֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍֍

participants include law professors and current and former judges including kenneth starr at pepperdine university law school. america and the courts on c-span saturday at 7:00 eastern. >> c-span public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line and you can connect with us on twitter,

facebook and youtube and our other e-mails at c-span.org. >> for united nations ambassador john bolton un-american sovereignty and the u.s. russu.l deal. >> everybody gets so quiet. senator helms would have a lively group. come on, gained. thank you for joining us. i am director of lectures and seminars and it is my pleasure to welcome you to our auditorium. we welcome those who are joining us on the heritage.org web site and we ask everyone in house check the cellphone have been turned off as a courtesy to our present. we will post the program within 24 hours on the heritage website

for everyone's future restaurant and our viewers are welcome to e-mail us with questions or comments at speaker@heritage.org. hosting our program is dr. holmes, vice president for policy studies and director of the katherine shelby davis institute for international studies. he oversees heritage's allison center for foreign policy studies and international trade centers as well as our margaret thatcher center for freedom. he is the founding editor of heritage's index of economic freedom now in its sixteenth annual joint medication with the wall street journal and from 2002-2005 dr. holmes was privileged to serve in the bush administration as assistant secretary of state for international organizational affairs. please join me in welcoming our colleague, kim holmes.

[applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to have all of you this morning. this was an exciting day for us at heritage. we have the distinct honor to remember a man who was near and dear to the hearts not only of the people here at the heritage foundation who worked with him so often over the years but people across america and the world. i am speaking of senator jesse helms. it is my pleasure to welcome you to the inaugural lecture of the lecture series. i want to thank the president of the jesse helms center foundation for joining us today. the helmet center foundation sponsoring this lecture series and we are pleased to partner with them in highlighting the values and principles upon which this nation was founded. the very values helms presented with vigor all of his life.

i especially like to welcome the senator's daughter and her husband. we are pleased you could join us to honor his leadership. also want to extend it welcome to brian rogers from the home center and brian summers representing the board of directors. for this first lecture we chose a topic the senator would have loved. protecting national sovereignty. i remember in 2000 when he was chair of the committee, he went into the lines at the united nations in new york city to forcefully defend sovereignty as a bedrock principle of the international system. in his address to the security council he said the united nations must respect national sovereignty in the united states and everywhere else. the united nations serves nation state, not the other way around.

and the ultimate survival of the united nations. we believe sovereignty is critical. toomey surrender to national organizations or international courts, few understand it was created to service members rather than the other way around. too few understand, the u.s. constitution. not the un or any of its courts. we turned a spotlight on the united nations that exposes waste, fraud and abuse and to demand better of it. we are closely with allies on the hill and senator helms was the best of them to make you effective at promoting security, prosperity and freedom around

the world. this is a point our good friend john bolton makes in the forward to the most recent book called conundrum and a copy of it right here. if you would like to read john's forward go to the heritage website. ladies and gentlemen, few people have worked as hard as john bolton to protect america from those who wish to do harm. we could not be more pleased to have him give the first helms lecture. today john is a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute. before that he fought to protect our freedoms in a number of important government posts. he was representative of the united nations and before that under secretary of state arms control and international security under president george

w. bush. he was assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs. he was assistant attorney general on the justice department under president ronald reagan. the title of his lecture is protecting national sovereignty in the age of obama and on this scene john has written a pamphlet on the very topic called how barack obama is in danger in our national sovereignty, and the books. please welcome ambassador john bolton. >> thank you. and especially, working with the jesse helms center and the senator's family, former staff

in the senate and i am honored to have a chance to give the first of the washington series of lectures. i go back a long way with the els enterprise. i worked with the senator in connection with campaign finance law back in the 70s at the time of his first reelection to the senate and a variety of contexts since then and pleased to work with him in a series of national security issues during his time in the senate. it is a pleasure to introduce the question of u.s. sovereignty which he cared deeply about. concerned in the present circumstances we face, sovereignty is a critically important issue for americans. it is something we feel instinctively lies in all-american citizens. the concept derives originally

from monarchies in europe. the kings and queens were the sovereign's. we understand that in america as the constitution says, we the people are sovereign. when you hear academics or people from the international left or some of our friends in europe say the world is very complex now and these national sovereignties get in the way of solving global problems, we need to pull sovereignty or share sovereignty, what they are really saying is you need to give up control over the american government and you need to share it with other people. since most americans don't believe we have enough control over the federal government the idea of sharing some of the sovereignty we have is naturally objectionable. but this is part of a larger

struggle that has been going on for quite some time. a struggle that most americans don't even know is happening. i characterize it as the struggle between people who think all problems move in the direction of greater international discussion and resolution versus americans, people who think we are capable of solving problems within the framework of the american constitution. this is at times a dance and an abstract subject. political and media elites in the united states looked down at people who are concerned about sovereignty. it reflects a certain parochialism in their attitude. i think concern about our role in representative government in the united states and implementation of sovereignty on a daily basis and the working of

our constitutional system is absolutely basic and deviation from that model are things that have to be looked at with great care. most americans are not focused on the fact that there are more challenges to our sovereignty then we can imagine. not made for tv moments. not events that come dramatically. those being passed in international organizations of articles being written, people pushing their own agenda affecting the united states in the way a coral reef grows, it is not anything that is subject to dramatization but that doesn't make it any less significant or important. in years gone by people who were

not favorably disposed to american constitutionalism used to talk about world government. no one talks about world government except in the fever swamps. that is not the same as world government and i will be clear, not everybody who advocates greater global governance really think you will end up with a world government. there's a lot of disagreement about the ultimate goal and the pace at which people are going and so on but global governance itself is a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the workings of an autonomous u.s. constitutional system. in 1995, a book with the charming title our global neighborhood -- i don't know what other neighborhood we are in bed our global neighborhood described global governance this

way. they said it is part of the evolution of human effort to organize life on the planet and its process will always be going on. they take a long view of how global governance is, the evolution of human network. somehow you have stepped off of the evolutionary treadmill and presumably drag your knuckles when people aren't looking. this is a way of characterizing problems that enables its advocates to escape the kind of scrutiny that i think there proposals really need. i will talk about those as we go along. it is much more common in europe for people and to be open about their objectives especially through the european union.

deletes in europe have gotten good at sharing european sovereignty at brussels. european union have the rough equivalent of barack obama. i don't know what that makes the president's of member states of the european union. they would not characterize themselves as governors. we have the president of france here today having a meeting with president obama. the closest thing we could imagine the president of france being in the european union is like governor of massachusetts. that is probably the closest analogy but the european union, the new president, former prime minister of belgium said in his inaugural address which i am sure you all read, in his inaugural address in november last year he described 2009 and

i am quoting, as the first year of global governance with the establishment of the g 20 in the middle of the financial crisis. the climate conference in copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet. this is the attitude, the approach of many people who favor moving toward global governance so i think we are entitled to ask one year into the obama administration what is the president's view of american sovereignty. how does he view these issues and we can see already that president obama has a very different view of american sovereignty than the long line of presidents since franklin roosevelt. in some respects, he goes back to woodrow wilson in his devotion to multilateralism as a process and an outcome. it goes beyond that as well.

president obama said in september last year to the general assembly it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 more than at any point in human history the interests of nations and peoples are shared. when our destiny is shared power is no longer a zero sum game. no nation can or should try to dominate another nation. no world order that elevates one nation or group or people over another will succeed. no balance of power among nations will hold. this is a view that says america is one of 192 members of the united nations. it is not one where we should be elevated over any other nation. it is not one where balance of power play personal politics applies any more.

