its own separate category in the budget so it would not be counted. as for an eight, a prospect that horrify some of the folks at aipac and other supporters of aid for israel. so that will be -- that will be a fight. third? >> keeping in mind that miserable fiscal condition of this country and energy as well, do you think there's any likelihood for a major excise tax on fuel, for example, $3 a gallon for gasoline? >> know. i'll stop there. [laughter] part of the challenge going forward is that opposition for new taxes has really become a litmus test for republicans, so that the pledge and americans for tax reform conservative group puts out every senate once been a once and into post-tax increase under any circumstance, virtually every house challenger.

think all but one house challenger find it. and it is just hard to see how you get past that in a variety of areas. social security is another worth imminently possible to imagine a yield that would involve some benefit reductions raising the retirement age or linking retirement age longevity. but the political play to getting them to sign him for that benefit reduction is a revenue increase. really hard to see how republicans get there after a cycle in which you had two sitting senators denied renomination. i think they're going to be pretty leery of going in on those kinds of things. >> we've taken our time. so we'll take questions from anyone within six feet of a microphone. >> okay, if i may, i'm david brooks from santa fe council of international relations. this is a political question and not a firm policy question. as i understood the jim demint analyzing the election results say that when analysis that had

been observed was that upper-middle-class whites were moving from republican to democrat. >> in the last one he wears. >> i think i observed anecdotally. to what do you attribute that can be expected to continue? >> the democratic improvement among those voters -- by the way, we end up even as they best way for democrats with close to a 50/50 split. if elected predominately democrat. but they've gone from being predominantly democratic do outside of the thought obama carried a majority of white voters. while the user is partially foreign-policy impartial cultural issues. primarily, the flipside of what is moved blue-collar voters toward the republicans over the last 40 years. there's a famous book, with

matter with kansas in which he argued republicans and from that commends blue-collar voters to vote against their economic interests like getting them to focus on cultural -- [inaudible] >> thomas frank wrote that. by focusing on things like abortion, gun control and. as does become more prominent as the upper-middle-class communities where they are pro environment, pro-gun control. and also meaningfully in foreign policy this meanness attitude in foreign policy. by and large, it's the chilled in working-class america is sort of unilateral action and peace through strength of the best way to safeguard america's interests in the world. and upper-middle-class, white collar america in the polling tells much more towards diplomacy and alliance as the best way to save america's interests in the world. so i set off in foreign-policy functions in america politics at a social issue, like abortion really. it divides country on the saline

abortion as other than than the economic issues. so a full set of concerns becomes more prominent, democrats have long with those voters. and she sang twice though, what we'll see in 2012 is a lot of fun improvements happen under bill clinton, was moderate -- liberate tomato and foreign-policy issues. under too liberal on social issues, besides the era of big government is over. now coming into suburban upperclassman awaits her bill clinton democrats will see also barack obama democrats. the men in particular -- you tend to be leery of the big activist role for government. there was some erosion on that front, clearly in this election. >> and an end to our panel. please join me in thanking them very much. [applause] thank you. will now move quickly into our

final plenary section. >> from today's statement department briefing and a they debate it up in the sale of violent video games to minors. >> it's harmless that one is making a star out of brittany spears or share, but when one takes this notion of starting into the national security round, then lives are at stake.

americans after a while get wise that the stars and the wizards come in the dream teams in the best and brightest really might not be what they're cracked up to be. but in that faith alone on a time, chaos and mayhem can come to rain. >> this year student cam video documentary competition is in full swing. make a five to eight minute video this year's theme, washington d.c., through my lens. your documentary should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before the deadline of june or 20 for each instrument the grand prize of $5000. this $50,000 in total prizes. the competitions open to middle and high school students grades six through 12. for all the rules on how to upload your video card mind to student cam.org.

>> today's state department briefing began with an update and usaid efforts in haiti by marc ward. the acting director of the office of foreign disaster assistance. state department spokesman marc toner and later discusses secretary clinton's travels in asia among other issues. this is a half-hour. >> a doctrine welcome welcome to the state department. we thought it was appropriate to begin today's briefing with an update on the situation in haiti and were lucky enough to have mark ward, who is the director of the office of -- [inaudible] very good, sorry. mark ward from our office of foreign disaster assistance who is here to give us an update on u.s. efforts regarding hurricane thomas. mark, over to you.

>> we handed out the mats, right? in your news is well behind me. great. well, let me say from the out that that we've been -- our response has been very much in support and coordination with the government of haiti. they had the lead in this as they should. were impressed so far with the department of civil protection is doing. they've had a busy day. the eye of the storm of cores is moving now to the northwest. i will try to point out what is right now because by the time i pointed out it was moved on. but it's moving in northwesterly direction. it may -- the eye in a clip the northern claw. we're not sure yet. it may not. it may just stay out of the sea. but obviously we're going to get heavy rainfall, five to 10 inches come as much to 10 inches in some areas.

some of the clowns on the southern claw are facing flooding in leogane and tiburon and saing louis-du-sud. we've had some flooding pill you find this town if you've got really good eyes on the map that we gave you where you'd expect to see them, and the southwest were of course the storm first tracts. the department of civil is estimating people in the camps did leave of their own accord overnight. mostly as we recommended to stay with host families, with friends and family in safer housing. so far, the government is reporting one fatality on the other side of the southern claw. as far as the u.s. governments response, we were well prepared. we knew that there was a very good chance that there would be a severe storm or a hurricane

and beginning in the early summer, we were doing assessments. we were pre-positioning supplies that we would need things like hygiene kit and water containers, kitchen sets, blankets. we had enough in the country for 100,000 people. when it became clear with them last week that we were going to get a severe storm, we got a lot more in. we added enough to help another 25,000 people. so we were ready for about 125,000 people. we moved quickly when you look for example at the airport was about to close. we loaded up the last thing in record time. we put up the order for the plane, 9:30 at night and the plane arrived at 8:00 the next morning. and that's how quickly we can move when we have to. our commodities were spread out in the area and that's why we handed out this map because i wanted you to see where we had pre-positioned commodities so we

were ready wherever the storm would hit. the black boxes that you see are those where usaid and my office, the opposite war and disaster assistance as a warehouse that sola staff. and then you see the other boxes on the map show you where some of the ngos that we are funding and others are funding also have stock piled. so we have stuff all over the area that could have been affected by the storm and in fact has in his been affected. so we were able to get supplies out to people quickly that are going to need it. if we need more -- of attorneys out the pre-positioning effort of 125,000 people is not enough, it probably will be, but should it not be enough, we can move far from our warehouse in miami and we can even turn to e-mail warehouses in the southern united states. we've already got those arrangements in place. we've worked closely with the world food program. they have stockpiled food and 32

different locations around the country. they also have a barge. you'll see the boat without a little figure they're the boat in the middle of the water that indicates we have this capacity of a barge where we can get food and other nonfood supplies around the cities around the water if we have two, if we have access to the problem. the food stocks and country with wfp are sufficient to feed more than a million people for six weeks. my office deployed a dart -- a disaster assistance response team. remember i talked a lot about the disaster assistance response team in pakistan a few weeks ago. we have a disaster assistance response team now in haiti. it's got 22 people on it. it has deployed some of its officers also to the southern claw, some of the towns that they are to be ready. also as you can imagine recording fully with the u.s. military. they have a team on the

ground -- they've had people on the ground since the earthquake. they've added people when i began to look like we were going to have a severe storm and they have a ship, the uss iwo jima away a bit right now because of the storm. but will soon be moving to haiti. it has 10 helicopters, to landing craft and personnel on board that can help us with public health issues as well as engineering if we have some access issues, they'll be able to deploy quickly to help. so that's an overview. i'd be happy to take some questions. we are still very much, because the storm is still with us, it hasn't moved on yet, we're very much in the assessing stage scene where we need to deploy. the relief supplies were pre-positioned around the country and in the coming days i'll be able to tell will be a lot to tell you more about the actual areas that needed help and what we've been able to provide them. but we handed out the map notches so you could be where we

pre-deployed and in the coming days i'm sure we'll be focusing in on some of these towns in our discussion. thanks. you want to do the calling on, mark? please. >> i had a question about how this effect did the response to the cholera outbreak, whether it had to scale back any of that during this planning for the hurricane? >> as part of the pre-deployment of supplies, we include a cholera testing kits and obviously the clean water supplies are very important because we anticipated that there might be access problems when the storm hit. right now we've got teams out checking the areas where we've had problems with cholera to be sure that we can keep those supply lines open. it will probably have some impact in those areas where we had trouble with cholera, but we don't expect it to be serious. he may have a couple of days to lay here and there, but right now we just don't know.

but we did predispositions supply should there be problems with access. yes, ma'am. >> i'm not sure if you have an insight into this, but the one fatality mentioned, juno at the cost is? >> weird a gentleman was trying to drive across a flooded area and was rushing water we didn't make it. yes, sir. >> the projects you've been engaged in the terrace on hillsides are digging a canal spirit of it too soon to tell? >> it's too soon to tell. one of my immediate concerns of the flood mitigation efforts we undertook in the camps because as you know we weren't able to get everybody to move out. we have undertaken efforts over several months to increase drainage, make sure that in the

government, you know, sort of approved camps, that everything was tied down, everything was so strong that it could be. it got any shelters about any of the low-lying areas that we will see if those efforts paid off. but right now it's too soon to say. the good news is i haven't had any reports so far have any trouble those camps. question up your? [inaudible] all right, terrific. yes, ma'am. >> -- hurricane preparedness? >> a dollar figure? >> i really can't right now. will try to get back to you on that. it's probably going up every day and then of course the military response as the march as well. we'll get back to you with a figure on that. >> the 22 dart team members, how many were already on the ground before this?

>> these 22 are additional. you're right. we did have a team down there left over from the earthquake and some have gone into work on cholera. these are in addition. and of course, usaid and of course the u.s. embassy has a permanent presence there and a very large embassy and they fall -- many of them have been working on this as well. >> usage are prepared to help under 25,000 people. you know roughly how many people have taken that up already know for what. -- i mean, when will you know whether or not you've got enough to help everybody? >> the 125 was there that we could help people very quickly. as i said, we've got more stops in miami. we've got more stops available to us and fema and of course it can also get manufacturers to work overtime to keep sending stuff in. i don't know yet how much of -- how much of the preposition

supplies were going to need. that's the kind of information i hope to go to share with you in debt to be able to share with you in days to come. right now our teams are out finding out who is well aware and then they will turn to those stockpiles, work out the transporting of the stuff they are. so it is too soon to answer. but we never intended for 125,000 at the supplies that can help 125,000 to be all that we would provide. that's what we decided to pre-positioned, always with the understanding that we could add more. the fact you have to keep in mind is this hurricane, this storm has her because damaged other countries and may still cause more. so we decided to keep our warehouse in miami fully stocked should we need to send applies when they are to other places. if we gave it all to haiti and might get stuck in haiti. we decided to leave some there not a generous officer from fema to also help us out should we need it.

