea it would be a multilateral fund established that would allow dedicated funds for this prevention. talk to us about the importance of that and whether you think there is real practical application for it in the world today. ulrika: i think it is easy to argue that we need more coordination with regard to funding as well. i mean, we need to talk about aid and efficiency. of course local ownership is one of the most important principles, but of course, coordinating action will make it less costly as well and based the sections of the local experiences. you being one of the biggest development agencies of the world that has only 12% of core funding, and that of course tells you that we don't have the possibility to really plan strategically and act quickly even if we wanted to because we have so many of our donors that

actually want to have their own projects, and their own way of presenting what they find is important. there are other ways of doing that, and that is to base our strategic plan and our actions on experience. experiences such as the one from g7 which we've also coordinated with the u.n. and do it in a different way. and of course, we need much more coordination. i think this recommendation of g7 which we've also coordinated the report is really important. raj: ambassador dahinden, you've had these two hats. you run a major department agency in switzerland and now you are an ambassador here. so much of what we talked about today really connects to policy and politics ultimately. what is the environment like today for coming out and changing the way where actually work? we're hearing from people who doing a lot of work on the ground. we need to change, but it seems so challenging to actually get traction around changing the international system, even

changing the way individual countries operate. how do you see from your current perch? martin: this is a double challenge. we have heard it in both contributions before that a lot of the fragility is linked to geo strategical tensions. and this is a framework we should work on, and i'm very much convinced about multilateralism. i think for most of those conflicts it would be good to , strengthen multilateral efforts in the united nations but could also be regionally, for instance, the organization for security and cooperation in europe, for other parts. this one element, but of course, this will not solve all the difficulties we found on the ground. you mentioned rightly that i was head of the swiss development corporation. so when we -- when i first time

really approached fragility, it was in the context of fighting against poverty. we have seen that in most other places where we didn't progress in the fight of poverty, we had fragility, and this was also -- were also the places where breeding grounds for extremist movements because not only of the poverty but because people didn't have perspectives in their lives. this is not the same. there is not a shortcut in between poverty and extremism. it's more about people feeling excluded and not having a perspective in this life. and so what i think, what is important to do is on one side to engage directly with those people who feel excluded or are already on the path of

extremism, try to mediate, try to have a dialogue with them. this is one element. and then the other element is of course to work on the environment to create job opportunities. this is a challenge because it takes place in an environment where success is not granted. i had very often myself difficulties when i had to go to parliamentary commission to defend when things went wrong, and when we spent money without having the result. so it's important to address those issues and also to be less risk averse. if not, you will direct all the activities to the safer places where you have perhaps other activities to develop, for instance, private investment. raj: i want to get to risk aversion with sam in a moment,

but you make a point that poverty reduction and preventing extremism are not the same thing. they are different agendas, but they are increasingly happening in the same places. as we get towards 2030, the country that will remain in extreme poverty are largely the same countries, right on your the sahel region and the great lakes region, we need to pin point where the problems will be. maybe you need to have separate fund. maybe you can have convergence around the geography. martin: if you look at the core elements, this is a lack of rule of law, violation of human rights, all those things that are not creating a sound fabric for a good social and political development. we need to be aware of this. raj: so sam, i want to bring your in and think about the nonprofit organizations that work around the world.

often in these contexts. many times they are there because definition to go where the greatest human need is, and no one else is able to go and they go. oftentimes u.s. government and others are risk-averse so they would rather find international nonprofit then work directly with the government when they biggest issues of corruption. about that at least. part of that is we need a better thing that works with governments and local actors. where do you see the evolving international kind of fitting into this picture today? sam: first, thanks for the report and there are a couple of examples of civil society's role in creating some success stories. i think there has been a lot of mention of civil society through this. it is interesting most of the conversation has been government actors, other actors in this mix. an international ngo has a unique role to play in that it is trusted largely in the west

and is able to get some degree of local trust. ideally you need more local funding, more local engagement and so forth. because it's only the local actors who will be able to change an environment, and there's a tendency of donors and ngo's to pass risk downward risk -- downward. risk starts with the government. you push it to the ngo's, take the risk in terms of this down , to the local actor and so forth, and the pushing risk downwards has a consequence. one is when you get into anti-terror rules which were well-intentioned, you in essence have rules of you can work with, who you cannot work with. that pushes this concept of down to environment that people not wanting to take the risk to work with the wrong actors. there is a sense of let's protect our own resources as they go, which unfortunately, and we're seeing a trend here,