i think this view of america's role in the world stems in part from the president's lack of support for the concept of american exceptional is some, latest infant which moves him get away from the law line of american presidents. he was asked about his view of american exceptional is and during his first trip to europe as president and president obama in response to a question said i believe in american exceptional ism. that was the first third of the sentence as an answer. the british exception lonesome and, 192 members. the president could have gone on to say as the ecuadorean believe in ecuadorean exceptional isn't, or others believe -- just as it

is popular in the exception of dozen. this comports with the notion that the u.s. is one player among many. the observation of the president's view has been widely perceived. and after president obama's speech at the d-day anniversary on june 6th last year and commenting on the obama speech and commenting with president reagan's speech at the fortieth anniversary in 1984, he said the following. we were the good guys in 1984. it felt that way. it hasn't felt that way in recent years. you haven't felt like good guys in recent years, have you? that is the thing about the

media in this country. it hasn't felt that way in recent years. obama has a different task. reagan was all about america. obama is we are above that now. we are not just parochial. we are not just chauvinistic. we are not just provincial. we stand for something. away, obama is standing above the country. above the world. he is sort of god. he will bring all sides together. even for the mainstream media the reference to god is a little over the top. but leaving that aside the notion that obama stands above the country and his view of his role as president is above the country is something we should

find very troubling. that basic attitude is there and should be troubling when we consider its implications for american sovereignty. let me consider some specific challenges we will consider some more a question of continuing erosion of sovereignty. but issues that are the breadth of the subject matter that are involved show the challenges u.s. constitutionalism and sovereignty face. let me start with national security. that is the most important against threats to don't wish us well. i start from the proposition not

just on national security but on the board but in secular terms there is no authority superior to the constitution. that is it very simply. people talk about the role of international law and i like to ask those international law trump constitution. is its to. to the constitution. there are only three possibilities. jeter is superior to the constitution or it is inferior or it is equal. i don't know how the system works but it is equal. the constitution is a reflection of what international law scholars call municipal law as opposed to international law. i don't view it that way and i think this is a break point. this is the decisive question we ought to be asking politicians. in the priority and the

hierarchy of legal systems where is the constitution? i think for americans it fits at the top and i don't think there's anything superior to it. so when you hear people challenge our ability to do things as basic as provide for our own defense and make decisions about when we can legitimately act in self-defense this goes right to the heart of the sovereignty issue. it has been opposed very graphically few go back to 1999 when secretary-general keffiyeh non said the security council is restored to its preeminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force we are on a dangerous path to anarchy and he went on a little bit later to say that military action in the world without approval by the u. n. security council was a threat to what he

called and am quoting again the very core of the international security system. only the un charter provides a universal the legal basis for the use of force. that is as clear a statement as you can make that the security council's approval for the use of force is required whether or not the u.s. following its own constitutional procedures decides to use force in self-defense. i thought at the time that was a pretty remarkable statement although i have come to understand how widely shared his view is around the world. when senator helms went to new york in january of the year 2000 taking the senate foreign relations committee for its first-ever hearing a lot of washington he went to visit the united nations and held a hearing in new york and i was one of the witnesses who testified shortly after his

statement. i testified to the committee with senator helms sharing it right next to senator joseph biden, the ranking democrat on the committee. and other members of the committee and the press and so on. so i laid out what the secretary-general had said and pose the following possibility. why shouldn't we have had debate in the united states senate over the secretary general's remarks? let's find out those who think the security council is the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force in the world and let's find out who supports that and find out who opposes it? up until that point in my testimony senator joe biden was very quiet but i think i woke him up because he said wait a minute. i am quoting senator joe biden now. nobody in the senate agrees with that. nobody in the

there's nothing to debate. he is dead flat unequivocally wrong. it is a statement that an over exuberant politician like i might make on another matter but i hope he did not mean it. i love him but he is flat out wrong. we have a statement by senator biden as the leading authority in the democratic party on foreign policy in the senate rejecting the idea that the security council is the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force. it will be very interesting to see if the dozens of lawyers the obama administration has brought into their administration actually agree with that statement or not and going forward very interesting to see how it affects their view of american national security. this is something that i think obviously goes beyond the national security area.

the relationship between international law and american sovereignty and it is something -- the devotion to international law really in fuses much of what the administration does. president obama said to you and security council last fall we must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and the trees will be enforced. he was not specific about how treaties would be enforced, whether he would go to the international court of justice to do that or use military force but the idea that somehow or another treaties that many nations sign and then dishonor before the ink is dry can be enforced shows the new theological significance that the administration attaches to the utility of treaties to achieve objectives regardless of the actual performance of

signatory nations. and much of the administration's policy in a variety of areas is motivated by an effort to implement that view. take the global war on terrorism where the administration has famously announced through an executive order it would close the base at guantanamo bay, that it would cease the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and that it would prefer more often than not to resort to trials in civilian courts rather than military tribunals of terrorists that we apprehend. it is clear from the administration's rhetoric that much of the reason they have desired to do these things is to satisfy international public opinion. not because they feel they are obligated to by existing american law or constitutional procedures but because they want to satisfy the view particularly

widespread in europe that those are the norm as they should follow. when we see the administration either unable to achieve its objectives of conforming american behavior to the european war it is not because the president feels it is the right thing to do. it is because he feels politically he is unable to achieve the objective he still seeks and will continue to seek when the political atmosphere becomes more conducive for him to do it. in the area of the international criminal court there is little doubt that the administration year and to find a way to re-signed a treaty that was unsigned during the bush administration and have the senate ratified the statute and have the united states become a full member. secretary of state hillary clinton said last year that it was, quote, a great regret but it is a fact that we are not yet

a signatory for the statute. this is something that again has near seal logical significance for many on the international left in bringing the united states into closer cooperation with the icc is high on their agenda. close the related to that is the concept of universal jurisdiction, the idea that states without any connection to alleged human rights violations nonetheless have the ability to try people from any country in the world who are alleged to have committed such violations. even today the administration has not yet said definitively that it will refuse to turn over officials from the bush administration who might be accused of violating international and human rights norms through enhanced interrogation techniques. that threat remains out there and it is another sign of the

administration's unwillingness to break from the theology of many people in europe and many people in the academic left in this country. in yet another area where i think we are going to see more and more effort by the administration and if successful a cumulative impact on our sovereignty is in the area of arms control agreements. we have seen the publicity attendant with the signing of the new start treaty, bilateral arms control with russia that will be signed on april 8th. you can see in that treaty merits i won't debate here but you can see in the president's statement announcing why we entered into this treaty, part of that almost religious view in the obligations and implications of treaties because he said signing the new start treaty is a way for the united states and

russia to pursue their obligations under the non-proliferation treaty which talks in aspiration terms about the legitimate nuclear-weapons states eliminating their weapons capability at some unspecified point in the future and the president said and secretary of state clinton has said subsequently that the decision by the united states and russia to reduce their nuclear warhead capabilities will influence others to reduce theirs as well and not to seek nuclear weapons. .. northern korea, iran, and other nuclear prolivelators will say i think we should relook at our policy of getting nuclear weapons. afterall, if the united states is reducing its warhead levels, maybe we don't need nuclear weapons. in fact, i think the people in

places like tehran, fantastic, the united states is coming down. let's ramp up to get the capability even more quickly. but it's not just this particular bilateral treaty. the administration has made it clear it wants to resume what in their view is progress for embedding the nos a web of multilateral treaties that i think could constrict america's strategic options in the years ahead to seek once again ratification of the comprehensive test band treaty defeated in the senate during the clinton administration to resume negotiation over a cutoff treaty and a treaty to prevent what they called the arm's race in outer space. and a variety of other treaties like the land mine's convention that were opposed by the united states when they were negotiated because they constricted us in areas that were vital to our strategic interest in the case of the land mine's particularly