but i don't have any indication yet we don't have enough in country already. and remember, the united states is not the only donor that is providing help. the government of the u.k., the world food program as i mentioned, the international federation of the red cross also could preposition supplies in the country. so there's quite a bit there that we need to go through first before we have to call in anymore from the outside. but too soon to say how much her win. yes, sir. >> the united states has been deeply involved in helping high haiti in this disaster. with a tear from your server if you tell us about the most important lessons that we have relearned in dealing with disasters of this magnitude should they be taken place are happening to other nations who are susceptible to this kind of problems around the world. what would be the sequence of action that would be the most

appropriate to prevent the problem from compounding? >> well, i'm in the disaster business, so my answer will be very biased. and my answer is very simple. don't wait for the next disaster. prepare ahead of time. take mitigating measures. in countries where you know you're going to have recurring disasters. we talked about this with respect to pakistan. take measures in between disasters so when the next disaster hit, you're better prepared for it. and that is always what i argue for it we do pretty well in terms of funding to be able to do what we call disaster risk reduction measures in between disasters. the large scale of the calamities that we've had to work on this year, the haiti earthquake compounded by cholera and now the storm and the pakistan flood i think provides pretty good evidence that we

should take disaster risk reduction programs very, very seriously as a way to ameliorate the effect of these disasters that we've had to deal with this year. >> my question is probably beyond your purview, but the country is also getting ready for elections and i wonder if ss delayed usaid work on the elections are the timetable. >> that's a great question. >> i have been meetings where this has been discussed in my understanding is that the intention is to keep with the plans. >> it hasn't slowed down? >> all right, thanks, everybody. >> will also obviously continue to assess the situation throughout the weekend and if necessary, we can do press calls or do a conference call tomorrow

or sunday as sense dictates. i does have a few things at the top and then i'll take your questions. regarding the cuban plane crash earlier today, first and foremost our condolences go to the families and friends who lost loved ones in that accident. initial reports indicate that no u.s. citizens were among the victims. however, we are in contact with cuban authorities responding to the crash and are working to obtain a flight manifest. we also cores extend our condolences. i believe there were families and loved ones of the victims. i believe there was a plane crash in pakistan as well and we also believe there's no american citizens rather involved and not. the secretary is concluded her day in new england, where she'll remain overnight. in wellington she had a war

memorial. she visited the antarctic center to the united states joint scientific cooperation and undertook a period and later she participated in a tunnel that paid tribute to the resilience and recovery to the people of christchurch in the september for earthquake. finally she attended a retreat reception that vibrant american business community highlighted the administration export initiative. as i said, shall remain in wellington tonight and it's going to australia tomorrow. the united states condemns today's two bombings that took place in mosques in pakistan, which brutally targeted innocent people of worship by attacking places of worship. whoever was responsible has demonstrated a clear lack -- a clear disregard rather for the pakistani people and for the peaceful religion they practice. the united states will continue to work with the government of

pakistan to combat the violent extremism and terrorism in our thoughts and prayers go out with the families and friends of those who are touched by these attacks. and finally, just an update, the usaid administrated brassiere shot is traveling to india as part of president obama's delegation to the u.s.-india -- the u.s.-india strategic partnership, develop cooperation performs an important part of the agenda. this is the relationship has gone on obviously for nearly 60 years. the u.s. government for usaid is supported india's development. over that time usaid's assistance as he has evolved from humanitarian aid to infrastructure development and institution building to support for economic reforms. that's all i have. if you want to go ahead, bob. >> to have any update on secretary's plans to meet with prime minister netanyahu? >> i don't. beyond what p.j. referred to

yesterday as they plan to meet certainly. but the time and date are to be worked out. [inaudible] >> i can't confirm that right now, but as the secretary said yesterday, and she very much wants to meet with prime minister netanyahu and they just need to work at a time and place. >> -- or will we be able to get any video? >> all have to get back to you where we determine where it's going to take place and we can provide information about media access. the secretary is party down to tonight. we'll try to get you an answer on that. as soon as we have anything that obviously we will. >> is it just a coincidence that the foreign minister from egypt is coming next week? is there any possibility that she will meet secretary clinton and prime minister netanyahu? is there any possible talks between the two? >> i'm not aware that there's

any plan -- that there's any meetings planned. i'm not frankly aware of the scheduler who in the state department will meet with them but i can get more information on that frame. yes, sir. >> the chief palestinian negotiator quoted yesterday that the uss palestinians to give them two more weeks to try to convince israel over settlements. the head of lee gave the u.s. one month period, which would end on monday. can you comment on this? >> i really can't. as we've said time and time again from his party as well as senator mitchell and secretary clinton, were not going to talk about the details. they didn't mean to senator mitchell and we won't get into it they discuss that but obviously remain hard at work and our priority remains in the two sides back in direct negotiations. yeah, michelle. >> he also talked about one they

are waiting seriously about going to the united nations and afghan for u.n. to declare a palestinian state. what is your position -- >> we talked about this yesterday. our goal remains getting both sides back into direct negotiations. it is ultimately the only way that all these outstanding issues are going to be resolved. and so anything that might affect getting those -- getting both hardee's back into direct negotiations, we would discourage frankly. go ahead. >> the report that president abbas, according to a report on the cnn website in arabic is sane that they promised the palestinians they would support them and they decide to go to the u.n. to ask for the declaration of the state if the process didn't work out. >> i haven't seen his comments, so i can't get any kind of

reaction, but i just said what her position is. you know, we remain convinced that ultimately the only way that we are going to get a comprehensive peace is through direct negotiations than anything that might affect those direct negotiations we feel is not helpful and not construct it. yeah, go ahead. >> introduction of relations committee in the house, changing hand with representative diana has determined to take the presidency of the chairman steve on the committee. this is starting a lot of worries everywhere in the circle of those people who are looking for realistic peace or efforts, u.s. efforts to bring peace in the middle east. how much -- and the state department going to deal with this problem, so closely her

thoughts, beliefs, ideologies so closely allied with netanyahu's hard-line policies. do you see any way that the state department can actually bring congresswoman to a more practical and understanding of the needs for the peace in the middle east and for the implementation of the u.n. resolutions accordingly? >> well, we've talked a lot over the last couple of days about the new congress and its possible effect on foreign policy and the conduct of foreign policy. the secretary has in fact been reaching out to the new chairwoman. i don't know if she has already planned, but obviously to extend our good wishes, congratulate her and her other colleagues and also to pledge our willingness

and our commitment to work closely with congress on a broad range of issues, but including middle east peace. it is a priority for this administration. it's going to remain a priority for this administration and obviously we'll were candid love with congress to advance direct negotiations and ultimately reach a settlement. go ahead. >> appear only arrived in khartoum. the second one in recent weeks. is he going to join -- to become a part of the u.s. lobbying effort there? >> well, i've done a lot of detail. i know that special envoy creation remains in khartoum. ambassador lyman like yesterday is an en route to khartoum and i believe he is there beltran get more information about the details of his trip and what it claims to do.

we'll take that question. >> any updates on any of secretary clinton meeting new members that she may today? >> i didn't get a chance to check before walking here, but i know she intends to reach out to a variety of people on the hill just to pledge her willingness to work. always be the president mentioned new start in getting that ratified in a lame-duck session become priority one of our main priority in the coming weeks. but obviously, you know, middle east peace was mentioned there. transition and building stability in iraq, all of these issues, afghanistan, pakistan, we look forward to working with the congress on these issues. i'll try to get a detailed list are you, courtney. >> they of course say the chinese fans letters, diplomat and always warning to attend the nobel peace prize ceremony.

have you guys received a message? and if so, what's your response? >> we have it received a message that i'm aware of. our responses as traditional in these cases i believe our ambassador to norway would attend the nobel ceremony, though -- we have not received any letter. >> getting ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is one of your main priorities. if it doesn't get ratified, what sort of impact would that have on the u.s.? >> book, darty up in almost a year. and that's a year of we believe where were not able to conduct the kind of, you know, transparent surveillance that allows us to keep tabs on what russia is doing in terms of nuclear weapons. again, this is the national security interest of the united

dates. it's got broad bipartisan support. and so, we believe -- and i want to speculate so much that it doesn't happen. what it rather focus on is we want to make it happen in the coming lame-duck section. >> is a possibility you'll get ratified if it hasn't already? >> i want to talk about plan b already. we have a plan a. we believe are close. he came out of committee with broad support in so we believe it can be passed. i don't want to refer to plan b before plan a housing seceded and we believe it will succeed. >> have they concluded what their thoughts are if it doesn't pass? we've hear reconsider their approval of their effective ratification of it if it keeps passing on your efforts. have they were viewed this as a outcome? >> i don't know that they've warned us or discuss or diplomatic channels. i'm aware of the comments of some duma members. i do want to get ahead of what

were doing right now. the president has been clear from the secretary is. we want to use the lame-duck section to get a new start over the goal line. >> there was a video of yesterday that appears to show the chinese fishing vessel at the heart of the bangkok who dispute related to the japanese postcard. >> i'm aware of the video. i don't have any reaction beyond the fact that her position regarding the simpatico dispute hasn't changed. you know, we urge good relations with china and japan. we believe that benefit everyone in the region and we hope they resolve any outstanding differences are appropriate diplomatic channels. i haven't seen the video and i don't have a comment. >> is good relations between china and japan, does that mean japan paying reparations and offering apologies? >> it means whatever japan and china work out are appropriate diplomatic channels. in the back.

>> yesterday, ambassador thomas said that they had nothing to do with the china incident. >> i'm sorry, who had a news conference? >> the korean ambassador to russia said they have nothing to do with the chinese incident and was made up by the state and south korea. in also today in beijing, they had a news conference inside if we talk to the state, will get a compelling site. you think we can get some? what is your comment? >> well, i'm tempted to make light of it but it's not a funny situation. we've been quite clear in what happens. we believe what happened there is a report done on the sinking of the chon on, and international group today. it wasn't -- it wasn't subjected at all. it was very objective. we support the findings of a group that we just urge north

korea to move forward in a positive direction and to desist in happened. thank you. >> attorneys said the supreme court debate a law of the violent tale of video games to minors >> it's harmless that one is making a start at a brittany

spears or cher, but when one takes the notion of starting into the national security realm, though my third state. americans after a while get wise that the stars and the wizards, the dream teams in the best and brightest really might not be what they're cracked up to be. but in that fateful amount of time, chaos and mayhem can come to rant. >> the supreme court heard oral argument tuesday in a case

involving a california law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. the law passed in 2005 but never enacted or have it for sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under 18 in fines retailers $1000 for each video games sold to a minor. a lower court ruled that the law is too vague and violates free-speech rights. in this hour of oral argument, justices questioned lawyers representing california in the videogame industry. >> will hear argument first this morning in 081448, schwarzenegger versus entertainment merchants>> ma association. mr. moore to see me.califoia law >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court?k la a california issue today beforeg this court differs from a newes. york law issued against burke and only one respect were new minors york was concerned with minors access to harmful material outside the guidance of a parent, california is no less

concerned with the minors access ga the deviant level of violence that is presented in a certain category of video games that can be no less harmful to the development of minors.e when this court in ginzburgtes crafted table of law that t permits minors access to suchdid material outside the presence of the parent company did so for two fundamental reasons that are equally applicable this morningt ins this case. first, this will permit the parents claim to authority and their own household to direct the upbringing and the development of their children. std secondly, this will promote the state's independent interesn in helping parents protect thete well-being of children and thosr instances where parents cannot be president. so this morning california asked this court to adopt the rule ofb law that permits states to restrict minors ability to purchase tv and videogames that the legislature could determine can be harmful to the development -- >> what is the deviant violence

videogame as opposed to what, a normal violent video game? istabl, your honor. deviant would be departing fromd an established norm. >> and are established norms of violence? >> well, you think if we look tt back -- >> some of the grimm's tales are quite grim. [laughter] >> agreed your honor. >> >> are they okay? we've been into? >> not at all coming on her.eing >> what's the difference? o if you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off and videogames?wh what about films? what about comic books? and tales? why are videogame special or does your principle extend to all deviant and violent

materials in whatever form? >> no, your honor, that's whyone they incorporated three prongs of the miller standard. olenceot just patently offensive violence. it's violence that meets all three of the term that for us.hk >> i think that justice ginsburg question, which is why it is videogames, why not movies for example as well? have evidence that the interactive nature of video games where the minor or young adult is the aggressor, is the individual acting out this obscene level of violence if you will is especially harmful to minors. >> do you have studies that show that video games are more harmful to minors than movyings are? >> it's the study regarding violent video games as exemplary teachers. the authors not video games are not only exemplary teachers of

pro-social activities, but exemplary teachers of aggression, the fundamental concern of the california legislature in enacting the statute. while the siensz is continuing to be developed and studies are released every month -- >> what was -- suppose a new study suggested that movies were just as violent, then presumably california could regulate movies like video games. >> well, your honor, there is scientific literature about the impact of violent material on minors. the congress and ftc and parenting groups have been concerned with the amount of violent media to minors. >> that's not answering the justice's question. one of the anderson studies shows the acts of violence is the same for violent video.