the general trend in many countries is a closing of civic space. it is exactly the opposite of what we want here. rather than more civic actors having more say, able to express the grievances of citizens, able to imagine where a health clinic should go, to have some say over the future, civic actors are seen as independent of government and, therefore, risky. so there is a tendency there to let's deal with what we can control, let's pull together. i find ngo's are caught between these two worlds, the world of the local civic actor wanting some say and dignity over the own lives, and this desire for us to change, but that change that we want we want to have , some control metrics over it. the two things don't neatly meshed together. raj: some times when i talked to ngo leaders, what you here today, but for them they have

been using it for so many years. they have been talking about community level dialogue and the importance of things that feel soft. in a field that you think about counterterrorism, it is a hard field, but those soft things are critical. expertise needed in a moment like this, if you buy what is within the report, it is expertise inside the ngo community. sam: and it comes down to your partnership with the local actor. is it one of control? is it one of trust? is it one of building capacity? is it that you are independent? we talked a lot about whole of government. a whole of society is much messier than a whole of government. and no organized government is going to organize a whole of society. you need spaces for voices to express themselves in different ways and tolerate those which is inherently a political process. that's we start getting the

last -- that is where we start getting peace building. that is where we start getting discussions about good governance and just the thing to end on here, we talked about time frames. this is not three to five year project time frames. we're talking about generational engagement with actors across different societies, across different levels of society and then maybe measure short-term. but if we try to solve this in short-term measurable increments i don't think we get there. need the very model might to change. specifically it is government oriented. those we are not -- we need a different timescale, different set of metrics. i want to bring in the ambassador on this point because you have worked in many of these countries could you were the ambassador in the drc and now in the u.k., there has been a focus on fertility for several years. for several years. there has been talk of u.k.

going to these countries. i believe that's the stated goal. with fragility a subject core goal to the government's approach, how do you take the lessons of this report and the conversation you hearing so far today? diane: thanks very much and thank you very much to the task force for this excellent report which i think is thought-provoking and there is a lot in there with which we would agree. because the u.k. as you say this -- does care very deeply about stability, about extremism and about fragile states. we are committed to spending at least half of our bilateral aid programs in fragile states, and we think that there is a very clear correlation between fragility and the growth of extremism. in terms of how we address this, some of what's in the report, i suppose our experience in the u.k. may be of some value, if i share some of that.

so within u.k., within the british government which of course is much smaller and probably rather less complex than the u.s. government, we have actually managed to set up cross government working to address this issue. for about 12 years now we have had something called the stabilization unit which has been at the heart of government which cuts across the foreign office, department of foreign international development and the ministry of defense. and that enables us to have a cross government single version of the truth, if you like and , provide an analysis of what's going on and a country conflict analysis and how we should all work together in going forward. and i think this has been particularly valuable in helping to bring -- as we have seen this morning in some of the discussions, all these different points of view. the military can bring a huge amount to the table, but they

have their different actors but they have a great deal about conflict and they have a lot of very first-hand experience. the development actors, the development agencies work closely with ngo's. they understand what can be delivered and how things can delivered and how best to measure. how to be accountable to our electorates because we do have those electorates and we do have to be accountable as ambassador -- the ambassador was saying. and finally and i would say the diplomats, at the heart of this is a political solution, and i think diplomats can bring insights into the political process because dealing with this is an incredibly complex issue, and it has to be multifaceted as the speakers have brought out. i think that we need to -- everybody brings something to the table. it becomes, it is a crowded spear, but it is one in which it is right to have all of those different points of view and have coordination across all those different actors. i think it's one of the things

that the report brings out and brings out really well. know, very also, you important to coordinate between nations between governments, the , countries i worked in drc, , tanzania as well and also the car does have good coordination. sometimes it can feel heavy and like a drag but what comes out of that is so much richer than if we worked unilaterally. together and actually of each other. a strategicy much role for the u.n. and its agencies. is i'm say the reason

not just talking about money, , national actors come with baggage and that is of always good in terms achieving the impact you want. legitimacy is how you are seen -- i think you are legitimacy is not a vague concept. it means actually getting results you want, so i would say an importantnitely role because of what they can bring to the table. having individual

donor countries with their own there's a lot of action.take unilateral i wonder how you would push back on the people that say you cannot just courtney. you need to come in from the funding.nd trust the note their authority does go past the palace walls. how do you think of some of those realities and address world?s around the is an important question.

