now a discussion on strategy and policy toward iran examining

their relations with the u.s. and its mideast neighbors. hosted by the atlantic council, this is 90 minutes. >> thank you. welcome to the atlantic council. i am president and ceo. and i'd like to particularly acknowledge and thank our esteemed colleagues and co-chairs of this task force, senator chuck hagel of the council, ambassador stewart eizenstat. the south asia center was launched last year under the director's -- now almost going on two years now -- and we launched it because we saw the focus of u.s. european relations would be dealing not just with

afghanistan and pakistan, which people usually connect with south asia in this town, but also iran and this has become a central form and a point of contact for policy members, members of congress as well as european and regional leaders who've had a long stream of european officials dealing with these issues coming through and meeting with us as well. and we do focus on the wider south asia which does mean no the geographical subcontinent as well as afghanistan, central asia and iran, and we see this as a whole, you can just look at iran without looking at pakistan and you can't forget pakistan without looking at central asia and you certainly can't look at it all without looking at iran, iran is of special important to the center and the council because of the u.s. role with its government, the difficulties we all know about. but we are also very interested not just looking how the u.s. is looking at iran, but also how

iran is looking at the u.s. and how iran is looking at itself and looking at its role in the region. very often we get caught up in our own conversation here we are not putting ourselves enough in the shoes of others. as we've been asking through the task force are the u.s. sanctions against iran working, are there any other negotiating options left for the united states? if a reform regime were in power in iran would actually make any difference to the u.s.-iran relationship, and more importantly i suppose is how does iran foresee itself in the world and who is iran? is it ahmadinejad, khomeini, the revolutionary guards, so marked and susan have done a good job pulling together experts and bringing them together to have frank discussions in this room on the current situation and the way forward. and so the issue brief that's

released today to you all and prepared by our friend, barbara slavin, one of the great experts on iran in this town is a culmination of all those meetings. i hope you'll think it is a good read and will be the first of several briefs the we will write on these subjects looking into different pieces of this brief and detail and other parts. we want thank the plowshares fund for making this possible for their support and before i pass the event over to susa i want to invite ambassador hagel and eizenstat to save your words. senator hagel. >> thank you, fred, and each for giving us time today. i, on behalf of the land council and the board and members want to thank fred of course as well

as our leaders of this effort and particularly my much esteemed co-chairmen, the all knowing public servant, ambassador eizenstat, a man who's had almost every job in government. thank you very, very much for your personal involvement and commitment in the time that you have given in this effort. as you will hear today, from particularly susan and barbara of this report will culminate in a larger task force product. but we do these kind of briefs are important for many reasons, but it takes people through we hope an informed and educated analysis as to not only the complications of this issue which there are many which you will understand, there are very

serious consequences for whatever is the outcome on this particular issue being the u.s. iranian relationship. as fred know today and i think this is a particularly important and i think it is one of the most valuable results of this report and i anticipate of the task force final report is the emphasis on wires and comprehensive focus by the united states and its allies on this issue of iran. when i see comprehensive, i refer to not only addressing the iranian nuclear issue but all the other dimensions of this relationship that would include, of course, what fred just talked about -- who is iran? who is in charge of iran?

we know of those who occasionally will take time to study a lot of history and culture that iran is part of a great product of the middle east, and that is the persian heritage and history that heritage has brought forth. that is not to be minimized, the domenici or dismissed as any of these historical factors are when we are trying to analyze a policy and how we approach countries and people, and i see people in particular because governments don't always represent the people. there are policies of government and then there are the citizens of that country, and we reflect on that point when i use the term wires. we need to be wise and

judicious. particularly judicious and how we use of our instruments of power. military is but one instrument of power and sometimes it is not the most effective. it's important and using all of the nation's instruments of power in coordination and combination of a purpose is one of the of that nation's efforts is why we tried to get that in this study. i also want to know a great work mark brzezinski has done. march i think is in europe or china. a little further than europe and that. that is important to note mark's contributions because he will continue to play a significant role. thank u.s. and susan and barbara and all the participants that helped form and right of this brief.