can the legislature say now we can outlaw bugs bunny in >> there are people who say the cartoon has little social value. it's entertainment and nothing else. >> this is entertainment. i'm not saying i like the video, the one you issued the five minute clip about. to me, it's not entertainment, but to some, it may well be. >> cartoons do not depart from the established norms of a level of violence to which children have been historically exposed to. we believe the level of violence in the video games -- >> that could have been made when movies came out. we had violence in grim's fairy tales, but never live on the screen. >> your honor, that's the beauty of incorporating the three prongs of the miller standard into the law. this standard ensures that only a narrow category of material is

covered. >> how is this any different than what we said we don't do in the first amendment field in stephens not looking at a category of speech and decide that some of it has moral value. we decide whether a category of speech has a historical tradition of being regulated. now, other than some state statutes that you point to, some of which are very clearly the same as those that we struck down, where's the tradition of regulating violence? >> your honor, california commits -- summits when the rights should be more flexible and recognize when the audience is minors, the same standard shouted not apply, therefore, the question should not be whether or not historically violence was regular lated, but whether or not the constitution guarantees my yours of --

minors -- >> should we get rid of rap music? have you heard some of these lyrics in some of the original violent songs that have been sung about killing people and about other violence directed to them in >> i would agree -- >> the state -- >> i would agree it's egregious, justice, however -- >> why isn't that obscene in the sense you're using the world or deaf i can't. >> i'm not sure it's directly harmful to the minors in the way that video games can be. we know violent and sexual material appeals to a base instinct in especially minors. it's presented in a manner -- >> when you talk about minors, what age group are you talking about? a video game manufacturer has to decide where its game stands. what age of a child should the

manufacturer have in mind? a 17-year-old, a 10-year-old? >> your honor, i would submit just like in the context for minors similar to ginsberg those california's law has not been applied, consider minors as a whole and in california that's under 18 years old. they instruct minors -- >> how did they do that? isn't the average person thinking what's appropriate for a 17-year-old may not be appropriate for a 10-year-old or an 8-year-old? >> your honor, i think juries and judges do this every day in the -- >> the state of california doesn't do that. california has in big letters, 18, so it's not -- is it okay for a 7-year-old? is it okay for a 12-year-old? part of the statute requires

labeling these video games in big numbers 18. it's 18 in california. does it make distinctions between 17-year-olds and 4-year-olds? >> justice, i think rightfully so. i think a jury would be charged with perhaps the standard of what the community believes an average minor, so the manufacturer would consider -- >> an average minor is halfway between 0 and 18? 9 years old. [laughter] >> fair point, justice scalia. i think a jury could be instructed to the typical age group of minors playing these games. >> why wouldn't you say a video game that appeals to the morbid interest of those 18 or under, let's take 18, and it's not suitable in the community for

those 18, and it has no redeeming importance of any kind, no serious literary artistic, political, or scientific value of those 18, that at least as to those you can't sell it without the parent. the parent can buy it, but the child can't. you can't tell a 12-year-old something that would be horrible for an 18-year-old. are we willing to accept that if necessary to make this okay on its face? >> justice, breyer, absolutely. >> could i take you back to justice scalia's original question about deviant violation? i read your briefs, and all i found you said is clearly covered by the statute and presumably the statute applies to more than one video game, so what else does it apply to? how many video games? what kind of video games? how would you describe in plain

english what morbid violence is? what you have to see in a video game for it to be covered. >> okay, justice kagan, i go back to the language of the statute, and the statute covers video games where the range of options available to the player includes maiming, killing, dismembering, torturing, sexually assaulting, and those types of violence. i look to games where -- >> so anything that has those kinds of violence counts? >> no, then you move to the three prong of the miller standard, your honor. >> how do you separate violent games covered to violent games just as violence that are not covered? >> well, your honor, i think a jury could be instructed with expert testimony, with video game clips, and to judge for themselves whether -- >> i'm not concerned about the jury judge, but the producer of the games who has to know what he has to do in order to comply with the law, and you're telling

me, well a jury can -- of course, a jury can make up its mind, i'm sure. but a law with criminal penalties has to be clear, and how is a manufacturer to know whether that particular violent game is covered or not? >> well, your honor -- >> be his own jury and try it before, you know, a -- [laughter] i, i don't know what to do as a manufacturer. >> justice scalia, i'm convinced the video game industry knows what to do. they rate their games every day on the basis of vims, the intensity -- >> so what's covered here, the mature category and ratings, is that what the statute is meant to cover? >> i believe some ma clur rated games are covered, but not all. your honor, just like with sexual material. we can trust individual panders of sexual material to judge whether or not it's -- >> let me make a comment on that point.

it seems like all, or at least a great majority of the questions today are designed to probe whether or not this statute is vague, and you say the beauty of the statute is that it utilizes the categories that have been used in the obscenity area, and that there's an obvious parallel there. the problem is that for generations, there is been a societal consensus about sexual material, and sex and violence have been around a long time. there's a consensus about what's offensive for sexual material, and there are judicial discussions on it. now, those judicial discussions are not precise. you could have had the same questions today with reference to an obscenity statute, and we have said that with reference to

obscenity, there are certain materials that are not protected. those rules are not precise at the margin, and some would say not precise in a more significant degree as well, but you're asking us to go in an entirely new area with no consensus or traditional opinions, and this is -- and this indicates to me the statute might be vague. i thought you'd like to know that reaction. [laughter] >> justice, kennedy, as with the regulation of sexual material and obscenity, we had to start somewhere. california is choosing to start now. we can build a consensus as to what level of violence is in fact offensive for minors just as the case law has developed overtime with sexual depictions. your honor, i believe the key is that the similarities violence has with sex -- this is material -- >> what about excessive

glorification of drinking? movies that have too much drinking in it? does that affect minors? i suppose so. ion not concerned with the vagness, i am, but i'm concerned with the amendment that they can't bridge the freedom of speech, and it was understood that the freedom of speech does not include obscenity. it has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. you're asking us to create a whole new prohibition which the american people never ratified when they ratified the 1st amendment. they knew obscenity was bad, but what's next after violence? drinking? smoking? movies that shows smoking? can't be shown to children, will

that affect them? i suppose it will, but is that -- are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the 1st amendment? why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones i suggested are not okay? >> well, justice scalia, i would like to highlight the fact the material issued in ginsberg was not obscene. the partial nudity allowed -- >> i think what he wants to know is what james madison thought about video games. [laughter] did he enjoy them? [laughter] no, i want to know what james madison thought about violence? was there any indication that anybody thought when the first amendment was adopted that there was an exception to it for speech regarding violence?

anybody? >> your honor, as for minors, looking at the historic statutes that were enacted in the past, there was a social recognition -- >> what's the earliest statute? >> pardon? >> what's the earliest statute and what's the enforcement? >> your honor, i don't know the earliest on the top of my head, but i believe they go in the early 1900s or later. i apologize. >> it's principle and it's been quite some years, hasn't it since this court held that one instance that courts, that the country legislatures can regulate are fighting words, and we regulate fighting words, don't we? because they provoke violence, and the american psychological association and the american pediatric association says certain kinds of video games here create violence, then

children are exposed. there's people who think to the contrary. there's two huge things of studies that think not to the contrary. all right. what are we supposed to do? >> well, justice breyer, i think in going back to justice scale yew's question, i find it hard to believe, and i know no historical evidence that suggest our founding fathers in the 1st amendment enacted to guarantee -- >> what justice breyer was asking because this court with respect to the fighting words in your face provoke immediate reaction. the court has been very careful to cut that off so it doesn't have this spillover potential, so you didn't latch on to fighting words. you're analogy is to obscenity for teenagers as i understand

it. >> yes. with regard to fighting words, the final interest in preventing acts of violence is different than the concern here at issue today. >> so, could i just make sure i understand that mr. morazzini because they gave up the argument the interest in the law is preventing minors don't go out and commit these acts themselves. instead the state says the interest in the law is in protecting children's moral development generally? >> justice kagan, we welcome that as an affect of california's regulation, but the primary interest with the internal intrinsic harm to minor is is what the state of california is deeply concerned with in this case. >> a point of clarification. we talked about the labeling parts of this act.

the circuit court struck those portions. you have now challenged that ruling. there are two sections to the act. one is a criminal act for selling to a minor, and the other is a requirement that you label in a certain way each video, and this say -- i think the kir cut said both were unconstitutional; correct? >> yes. >> your brief doesn't address the lailing requirements at all. >> we didn't. one holding on the 9th circuit hinged on the other. on the bid of the california's law, the restriction on sale the court found since it's not illegal to sell the games to 18-year-olds that the purpose behind the label itself was in fact misleading, so under the case law, i don't have the case before me, but regarding lawyers advertising of services, the

government can require a labeling so long as its necessary to prevent misleading the consumer. the 9th circuit found because they struck down the body of our law, that the 18 label would be misleading. >> that's an interesting concession on your part that the labeling doesn't have any separate from the restriction on sale. i would have thought that if you wanted a lesser restriction that you would have promoted labeling as a reasonable scrutiny restriction to permit the control of sale of these to minors, but you seemed to give that argument up all together in >> i didn't intend to concede that the ninth circut's opinion was correct in any sense. >> you have conceded it by not appealing it, but okay, your case on labeling rises and falls on the sale to minors.

>> at this point, i would agree, your honor. >> i gather that if the parents of the minor want the kid to watch this violent stuff. they like gore and may may like -- they may like violent kids, then the state of california has no objection as long as the parents buy the thing, it's okay. >> they are entitled to direct 9 upbringing of their children in the manner they see fit. it's important to the state of california that the parent involves themselves in these important decisions. >> that's basically all this is is a law to help parents? >> there's two fundamental interests served by this law, yes, ensuring parents to involve thermses. california sought to have a barrier between a sales clerk and a minor with regard to

violence like sexual material. california sees the developmental harm caused to minors is no less significant than that recognized by the court in ginsberg with sensitive material. the material issue -- >> i don't think there's a barrier in california to minor's access to sexual material? >> i believe california has a law, section -- >> california has a beginsberg law? >> yes. >> did you spend time enforcing that? >> i'm not aware, but there is a prescription on the sale of sexual material to minors. it's defined as harmful to minors similar to california's act. in fact, california's act incorporating the three prongs of miller goes even further than the law at issue. >> is there -- you've been asked questions

about the vagueness of this and the problem of the seller to know what's good and what's bad. does california have any kind of an advisory opinion, and office to review these videos and say, yeah, this belongs in what did you call it? deviant violence, and this one is just violent, but not deviant. is there any kind of opinion that the seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors, and which ones can't? >> not that i'm aware of. >> you can consider createing such, call it the california office of censorship to judge each video one by one. that would be very nice. [laughter] >> your honor, we asked juries to judge sexual material, and

it's appropriate for minors as well. i believe that if we can -- >> let the government do that? juries are not controllable. that's the wonderful thing about juries, also the worst thing about juries. [laughter] do we let government pass upon, you know, a board of censors? i don't think so. >> justice scalia, california is not doing that here. the standard is quite similar to that in the sexual material reel. . california is not acting as a censor. it is telling manufacturers and distributers to look at the material and judge for yourselves whether the level of violent content meets the prongs of the definition. >> even if we get past what i on difficult questions of vagueness and interpreting this law, suspect there a less restrictive

with a vie-chip? -- v-chip? >> your honor, that's the parental controls available in the new machines? >> yes. >> as we submitted in the briefing, a simple internet search for bypassing parental controls brings up videos on how to get around that. >> that doesn't work? >> i believe the v-chip is limited to television, mr. kennedy. could i reserve the remainder of my time? >> thank you. mr. smith? >> may it please the court, the california law at issue restricts the distribution of expressive works based on their content. california does not seriously con tepid it did satisfy the usual 1st amendment statutes to the law. they are asking for a free pass to the 1st amendment that would

deny constitutional protection to some ill defined subset of expressive works, and not just video games, but necessarily movies, books, and any other work that pore portrays violence in a way some court some way decide is deviant and offensive. >> what about the distinction between books and movies in the video games, the child is not passively watching something. the child is doing the killing. the child is doing the maiming, and i suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's miranda rule development. -- moral development. >> it might, there's not a sled of evidence to suggest it's true. >> what was the state of the record that was present before the court in ginsberg? >> they were aware on science on both sides that made a judgment that as a matter of common sense they could decide that obscenity even somewhat in large obscenity obscenity -- >> the court acted on common

sense? >> yes, as long as there's science on both sides, in that particular area which is an exception that goes back to the founding. they field it was proper to adjust the -- >> if the material wasn't obscene, they were girly magazines, i imagine today's children they would seem rather tame, the magazines involved, but they were definitely not obscene with respect to doesn'ts. >> your honor, that's true, but one of the things to recognize about the case is they didn't pass the material before the court. they said it is a somewhat larger definition of -- >> we're talking about common sense. why isn't it common sense to say that if a parentments his 13-year-old child to have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine here's a torturer and impose painful, excruciating, painful violent on small children and women for an

hour or so, and there's no social or redeeming value, it's not artistic or literary, ect., why isn't it common sense to say the state has the right, parent, if you want that for your 13-year-old, you buy it yourself which i think is what they are saying. >> well, your honor, the state has have to -- >> it does have a reason. i looked at the study, perhaps not as thoroughly as you, but it seemed to me that dr. ferguson and dr. anderson are in a disagreement, not that much actually, but they've looked in depth, you know, in a whole lot of video games, not movies or other things, video games. and both groups come to the conclusion that there is some tendency to increase violence and the american psychological association, the american pediatric association signed on to a long list on i think it's the anderson side that this does hurt children. i have to admit that if i'm

supposed to be a sociological expert, i can't choose between them, but if a legislature has enough evidence to have harm, the answer is yes. >> it's whether parents need help to exercise their role -- >> yes they need help because many parents are not home when their children come home from school. many parents have jobs, we hope, and when their children are there, they do what they want, and all this says is if you want that torture of let's say babies, make it as bad as possible, what you do, parent, you buy it. he's 13 years old. what's the common sense or science of that? >> two aspects. with respect to parental controls, there's a series of things parents have available to them and are using today to deal with any concerns they have about what's appropriate --