electednt legitimately in terms of manpower and capacity, ability to get around the country, so what you need to do is build up a partnership, put them inly front. you need a solution which is sustainable, which is therefore the long-term. it is going to be difficult and challenging. it is going to be three separate words and to suspect. one of the things i like his it stresses the need for that tryoach, you will have to things out and see if they work and if they don't, try something else. in a way, you have to experiment and be prepared to accept risk

and occasional failure as well because that is the only way you'll learn. there are so many different factors that have an impact on success. you are going to have to work with all of those. it is very complex. is an important point that you raise. do you have an alternative to the state and government? how long can the international community engage? is it affordable to deliver by any other means? because it is extremely expensive. there's a platform where you can

agree on delivering on the state agenda, but only need is to trust each other and again, i would like to repeat that. to listen into understand. sometimes we take these concepts at face value and we copy of purchase from one to the other thatt is an accepted fact they are different. theave to realize what concept is. measure it across and then see where the country lies. they are in different stages. of them have had not had .he luxury

mean if you have to is a kindn front, it of competition between the government state. we have to accept these are the state executions which have to win the heart of the people.

obviously, it doesn't mean you have to dash that he raised a good point, ambassador if you

have to put them in front, the tragedy with the system is there's a competition premier governments and the aid providers. to establish the fragility or in other terms which is very common, to win the hearts and minds of people. we have to accept that these are the state institutions which have to win the hearts and minds of people. if they don't that's were extremist groups find a vacuum to enter and sometimes provide basic services themselves that the government would otherwise provide. i mean, this is very true in somalia, in afghanistan, and other parts. one of the reason to establish legitimacy is they are providing services quicker than the government. the other tragedy, i mean, is he to go to these countries when you speak with the governments have done, or other vacancies on projects the donors, boards and the government is missing. police that he put this ceremonially on the lead, people to the government is providing. it's not like one thing yes, corruption and all this, you know, general concerns but it's not as simple as we think. aid is provided not like a check this given to minister because he or she can spend. there are ways, mechanisms, afghanistan is the biggest example again. totally dependent on it. we had spending budget by the donors and there was a mechanism of the it is work. corruption is again is not only just within the government system. if you measure corruption as an aid which has been managed is much larger than that which was channeled to the government system. >> i think a lot of what you're andng is a sensible

acknowledging it on the panel. i do want to underline that two of the venture talked about are quite hard. you're asking the richest most powerful country in the world to be humble against some of the poorest least resource countries in the world and are also asking political leaders using taxpayer money to take more risk we've all been saying that on the panel and upright bass as well but i want to underline how truly challenging those asks are. i think ulrika wants to jump in. i was also, i do believe that taxpayers local constituents are wise enough if we have an honest conversation based on the decades of experience is what actually works and how we can get long-term sustainable results working with local ownership. the world bank, if we talk about the multilateral institutions, many times land our support and actually we become the government function. afghanistan is i think one critical example what i know that there is also criticism of behalf of the afghan government in relation to the world bank, not perhaps lending the support towards what actually needs to become local ownership at the end but, of course, this also depends on shareholders of the

world bank or as member states and the donors also within the u.n. system to actually -- we do have experienced enough and evidence enough, and i also wanted to say that while i do think we need to look for results, of course we need to see there's a contradiction taking risk and plenty for results. there are as this report suggest different ways of planning for results in an adaptive manner. and also been being able to report that. and just last, i think we should also look towards the international frameworks that we