we had many informed and experienced experts in this area who took their time to come before this group and give us the benefit of their background experience and expertise so we thank them as well. now let me introduce my co-chairman, ambassador eizenstat. >> thank you, senator. the center and i developed a close relationship during the clinton administration, and i really found him to be one of the most knowledgeable and last people in the country on a foreign and defense policy and it's been a privilege to work with him on this project. this project is another example of how fred kempe has infuses a sense of direction and to the council since he's taken over and fred, i congratulate you on setting the task force up on march brzezinski's work and of course barbara's. let me for a sentence or two because i want to leave time for

the actual presentation, why we decided to get into this area. i mean, haven't everything about iran already been explored? wasn't everybody in town and elsewhere focusing on iran? we think this task force has done something unique and will continue to be unique. we start with the proposition we believe this will be at the foreign policy challenge of the obama administration and for the united states and the years ahead but we also start from the proposition that while many have looked at iran from different perspectives, no one had actually looked at their domestic reality, was happening internally, how that affects their view of the united states and others are doing, how we affect their policy and therefore what we can learn in addressing our own policy to that reality trying to mold it in ways that are acceptable to the united states but to into

account the domestic real the and i think that is what is new and novel. and barbara has done a superb job in her study of doing the first initial rollout for the task force. we appreciate it and i think without a any further ado i would like to turn over to her and thank barbara and friend for the initiating and the center for leading it. >> thank you, ambassador eizenstat. let me just give you a quick background on what the task force has done in the first nine months since we started. our first meeting took place in may and we have a presentation by the fund who looked at the interest in the views of the concern of ours which included united states, european union, china, russia, israel, turkey, india and pakistan. he tried to crystallize how each of these countries and villages

iran's role and their own interest in iran and then the council on foreign relations provided a briefing on what kind of regional waddled the prison by iranian leadership is seeking for itself and for their country and talked about the strategic geopolitical aspirations of iran's current leadership. ted koppel, the producer of the discovery channel's iran, the most dangerous nation, tony discuss and provide of observations and led the question and answer session. but in july we had another session that focused on foreign policy. looking on the opposition movement in iran, its similarities and contrasts on nuclear issues, the views of allies and enemies and the on iranian foreign policy and this was a presentation by dr. garrey and then we did prospects for nuclear diplomacy by andrew,

executive director of the institute for strategic studies and that exchange was moderated by barbara slavin. last month we looked at new capabilities and strategic goals and we were lucky to get deputy secretary of energy, who was a time when he met them at the end of 2009 when he met the government the senior most official to have met them and we were also lucky to have the former head of the safeguard the part of the iaea and indeed in today's issue brief we have very useful some nation where we stand on the nuclear issue by a friend and former colleague at the iaea. as the senator said, we will continue our work in iran, making it as unique as possible

and as comprehensive as possible and we ought to be issuing these briefs and then we will come up with a final policy recommendation -- set of policy recommendations in due course. the first brief is being released today, and barbara slavin is a well-known journalist and editor. she's also the author of a great book on iran called "did her friends and enemies, stop put before i give the floor to barbara to talk about the briefing just want to remind everyone that after she finesses if you wish to speak or have a question if you wouldn't mind turning your name tag on its side so i can recognize you and please we've for the microphone to be brought so you can announce who you are and can be captured for our audiences. thank you for coming, and over

to barbara. >> thank you. thank you, all, for coming. this is my effort for the atlantic council and i want to thank mr. hagel and investor eizenstat, shuja, mark brzezinski in china, and also alex on the staff here of the atlantic council. we did this rather quickly. itt can all understand why iran has been much in the news of fleet, and a lot of people have been giving their opinions about what u.s. policy toward iran should be curious we thought it was important to begin to express our ideas and also give some context for the discussion. i tried to do for basic things in the report. first look at iranian domestic politics and the divisions that have deepened within the elite since the 2009 presidential elections. second, i looked at the impact of the divisions on the nuclear issue in u.s. iran relations.