>> i was always happy during the negotiation over the land mine treaty that finland also oppose that treaty. finland, what does that have to do with anything? look at their eastern border. they remember prior conflicts with russia. the finnish ambassador in the negotiation was once criticized by media from scandinavia, pointing out that sweden, for example, fully support the landmine convention and finnish diplomat obviously said that's because sweden thinks that finland has its landmine. [laughter] >> the point being that are a lot of important issues at stake here, and the rhetoric of the arms control advocates often is very divorced from important and legitimate american security concerns. this fascination with

international law though goes well beyond including in the area of human rights, where we've seen this administration demonstrate its commitment to binding the u.s. and international conventions by rejoining, or by joint for the first of the new human rights council, the body set up to replace the discredited human rights commission. and we see in the session just concluded just how effective of american membership in the new body has been. thanks to and by asking who counted the number of countries specific resolutions and session just concluded come we found there were nine country specific resolutions, critical each of burma, north korea, the congo and ginnie, and the remaining five critical of israel. so that means five countries out of 190 kids got criticized and israel got over 50% of the

dubious distinction of having these resolutions. in short, this council is no different, despite u.s. participation and indeed precisely as predicted during the bush administration than was its predecessor. to reach for restrictions on u.s. sovereignty i think is going to encompass a lot of territory, and the economic and environmental area as well. and there particularly on the question of funding for international activities. ever since the mid 1980s when the senate began substantial with holdings of u.s. assessments to the u.n. system, the advocates of global governments have looked for ways to find multilateral activities that did not depend on appropriations by national legislators. and particularly by the congress of the united states. in fact, almost exclusively their concern was the congress of the united states, not providing money like turning on

a spigot. so they are trying to find ways around that to fund these international activities. we saw in the case of a law of the sea treaty an effort to use royalties from undersea mining activities to fund the authority set up by the law by the law of the sea treaty. we site copenhagen numerous schemes for taxation of international transactions to fund environmental activity under the various proposals that were being negotiated at copenhagen. we see even today proposals by prime minister gordon brown of the united kingdom for international banking tax to set up a fund that would be used for future bank bailouts and financial crises. the idea comes in a variety of different forms, often very technical, often obscured in

larger efforts that mean they don't get a lot of attention. but let me be very clear. the minute the united states loses the sole authority to tax its citizens and decide where those tax revenues go, the minute that authority is delegated to an international organization, is as clear a violation of sovereignty as we can imagine. now that may be painful for the international left here, but i think it's critical for americans, given the basis of our own revolution, not to recognize the taxing authority like the prosecutorial authority delegated to the international criminal court is something that we should not let go. now, finally in a whole range of areas that i think we normally would consider issues that should be debated in our domestic politics, take whatever

position we will, that advocates of global governments keep trying to push these issues into the international arena. and i think one reason for that is, one very important reason is that they typically don't get the results they want in the democratic process in this country. they don't succeed at the federal and state level so they say, we're going to broaden his today, we're going to internationalize it, we're going to get more support internationally than they would from our fellow citizens. and their hope is they can negotiate international conventions that then they can bring back to congress and get through indirectly that way. now it is certainly true it requires two-thirds senate approval, but very often in these conventions and the provisions that are critical for domestic purposes don't get adequate scrutiny, they are not entirely clear. and the consequence of that is the treaties to get ratified and in a few years later, you find

it actually what the senate men, although probably nobody in the senate understood it, was something that has a very dramatic consequence our own domestic they. this is happen in a range of areas. i think the administration is going to try in others as well. one good example is firearms control. just last year under secretary of state ellen tauscher talking about negotiation for what they call arms trade treaty, said happily that they broaden the negotiations, and i'm quoting now, so that we now have an a-z list of meetings and forums on how to limit or eliminate small arms, and i personal landmines, and other indiscriminate weapons, closed quote. so for those few who have a handgun for protection at home or a hunting rifle, your small arms are now in the same categories as anti-personal landmines, and other indiscriminate weapons.

this is the pattern that the advocates of gun control of the united states who failed to achieve what they want are working with this administration international lies that concern through negotiations over the arms trade treaty. and this pattern has taken place in a bright of other contacts, definitely for example, or on issues of family law and discrimination. now again, on all these issues it doesn't really matter what your position is, let's say, on the death penalty, whether you're for it or against it. we have a full democratic debate on the death penalty. sometimes new states adopted, sometimes states repeal it. but it's a matter of open public debate. the question is who gets to the side? do we decided or to somebody else decide? and that's true of a whole range of trees on issues where we've had legislation in this country

on the rights of disabled persons, on race discrimination, on gender discrimination. we have debated these issues. we've come to the conclusion we've come to sometimes the debates go on, but actually we are capable of debating these issues without the aid of an international treaty to tell us what standards are acceptable. and i think that's something that we should price far more than a substitute outcome of a particular debate. because once these issues move into the international arena and become matters of international discussion, that is a substantial reduction of american sovereignty. now what should we be doing over the next months and years on this question? what should we as citizens do to be concerned about threats to an erosion of our sovereignty? let's begin with remembering what james madison said during the debate over the ratification of the constitution in 1788.

there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power by violent and sudden use of. that is central to understanding the continuing threat of sovereignty, because it goes across such a wide battlefront in so many different areas are involved and very different places. but i think the basic steps we should take are these. one, we have to understand better the applications for sovereignty as these issues are being discussed. often the sovereignty applicatiapplications are ignored. we have to ferret them out. we have to be alert to them. we have to take care that our fellow citizens are aware of them. second, i think is generally we've got to make sure foreign policy issues higher priority in our domestic debate. i know the president doesn't particularly want to deal with foreign policy. he would much rather restructure our health care system or restructure our financial system

or restructure our energy system or whatever else he wants to restructure, but as citizens i don't think we can ignore the fact that the rest of the world isn't waiting around for us to get our economic house in order. and these questions of foreign policy, generally, and sovereignty in particular need greater attention. and i think funny what that means is we have to insist on getting clear answers from candidates for congress and income numbers of congress, presidential candidates, as we get into the presidential season in the not-too-distant future, to make it very clear that we view sovereignty and thef amican sovereignty as a high priority. thank you very much. [applause] >> john, thank you very much. your cotton is off to an actual start. john has agreed to some

questions and answers. so the ground rules are please come if you good, we have microphones. we do? wait for the microphone. if you could identify yourself before you post a question that would be greatly appreciated. and also just in the interest of time just told you one question. it's all yours, john. >> thanks. why don't you just go round. people raise hands and will try to do this as quickly as we can. right here. >> my name is sasha and i just graduated from ohio university. i was just interested in what your perspective is on issues relating to sovereignty and global common issues of climate change? climate change is a global issue which is affecting all countries. how should this be dealt with what still respecting state sovereignty? >> well, i think that looking at

what happens first in kyoto in the 1990s and then at copenhagen at the most recent negotiation shows that the solutions that people are talking about are really solutions to problems that have little or nothing to do with climate change. many of those advocating greater international centralization of authority, greater control over the economy generally, was at the international level for the national level, they those same solutions before global warming became a problem. and, in fact, i think that some of these people would favor exactly the same solution if the problem were global cooling instead of global warming. where they favor exactly the same solution if temperature of the earth wasn't changing at all. i prepared to accept for purposes of discussion that

there is global warming and it is largely man caused. that doesn't dictate what the solutions are. even if you simply accept all that, the kinds of centralized control over the economy and over huge areas of human activity affected by the cma change i think are unacceptable. is the only way to save mankind from global warming is by that kind of centralized control, then i think we've got a hugely serious problem. now, as i say, i leave out the debate because i'm not a scientist over the extent of global warming and over the extent it's man caused because i think focusing simply on the solutions that are being proposed show that they are untenable from the perspective of anybody who values individual liberty. yes, sir?