have, g7 framework being one of them but also of course the sustainable development goals, internationally negotiated was the toughest goal to get because it contained speeders governess go. on rule of law but also how to build peace in a way that sustains peace. but it is there and i think it is a false assumption to believe that our western donor countries that it wouldn't be wished even in many countries we see as many actors actually understand the importance of rule of law and governance, you know, what it would be to build sustainable and prosperous societies. we are about to go to questions as soon as we hear from sam. get your questions ready. >> i think as the ngo person i'll bring in the private sector a little bit because i think we have to play to the strength of all actors that has the capacity of the state to govern and organize it so. there needs to be resources through civil society was subside for society have voice and to express voices of people. and then the private sector as a generator of jobs, how degenerate those jobs, how to bring in the capital? i had an interesting conversation with ngos and institutions bring in risk capital into fragile environments is how can one facilitate or accelerate capital come into the sopranos or foreign direct investment?

and is there a role at foundations and ngos to playor large donors could play in mitigating risk of bringing capital to these of primus. i think what to look at all the different players, the different strengths they bring together and that is the complexity of what we're looking at. there is not a government solution to this or business solution or society. you need all these factors together playing to the strengths, and our challenge is as donors, as people in different environments is again back to your point, do we have the humility to record is ultimately that the solution is local on all three of these points. in some ways the current model is the risk is my we could have where donors have to, we design the solution can go to execute

than finding new modalities to mitigate risk and allow either players operate. i see a couple of hands already. are there microphones to go around? i think they are coming. yes? maybe not. it's coming. it's coming to you or do you want people to line up? microphone is on its way to i think the fourth row. we will start right here. >> thank you. this report actually recommends starting a new partnership government fund, multilateral, jet we know what already exists here in the previous panel alina romanowski mentioned it, the global unity and keep and resilience fun. uk is one of the donors into it. it's the foundation and switching is a generous donor into. i guess i'm asking would you recommend actually starting for something which some of the

government had been investing in for the past five years? do you ditch it and start something new? is there something which you would want to restructure it, or what would actually make this new thing potentially succeed if the idea is that existing prevention efforts are not working? >> that's a great question. i was going to take a few at a times but that such a good one let's dig into it promote it again. be back in tokyo, ambassador martin, if you could give us a sense of why that particular fund has not taken off in a way maybe we had hoped it would. i think that was part of the conversation on the last battle, and whether not to make launch something you or try to use something that exists today. >> as we expected, but what we could see from the projects that are run is that they produce the results we wanted. it's perhaps rather a political hesitation why it could not be widened more than it is actually. i still think it's the right

approach, and the approaches are similar to what is proposed in the report here. any other thoughts about that from the panel, either about the existing fund or how we can make -- there seems to be a lot of earlier consensus that we need a fund of this kind. what we have to do to get to the point where it might exist? >> i would you say that are more funds as well. you're the peace building fun of the u.n. and, of course, undp would be one of the agency for the work and the world bank here also the previous, so there several funds and i do think it is a good to see and perhaps to a mapping of this kind of initiative. we would know that it's easy to start up something and close it down but, of course, there could be some coordination. i think there is also between these different funds we could perhaps improve it. but, of course, the political initiative is important. so that's many times also the reason why we start off with new initiatives and maybe it's a matter of packaging in how to make something out of what we already have to showcase that there are countries taking this seriously and the challenges that we have. >> we are dealing here with

something where we cannot have template solutions. we need to be aware of this and brightly, the analysis is extremely important when working in fragile context and so what i think is, if further funds should be developed, the existing experience should be analyzed. and one should be really aware that they cannot have something one size fits all. we are not there, and this is a difference, for instance, for traditional development cooperation where you know how to run a vaccination program. it's something completely different. >> so getting to the point, yes, there is not a template of implementation that we all agree

on, so there's that challenge right there. this report interesting and i didn't find this interesting because it really is addressed to united states. how can we look prevention differently? how do the different actors here get organized around an idea prevention? how does congress invest in and so forth. political space to create a new fun and that new find it should be created, needs to look at other experiences out there to move on but there is of his political dimension and practical dimension of how do we shift under leadership usip and its ideas come into this, the concept of where prevention fits in to what has been more traditional u.s. approaches. i think that's the ship the next seven. >> getting that political support from u.s. is key and maybe there could be a fund of funds were some of these are coming under as you see in the finance world.