>> any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in 5 minutes. >> that is one element of about five different elements, your honor. in fact, talking about them, there is the ratings. parents are doing the purchasing 90% of the time. the child brings the game home and the child can review it. the game is played on the television or computer. think harm is supposed to take place over a period of years, not minutes. the parent has ample opportunity to supervise on what games are played in the house and there's control that is similar to the ones the court found to be significant in the playboy case and a variety of cases. >> how much do the videos cost? >> $50-$60 when new. >> not too many 13-year-olds walk in with a 50 dollar bill. >> if there is kids buying

without parental permission, they are very likely in the 16-year-old category. >> you're away from the common sense. if you're going back to the common sense of it, what common sense is there in having a state of the law, the state can forbid and says to the parent, the child, the 13-year-old cannot go in and buy a picture of a naked woman, but the 13-year-old child can go in and buy one of these video games as i've described. i've tried to take a bad of one i could think of, torture of children. okay, now, you can't buy a naked woman, but you can go and buy that, you say to the 13-year-old. now, what sense is there to that? >> well, there's various aspects of this that's important to understand. first of all the, violence is a feature of works that we create for children that encourage them to watch throughout the history of this country. we have a very different sense of whether violence per se -- >> love is not something that people have tried to encourage children to understand and know

about? i mean, what is the difference between sex and violence? both, if any? >> there's a huge difference. >> thank you. >> we do not -- [laughter] >> the difference is we do not make films for children in which explicit sex happens. we make films for children in which graphic violence. >> there's a difference. we do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over a head with a shovel so they are messyless and shooting people in the leg so they fall down. i'm reading from the district court and pour gas hen on them and set them on fire. we protect children from that. we don't actively expose them to that. >> parents have been doing that. the question for this court is

if you will create a new exception under the 1st amendment and whether if you're going to do it, you could figure out what the scope of that is. >> is it your position, i know this is a facial challenge, mr. smith, so is it your position that the 1st amendment could not prohibit the sale to minors of the video game that i just described? >> my position is that most people would think that's an inappropriate game for minors. we do not try to sell it to minors -- >> well, i know you don't, you're avoiding the answer. does the 1st amendment protect the sale of that video to minors, a minor? >> there is not a violence exception @ minors, and there should no be. >> your position is that the 1st amendment cannot, no matter what type of law whether this is vague or not, that the state legislature cannot pass a law that says you may not sell to a 10-year-old, a video in which they set schoolgirls on fire. >> and the reason for that is there's no possible way to draw

an exception to the constitution to the 1st amendment -- gr what is the state passed -- what is california took the list of video games that your association rates as mature, and said, there's a civil -- and you apparently don't want vend res selling those games to minors, isn't that right? >> exercising our -- >> you don't want that, and california said there's a civil penalty attached to that. >> what i do is transform the esrb, the private voluntary system that exists into the censorship commission that this court struck down in interstate circuit. when the government does that and you have to go to them for permission to allow kids into movies or these it's a licensing authority thats 1st amendment allows. >> there's really no good reason to think exposure to video games is bad for minors, expoture to

really violent video games is bad, is that right? >> it's important to draw a distinction between harm under the law and appropriateness. families have different judgment they make about their children at different ages and with different content and family values -- >> mr. smith, do they say that's a sufficient law to go guard? i understand the current studies dowght suggest harm, but are there studies that would be enough? >> well, i imagine a world where expression could transform to murders, that's not the way the miewm mind works, and here the reality is opposite. dr. anderson testified in the record that the vast majority playing the games will grow up to be fine. he acknowledged the effects of the game are not different from watching cartoons on television or reading violent passages in

the bible or looking at a picture of a gun. picture of a gun. >> you really don't right. the court said last it doesn't have a free will and authority to creative exception after 200 years based on a cost benefit analysis and that this is a test of that. this is exactly what the state of california is asking. >> we have here a new medium, and that can not possibly have been envisioned at the time when the first amendment was ratified. it is totally different from -- it's one thing to read a description of -- as one of -- one of these tebeau games is promoted as saying "what's black and white and red all over perhaps the answer could include

disposing of your enemies in the meat grinder." rating that is one thing. seeing it is graphically portrayed -- and doing it is still a third thing. so this presents a question that could not have been specifically contemplated at the time when the first amendment was adopted. and to say well, because -- and nobody was -- because descriptions in a book of violence were not considered a category of speech the was appropriate for limitation at the time when the first amendment was violated in its entirely artificial. >> we do have a new medium here, your honor, what we have a >> w history in this country of new medium's coming along and people ndstly overreacting to them and the sky is falling, our children are going to turn into criminals. it started with crime novels ofs the late 19th century which stad produced this raft of book legislation which was never enforced. a start with comic books and movies in the late 1950's orn te social scientists can and tonedt half the juvenile violence was

caused by economic books. they censored it. we have rock lyrics, the internet -- >> do you think all video games are speech in the first instance? you could say it's the modern day of monopoly. they are games. they are things people use to compete. when you think about some of them, the first video game was playing tennis on your tv. how is that speech at all? >> the games have narrative events occurring, character, plot, and that's what the sphait is set out to regulate here. if these events occur here, there is violence, one person hurting another person, a human being being the victim and doing it in a way that they find offense eve, we're going to regulate it. >> are we going to separate video games into narrative and nonnarrative video games? >> you don't have to as long as the law is limited to narrative. that's what the law says.

now if the law says you shouldn't play video games with red images in them, that might be a closer case. >> well, what about a law that says you can't sell to minors a video game, doesn't care what the plot is, but no video game in which the minor commits violent acts of maims and killing. what about that? is that regulating speech? >> of course, your honor. >> it's not speech. saying you can't let the kid maim, kill -- >> i'm sorry -- >> or set on fire. >> what the lay would be directed at is not the plot, not the video game, itself, but the child's act of committing murder, maiming, and so forth. >> the events of the video game, what happens in the plot is a come combination of what the game gives you and what the

player adds to it. there's a creative aspect frpt other side referred to as a dialogue between the player and game. i submit both are protected by the 1st amendment just as a -- >> the person is speaking to the game? >> no, helping the plot and determining what happens in the events that acts on the screen like an actor. you are acting out certain elements of the play and contributing to the events that occur and adding a creative element of your own. that makes them different. >> your challenge is 5 facial challenge in >> yes, your honor. >> if you use the tests if there is one or any applications that satisfy the constitution, it fails? >> the tests don't apply to the 1st amendment context. >> i thought we referenced them that last year in the stephens case, and why we didn't decide what applies because we adopted

an approach that looked it over and said this statute is overbroad, and specifically didn't decide whether it could be applied in that case to cross videos. >> well, that's correct, your honor, but i think -- there's no argument here, i don't think, that if there's one game out there that this is constitutional applied even though it's unconstitutional applied -- >> well i understand the question, i think, is there games or minors, maybe a less violent game sold to that 17-year-old, but something like postal ii sold to a 10-year-old might well not violate the first amendment to apply that law to that. the way we approach the issue on hunting videos say it's too broad to apply the law to everything, we strike it down, but we've opened the possibility that a narrowly drawn statute might pass muster. why isn't that a good approach

in >> you could do that. certainly the key thing is you strike down this law because this law is broader than any one game. i would submit to you though there's no way in fact that anybody's going to be able to come back and draw a statute to gets who they they claim because the english level is not susceptible -- >> it's not susceptible. you've been arguing your point and that's fair and you have experts who favor you, and you make that point strongly, and your points a good one and serious one that it's hard to draw this line under traditional 1st amendment standards. but deal with their point for a moment, and i take it their point is there is nos new 1st amendment thing here. there is a category which really are involving things like torturing children, ect.. maybe you don't like to sell them to anybody, you have an x or some special thing, but they exist, and they fit within a

miller-type definition. they are much worse than the simple girly magazine involved there, and they will use traditional 1st amendment tests that is to say there is speech at issue, that speech is being limited. it is being done for a good reason, compelling interest, namely this problem with the x videos and the torture and bleeding it through, and there is no less restrictive alternative that isn't also significantly less effective, i want you to deal with that directly because what you've been doing for the most part is saying we'd have to be in some total new area, ect., but their argument is you don't have to be in a totally new area, ect.. apply traditional 1st amendment standards, and we win. that's their argument, and i'd like to hear what you have to say about that specifically.

>> your honor, they do not suggest there's an existing exception to the 1st amendment applying -- >> this is not an exception. it is the traditional, strict, scrutiny 1st amendment test. >> well, they make a -- >> well, to get you to focus on it i'll say i made the argument. >> there you go. okay. [laughter] >> i think if you apply scrutiny here, it's not close to the showing required under the 1st amendment. first of all, they have not shown any problem, let alone a compelling problem, requiring regulation here. in a world where parents are fully empowered already to make these calls, where crime including violent crimes since the introduction of the game is plummeting in the country, down 50% since the day doom went on the market 15 years ago, in a world where parents are fully aware of what's going on in their homes and aware of the rating system and can use all the other tools # that we have

talked about -- >> why couldn't you make the same arguments with respect to the obscenity? >> because obscenity didn't have strict constituteny applied to it. >> why shouldn't violence be treated the same as obscenity? >> we don't have the same history of it or pedigree of that exception, and as i was suggesting earlier, there's a fundamental difference in the facts. ginsberg works because we take everything explicit and say over here it's not appropriate for minors. violence would require you to draw a much different line between acceptable protective vims and unacceptable unprotected violence for minors, and given the lack of historical pedigree and the nature of what you're trying to do -- >> wells courts struggling for years and year, with obscenity

and we have the miller standards and the state has said this gives us a cat goir that we can -- category to work with reference to violence. >> you take out explicit sex and nudity, what do you have left? you have a structure with no apparent meaning. there's no way to know how a court would apply a standard like deviant viements, morbid violence, let alone decide which video games have a redeeming social, political, artistic value. the value of a video game is completely in the eye of the beholder. some say they are beautiful works of artistic creation. >> you can make that art with reference to obscenity sen ?i >> except that we know, we all know at least with respect to ginsberg rmt obscenity is a difficult line, i acknowledge. ginsberg works well because if it has sex in it, naked people

having sex in it and it's designed to be appealing to people's interests, you don't give it to minors, and you don't have a lot of cases out there about that. >> when you started ginsberg with something prescribable with regard to adults, and you know there is obscenity proscribed even to adults, where as in this case, i don't know there's such a thing as morbid violence which could be eliminated from ordinary movies. >> i think a little history is helpful here. this court has twice dealt with lawings attempting to regulate violent works in the past. one is winters versus new york with law applying to magazines and books, and the other was in 1960s the ginsberg came down and the city of dallas had an ordnance with a commission to review each movie -- >> let's be clear about your argument. your argument is that there is

nothing that a state can do to limit minors access to the most violent sadistic graphic video game that can be developed. that's your argument. >> my position -- >> is it or isn't it? >> it could be applied and given the fact and record and given the fact is the problem is well-controlled and parents are empowered and there's alternatives out there gives basis to scrutiny satisfied. >> just to be clear your answer is at this point there's nothing the state can do? >> because there's no problem to be solved. the answer is yes, your honor. >> there's nothing -- >> there's plenty of proof children go into stores and buy the games despite the voluntary rating system, the retailer restraint by some, there's still proof out there, and a lot of it

that kids are buying the games, and there's proof that some parents as well-intentioned as they may or may not be, do not supervise that. starting from the proposition there is a problem, it's a compelling state need, why are you arguing that there is no solution that the state could news to address that problem? >> the existing solutions are perfectly capable of allowing this problem to be addressed aseeming it is a problem. >> it's 20% of sales going to kids. >> that's when they send out someone who is 16 to test the system. there's no record at all that kids are secretly buying the games, bringing them into the home and playing it without their parents knowing. there's no evidence of that at all. >> could you have a law that says the state has to put, the

dealers have to put the violent video games in a particular area of the video store? >> there's -- >> that is not, and you know, minors are not allowed in that area? >> well, what you're saying is u're going .. the ability of minors to buy them. >> yeah. >> i don't know how that differs from the current law, your honor. >> your answer to the first question of justice and chief justice was yes, that you are saying there's nothing they can do, so now am i right about that or am i not right? >> yes. >> i am right. >> okay, they can't say for example all the highest rated videos have to be on the top shelf out of reach of children. can they do that? >> i think that's -- >> what about cigarettes? >> cigarettes are not speech, your honor. >> i know that cigarettes are not speech, mr. smith. [laughter] cigarettes are something we determined are harmful to

children. the question is you say the record doesn't support the idea that these video games are harmful to children. some of us conclude that it does. >> well, the record doesn't support it. the record says that if you take the studies at face value that are not more harmful than watching cartoons. that's what the record shows. >> on that score, mr. smith, there is a study by the fcc and the question is whether violence can be restricted during the hours when most children are awake just the way pornography is. i don't remember what are the hours, something like from 10 in the evening or -- i don't know, but didn't the fcc say, yeah, we could do the same