>> stuart reuter. would you care to comment specifically on the law of the sea better known as lost? because i'm concerned that some of our military, especially our navy have come out in favor of that, which seems contrary to it. >> the military lawyers have favored ratification of law of the sea treaty for a long time. i think the tree is a mistake. i think the regime it creates over seabed and sub seabed mining is a mistake. i think the authority creates a state or i think the tribunal that has been created is a mistake. that wasn't something that people really focused on during the reagan administration when president reagan opposed the law of the sea treaty, but we can see even in the early decisions of the tribunal that is already prepared to expand its jurisdiction well beyond

question that directly affect the oceans and seas. the reason that the military lawyers have favored ratification is they believe that the treaty codifies existing customary international law on use of the see, sea lanes. in ways favorable to the united states, and they think locking it in, therefore, any treaty is a positive development. i think that's absolutely wrong. customary international law when it's not being determined by university academics is determined by state practice. overtime. and the united states has been and remains the dominant maritime power in the world. so in effect, if we don't agree with something it's not customary international law. wives if we put it into a treaty with 120, 130 other parties to change the legal standards, in

that setting requires the consent. so i think the united states actually is better off relying on customary international law, even on the areas where our military lawyers think that it's advantageous. and since that's the only reason i've heard anybody raise that even justifies the law of the sea treaty and since i think that reason is wrong, i think there's no way we should ratify, had the senate ratified it. >> thank you for both a terrific presentation and the clarion call to arms on our sovereignty that it represents. i'm sure all of us look forward to reading the book that's coming out shortly. >> by at first the. >> by and read it. you focus mostly on secular transnational is a and the threat that represents to our sovereignty that i wonder if i might ask you to address this sort of parallel and often

combined thread that arises from a religious or nominally at least religious form of transnational is him in the form of those who believe they should create, and specifically ask you to talk about one of the most recent developments, really alarming to summits of the human rights council. whereby the united states governments under barack obama, cosponsored a resolution with egypt on behalf of the organization of the islamic conference that would effectively not only prohibit that criminalize speech that is deemed by those to be offensive to them. this would seem to be perfectly in keeping with the threats that you talked about to not only our sovereignty but our constitution. and i would ask you to address what you make of that and what we should be doing about it. >> well, i take a very strong view of the provisions of the

first amendment. to me, the notion that you can carve out exceptions to the prohibition on the establishment of religion, or that you can in effect pass new blasphemy laws that pass constitutional muster are so clearly violative of the constitution. it's hard to imagine they can be taken seriously. that -- it is a consequence of believe in individual freedom that you are prepared to accept statements by individuals that you find personally offensive, that you find politically offensive. because the effort to keep people, keep the speech within the zones of reasonableness, inevitably results in censorship.

and so i don't, i don't have any sympathy for these ideas at all. and i would hope that we don't succumb to these concepts in the united states. i think we can see already in europe the idea where they don't have a first amendment, where they don't have the kinds of protection that we do, that restrictions on speech are gaining traction. and i think that would be a mistake. i think this is, you know, the first amendment is the strongest statement of individual liberty we have in the constitution. i think in retrospect it's too bad there were a few more things like that in the area of economic freedom. but certainly, we have what we have. certainly, we haven't seen those areas of freedom under the guise of not offending people. i'm sure much of what i said today after that a lot of people, i certainly hope so. and i think it's important that

they are not be political correctness, for whatever reason. that's what the first amendment says. that's what i believe so strongly. guesser. >> david mcfadden. do you regard the trial of serving officials in the hague as derogation of national sovereignty? >> well, i think the gratian of the international criminal tribunal on yugoslavia was a mistake, because i think ultimately when you have a situation like the break of of the former yugoslavia where heinous abuses of human rights and war crimes were committed, a society where those crimes were committed all to molly has to deal with it, ultimately has to

come to terms with. and they can make a decision whether it is in boston or serbia itself, whether to bring criminal indictments against the people who perpetrated the crimes, or to do something else like south africa did with the creation of the truth and reconciliation commission to deal with the aftermath of apartheid. but when you take responsibility for dealing with these terrible acts and remove them from the societies in question, you are creating the possibility for the abuses to occur again. and you are creating the potential for a sense of victimization. so i think that the idea that people are not mature enough to deal with the problems that their officials created is a mistake. and it is, it's a very difficult question, but i don't think you

encourage political maturation by absolving the people in whose names these crimes were committed from the responsibility of dealing with the crimes. and i don't think there's any one correct answer. i think in troop bashing i think different societies have to work out for themselves. and i think and others are entitled to judge those societies by how they work them out. but setting up a distant tribunal that is not directly involved in societies themselves, i think simply postpones the day of reckoning and helps lay the basis for future conflict. this as i was trying to get before. give him a chance here. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i just want to say that in 2004 my unit in baghdad, we were tasked to go provide additional security at abu ghraib once those atrocities were revealed to the press.

and we lost soldiers come a fellow american soldiers because of that. last year speaker pelosi was trying to get some thousands of pictures more released that already in use in criminal prosecution. i remember very directly we heard that europeans were speculating that were we a signature, they would have subpoena power of those pictures. and we knew that have something like that happen we would have lost, we would have lost soldiers because of the. we talk about. and i just want to know if this scares the heck out of me. it's like the icj is more dangers to me as a soldier, i think, than anything the enemy can throw at us overseas, not just in the jurisdiction what they would do to prosecutors for political agendas, and i just want to know, what does get ministration, is the administration on a timeline for approaching that against? >> well, i think -- i don't know exactly what the administration's plan is, but i don't think there's any doubt that those who can see the international criminal court saw

one of its functions to be constrained the united states. the argument is that under a doctrine called complementarity, that if the nation deals with allegations of war crimes on its own, the icc won't have jurisdiction. well, the document of competent there is never been applied to the real world. and if we were to conclude in this country that our soldiers did not violate our articles of war, violate their rules of conduct, and therefore we were going to prosecute them, i think that would laid him open to prosecution in the icc. and this is not, this is not hypothetical. where we came close to this, and go back to yugoslavia, there were allegations filed with the prosecutor of the icty because of the nato air campaign over serbia. that we were bombing civilian targets and so on and so forth. and the prosecutors did not reject those, those complaints

out of hand that they eventually concluded for a variety of non-substantive reasons not to bring prosecution, but the court that we created in the security council was examining the conduct of nato, nato units and nato officers. even though every nato member is a democracy and every nato member would insist on its military following our doctrine and training on the laws of war. so that's why this, the implicit threat to the united states seems to me to be so real. and why efforts to come back into the icc in whole or in part are something we should resist. yes, sir, in the back there. right here. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. i am from greensboro, north carolina. i've had the pleasure of voting for senator helms three times. my question to you is regarding