ambassador corner. >> thank you. there's a number of funds in this area but we have our own bilateral fun as well and the uk has a conflict stability and security fund. that's $1.7 billion a year. so i think we are well used to working together. one of the strong messages from this report is actually about building partnerships, and so i think the coordination will flow. we are sort of feeling good at that these days but i think if that helps to bring more, if it helps, you know, to drive that by and if you like, then there can only be for the good. especially if it can help us to get that long-term funding that doesn't just work on a political cycle or an emergency cycle but that you can count on given to the average were talking a very long range. maybe i'm too small and dollar amount but long-range. just to put a plug in for the global fragility act because this is where congress comes in,

this is a friend act on this and importance of the alignment of congress and the administration in making this into something is legislative and not a one-off activity, and that's what i think that we may see the political momentum at least in the u.n. context to shift some thinking doubly influenced by this report. >> we will take two or three at a time. there's one in the very back and i saw one up here i thought, maybe. yes? if you have one, go ahead. >> eric with the prevention project and brookings. so what was involved in helping set it up, it lends itself very nicely debiting described in the report and i would just echo the questions which seem to be more rhetorical and actual questions. but i think the larger issue is, some of the panels have alluded to it, is this desire for always

something new. and desire to essentially to reinvent the wheel. it's not just in terms of the funds that exist out there including g surf but it's also all the different sort of youth focused programs that of men stood up in different contexts, all confronted with fragility, although with getting prevention, multiple donors on in the same space come single donors funding in the same space through multiple funding streams in that donor capital and a reluctance to actually change behavior even when there's sort of a high political imperative to do so. so my question is, why is this different? why is this report going to produce the kind of structural behavioral changes among them

not among local actors, not among host governments but among donors that no previous reports, whether it's the world bank or whether it's the u.n., whether it's oecd, whether it's the united states, european union, have been able to do? what is different about this report, if anything? >> thanks for the question. great question. is there another question? i think you are on. >> ok. some ngos are not extremists organization, different scenario but organizations -- [inaudible] and most wanted men, but always china veto in united nations. i don't know how responsible to the u.s. or you rent or other steps can take it to prevent the extremism and terrorism, question like -- [inaudible] i think is totally state sponsored by some country, china is also trying to prevent, you know. >> ok, thank you. was there one more question? this is your chance.

we'll go with these two and able that maybe we will go with eric's first because it really is an appointed question. essentially what he's asking is, if i can even expand his of the bit, we've been talking already the international architecture isn't really fit for purpose. there's urgency. we understand the number of terrorist incidents have grown, the number of terrorist groups have grown. many countries facing for joe -- they think -- many countries are facing challenges. why now are we going to actually shift? if we're not fit for purpose to this point, what will make us actually move? first -- out ivan

first iout ivan >> i will dive in first. this report is a continuation of a conversation that will keep on happening in repeating itself, of the challenge we need are looking for short-term immediate solution because there's a and appears to have that for long-term complex problem in front of us. and as learning happens along the way there are, we need to focus often on areas that require more tension and the focus on prevention as as a reminder that this is ultimately going to work better if you want to mitigate the problem, i think that is a value added at this point in time of the conversation. that doesn't mean five years or no, can use there may not be another report on prevention to

do this because we tend to run towards there's the quick need to act but not on how do we take the long-term view of trying to take on some of these challenges that it could be difficult to address. timelyink the report is isause i'm concerned it actually a downward trend with regard to quality of aid or international development cooperation with more fragmentation, even though we actually should know much more, all the studies over the decades have taught us that we need to do it differently. so i think it's a very good reminder to member states of the u.n. but also the donor countries that we need to work differently and that we do have the spirit on how to do it. >> eric pointed out some examples whether it is more fragmentation, youth programs being stood up. there are political imperatives for doing that in many donor capitals around the world but as you say we know better. >> we know better, and i also think that taxpayers or the constituencies have said before they would want us to work more efficiently and not in a fragmented way putting up different flags, if that is not