third, i've looked at sanctions and the impact and they are having on the irony in the economy and the iran's foreign policy, and last i make a few modest suggestions as these are just a very preliminary and as shuja mentioned, there will be much more fleshed out in detailed recommendations at the end of this process. the bulk of the report is about the iranian domestic scene, and hear the word this factional was asian and factionalism. as any student of iran knows, the islamic republic of iran has never been unified, not before, during or after the revolution of 1979 when it comes to politics, economics, views on society and those who call that a totalitarian state really don't know the country at all. this is not a country where the

elite are forced to belong to one political party as in china or the old soviet union. and whenever one faction appears to have completely finished its opponents as seems to occur last summer after the elections than that faction immediately splintered and we've seen certainly last few months that president mahmoud ahmadinejad has had a lot of problems come a lot of clashes with the parliament of the country, with other branches of government, and even on occasion the supreme leader ayatollah khomeini. he has alienated traditional conservatives, members of the old party. this is a very significant group that still controls the bazaars and has a hold over important islamic charities. many of its members or prominent in the islamic revolution and were important members of the

government afterwards. mahmoud ahmadinejad is on poor terms with the former nuclear negotiator and the speaker of the parliament. i believe he was just reconfirmed as the speaker of parliament. he's a member of an old clerical family, and his brother his head of the judiciary and was appointed by the supreme leader. ahmadinejad has also been irritated khamenei by providing a kind of shiite islam fellows superstition and by giving power to a member of his family come in wall who has made a number of controversial comments about israelis and irani and nationalism and so-called pyrenean islam, and there has even been indications with members of the islamic revolutionary guard corps which is of course the institution upon which the survival of the regime rests. there was an article in the irg

sea publication that could have sized him that wasn't the most important in government and this contradicted the views of the leader of the revolution, ayatollah khomeini who passed away in 1989. i'm not suggesting that khomeini, the successor, is about to justify mom and lewd ahmadinejad. he called his election a define assessment and he has stuck with him for the time being. there's a lot of friction and tension and the elkus for more of this factionalism, especially as iran is phasing out consumer subsidies in the economy. and it's also approaching yet doherty elections. well of parliamentary elections in 2012 and new presidential elections in 2013. the factionalism is intensifying

because of the economic situation which is quite poor. this is partly due to sanctions which have tightened considerably this year but also partly due to mahmoud ahmadinejad's mismanagement of the economy. he squandered we'll revenues when the price of oil was high. he handed money out to the poor to numerous people but without a real plan. as a result, very few jobs have resulted from this and inflation was quite high for a number of years. revenues are now much reduced and the imf estimates the irony in grew by only a little over 2% last year and growth in the current of iranians fiscal year that ends march to a first will be between 1.5-2% and it is not enough to provide the sorts of jobs that iran's useful population needs.

iranians -- the unemployment rate under 30 is estimated to be about 30%, and 70% of the population is under 40. sanctions are having an impact. they are making it more difficult for iran to sell and buy petroleum products and they also frightened we invested in the oil and gas sector and on a contrast this with ambassador eizenstat remembers in the 90's when the clinton ad fenestration approved of so-called secondary sanctions which were meant to penalize we'll companies that invest but believe this $20 million in the energy sector of iran or libya. all of these sanctions were waived because of that time or shortly thereafter iran got a reform as president and the europeans were very interested in engagement with iran. they didn't want to confront the country. now the situation is very

different and this is because of what happened to those at nine. it's because of the elections and the crackdown. the europeans are even more exercised about human rights it seems than the united states and so the europeans have gotten on board and so have the japanese. gillmor international which is a unit of the japanese brokerage firm estimates that because of japanese withdraw from the iranians oil sector, yearlong's leal production will drop 15% by 2015 and exports will decline from about 2 million barrels a day currently to 1.5 million barrels which is a significant drop. how does this factor into the nuclear negotiations? we are likely to have some talks in the next few weeks. the iranians announced they would like to meet in turkey but they are dancing around each

other. we will have some kind of discussions. i think the problem is that the political divisions within iran are such that it's going to make it difficult for the government to reach a deal that will stick. we saw what happened a year ago. there was a proposal for iran to send out two-thirds of its uranium in turn for fuel for a research reactor which the united states provided in 1960. this is a reactor that produces medical isotopes. mahmoud ahmadinejad brought this deal back to tehran and he was immediately attacked by every faction from reformists to ultraconservatives. he had suffered a great deal when he was the nuclear negotiator of iran was the one to cast the first stone and the others followed and supreme leader did not in the end back it up and the deal fell apart.