a abu ghraib, and also most recently guantanamo bay. closing guantanamo bay would pose a huge danger in the united states, especially bringing these terrorists to illinois. what are some of the alternatives that you might suggest to the obama administration? thank you. >> well, i think the clearest, most logical alternative is to keep guantanamo bay open. it's not like when the administration, bush administration found itself in possession of terrorists captured on the battlefield in afghanistan and in other locations around the world. it's not like we rushed to the conclusion that we're going to move into guantanamo. the very real, very hard question, what do we do with them? and guantanamo actually turned out to be ideal because it's not american territory and at least at the time our lawyers thought that meant the constitution and interference by civilian courts

would apply. but it also wasn't in afghanistan or another country where we would not, we would not have clear control and jurisdiction over the people. but that's not to say that anybody was enthusiastic about guantanamo bay. nor would they enthusiastic about the idea of some of these terrorists would have to be held indefinitely. which you know as close as you can come to analogizing to the geneva convention is under the geneva convention, real prisoners of war can be held for the duration of the conflict that it was because there weren't alternatives. there were good alternatives, and many people in the administration, for years, thought of every alternative they could. and that's why gitmo was put there and that's what it's still there. and honestly, in the obama administration that's what it's still there. i would be willing to bet by the end of the obama administration, still hasn't been close because they will be able to find any alternatives either.

the war on terrorism doesn't fit the conventional law of war in some respect. but neither is it activity that should be consumed under the criminal law a paradigm. these are not, these terrorists are not simply bank robbers on steroids. they are people are waging war against us and our allies and our way of life, and they need to be treated in that context. i think it's really fairly remarkable, the shift in american public opinion that we have seen that at the end of the bush administration, the media and political elite had beaten the administration into submission. they had said let's close gitmo. senator mccain said let's close gitmo. it was one of the first acts president obama undertook as president, and yet just this morning i saw that a new cnn poll shows that support for closing gitmo is down to around 39%, down from 51% at the beginning of the administration, and opposition to closing gitmo is at 60%, way up from where it

was. because people have seen the debate. they have made up their mind. gitmo turns out to be the right decision. is it a perfect decision? of course not, but it is the decision that leaders in the best position, and it isn't any alternative. >> i will take this job and then one other question. >> i believe that china and the united states are the only two nations that have successfully made a connecticut shootdown of a satellite in space. knowing how essential sound like imitations are, both to our defense and our economy, what ways can we protect that, and can international law be an assist or hindrance in that venture? >> well, if you analogize space to the oceans, it is perfectly

permissible for the use of international sea lanes for military purpose. there's no question about it. and that's what the argument that we need to prevent an arms race in outer space is a misapplication of the customary international law and involving the ocean. and besides that, it's an area where, where we need protection for a whole host of reasons. our communications, our information, infrastructure, our ability to use satellites for espionage purposes, to protect the united states and its friends and allies. so i think having weapons in space to defend ourselves is not only entirely legitimate, it's not anything we should compromise in the near future. and i think that's why we were right during the bush administration to sideline these negotiations on weapons in outer space, why think will be a mistake for the obama administration to resume those

negotiations. and heaven forbid, no pun intended, if they come up with an outer space treaty, i hope the senate rejects it. okay, so last question. >> i'm with the heritage foundation but i'm going to is somewhat of a timeless question. the house and senate occasionally pass legislation to uphold the u.s. constitution to the united nations, when the organization or some executive are objectionable. invariably the state department comes back and said these are a treaty obligation that we are beholden and obligated to provide whatever money the united nations asked us to provide them. and i would like to know what your thoughts on that is withholding useful, does it advance u.s. interests, and is it an obligation the u.s. is bound to fulfill? >> i don't think there's any question that withholding u.s. ss contributions from the u.n.

system has been effective in getting the system's attention to make at least some small reforms. i think the problem is it's not been effective enough. the argument that we are required to pay what the u.n. is assess, but what the u.s. is assessed by the majority in the u.n., though i think is an argument that ultimately means that we don't have, we have agreed to an international taxation. and i don't think that's will be agreed to and ratified the charter. and i don't think that's really what the whole mechanism, funding the u.n. comment was intended to do. let me give you an example. right now we pay under the helms biden legislation 22% of the contributions were most u.s. system agencies. what if in response, let's say, to the u.s. overthrow of saddam hussein and outrage given membership had said just to show

our disapproval of the united states action by a vote of, i don't know, 170-20 or so, the u.n. general this assembly decided that for one fiscal year the u.s. share of the u.n. budget would be 99%. would people in the senate house argued that we were obligated by treaty to pay 99%? i think just like joe biden, they would be heading for the weeds to avoid that, to avoid that conclusion. i think the answer is to get away from the system of assessed contributions entirely and move toward a system of totally voluntary funding. by the united states, where we would give money to u.n. programs that work and withhold our money from many, many programs that don't work. i think that would actually improve the u.n. system, because i think right now the system of assessed contributions great an entitlement mentality that leads to poor performance. if the directors of you in

programs and the other member governments knew they had to show results or face not getting the money, they would have an incentive to show results, which presumably is something we would all welcome. so for those who say, but if you move to voluntary contributions, a lot of u.n. programs wouldn't be funded, i would say absolutely right. thank you very much. [applause] >> john, thank you very much for getting us off to an excellent start on the helms lecture series. were talking about american sovereignty, and i did that as i was a very near and dear to the hearts of jesse helms. and thank you for helping us to recall his memory. and john, nancy, mary, brian, thank you. and also the helms center for sponsoring this lecture series. we hope to have many more of them in the future. and thank all of you for coming today.

[applause]

>> afghanistan's ambassador to the u.s. and the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies and as an initiative yesterday to facilitate student exchange programs and help train future afgn lders.

following the announcement, the afghan ambassador took questions from the audience. >> yes, please. >> i'm jim byrne. i'm a freelance writer here in town. i live at these think tank things. i learned whole lot. the "new york times" today, if the ambassador has taken a look at, couldn't have been a pleasant read. the front page story was about president karzai's brother, who everybody feels it's an arms dealer, and then what's his name, friedman, is on an op-ed page, just laid out a different things we have done wrong in dealing with a list of afghanistan. you know, i've never been, how does that strike you when you read stuff like that? is a just plain wrong, or is it

just emphasized from? >> thank you. these are politically motivated partisan articles that if you read the articles you will see also that majority of afghans and a number of even u.s. institutions consider karzai to be a social to leave there. and again, when it comes up by officials who are nameless, and without providing any kind of evidence, except for a political motivation, there's nothing else we can do. as you know in kandahar there is a strong presence of the military, of many, many countries. both military and intelligence. if there are any evidence of wrongdoing they would have come forward with it. it's been seven years that these allegations have been circulat

circulated. they play an important role in this build of kandahar. >> can you say something about the second part of his question, corruption and general. >> that's a serious challenge that we face. that's why we haven't seen in the past the assistance of general field and many others who helped build, for the build the capacity of the afghan, first to be aware of the corruption. and second to build serious institution. i would have significant number of officials. we have just enhanced the authority and the mandate of the high office of government that is in charge of fighting corruption. it's going to be a while to overcome that challenge. there is a lot of money flowing into afghanistan from outside from legitimate sources, also from legitimate sources, from

neighboring countries and others. and unless we build the necessary institutions, we will not be able to just by removing one individual or a pointing finger to one particular individual to fight this. it is a serious challenge and it is a serious challenge by the afghan. a serious demand by the afghan people also that the afghan government be strong and resolute in fighting this problem. it affects mostly the life of the afghans, specifically corruption on the small scales that take place by the police force. that type of corruption affect the daily life of the afghans. and we are working on it. we will be dealing with that by building the necessary institutions, by prosecuting high ranking officials. but my also improving the security institutions, especially the police force and others. >> i wonder if i could call on the general fields, again, to reintroduce them.

they inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, and the pentagon, sir. >> thank you, sir work and thank you ambassador, for your speak and congratulations on the progress thus far made by way of the foundation. and i applaud all of the elements of the intend for which this foundation has been put in place. if i may have about two minutes, just to give a bit of background on what it is that i do. in support of ambassado ambassad and the government of afghanistan as we carry out our respective strategic interest. the united states have invested quite a bit of money in afghanistan over the course of the past eight years to we first

began to significantly invest in afghanistan way back in 2002. and that investment has multiplied in many dimensions since then. and right now for this fiscal year, that figure of investment on reconstruction alone in afghanistan is about $51 billion. this is in addition to billions of dollars that we spend in support of the military operations. so when i say 51 billion, that's exclusively reconstruction, of which 26 billion, 26 billion, has gone to the security sector, standing at the afghanistan national army, afghanistan national police. and then in the development about 15 billion in development

across the board. and then there are crosscutting issues, such as the narcotics issue in afghanistan that we also address. but all of this that is rolled up into this $51 billion of investment, my job is to, in line with the comments made by the ambassador in reference to corruption, my job as i report directly to the congress of the united states, my job is to ensure that the $51 billion that the united states has invested is being used for the purposes for which made available by the american taxpayer. so that we can help ambassador jawad and others foundation even, to carry out what we feel needs to be done. to advanced afghanistan and the people thereof.

i have thus far been privileged to work with ambassador jawad, president karzai, the ministers of the government of afghanistan, the provincial leaders of the government of afghanistan, and certainly with our own government of the united states and the other contributing nations. because this is a partnership that we are in support of. and so we're going to continue our mission, and to the best that we can to ensure that every taxpayer dollar from the standpoint of america, but also every dollar that's been put forth, collectively by the international community, is being used for the benefit of the people of afghanistan. thank you. >> thank you very much, general fields. [applause] >> yes, someone over there.

>> my name is omar. it's a great privilege being here with distinguished people and i'm very much touched general fields mentioned about these fields. many appreciations. i want to mention, i the question which may be kind of have to parse that the first part is we've heard a lot about the issue of education, and if you look to the scholarship programs from, like the united states provide for the afghan, for instance, the fulbright scholarship, each year like we have 30 people maximum, 30 million given a chance to get education in the state for the last seven, eight years, it sort of 2003, four, nothing changes. apart from that, you've also mentioned you would like to see

the american -- even we talk about "new york times" article. there's a huge misunderstanding and deny states of what happens in afghanistan. and while on the other hand, there's kind of an article, regulations within the united states that no united states, no u.s. government money can be spent on education, and yet and american researchers want to do research in afghanistan. but cannot benefit from money. inspite all talk but no change. how do you see these things? on the other hand, generals and $51 billion. but how much will be affected? most of our problems, we believe most of our problems comes from outside our borders. like interferences which kind of makes everything worse in the in. where kind of these things to me together? how do you see in the future?

>> thank you very much. yes, i agree with you that there is the need to enhance the number of the fulbright scholarships for afghans. this is their graduate program and afghans will tremendously benefit if we increase the number. our intention is also to focus on such a long, short long-term, at least for years, scholarships. comparing to the entire program, the number of students significant that the whole program that the budget has been reduced is a lot, but still there is room here to bring more afghans through that program are the programs that what the foundation is intending to do is also to build in some financial incentives or penalties for those who come but do not want to return. so we have a mechanism to make sure those who do come will go back. and if you don't want to go back, they should pay for the amount of the tuition that they've received by the foundation, or by any other

institution, or double or triple it based on the u.s. law that is doable. as far as, unfortunately, the issue of security constraint on americans and others it is an issue. it is not only here. visitors even american diplomats, despite the fact there is a large number of them in the country will hardly get in touch and in contact with the afghan people to see what is, what is happening. and on that note also, they are reporting that did also from -- i talk about also with my friends in the congress, when member of the congress visit afghanistan, they usually get a briefing when they land in afghanistan at the u.s. embassy, and they fly out of bagram to home and, some of the challenging places. this is part of afghanistan.

that is too. but i really would like those member of the congress also to go and sit down with the students at the university. i would like them also to go and sit down with the chamber of commerce, to hear from a different type of problem that exists in afghanistan. to see the real afghanistan. if you sit down with the chamber of commerce of herat, they we complain of our dummy of products and you never think that is possible because all you hear is security, how many people killed for, so all our objective is to broaden the spectrum. for people to be able to see the real afghanistan that is out there, the real-life that is out there. it will need some time. it will take some changes on the procedures to allow americans to have better and more exposure to the afghan people. >> thank you.

>> in your wonderful speech -- from is pakistan. in your wonderful speech you mentioned the goal of one of the goal afghanistan is building democracy. but if you read some articles in newspapers, summon houses that unites these and other countries, they expressed some doubt about achievable, these goals are achievable. why -- what do you think about, how israelis, the kind of quite competent democratic and civil society institutions in afghanistan? >> thank you. very good question. i don't expect the international

community to come to afghanistan to build a democracy in afghanistan. that's not part of the nation. the mission is to defeat terror and tyranny. so you can defeat -- the mission is to prevent the position of care and tyranny. it is not the position of democracy. by its nature, if you want to prevent the return of the terror, we have to prevent the return of tyranny and afghanistan. that's exactly what the afghan people demand and deserve. democracy may seem to be a fancy word now, but if an ordinary citizen in afghanistan or any country in my region want to go to bed with the secret police, one have a chance to give earth, or give birth without dying, this is what every human being demands and deserves. i don't -- this is -- it could even be racist to suggest that

afghans do not demand this kind of basics, a sense of human security and a sense of having some basics services available to them by the government, instead of fearing the government. so therefore, we have, and if you want to prevent terror and tyranny, we have no option but to allow the people of afghanistan, it their own way, to express their vision and idea. >> thank you. yes, sir. over on the left. >> my name is doug jackson, internet woodrow wilson. thank you, ambassador them for taking the time to share your thoughts this eating. you mentioned the need for dialogue. along those lines, is president karzai indeed coming to washington in may? and if so, what can we expect from his visit in that regard? thank you. >> yes, president karzai is coming to washington. is tentatively scheduled for

may 12, probably around that date. to, and it will be a crucial does as much as it is of importance because there will be no military operations taking place in afghanistan. and also we have a number of important conferences such as the kabul conference, and also the of reconciliation and peace council taking place in afghanistan in late april. so that trip is going to be really crucial. we look forward to a successful visit by our president to washington. >> from pakistan? >> originally. [laughter] >> excellency, thank you for your excellent presentation. first, let me state that i have

a large number of money, men, women and students when i taught at the university. we are very much in touch come and they also break me about the politics at institutions in afghanistan. the processes of political socialization inside the country, because one of my students said, now let me say that my students, from all groups. that's how, east, west, and despite their different background, they enjoyed living together. now they are back, and they can mutate with each other. they are very close. and during one of our conversation, the point that the

very term of afghanistan is now being -- the gentleman who argued said that over the last 30 years we have one nation identity. so despite all of these efforts, money being important, what is to be if afghanistan goes on the new political socialization processes, which are the most important ingredient of nation? are we building nationstate in afghanistan, or what else? thank you. >> thank you very much. we are not building nation in afghanistan. the afghan nation is 2000 years old.