really getting us the result that the investment should get. >> thank you. i think, you know, extremism is changing all the time and our knowledge of what works and how best to respond to it is also changing and evolving. i think we have to see this as, this report as part of that discussion about how best do we respond to it. i think it's got a huge amount of value because of that, because it is looking at the problem in 2019. it's looking at it with all the lessons we've learned about what works, what hasn't worked so well, how best to address it and how best we bring all the actors on board picks i think it definitely fulfills an important space in this discussion. >> i think, i mean, let's introduce some sense of optimism here. we are optimistic about it

because we think it's a great report and recommendations are reflective of what i mentioned the new deal. so for us it's a very good here at home that it will change the policies or here in the united states which would definitely get a lot of followers on international community. second point, i want to mention regarding the implementation of the recommendations, we have this term left behind. our country's not only the people that even our country's are left behind on the global disclosure becomes to accessing fertility ---- fragility. i think the new deal and also the g7+ together with international dialogue is a really good platform to bring the voices of these countries. we were always at the receiving end and you know when you're in the receiving end you don't have much say to add. i think this has to change. we've offered this already, we'll be happy to bring those experiences from the countries and speaking of humbleness, there's always ways to learn

from our experiences. yes, we are fragile but we know. we had lived in fragility and we might think a better perspective pics i think in terms of recommendation it would be great to create that kind of dialogue. the last point on the trust fund or the funding mechanism, we also have been advocating for creating a global trust fund for private sector development in these countries because private sector. they are scared. they don't go to these countries , but if we create that funding where you can pull the money and where you can bring -- i think that's the most big part of the agenda. it will create jobs, create livelihoods and people have better alternatives to live there. thank you. >> i wonder if you could as you address the question also addressed the question from a

colleague. the geopolitics around this is complicated. there are violent extremist groups that are out there that may be supported by state sponsors, and it becomes very, get at the or other multilateral to address that. how do you see that challenge and the broader debate here as we close of our session? >> of course, we cannot break everything down on the program level in countries that are affected by fragility and as i mentioned before, i see a strong role in multilateral institutions like the united nations to address those issues. i mean, i know this is quite difficult. national interest of different countries are involved, but i think in the multilateral framework is the only place where we can create common definition of the problem, a common perception and then of

course also, common approaches. i believe in this even so it assailed many times and we will continue to fail. >> it's almost like the churchillian quote about democracy is the worst form of government except all the others. what can we do except try to continue the multilateral ideal as you leave the session today you take away a couple of things that one is there's a lot of urgency about this topic and we very quickly get into technocratic issues about how to organize ourselves, rightly so. that's where a lot of the action is. but we shouldn't forget the urgency that the world is shifting very quickly if the facts are changing on the ground and i think this report, i hope, brings very clear and makes the point very clearly especially in the u.s. congress and executive branch that we have to take action now. whether it is existing mechanisms or standing up new ones, something different has to be done today if we want to change the trajectory of the future. the report i think is worth

reading. if you haven't had a read it's worth doing that but almost more poorly than narrative is pushing out the we called up and take forward. the idea there's been a real shift. many people i talked to about development still use terms like the third world. that was a mental model that took decades to get over and now people still talk about developed countries in developing countries. we are in a different time. the world is much more complex than that. i think this idea that if we don't combat terrorism by combating terrorist, we focus on the environments, focus on the countries can focus a much broader challenges in key jogs around the world. if we can change the mental model, i think the support does a great job of putting a case of the to do it, we can make real progress. i want to congratulate the u.s. institute of peace, 15, the task was no secret of the report and thank all of you for being part of this today. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] our featuresome of programs this weekend on book tv. night, robert tara talks about his latest book with conan o'brien. the number-one thing, turn every page, never assume everything -- anything. timesot tell you how many in my life that stuck with me. >> sunday night, former southern district of new york gives an judicialok on how the process looks, drawing from personal expenses and case histories in his new book doing justice. he is interviewed by richard blumenthal.

>> what you have is you have two engage,, when people do they say you are ugly and there's all sorts of nonlogical argument that goes on and it affects people's opinions. what is even worse is the other problem. people don't engage with the other side at all. .> watch on c-span2 hill are live on capitol were panelists are getting ready to take a look at the increase in hate crimes and white supremacy. it should get underway shortly.

[inaudible conversations]

>> hello. thank you for joining us today. titled in hate crimes and the rise of white nationalism 2.0. my name is natalie and i and