thing for violence that we're doing for sex, except we don't think we ought to do it, but congress should do it. >> they spent several years coming up with a definition to allow anybody to figure out what violent tv shows have to be put into the adult category and which don't. they punted and said we have no idea how to do that. congress asked us to do it, and we can't, they gave it back to congress to get a definition. this is 5 difficult task to use language to differentiate levels of violence in a matter to some way tell people what the rules of the game are. even if you think there's a problem to solve, you need to think carefully whether or not you authorize the creation of a new rule authorizing regulation in the area when no one knows the scope of it. >> you say there's no problem because 16-year-olds in california never have money available to buy a video game and because they never have tvs in their room and their parents are always home watching what

they do with their video games and parents and the video games have features that allow parents to block access, to block the playing of violent video games which can't be overcome by a computer savvy, california 16-year-old. that's why there's no problem? >> what we're going to do is judge the law based on what 16 and 17-year-olds are getting and whether that would be harmful to them. i think the problem there is the line between 16, 17, and 18 is so fine you're not able to identify any real category of games that fits into that cat goir, and it's important, by the way, to note that california hasn't told us whether we should judge, 5-year-old, 10-year-olds, 17-year-old, if it's 5, that's overrestrictive. if it's 17-year-olds it doesn't restrict anything. nobody can convince a jury that this is an 18-year-old game, not a 17-year-old. we draw that line in the death

penalty, don't we? with you're over 18, you can be sentenced. we do it for drinking and driving. >> here's it's for expression what age they correspond to. you can't cut it that finely and say this is an 18 game and this is a 17 game. i don't think that works. if that's the test, the test justice breyer suggested it ought to be, then the statute restricts nothing. if the test is 5-year-olds -- >> maybe it's restricting torture, and if that what it restricted, why is that terrible? they expreemented with other things, maybe you could limit it to that. >> i think it's telling, your honor. justice scalia in manufacturing a game you have to know the rules in advance. subject to hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties just for a game. >> you have your rules, so why

wouldn't the first step be to follow your rules, your rules, the x things are limited to people who are over 18, we'll see if we get prosecutorred for a different one, and you might never. >> our rules don't help you at all. they say the only restricting a smaller seb set of n rated games which are appropriate for 17 -year-olds. these rates conflict with the ratings on the packages used by parents every day to make these judgments, so it's actually interferes. the prospect interferes with the information already on the packaging. >> thank you, mr. smith. you have four minutes, mr. morszini. >> new games cost $60, but parents regulate and minors can't afford them and can access

them. i wanted to draw out the point that california's law really is not an ordnance directed to a plot of a game. it's directed to games with essentially no plot, no artistic value. this is the helpful nature of the miller standard. it's going after the nature of the game where the child -- >> if it has a plot, it has artistic value? is that the test for artistic value, anything with a plot? >> it's a factor to consider. >> well, one factor to be considered, sure, but you're not telling us that so long as there's a plot, it's okay? >> no, your honor. a single quotation from voltaire is not going to make that work nonobscene. >> can't have artistic videos

that include maiming and cutting off heads, so long as it's artistic in >> if the level of the violence just as an obscenity causes the game as a whole to lack the artistic -- it's a balance like sexual material. that's why violence and sex -- >> forwhom? a 5-year-old would appreciate is great art, is that the test in >> again, those under 18 years old. >> you think mortal combat is prohibited by this statute? >> i believe it's a candidate, your honor, but i haven't played the game and been exposed to it sufficiently to judge for myself. >> it's a candidate means yes a reasonable jury could find that mortal combat, an icon game that pass the clerks who work for us spend time in our -- [laughter] >> i don't know what she's

talking about. [laughter] just by candidate i meant the video game industry should look at it, a long look at it. now, i don't know off the top of my head. i'm willing to state here in open court that the video game would be covered by this act. i'm guessing games in the brief like mad world is covered by the act. i think the video game -- >> would a video game that portrayed a voluntary as opposed to a human being being maimed and tortured, is that governed by the act in >> no, the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being. >> so, is the video producer says this is not a human being, it's an computer simulate the person, then that doesn't -- all they have to do is put a little harder feature on the creature and sell the video game? >> under the act, yes.

california's concern -- i think this is one of the reasons that sex and violence are similar. these are base physical acts we're talking about, justice. limiting, narrowing our law here in california, there in california, to violent depictions against human beings -- >> so what happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off, and immediately after it happens, they spring back to life, and they continue their battle? is that covered by your act? they happened to be maimed and killed forever, this is just temporarily. >> i would think so. the intent of the law is to limit those minor's access -- >> you think so? isn't that feedback for justice scalia's question? >> well, your honor, this is a facial challenge. this statute is not been applied or been construed by a state or federal court below, but -- >> thank you, counsel.

the case . >> coming up next, today's conference of the world affairs councils. it begins at deputy secretary of state, james steinberg. >> is a voluntary bible reading

statue. there's nothing voluntary about a bible reading

>> today, the world affairs councils of america held their annual conference in washington d.c. we're going to show you the day's proceedings in their entirety, including discussions about the future of u.s. foreign policy and how environmental concerns affect foreign relations. we begin with deputy secretary of state, james steinberg. [applause] the >> we have what i think is a great day today. it's going to live up to the standard we set yesterday. were very, very pleased with keynote speakers and also as we did yesterday a number of excellent, excellent panels. our first speaker today the deputy secretary of state, jim steinberg. and you all have his biography in the booklet that we passed out. but i just want to highlight this role of deputy secretary of state, huge responsibility for the conduct of the foreign relations of the united dates of america. before that, jim was the dean of

the lbj school, university of texas, austin, service and our government. he and i had the good fortune to serve together when he was deputy national security adviser of the united states and showed his commitment to american values and american principles and american operations by helping us get through the very difficult challenges in the balkans. it was jim's commitment to this set of u.s. interest. were so pleased it's back now serving again in the united states of america and the state department. we thank you for your service and we offer you the floor. i give you welcome to the world affairs council of america. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. thank you for having me here. it's a personal privilege and pleasure to be introduced by marc grossman, the great public service of our time.

we've had to work together through two periods during the clinton administration but when i served at the state department undersecretary christopher when i moved over to the white house and mark might play the deputy has an important job. the under-secretary has a really important job. a real reflection of the best in our foreign service, which i think somewhat underappreciated treasure of our national capacity. as we work together now, with secretary clinton on what we call our quadrennial diplomacy and development review. the appreciation that we have gained for the role better career services supply i think has only grown as we begin to think about the capacity of the united states needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. i want to salute and his colleagues in the fourth or fifth. i'm especially pleased to be here with you. i was telling lauren over the course of my career which is

included campaigns i spoke to do half of the council of in the world. i remember one of my earliest outings to ottumwa, iowa during the 1980 presidential campaign. but it really is a reflection of the faculty have important national organizations, but the discussion around our country on key areas of foreign policy is a grassroots organizations of citizenry in these debates and it allows the people to be well-informed and focus on the issues that may be a little bit not obvious in your day-to-day lives, but affect the day-to-day life is to play such an important service and that's why it's such a privilege for me to be here with you. i think it's especially important right now. you know, i've gotten a lot of questions in the last 48 hours about the recent elections and its impact on foreign policy. i'm convinced we have a strong bipartisan basis for the conduct of foreign policy in this

country and american leadership. under the secretary and the president tonight everybody else looks forward to working with the new congress to stay in that bipartisanship. precisely because frankly we didn't have that much discussion about foreign policy during the campaign. the problem worked out the political season we continue with vigorous and acacia beta versus ray. i thank you for the role that you you play in that. i think it's important to use this opportunity to reflect on some of the core challenges that were facing. this morning and going to focus on east asia because the president and secretary both are deeply engaged right now that issue. but i want to begin with a few broader observations. i know most of you to read, it's kind of -- some people read "sports illustrated" and others read foreign affairs. as the secretary has an article and she begins with an observation. she said today's world is a crucible of challenge, testing

american leadership. although problems from violent extremism to worldwide recession to climate change to poverty two-man collective solutions evenness power in the world becomes more diffuse. they require effective international cooperation even if that becomes harder to achieve. and they cannot be solved unless the nation is willing to accept the responsibility of mobilizing action in the united states as that nation. and i think it's particularly important to reflect about the world in which we live in the changes have taken place in recent years and nothing illustrates that more vividly than the recent very troubling and scary incident we have with these two package bombs coming out of yemen. because they illustrate the deep conundrum of our times, which is on one hand we have benefited enormously from the progress of globalization and the interdependence that comes with it, the opportunities for economic growth for increasing exchange among people and sharing ideas and experiences of overcoming differences in isolation that those forces

bring, but also the very forces that bring us closer together also facilitate the forces we try to undo in damage to structures in way of life in which we live. and there's just nothing that illustrates that more vividly than the continued attacks on our transportation system and and the fact we use this for human exchange for increasingly interconnected globalized economy and it really illustrates his eyesight the dilemmas of our time, which our faith are increasingly tie together and therefore we need common action to try to address these problems. but at the same time, although one nation alone can solve these problems, without leadership would impossible to galvanize the kind of response we need to make the changes of our time. the changes are not only focused on issues like terrorism and non-proliferation, but also the new challenges like climate

change and global pandemic disease and piracy, all of which require increased level of common activity. and this is something i think we need to focus our efforts on how to regenerate a capacity in the international system to be able to meet these challenges? and in our own efforts, we identified three core elements of a strategy going ord about how to mobilize that says of common or collective action. first, beginning with our traditional alliances and partners from this hemisphere where we are deep in our ties with canada and mexico and myself just came back from a visit to mexico and were despite the very serious challenges mexico faces in our common effort to deal with the problems of transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking are increased and deepen ties give us a sense we will and are determined to deal with these challenges together. tour partnerships with europe, which although we hear less

about transatlantic relations is precisely because they're in such good form and because we have such a steep bond that allow us to work together not only on challenges in our area in the transatlantic area, but beyond as illustrated by our common efforts on the global economic crisis on issues like the iranian program with the united states and europe are cooperating ever more closely to do with the serious challenge. we will see this on display this next month when nato holds a summit in lisbon follows in the same city by the u.s. e.u. summit where we will reaffirm the centrality of our transatlantic alliance for the 21st century with the new strategic concept in a new way forward that will allow us to deal with the challenges of a 20% return nato and the u.s. e.u., but also with our traditional allies in east asia cannot come back to that. so that's the core of the

strategy. but it's just a stepping off point because as we'll recognize any recognize very well that in addition to the traditional allies there are new powers arising around the world, which offer enormous opportunities in the united states to develop the relationships and partnerships to meet these common challenges. and we have to develop the kinds of relationships with these emerging powers that will allow us to ensure that their role in the system is what strengthens our capacity, rather than weakens the ability what we believe is largely shared challenges. and these of course are the emerging powers ranging from india and china to russia's new rule, to brazil, south africa, indonesia and so many others. and beyond these and nationstates are quite critical to the core of our international systems, we need to go beyond these relationships with traditional allies and emerging powers to develop international structures of cooperation, multilateral cooperation we need

to bring people together to do with this common challenges both on the regional and global levels by strengthening regional institutions, strengthening u.n. and other global institutions, the world bank, imf and others, will increase our capacity to deal with the challenges of our time. as a fact, nowhere is the set of challenges for office and in east asia where we have a mix of these three elements very much in play. traditional allies, which empowers the new efforts to develop multilateral cooperation. and over the coming days, over the past several days, these forces and the strategy will be very much on display. as we gather here today, secretary clinton is wrapping up her sixth trip to asia less than two years as secretary of state. you may recall her very first term as secretary of state was to asia. on this trip she's visited vietnam, cambodia, malaysia,,

nick eiland, and even a brief stop in china. and in a very short period of time, the president will be on its way to india beginning a trip to india, indonesia, japan and korea, which reflects again his commitment to the administration strong commitment to building ties in this region. and just as a final footnote, i too am leaving on monday to represent the united states and the aipac ministerial in japan this coming week. so we are very focused on us, not to see if the regions of the world are not sustained important to us, but there's no doubt that the forces that work in our world today makes east asia critical to our own long-term security and prosperity. the economic increase their focus on capacity to meet china just like non-proliferation and terrorism, disease and climate change on make asia a critical set of challenges for us and opportunities i think are really quite enormous they are if we

sustain our engagement and show leadership in working with the countries of the region and again here we can go through the three core elements of our strategy. first our traditional allies. our relationship with japan i think is really quite a remarkable one that we have seen and i think it's important to reflect back on what is happening to 60 years years of our alliance or even further back from the end of world war ii in the transformation of japan to a modern democratic open society which is partnering with the united states on economic, political, social and transnational security issues. we are working very hard to make sure that alliance remains vibrant and relevant to the 21st century into our common efforts to redefine the ways in which we worked together on the security front, the ways we work together and global institutions. i'm confident the relationship will remain vibrant and a cornerstone of our engagement in east asia.