the afghan nation has been around for many, many years. a lot of our neighboring countries are younger than i am, but the fact is that despite the fact that afghans lived as refugees in neighboring countries, defensive nation host becomes much stronger. i get a my personal experience. i know that your talk about one particular student. when we were drafting the new constitution of afghanistan, many ideas were debated. one idea, legitimate idea, we have others. people from the countryside in afghanistan was a much against it. they were saying this as a way of possibly splitting the country. they were soul adamant to make sure that we have a strong unified government. the sense of the nation is strong in afghanistan. i know that state institution to deliver services are weak.

we don't have a strong army like in pakistan, to keep the country together. the country, stay together we don't have an army. we don't have a state for many years but so is the state of nation's is we, afghanistan would have been disagreed way before taliban came into power. but the capacity of the afghan government to deliver services to the afghan nation is limited. and on the countryside, there's a lot of talk of empowering the local communities, on the countryside because of the years of for and violent. those who hold the power are holding this power from legitimate sources. if you narcotics, guns, violence, confrontations with neighboring countries. so there's a tennessee in afghanistan to really stick together, and to my surprise, even to look into the central government to deliver services. there are disillusionment that

the government was not there, but in the might of the afghan people, that would like to have a strong central system. we have to change gradually for the empowered community to do some of the deployment. but politically the sense of strong nation is very strong in afghanistan. suecede during the civil war fighting. it was a bloody civil war following the invasion. @@@

>> thank you. we have nine hours of broadcast in that area >> thank you very much. we have nine hours of broadcast. thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on what is going on in afghanistan. sir, would you elaborate on as far as, in a broader sense the message of this president obama and his surprise visit to kabal and, secondly, what we are hearing from the people of afghanistan they're not comfortable with the military engagement of the united states in the international community. what they would like now when they withdrawel. what are you particularly hearing on this side from the united states sent an

the international community. ultimately this will decide the future depends then? >> thank you very much. the president had a six-hour trip to afghanistan and spent half of that. he had a smaller meeting with the president of afghanistan. first then had an extensive dinner. gave him a report. we are grateful for president of what did take time to go to afghanistan, despite his busy schedule, also to exchange views and ideas about developments in afghanistan. the military engagement of, i

think, the objective is to increase the responsibility and capability of the afghan forces. this is the more sustainable solution. there is no shortage of courage in afghanistan. it is resources and skills. paying better and trainers coming already. in the area of development we were, of course, security without proper development is not sustainable. we would like the united states and our other partners to stay with us to invest in building the capacity of the afghan government to sustain itself. we are also working with the neighboring countries to develop large amounts of operating for the government to be able to

sustain to kick balls of the fiscal responsibility of the development. >> thank you. >> yes, please. >> hello. i am originally from afghanistan, but i have been raised in kansas. i think the ambassador for being here this evening and everyone else that made this evening possible. my question was, two years ago, a year-and-a-half ago and moved to virginia. i have been very thirsty for any afghan projects that have been going on here. unfortunately i really have not found many. for instance, there are to poetry clothes that afghans have made which i am part of. but do you have any focus on the afghans that are year, uniting

them and giving the province to do your? they key. >> thank you. yes. one thing that we are benefiting is to release of by afghans who are serving o are serving the e. we do also work with a number of afghan organizations on the events as sports and cultural events and others. we know that the potential for these afghans to do more is enormous. some of them, fortunately a number of them have formed their own groups. there are smaller crews that are involved in airports or does the developments and others. so as i mentioned, one of the purposes of the foundation is you really bring all of these independent cells together and form as energy between these different abilities and improve

and enhance so that the afghans will have a place to go and know what is going on but it and it is right now. >> yes, please. in the front. >> margaret rogers. independent consultant. i have two questions with regard to the implications for the goals of the foundation. the first is with regard to the taliban. their is a lot in the news about reconciliation. at the same time there's a lot in the news about reconcile with an. it is not clear. so where is the taliban in the future of the afghanistan government? the second question is when president obama announced the afghanistan surged at the same time he announced the withdrawal. as the a lot of news about concern among afghans about the u.s. leading and is creating a lot of concern and their fear

that they can't depend on us. what are the implications of that? >> i suppose you could expand that to the whole region. certain there is afghan people that demand piece. people are fed up. if you can imagine living in kabul and going about your life. it is doing on for too long. people do prefer the violence. as you mentioned, there is more work that needs to be done to develop a national consensus on what is the price of reconciliation. to what extent. and that is why we have the conference coming up.

i'm sorry, coming up, the primary focus, that is an element. the primary focus on building stronger national consensus and drawing lines on the limit of the concessions that need to be made. so far the government position is that the reconciliation should be in the framework of the existing constitution of afghanistan. i agree with you and i have been in touch with students and groups and others. they are concerned. especially women's groups. they are worried. so much has been achieved. the people do not want to have a u-turned to what it was before. >> far back. >> hello. my name is peter. i just wanted to thank the ambassador for making yourself

available today. i would like to thank the institute for hosting this event. i think it is an important one. my question relates to a specific industry in afghanistan which a think as the potential to be transformative. ask you to comment broadly on what i've you to be a revolution in communications in afghanistan the second order effects of politics and commerce and tax collection and all kinds of different elements. and it just ask you. >> and with this fall within the purview of the foundation for afghanistan? greg and i look forward to learning more about the foundation. >> that is fortunately in the area of communication. tremendous progress has been made. mostly by the private sector. the first lessons issued issuedr telecommunications went through

a that the process for half a million dollars. during to the company out of the united arab emirates. so they should potential. some of these companies have invested hundred million balance, almost $1 billion. tremendous appreciation of values. and we are using more and more telephone and mobile spore payment of the salaries of the police force or banking. and frankly myself and travels to afghanistan and see that old man and pulling a number from there. picture of a new afghanistan. it is old. >> you're not worried who's calling. >> no. [laughter] >> the fact that he is using it.

birds the tremendous brands. and we also as part of the government, what we try to do. we have established a backbone of the internet and telecommunications and laying fiber optics along almost every road that we built. there was some advanced planning on that, too. where we were building new roads fiber-optic cable was laid down to make telecommunications and internet more accessible and affordable. >> yes, please. >> hello, everyone. i think i am one of those rare afghans sitting here who was born there and has grown up there. this is my third day in the united states. i will that we go back home. actually, question is mainly focused on the issue of reconciliation which is now a burning question back home and

even here. first of all, mr. ambassador, you kindly described the official standing of the government of afghanistan on who, particularly about identity of taliban namely who you'll reconcile or negotiate, would you kindly give a brief and clear definition of how your government actually defines taliban? second you also mentioned about some very important concerns of afghan citizens in a particularly about the constitution of afghanistan. up until now you in your speech, what i can understand is that the constitution of afghanistan would remain unchanged under any

situation in these reconciliation talks. would it exactly mean that if taliban does not accept it and it is also over from your side or there is some room left to negotiate? >> thank you. i just said that both of our speakers from afghanistan have just arrived. welcome. >> and i am so proud to see. we did a lot of privileges, but nothing makes you more brown when you see your own afghans. i have spoken at many universities and places. by best speech as the university of afghanistan. the question me about my conventional. i love that. this is the new afghanistan. very, very capable. they are emerging. from the proficiency of english

language, which is not better than mine, even. anyhow, that is a very good question. unless we define the enemy it will be hard to know what to do. we are dealing with three types of taliban. member of the taliban that have been affiliated with al qaeda and terrorist networks in the region for a long time. small group, 5% or 10 % maximum. with this group would we can do, or we should do is try to split them from al qaeda and from the intelligence agencies in the region that are supporting them, if we can. or eliminate them. there is no middle ground.