not since then as i mentioned we've had more sanctions. the west proceeded and the obama administration pivoted from the engagement track to the pressure track. there is a sense i get from talking to u.s. officials the for the first time since 2003 when the u.s. military was feeling most successful in the middle east for the first time into the center of the obama administration, the united states feels it has leverage over iran because of the economic situation. another factor is that the nuclear kwok while it is taking is taking a little bit more slowly than a lot of people had feared, and here i direct you to the excellent summary of the status of the iranian program. he writes although iran managed to produce 3 tons of low enriched uranium, theoretically enough for a bomb or maybe two

bombs, the iaea would be able to detect any diversion of this material very quickly and also, iran is having a lot of difficulty producing more advanced centrifuges. the centrifuges that it uses are antiquated models that pakistan provided in the late 1980's and he writes that iran is having design problems and also it's having difficulty because of sanctions and procurement this deal but it needs to make these more advanced centrifuges. so this suggests there is time for diplomacy to work, for sanctions and engagement to work without having to resort to other sorts of measures. now it's hard to be optimistic about engagement about diplomacy given the history of the u.s.- iran relations which john and others here know painfully well. the pattern has been that when

one side was ready for engagement the other was not and vice versa. the 2009 elections have complicated diplomacy for both sides. for europe and also for the united states, the vicious crackdown on peaceful protesters that followed the elections last year have made him an rights a priority. i know that president bush talked about the freedom agenda and so on but for the first time there is a freedom movement to support iran. this is no longer a sanction. and for iran fell united states once again looms large as a scapegoat for internal unrest. they can accuse the united states of promoting overthrow, soft revolution, soft war, whatever you want to call that so we have a stalemate and i think still it's important that the united states continues to try to engage if only to put the

iranians on the defensive and to show that it actually is interested in diplomacy. and here i have a very modest suggestion, very preliminary, and as i mentioned they will be fleshed out when the task force completes its work. some of them frankly i think our no-brainers, some of them are things the obama administration is already doing that perhaps could do a better job at. one of the things the administration is doing, my understanding from conversations with u.s. officials and its allies, they are updating the offer the was made last year concerning the research reactor to take into account the fact that iran increased its stockpile over the past year. we don't have all the details. terrapin some accounts in the press i think it is still a bit preliminary and we want bill obviously until there is a time and place fixed for another

meeting of either the vienna group or the p-funk plus one and iran. at the same time the u.s. is updating this offer by to do would be wise to update a very comprehensive offer the was made in 2008. this was presented to the irony in san 2008 and looked at possible areas of economic cooperation, sanctions and so on. this offer needs to be looked at again and i think it needs to be refreshed particularly in light of what's happened to the set oil sector the last couple of years. i'm not saying the u.s. should publicize or presented. that might be negotiating with ourselves but if the iranians show up and look like they're serious this is something the u.s. and its allies should have ready. at the same time the u.s. needs to intensifying its outreach to the iranian people as senator hagel mentioned. this is very important.

just because we have a fight with the irony in government doesn't and we shouldn't be promoting educational exchanges to get as many students as possible to study in the united states and offering health to iran in areas such as earthquake prediction and treatment of drug production and hiv/aids, where the united states and its ngos have something to offer. i don't know if they will accept it. in the past they have and this is certainly still a possibly area for discussion. another area which i highlighted and i think it's important is afghanistan. this is perhaps the one area the u.s. and iran are largely on the same page and certainly they should be talking to each other. i don't know if the iranians will help the u.s.. they haven't always been of assistance although the work after 9/11 and getting rid of the taliban. the of the common interest in

the united states and stability in afghanistan, drug interdiction and preventing the total return to power of the taliban. there was a recent meeting in rome where an official participated and he got a briefing from the general petraeus and was very impressed by anderson and from my sources this sort of meeting should be repeated and the iranian should be made to feel we understand the of a huge stake in what happens in afghanistan. after all the fat of the largest number of the afghan refugees in their country for many years and they suffer from the drug problem. finally, the area of human rights. this is something the obama administration got a slow start on but they are moving on more. u.s. advocacy year is very important. senior officials from president obama and down should continue could to condemn human rights abuses and they should urge iran to release some 500 political

prisoners being held in that country. these include students, journalists, women rights advocates and lawyers who were jailed for defending these people. iran is not living up to its international commitments to launch its own laws on human-rights. this should be pointed out and there's been suggested also that the secretary general of the u.n. could name a representative on human rights. there would be a very good idea. there needs to be pressure put on iran. we noticed iran does respond to pressure. the incident of a woman sentenced to stoning for adultery there was a huge cry and she hasn't been stoned were executed so iran does react when pressure is put on this issue. finally the u.s. should continue efforts to help iranians access the internet and satellite so they can get unbiased news and communicate more easily with