we've also seen i think in recent years a tremendous deepening of our relationship with republic of korea, and other remarkable story. and you think about what the situation was in south korea in 1960 the level of poverty and political opportunity in that situation. now we see a country which is not only a vibrant democracy and one of the most successful economies without having joined the ranks of the g20, hosting the g20 summit, but also playing a role in the region and globally will be hosting the second nuclear security summit. is partnering with us in afghanistan. it's playing a critical role in so many issues around the world. and we're enormously appreciative of the leadership of the bach and his administration that has moving from a country that was a consumer security to ones helping to provide security to others. in australia, another steadfast partner for sustained alliance

partnerships were celebrating the 60th anniversary of that alliance. there's no more reliable partner for the united states or country we appreciate more for its own contributions to security and its own region and also globally. again in afghanistan and around the world. we worked together in a relationship of confidence, shared values and interests, which is really unparalleled. we also have new partners in the region, increased importance and attend a southeast asia, which includes two of our traditional treaty allies, thailand and the philippines, which remain strong partners of the united states, but also other both long-term friends and friends of whom were developing a stronger relations like indonesia, malaysia and singapore. all of these relationships will be on display both during the secretary's trip and the president's trip as well.

of course beyond these allies and traditions of partnered relationships, we have the two most significant emerging countries in the world in this region, india and china. and i think it's really significant to take an opportunity to reflect on the role that india is playing both in the region and globally today and the importance we attach to building this bilateral relationship between the united states and india. as many of you know, the first state visit by president had was the president saying and over that time since president obama has been in office, the relationship is only grown closer. india has demonstrated over the last two decades it's ready to be increasingly important, global, economic and political stage, a country experiencing sustained economic growth, where u.s. exports to india have quadrupled in goods over the last seven years and tripled its services during roughly the same period of time.

india it is the second-largest increasing investment in investment in the united states now of our global partners and again critical international partner now with us in the g20. but also, our relationship spans a whole range of activities in the economic political security and the human dimension. i've said in the past that we are entering what i call the third stage of our renewed relationship with india that began with president clinton's historic visit to india in 2000 that took an important step forward in president bush's decision to move forward on nuclear cooperation, civilian nuclear cooperation with india. in our the third stage that puts us into orbit in which we broaden the relationship, go beyond specific issues to a comprehensive partnership reflected in the u.s.-india strategic dialogue and the many issues will be on display during the president's visit including

cooperation on education and technology, agriculture, not only to help build a second green revolution in india, but also to work together to help meet the agriculture and food needs of other countries, particularly in africa. of course enormously strong people, people of the relationship we have with india and is significant that this is the first stop of the presidents trip into east asia. because india is not only obviously a central player in its own region of south asia, but it's very much in east asian country as well participating with us in east asia summit. increasingly engaged with its partners in east asia at the recent meetings between prime minister in japan and prime minister singh so amply illustrate. and for it's not coincidental therefore that we have seen an increase in our security engagement with india. it's not true that for india the united states as a country has

the most military exercises with. we deepened our necessary partnership in many ways and it's something i think contributes broadly to the security of the region as a whole. so we welcome the increasing role in the region and see it as a partner there. of course, the second and obviously but equal important part of our challenge in dealing with neo-systemic powers as are engaged with china as you well know in this past year, china has surpassed japan as the worlds largest economy and surpassed germany as the largest exporter. on almost all global issues, china has an important role to play. ..

while the path getting there wasn't easy china did sign on to the copenhagen treaty which provides a platform to begin to address the question of global climate change, and yet we recognize as we seek this relationship as increased cooperation and the common interest with china, we recognize there will continue to be areas of disagreement especially as china's economic growth is accompanied by increased capacity on its military. and it's important that we find increased revenues of dialogue

to address these challenges. it's with the academics will be on your panel next private security dilemma as countries become more capable there's an inherent risk that will come into conflict, and the only way which we can address the challenges through dialogue. in particular the importance of strengthening military ties between the united states and china. we welcome the fact china has invited secretary gates to come to china to begin to put that on the stronger footing because we do think it's critical to our future. it's important to recognize military to military ties are not a favor the one side gives the other or a bargaining chip and allows both sides to prevent miscalculation and to understand our common objectives and achievements particularly on sensitive issues like the south china sea. as well as the need to address issues beyond the military dimension and increased ability to talk to different

perspectives and differences on the human rights and the law and i'm happy to be able to welcome the chinese delegation for our human rights dialogue year in washington a few months past and it's important that we continue to be able to address our differences and whether it is about the condition of political dissidents or above question of openness and opportunities for freedom of expression and religion and chinese society. so these are big challenges. how do we sustain our traditional relationships with our allies to 21st century relationships and also deal with these new e emerging powers. as i said, perhaps more than any other part of the world the nation's state does still remain the core of the center of activity and the way in which we need to build efforts to meet these challenges. but that alone i think is going to be insufficient and why we have focused on this third element of our strategy which is

building new institutions and structures of multilateral cooperation to enhance cooperation to allow us to work more effectively together. and east asia presents a challenge in that respect because historical east asia lacked behind other parts of the world in building the kind of institutions. there's been a reluctance to move towards more formal institutions that can tackle the hard problems of our time. but i think we are seeing now and have seen over the past decade or so increase realization we do need to work hard to build these structures to complement the bilateral relationships, and if you look over the past year or two you can see both through our own decision to join the treaty of cooperation to secretary quentin's participation and to the regional forums since became secretary. secretary gates recent participation in the defense ministers meeting and now most recently secretary clinton's

visit to hanoi which he participated for the first time in the asian summit is a privilege to our expectation the president will join next year in this important emerging institution. as well as the continued commitment to a pack both of this year and japan where i will participate at the ministerial level and the president will join a few days after. and the anticipation as we move from the japanese share of a pact to next year which we will host in hawaii an opportunity to demonstrate the apec can be a cutting edge instrument to sustain and deepen economic cooperation and increased trade and investment and particularly the ability to deal with the new challenges like dealing with regulatory standards and promoting green technologies and training investment technologies. these all represent important opportunities for us to deal with common challenges. but we also see it in more flux of aid flexible a initiatives

that began with partners in southeast asia to address some of these environmental and economic challenges of the countries united by the river valley. to cover efforts to work together through the dialogue, north korean problem and others are all examples of how we are trying to find new strategies and multilateral operation in east asia. now of course all this is quinn to come out remains uncertain that the one thing we do know was the prospects for peaceful and stable east asia that benefits all the people within east asia and across the pacific depends on our engagement there and that's why we've played such a high priority on it and we look forward to building a constructive relations with all the countries in the region, and i think while the engagement doesn't guarantee success in the absence of that we would have little chance of achieving the goals so important for all of our people through the united states as well as partners in the region. something you for listening to me today, and i look forward to your comments and questions.

[applause] >> go ahead, please. >> i am dying and jacobsen from jacksonville florida. thank you for your comment. the underwriting team has been our nation can't be strong if our economy is not strong, and this morning we attended a breakfast for information technology and that is -- at the breakfast we basically heard that while the united states a very good at negotiating trade agreements we might not be so good at enforcing those agreements. the result of which is that china and korea and vietnam and a variety of other countries, number one insists that we build manufacturing facilities in order to have access to the

markets, which is not accept the free trade, and that more importantly our technology is either being reverse engineered or outright stolen. and we don't seem to have a mechanism to enforce that because we bring suit in their courts and then of course we'd lose what is now a level playing field. so my question is number one is that true from your perspective, and if it is true, what do we do about it? because it dramatically affects our economic security and national security. >> [inaudible] i don't want to underestimate the challenges of enforcing trade agreements particularly the multilateral trade agreements plan wouldn't share that basic assessment. i think that on the contrary we are seeing is one, and increased emphasis on the state's trade and recognition by many countries to in the past have perhaps been on the

international trade system that exactly in the realm of long-term interest to cacique strengthening of the rule of law as the mover of the value chain and that the need to understand that it's in their interest to protect intellectual property that they need to observe the commitments. we are very determined to vigorously to enforce our trade laws and the partners that have made in the wto and you will not noticed in recent years we all know the number of cases involving the countries including china and we will vigorously in and force them. that is for the president. he's made expansion of u.s. exports a parity for us and we recognize that we are confident that we can compete the playing field level and that rules are observed and we will take every advantage of the rights we have both under the bilateral agreements and multilateral agreements that we are also a think engaged in addition to the kind of rules based enforcement on sustained engagement with our partner countries about why

their own strengthening of their own laws and commitments and own enforcement will be critical to their own future, and i believe i we will see progress in the area. we see this in our dialogue with china, india, others. we have to be vigilant, but i think that in the long run there is increased recognition that countries will nabil to assist in their own economic growth through piracy or means to let me get other countries less willing to deal with it so we are very alert and attentive and develop resources to it but i think this is something that is a losing proposition for us and we have a bitter argument when it comes to those and i believe through our engagement we will continue to make progress. >> [inaudible] i will shout. our mayor this summer hosted the

americas now mayor governor. our state is interested with a lot in america and i notice you didn't speak to latin america in your talk and i wonder if you could address that part of the world and the upper left behind continent, africa. >> i've got to say that it's every time you give a speech if you pick one thing to talk about you get accused of neglecting another. [laughter] i plead guilty but i just came back from latin america. my second trip to columbia, and mexico, and so why am not apologetic in this instance i think we have a treaty to engagement with latin america. the boy didn't participate in the meeting that you've described, was announced in for a meeting afterwards with a number of the heads of state in latin america including the president who is an old friend and heard about the meeting that you described. this is enormously important for the united states. again, if you think about like i mentioned the first trip to asia but the first meeting that the

president had with any head of state the recent meeting with president calderon even before the inauguration, president obama's an alteration and we had very sustaining high little engagement with mexico. the president participated in the summit of the americas just after taking the presidency secretary twice participated and we had extensive travel to the region, we had a number of key leaders in the region in the united states. the president just met with the newly elected president of columbia in new york, during the general assembly and is just in colombia for my second visit and the president had a chance to talk with the newly elected president of brazil just a few days ago so we had enormous opportunities and a real transfer of its environment in latin america and what is significant about that is we believe there is an opportunity in this region not only to work together on common challenges but to learn from each other that the -- it's not just for a

question of the united states telling others what to do with the recognition we are dealing with common problems and how we deal with creating economic opportunity and social inclusion throughout the hemisphere so our tough way to prosperity program for disabled is the way the we share ideas about creating a more economic opportunity, how we learn from programs like brazil is also the opportunity program in mexico to create jobs and economic opportunity for those less often and how we deal with the criminal organizations and drugs and how we create an opportunity to deal with energy challenges in the hemisphere particularly in the area of renewable energy where there is tremendous capacity in the hemisphere to show that we can charge in the past in that dimension. and what is encouraging about it is that there is a tremendous convergence of interest in the hemisphere. one of the reasons you don't see much in the headlines is because

we don't have enormous clashes. we have differences with a few of the leaders in the region but there isn't a deep debate in this region at the center of the of democracy about the need to have our economies be open and grow. we have opportunities to build and strengthen those partnerships put on the bilateral and regional level but i am optimistic from my own engagement in the sense we have strong partners but we are working together to deal with bilateral and we are also working together on the global stage and in fact the countries like mexico and brazil and argentina participate in the global the institutions like the key 20, the fact mexico will be hosting the next round of the parties on climate change in cancun, the participation of mexico most recently and the security council and columbia are all examples of deep in nature that we have with this hemisphere, and so we do understand the importance and it

is something that is resident with the people of this country to understand the need to have political, social and economic relations throughout this hemisphere. >> [inaudible] first of all thank you for a very impressive overview. [inaudible] in the course of yesterday we had a reminder from one of the speakers the strategy of making choices and in the course of yesterday there were some areas of choice either express or heavily in plight. the first was a question brimmer put to tony blair talking about global economic governance in concert with countries with different values and we china and my question is which of our values what we have to compromise or manage in order to have a peaceful orderly economic

governance and the flip side might be one of our economic interests might we be a lot of risk for the sake of our values. a second area has to do it security. we heard a lot of new areas becoming security concerns. one expression said some of us are going to have to absorb so there is a question of priorities and choices. which of those areas would actually devote resources to and which might we have to absorb. now i ask these two questions in light of to perspectives. i was a foreign service officer for a number of years and to be perfectly honest wonder our government's institutional ability to analyze questions of that nature, which means because of that i suspect, too and i'm quoting somebody, i forget to and i'm probably getting it from the expression was the u.s. strategy is a list of desirable objectives without priority 6%