the engagement should be of two measures. of this put them and bring them into the fold or fight to death because if they don't quit and they stand that is against everything afghanistan is for. now, you have another, if you take the stand% you have another 30% of the taliban that are basically paycheck taliban, militia. they are fighting because of either they are paid or are fretting because they have been antagonized by our own government. they have complained against her chief of police. our government. so the government does not deliver the services the way it should be. or they have been antagonized by military operations.

that group, the engagement that we need to do with them is both political and financial. you have to give them an innc home and village. nobody is going to arrest you. that is a hard thing to do with limited resources. this is the engagement. now, the remaining 50% of those who are fighting for money. they have been offered $300 a month on times or more. 45 percent unemployment. seasonal unemployment is close to 80%. there is nothing to do when the crops are harvested. so with that group we have to give them hope and jobs. if you give them a job and if you restore their home and village they have no reason to fight. that is the part that is the so-called reintegration.

have you can create jobs and return them into the fold by giving them a sense of hope. so depending on what caliber you are talking about the engagement differs. their is a lot of focus on the 10%. but the rest of the international community particularly is focused on the 90%. that is why integration and reconciliation have two parallel tracks. initially a lot of reintegration taught by our international partner. now they can together somehow. that's to both of them. >> thank you. we have time for a just a couple of more questions. i will start over here. yes, sir. >> i am from the embassy of kazakhstan. thank you for your good and an

outstanding speech. i have a couple of questions. first, i do appreciate and thank the world community embraces the idea. the government also pays very much attention on education. the way of reconstruction in afghanistan through education. what the state program of educating have any students, are around 1,000 students, 50 million u.s. dollars. it is did. it is. i think that education is one of the best ways to reconstruct the economy and bring this f. canning nation nation more stab. afghanistan has limited forces. we can see foundations with the

image of forces like south korea and panama, still education can become a very powerful nation. my question here, where are the efforts of the afghani government to widespread the education? yeah, i mean, is it widely spread all around? >> the question is clear. >> thank you. >> and the second question -- >> we don't have time for a second question. i'm sorry. >> thank you. we appreciate your question. i mentioned, ambassador, kazakhstan was here. the former ambassador, capable diplomat and very good friend of mine. very capable diplomat. so we appreciate it very much, the fact that you are investing in building a new generation of afghans' fierce scholarships. that is exactly what we need.

we are very grateful. very important business for the future of stability of the region. we have to have more pakistan and afghani universities and afghans in pakistani universities for the two nations to get together. these are very, very crucial investments not only for the future of afghanistan but for improving and understanding. we will all of us live in peace and prosperity, or one of us will be in trouble and all of us will pay a price. we are spending 60% of revenue on education. the highest amount. 60% was spent on education. that is much larger than what we spent on defense or anything else. >> yes, please. >> i should say a month just arrived here from kazakhstan ae embassy. welcome. very active on your first week

here. >> just completed two years of contract work. one of the challenges and set in the general field would recognize this. there are no certified accountant, programmers in afghanistan. you see the foundation in a position to assist in locating funding for establishing accreditation and training programs? thank you. >> yes. and i know that it is costing daily to have and businesses because they cannot get the certification. yes, in fact, we have contacted the to seek assistance. that is an area that is very, very crucial. we develop that. the international accounting firms are way too expensive for afghans to be able to pay. the standards are new to afghanistan. we have also established an academy in afghanistan to build this capacity from the ground

up. >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to ask you to join me in thanking ambassador were sharing the report on the foundation, establishment of a foundation for afghanistan. wanted to thank also all of you who have come, but also particularly the future members of the board of trustees and general field. if i may just offer a very quick comment at the end, general field has made an important point about the amount of expenditure. it is a very substantial sum. their is a presumption in the country that we have never done anything on this scale before.

this is somehow beating bleedin. it is too much basically. there has been a lot of study of. what we now know is that if you take from 2001-2010 actually in no year, maybe the present year, in no year did it otherwise equal the amount that we were spending on non military expenditure. i am not speaking about taiwan. i am not speaking about japan. i am not speaking about germany. so i wonder if we are not, if we are not deluding ourselves having convinced ourselves that this is some reckless and unprecedented expenditure that our culture has changed and something that we considered a normal expenditure if you want to do the job right is now considered we want it done on the quick and on the cheap.

that won't work. the second point i would like to suggest in the end, of course, the money that this foundation for afghanistan is going to command, no matter how energetic its trustees are. i'll be energetic as one of them, but no matter how an object they are it is going to have limited resources. you might reasonably ask after hearing ambassador jawad can an entity which is only doing in millions and hundreds of millions, can such an entity have a real impact on the ground given all that we have heard? and i want to say that we know it can. let me give an example. the green revolution in india in the 1950's and '60's. the ford foundation had a

building. had a lot of people there, spending a lot of money. however, in relationship to the sheer scale of india it was a drop in the pocket what they were doing. and yet in the long run the rockefeller foundation brought about the green revolution. transforming live. why? because they were strategic and they did things very wisely. it did not just spread the money around and so it doesn't take vast amounts of money. it takes clever people who are looking deeper and broader. but let me add one further issue. that is that running through this entire conversation today and everything you here in washington this week or in the national press this month is one big word, corruption. nothing will work there.

these people, some of it and get it. they're crazy it it it starts at the top and its right to the bottom. you are throwing money down a while. and we have heard citations of very recent statements from very high officials and journalists and others in this country to that effect. but at the risk of sounding like a defender of corruption let me just take a word and say. imagine yourself a provincial governor. until the last year or so you had a few hundred dollars a month. forget about the police under that cover who have much, much, much much less. but you happen to have a wife and three kids. you have got to eat.

meanwhile it turns out, this is the entire international community, focused entirely on organizations outside the government. we did not focus at all on building a good, effective, local institutions and government. the governors of the police and so on. that was really not the focus. this has changed in recent years. you noticed today we hear about in haiti new emphasis on building governmental institutions first, not working outside of or against the government. so it seems to me the conclusion that we have to draw is that we helped build this culture of corruption by our neglect of governmental institutions and therefore we should not be the ones leading the complaint and attacking afghans for doing it.

we should get about the work of building what needs to be built. in other words, we need a deeper view, a broader view. we also need a longer view. that is where the final point ambassador jawad. he is not talking exit strategy. to me this is like breathing pure oxygen. this is exciting. this creates hope. hope creates reality. this engages people all around the world. they don't want a foundation for afghanistan that has an exit strategy and that first says we are leaving. >> we are going to leave the remainder of this program and take you live to a discussion on how to limit use fossil fuels.

it is a discussion hosted by the new american foundation live from the national press club here on c-span2. >> going to focus hopefully to the extent that we can on the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve that as people, to achieve that as an objective. last week some of you might have read the article in the new york times with a fantastic graphic about the move and countermove some areas of an israeli attack. i remember reading of the way down at the bottom. at the end some of the streets would be once again politically or militarily compromised. i thought back to 1974 when i was in class in college. the retiring as the the same in. ou