with no accounting for cost. knowing your position especially the u.s. strategy pronouncements are a matter of spreading the good news, but i wonder if it is time to start taking out some very difficult public expressions. thank you. >> those are obviously important questions and once i take seriously as you may know i have had the honor of serving as the planning at state department during the clinton administration during the first term and as you look up every morning you look a bit see the pictures of henry allen and so many other distinguished thinkers of the time who are challenged to answer the request of you just raised. i think you raised to different kinds of questions the because i think the issue about the role of the values and our policies are very different than the real tradeoffs of resources which are resources that are finite dividing could president as an articulate on the question about how we pursue the issue of values and the fact it's too

easy and too good to sort of cds as a trade-off. both in his cairo speech and that the recent general assembly the president made clear that we have a very strong interest in promoting our values because it is not only helps our achievable long-term interest but it is also we are as a people and we wouldn't be able to sustain an american foreign policy that wasn't consistent with our values. you all are very close with us because you know this from the ordinary americans the this is simply not sustainable, that i sense a kind of 19th century policy wouldn't be sustained in this country and we have to have the support of the american people, so i don't think any of us feel it's a question of treating the to off but rather be smart about how we pursue them and how do we do this in ways that advances our values and doesn't undermine the interesting that the president articulated strategy that recognizes we need first full to remain consistent to the values and our own behavior so that we can be an upset win what we advocate for others is borne out in how we act abroad and from

the first day of his administration when he signed the order of torture and committing to close guantanamo those four statements that we made about our values. as we speak, like a week and a number of others at geneva at the human rights council are undergoing what is called the universal periodic review in which we are talking about our own human rights record before others because we recognize if we want to be credible in dealing with the human rights violations in burma, china, north korea and elsewhere, that we have to be prepared to have others criticize us and get answers back in terms of what we think. and if you look at a sustained basis nobody believes you can just get countries to change their ways on important issues of freedom of expression and religion and the like. but we have to stay at it and have a sustained you and support those who are fighting for them and we have to provide assistance in smart ways to pursue it. so why don't believe that these

are profound leedy tradeoffs from a strategy point of view. our resources was that is a tradeoff that we have obligations and the first question observed we have an obligation to make sure our economy is strong so we will have to do our part in the national security community to do with challenges of budget deficit and the like which means we can't do everything we want to do. and one of the reasons we've undertaken this quadrennial development and diplomacy review is to be smarter about our own ability to meet these long-term strategic decisions. the pentagon is pretty good at these things. it's there could er, the quadrennial defense review, is a long term work out of the capabilities and trade-offs that the to be made to be ready not just for today's fight but for ten and 20 years time and similarly we need the capacity in the state department to do that kind of planning and make those choices, and i am confident after we complete this and i anticipate the secretary will be announcing the outcome of this in a month or two's

time, then you will see a very clear attempt to address these priorities and what are the things we most need to be able to do to meet the challenge of the 21st century. i'm sorry i have to do but think you all for your attention and for the work and you're doing. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> did morning. it is my pleasure to introduce the next panel claim the director of a small new organization of affairs council on reno nevada at the international center and we are -- this is a very interesting panel, and exciting to talk about america in a new world

order. you have complete biographies on all of the panelists. so i'm just going to hit the highlights. i would also like to thank the foundation for their interest in this particular topic. our moderator this morning is david rothkopf, visiting scholar at the carnegie endowment for international peace where he has written running the world, the inside story of the national security council and the architect of american power and superclass, the global power elite and the world. our first speaker is dr. cory at the hoover institution and this is a professor of international security, the united states military academy. next we have dr. stuart patrick till, senior fellow and tutor of the program on international institutions and global governance at the council on foreign relations. and finally senior research

fellow with the new american foundation and the author of the second world, and high years and influence in the new global order. please help me welcome our panel. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. we've got a great panel. it's covered virtually every issue that there is in the world today. [laughter] but fortunately for all of you, we have in sight and solutions both. some take notes, and by the time we are done, you should be in great shape to go home. [laughter] in any event, we have got great boats and what the plan is we're going to go through a couple of rounds of questions and then open up to you as soon as possible so we can cover what's on your mind as early as possible so please, think about what you want to ask and get involved as early as you possibly can.

there's two parts to the title. one is new rules in the system. the other is america's's role within the context of the world and i am going to be literal minded and take it in just that way. naturally the first question that comes to the mind of this particular skeptic is are there new rules? is the inouye system? so, why don't you start us, cory? >> i do think there is -- i do think the rules are changing in an important way because of the way that globalization is affecting state power, and i think a lot of people overstate the change. the states still have the ability to set boundaries about immigration, capital flow, important things that affect the shape of society, so i do think the rules are new but they are

not as much as the general discourse. >> are you nodding because you agree? >> at the outset of the old, administration -- >> [inaudible] sprigg there are no new rules. as the mcerlane injected a little bit of difference here. you know, they're has been some changes over the past two years. partly as a result of the global financial crisis and as a result of the sense that after a period where the united states did not appear to be interested multilateral cooperation that there is an indication to the engagement. we have seen -- we have seen a number of changes in the role of government system in particular, creations of the new regulatory mechanisms, etc., changes in the nature of the international monetary fund and the balance of power in the international financial institutions.

however i would agree by and large and fundamental reform a lot of people expected at the outset of the obama administration when people thought of the new lens and a president from the creation moment. we haven't really seen that and i think there are a number of different reasons and one of them is that when you have an existing order institution to sort of rejigger the sort of sense of influence or the basic ground rules are. i do think and hopefully we will be able to come to this that one of the big challenges for the united states going forward is to try to integrate rising powers, particularly china, but also countries like india and brazil, which sometimes come to some of these global issues with a very different mind-set whether we are talking about trade, nuclear nonproliferation our human rights, and so i think it is going to be one of the challenges we face going forward. islamic what we follow on these questions before i go -- if you

look at the way of the land right now -- this is way too hot. i can fix that. [laughter] on any not be that technical, but even a jewish boy from new jersey can fix a microphone. in any even, if you look at the lake of land, we are not in the bipolar world of the cold war. we are not in the unipolar world of the maybe 50 or 20 years after. we are into something new. smaltite polar. we are not in the world of the g-7. we are moving into the world of the g20, at least we are not in the world where the center of intellectual economic gravity is over the atlantic it's now over the pacific.

we are in a world in which nuclear capability is spreading to new places. we are in the world in which the asymmetric conflict its leveraged. siloed things are different and we are always between the inertia and what's new. are we actually just -- it's not going to be due to the rules but we are on the verge of new rules in the system. dewey kinkead there are major changes that are going to stand in contrast to what we've seen? i will just go back to you guys because i know that you think it's all actually very old rules. i will get to that in one second. >> i agree with your judgment it's messy and difficult to see the pattern and i also agree on stuart's point that the rules are breaking down to some extent. a predictability has the state introduction but again, i don't mean to be a one trick pony but it does seem to me that the

rules are always overstated. if you look at the management of the nato alliance presumably the place where american hegemony was most predominant, this was always difficult. there was always a struggle. in the european agreement with the soviets and 1970i think it's difficult. we overstate a golden age in which rules govern the things and things worked predictably and easily. >> what is difficult this we have inherited the international institutions created for different order and aren't particularly adept at solving the major problems that we find today. so that we have nato but i think part of the -- nato is working on its strategic right now and people joe kaput nato is a life.

great sense of humor. but that its -- what is its rationale in the wellhead, and there was some solidarity between the united states and the allies on what nado's role is and that now is up for grabs. of the united nations, one of the interesting conversations the last year has been, was interesting is within the walls of the united nations are we still relevant anymore you remember when george w. bush and to toss into into the united nations and is approved or relevance. what everyone thinks about the way that war unfolded he was trying to suggest its relevance was declining and was interesting is people in sight of the institution are asking those same questions. we live in a much more fluid environment where there are rising powers who are clamoring for a role we want to change some of the of rules of a global trading system pushing the envelope on the issues of currency and the dollar's role in the world and that is going

to come up for grabs. there of a nuclear non-proliferation that is under extreme stress. we need to have minerals the problem is there's so much institutional inertia built into what we have already that it's hard to know where those are going to be coming from. >> you have written a terrific book which looks at the rise of the second world and talks about some fundamental changes that are taking place. you have another book coming out that is going to kick this from another angle. presumably you must be more on the school but from the new rules -- we wouldn't be talking about new rules and new systems and the need for that if we didn't have a new order, therefore it think it is beyond that we are entering a new order some kind or primarily disorder, and the unipolar world is as i would argue is very rapidly shifting towards a multipolar

one and let's go back to what order means. order doesn't mean america on top or somebody else on top. order is an analytical question. what is the distribution of power in the world irrespective of who is -- who sits on top of the hierarchy in this cover it is infected dissipating changing rapidly. that's why we talk about rising power and we can to the multinational corporation, transnational threats. all the diffusion means we're moving towards something that is more unpredictable and more disorderly than what we've had so far. so you can't even talk about a system until you appreciate -- or new system until you appreciate just how quickly the order we think we knew we and think we may even have still is crumbling. and then think about what system might come in the pipeline. the system was in to talking about is a multilateral system the united nations and the is as yet institutions or if you're up to the moment will talk about the g8 for the g20 or even that

doesn't quite capture this new set of powers, new set of players that even the non-state actors are out there so you can't really talk about the g20 system as if it somehow reflects the order. it doesn't take into account the actors or the kind of power. it doesn't even take into account the issues on the agenda and then you get to rule for that system which is to be negotiated in light of all of the new players but a lot of them aren't even on the table. so we're at the very first phase of a very long period of renegotiating where the order lives, who has the power, what kind of system can possibly capture it and what kind of rules the system may have. it's day one and the answer isn't the g20. >> let's follow that up because there have been periods in history where the system change but the rules haven't. and typically what happens in those systems is equilibrium

pummeled conflict 30-year war, a world war i, world war ii these things happen because powers rose up a new came and there was new system for resolving this effectively were providing stability on an ongoing basis. do you think we are in one of those periods? micha think we are very much in one of those periods and that is likened to the middle ages to the volume approximately 1,000 years ago that is a part of history where we in the western world think of every much as the dark ages in europe but it was a time when china, india, the art of the islamic world all flourished and each could call their own shots on the regional level. and that's kind of the world looks like today. we can't really boss each other around as much as we thought, as much as america fought it could because we look to the rise of china and india and power in the middle east and so forth, so i think it's useful. that will then as multipolar or

a polar, and i think that is a much more acute characterization of where we are right now and they are -- it means we don't have a security council which represents those power centers and therefore they all come together and negotiate the differences. things are very much handle ad hoc and according to a cultural principals and local moves, that may not derive from international law. >> and you want to jump in but can i pose a question even before you do? we talk about the june 20, and that is a step forward. we are two years into that and so for the g20 can't really agree to anything meaningful. but treasury ministers, finance ministers said while it's kind of the rodney king approach the world of finance can't we all get along here but that she 20 only deals with economic issues and when you look at the

security structures a lot of those big players were talking about about rising at the chinese, the indians, some of these others, they don't want to play in that game. nato struggled to go out and afghanistan and they don't want to stay there. they want to come back, and europe can't get together in foreign policy. isn't there a particular volleyed in this era in terms of security structures? >> i don't thinks there is a particular way in this area because i think that has always been the case. i think we overestimate the extent to which the united nations were ever all that helpful in managing all of our problems. i think we overestimate the extent to which nato was helpful in managing our problems and if you think of that, president eisenhower and john foster in 1954 talking about the nato idea has run its course for the suez crisis in which we refuse to help to of our allies.

this is a lot dicier and one of the risks of the intellectuals talking about is seeing systemic patterns and thinking institutions affect more than they do seems to me there's a lot more continuity in the conversation and your comments suggest about the medieval model because it seems a stage what has always been true even in the high water mark us systemic cooperation in the post-world war two american age is it's always the role of hard work one government persuading another government what it wants to do on a security, on economics, on trade deals. it's the individual exit to something greater than itself that the system in order doesn't remove the responsibility of individual states working and managing their interest. >> it features a constant tension through history between

the disequilibrium and equilibrium and you never get to absolute on either side. sometimes more equilibrium and disequilibrium. but i want to pose a specific question to you about this. you talk about the rise of emerging powers. we've seen an example of the new rule of emerging powers recently with iran for the brazilians and turks got together and tried to cut a deal and immediately within about an hour and ten minutes undercut by washington was really uncomfortable with plan b, diplomatic avenue that didn't go through washington. it's a sign of a coming series of problems we are going to have for a set of issues we've got to grapple with. >> i think it is. if you look as many of you probably have as the obama national security strategy that was released this spring, one of the main themes in the document is the importance of integrating

the rising powers don't use the phrase responsible stakeholders as the bush administration for china but in effect that's what they're saying. these countries into the tent and therefore they will embrace this western established border that we come to take for granted since 1945. i think the gambit that turkey and brazil need showed very quickly the united states and obama administration other countries have their own ideas about for instance the situations bill would require security council action, what they would be prepared themselves, and i think they were taken by surprise. the administration was clumsy in this regard and how it handled this diplomatically clumsy because they tried more to coopt the two countries but i think that it's in a way to shape things to come. i would disagree a little bit with cory in the sense there are

but today's question the world does risk being a little bit out of balance, more than a little bit out of balance on the security front. i think you've seen great adjustments with respect to moving from the g8 to the g20. you have seen some adjustment in the international financial institution even a couple of weeks ago when correa in terms of readjusting some of the weight within the world bank and the imf, but in the security council i think it is public. not necessarily dangerous in the short or medium term the security council does not reflect the world that exists today but the fact that it does not have india and brazil and arguably japan and germany at the same time is problematic when you think this shortly. i do not think -- >> the secure council doesn't work very well and not having books countries makes it a legitimate leader >> it appears it's it is illegitimate and may at a practical level those countries will not invest in the united nations in terms of actual resource commitments as much as

we would like if they are not inside the body. there is a question particularly with the big emerging developing countries who want the free ride they tend to want a free ride and they say we are developing countries, we are poor, we can't make those contributions by china. with $2 trillion in the bank. but if you talk to the chinese -- this is a constant refrain as you know when you speak to a chinese will on a per capita basis we are still a poor country and using of the same things from india and the brazilians, and at some stage the countries have to decide and i a card-carrying member of the movement and the group of 77, the big developing countries or am i in the inner sanctum ready to pull my own weight. >> that raises an interesting question. whittaker with the multipolar world and a lot of the time there's a bit of an admonition which is come down the united states of america you're planning a big role in this money to balance things up there

is another component we don't hear perhaps as much in the united states which is to grow up the rest of you. the europeans don't pull their weight. the chinese don't pull their weight. the indians don't pull their weight, and to give you a perfect example we have a whole host of issues in the middle east and for the first time ever, china's central issue there is no way to get iran to back off of the plan unless there is pressure from china. china is essential in pakistan and central and central asia and they don't seem to want to help out. they don't seem to want to take a stand on terrorism, they don't want to take a step on a weapons of mass destruction. is that sustainable? and what are the consequences? i know you follow closely the afghanistan. you might want to take that as a particular illustration as the role of the emerging power and where it's going to play out. >> what's ted gup the question of the dog to get stance. they do take a stance, not

taking a stance or laying low is a sense in afghanistan is agree to a simple you can go to the chinese and say can you help us out of afghanistan or pakistan and what does that mean? does that mean they have to sign on to our vision of what it should look like? if they don't it doesn't mean they are not doing something. >> [inaudible] >> and that is the long term goal with the notion of the state is not a plea in a global role because it is in supporting our vision is not six ackley compatible. they are doing a lot of things. china's fish and flexible with the rollout in nuclear proliferation of the region is to say the united states is going to be bogged down in this part of the world for a long time and we will let them extend their energies and gradually withdraw and retreat and then we will able to move and have more influence and that is what is happening. >> patrick mentioned earlier some treaties that have a mind

of their own and to me all of the so-called second countries, middle tier commerce do precisely that. but you see the ambition played out at the regional level. so at the same time you see brazil active in the climate and trade debates and even with respect to diplomacy with iran they are also building a much stronger presence in the region and leadership role in the region building the regional institutions. you see this happening with europe's sophos or to focus on itself it is deepen that the sentiment has grown to have 27 member countries even the african union and china has been working on developing the shanghai cooperation and central asia as well as east asian community arrangements. so when we jumped from the national will to the global level we miss this entire city activities going on there are extremely important and of the regions are becoming self

observed. they want to manage their own relations with their neighbors rather than the media get it from the outside and i think that shows how countries like china and brazil and india can become leaders in their own part of the world then you're going to see them at more constantly stopped right to negotiate these global issues more. [inaudible] -- it seems to me that you underestimate the difficulty of them getting from where they are to the vision of where they would like to be. take china for example. i agree with your description looks to me like what the chinese strategy is to the free ride on the existing system a lot of the united states to expand the systemic energy, to gulf opportunities you can cheating on the sanctions. and that is a terrific near-term approach. it maximizes the prospects. but it's less clear to me that is a successful long-term

approach because if you are not investing in making the world a better place and helping the afghans through their difficulties come eventually the law of gravity a place to china as it goes throughout, and if i were advising the chinese come from and i would have been racing history of the united fruit in honduras and central america because their basic approach to places they are investing looks a lot like american multinational corporations in the 1890's and that didn't work out so politically successfully as we tried to establish our role in the world. i think that is a lot more difficulty as associated with what they are trying to pull off the and we sometimes claim them with. >> i do want to open up to you folks so think about your questions. i'm going to ask one last round of questions here about america and then i'm going to do that. but maybe the chinese are very canning. any country that is the ground for 30 or 40 years or six or 7%

a year and has risen as rapidly as certainly as canny and avoided a lot of pitfalls along the way one of the things they're best at is figuring just how far they can get in the negotiation without giving anything up, so they are done that and one of the ploy is a lot of these countries have been using is it's kind of like the old commercial you remember, lit mikey ebit and they think what the united states be it, take care of solving the problems carrying the weight on security doing these kind of things and that seems like a pretty good strategy because this far united states has stepped up and terrorism is a global problem but we are the ones that took it upon ourselves and i think not entirely successfully managed the effort to go after the. we have gone into some regional issues and we are paying the

price for this which is what is it to $.7 billion a week in afghanistan or whatever it is? we are paying a lot of money to do these and they are free riders. how long can that go on and more importantly and let me turn this to you, stewart, how long can we go on playing the role we've been playing or do we have to figure out a new burden sharing calculations or we're just going to go about perhaps more accurately go more than we already are. >> there's no question that domestic political dynamic and fiscal situation in the united states but said just the grand strategy we pursue in going for what is going to be less grand as one of my colleagues likes to say. >> it's rare in this town, but i think there's obviously a commission that's been set up its going to release its report next month and i want to appoint a commission on how to ensure a

more fiscally sustainable future for the united states. but obviously a lot of the election returns that occurred on tuesday or about restoring some sense of financial balance and i think that some of that -- [inaudible] >> well, i couldn't make out what they were about. it was an element of the tea party movement. but i don't want to exaggerate and reading on what the message was. but the congress we will be facing will be quite attuned to issues of federal spending not least in foreign aid spending and what we call in this town the 150 which is basically the international affairs and people are going to look at that and the defense budget notwithstanding the fact republicans have traditionally been quite proponents of the budget to be looked at. all of that suggests that we are going to be moving north into

necessarily an isolationist or retrenchment mode but there are going to the constraints on with the united states can do. i don't know if you'd call it the vietnam doctrine or the nixon doctrine toward the tail end of the vietnam, nixon started looking around some regional players and allies to pick up more of the burden i think we are going to start to see partnerships with india for instance on how to bring order to the indian ocean and that part of the world trying to look a different regional anchors where we can find them and we are confident that these things we would like to do to try to pick up some of the slack. again, i don't see the isolationism but certainly a major sense among the american public that we've been spending a lot of money over all and we want to meet the since we are investing we might not be doing that at home. >> let's take one specific example from this week and then

go to you guys for questions. the president is doing what people do after they've had a rough few weeks, wrote trips -- road trips. he's been to go to india, japan, and the india relationship is very interesting because we talk about china, india talks about china. india is the counterbalance to china. we share a certain kind of cultural, a space heritage and yet embracing india is a little bit tough because we also increased pakistan and they don't get along so well cities face a conundrum this seems to be illustrative of a whole family of conundrum associated with what we've been talking about and i wonder how you think that is going to play out. >> [inaudible] having to realize falling along with patrick said it's not about the u.s. meeting to find a

regional anchors to carry forward, it's about those countries rising in deciding what they want to do and what will they want to play, and hopefully there is some synergy there but we are not able to compel them as much. during the part of the united states viewed india as an important counterbalance to china emerging in the region, india really wasn't looking at china in that way. they were trying to boost trade and having all of these summits they would declare a multipolar world and china and india together are going to assure in that era so it's not exactly the message america wanted to hear. now things have changed a little bit and india once to be much more of a naval power in the indian ocean. that is something they see much more of their role so they didn't play along in terms of the simple enough the u.s. and india and japan and australia

will balance china. hasn't worked out that way. india is seeing itself much more, again, having this central presence, overseeing the growing density of commerce and trade which in the middle east and the far east and that is the role that is much more appropriate. if the united states wants to be a part of india playing that role, india welcomes that help but it's not the way i think you were sort of phrasing it witches' america would like to see stability and therefore let us sponsor india. india sees itself much more centrally and that picture and then you could play that to every other such rising power in the world. it's not united states wants to help brazil and become -- no, brazil sees itself as the america of south america. >> think india has made itself in those terms for a long period

of time. it's not the sun rising at noon. >> where detention comes as what should the agenda be? what should their priorities the? should they sign on to the iaea sanctions or not? should they stop exporting petroleum to iran if they don't see it in their interest. >> the point is the countries will always do themselves but we. there is attention to talk about in the opportunity because the opportunity is the united states is willing to go along with that then they have been in the past. but it's different in each case and one of the mistakes we can make is to say the bricks be his model with ackley because they're very different not in terms of their own, india doesn't go along so well with anybody in its neighborhood. they frankly view their neighborhood as a ghetto to plan against the united states. russia has a different set of views, china has a whole set of different views so all of these

countries pulling in different directions. are you standing because you have lower back trouble or because you put a question? [laughter] >> just waiting for the question. i'm from peoria, illinois. so that puts things in reference [inaudible] [laughter] golan, go on. you hate the heartland of america [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm just conscious of where i stand at the moment. at any rate, if i could talk about [inaudible] number one, of rules, rules,

voyles -- the mic. okay. so in a hearing of rules, rules, rules -- [inaudible] [laughter] institutional inertia. yesterday we heard a great deal about strategies for killing people who don't like us and we've heard just a little bit about possibly ever behavior might have something to do with why they don't like us. is there a possibility to embrace a multipolar world, stop throwing our weight around, stop demanding the rules to try to keep the u.s. in the lead and on top and controlling things, will we be capable of operating in the multipolar world which is on the ground and we are not friendly successful enough to

change it. >> you talked a little bit about a different take on that which is we don't get to set the rules. maybe sometimes rules preserve the interest of others. following up on the direction. >> it is not something that you can allow and refer to committees and when we try to set global rules in terms of those international institutions they suffer from a great deal of inertia, and even as we may be able to assist in leadership for certain institutions there is new institutions coming up where we are not necessarily the leader so i mentioned earlier the shanghai cooperation the east asian community, and to of the linkages across the regional groupings we don't really have rolled into one of the under analyze aspects of diplomacy today's looking a the interregional relations with latin america and the arab

countries have a summit it's when china and african countries have a summit, it's when you're up and asia have a summit and there are tons of deals and agreements that go on and they make their own rules on how they are going to deal with each other and we wouldn't call it a global, it's not the world trade organization with the imf but it's every bit important because they are from the bottom-up rewriting some of these bottles on a regional level. >> can either one of you address it. but i sort of to believe we are at that present 2.0 moment because with to kind of institutions in this world dysfunctional ones were -- or within the context of those institutions and the overlap a lot, we've got within the context we ought to have to reinvent them or create new ones and the security council, the u.n. needs it, the wto, the imf

needs at. there is no climate agreement. you know, the npt, we need and pt-and so forth. so doesn't that create a great moment of opportunity to refashion a set of rules? >> i think so. to pick up on the question i have some sympathy with the notion it simply shouldn't be the u.s. throwing its weight around, etc.. but on the issue of the new rules necessary there's no question and i think there is a moment of opportunity here. there are rules we do face new challenges to require new rules. we need new rules to the struggle against terrorism we do need rules about how to treat folks who are not fall on combatants that aren't necessarily private citizens. we do need rules about whether or not drawn strikes are permissible.

looking in other areas we need rules about is the balance between those who have been historically responsible for global greenhouse gas emissions versus those who are increasingly becoming responsible for them. we need new rules on investment around the world, etc. up. so there is an element, there's certainly on the demand side new schools. so on the question of whether or not the u.s. should be throwing its weight around, i think there is a major debate that needs to occur announced to whether or not the pursuit of primacy u.s. hegemony should continue to be the basically the core aspect of the u.s. foreign policy and i think adjusting to the multipolar world will be very hard psychologically for the united states.