each other. ultimately, i believe that history, demography, and the educational level of iranians means this country will have a democratic government in the future. but this is up to the iranians to lead the movement. we can't do it for them. iran has been struggling to achieve a representative government for more than a century and it's better equipped even now with all of the repression it's better equipped to have the sort of government? than countries the united states promoted regime change in. i think in the intermodal process goes forward in the air on washington needs to exercise strategic patience. this is in the title of my report and we need to do nothing that is going to get in the way of this political evolution.

ultimately your mom is going to assume its rightful place as a major regional power that contributes to the peace and prosperity of its citizens and the world. i will leave it there. >> thank you, barbara peaden guinn to let you take a little breather and ask the first question if i made that i'm going to pose to the co-chairs. senator and ambassador eizenstat, as opposed to strategic patients, they're appears to have been within the last week or so some sign of strategic and patience with in the corridors of washington. a colin "the washington post" appeared to suggest wrapping up the war wasn't actually going to war might be a good thing for president obama to undertake in order to help the economy, and then senator gramm has been

talking also about the need to perhaps punish iran in a military maneuver. what do you think are the chances of something like this becoming viable and is it even advisable at this stage to be coming out these ideas? >> let me put a question on top of that because i think it's related and that is those who argue against strategic patience will argue that what you're saying is give iran the time and space it needs to develop its nuclear weapons capability. so is that a potential out come from strategic patients and is it an outcome that we can live with? >> let me answer in a couple of ways. the first is i think that so long as we can demonstrate that the sanctions are really biting

and hear the e.u.'s efforts to engage in significant sanctions beyond that which most what on the financial sector are having a significant impact. it's much more costly to ship goods to import oil and this is an area where we need to do a lot of work with china and see that china doesn't fill that gap, but i think that iran is not north korea. it recognizes that it has to be integrated in the world economy to the extent there is a real show and demonstration of global solidarity on sanctions i think it will bring them back to the table. number two, this is a time when if there ever was a need for it, the senator's definition of

politics in the net the water was crucial because this is the time when we've got to make sure that we have a bipartisan effort. there's a lot of polarization that's when to ocher and i think that this is a time when we need to have and shows the united front. number three, i don't think that barbara is suggesting, and i certainly wouldn't, that by strategic inpatients we need in defendant patients because we recognize that each day even with the centrifuges not operating as efficiently as they can in the wheel enriched uranium is being enriched to a 20-degree level. there is work going on on weaponization, militarization, increased missile capacity

commesso -- and so patience is important but isn't infinite to have to see that. i think we will be in a much better position to know what path it takes when we see how these negotiations which are certain to occur and probably this month or next are the iranian serious with going back to a sort of geneva plus, vienna plus taking into account the additional amounts of the enriched uranium or is this going to be a long indefinite stroll? and i think the last point is in terms of military options that has to be on the table. the administration has kept on the table, the israelis have kept it on the table, but it is on the table up this point because it is recognized that there are profound fallouts and

that military options can be done with a single isolated strike could occur with a syrian reactor or iraqi reactor 20 years ago but fate diffuse the system and put it underground and that there would take considerable effort over prolonged periods of time to do great detriment so that is not to take it off table quite the contrary but it is to suggest before one leads to that one has to look at all the other ramifications and i would say to give sanctions a chance to work they are working, they will continue to bite and we have to hope at some point the leadership is defused as it is in the excellent analysis will come together and recognize the cost of pursuing militarization in the military capacity are

greater than with the effort is worth and i guess one last point and i think this is something that the administration and others haven't quite come to and that is what is our goal? is our goal to stop the enrichment? is the goal to simply stop the military capability or is the goal to stop total weaponization? those are very different checkpoints, and i think it's very important we try to achieve a bipartisan agreement on what the actual realistic goal is. >> well as usual, ambassador eizenstat has framed it exactly right. weiss described as stewart just noted and as he has presented it i would have as to the use of

military force whether it's for a political motive or not i don't think i have to remind the public the united states of america is currently in to wars, two of the longest we've ever been in before we of wind our way out of each they will be the longest war we've ever engaged in. that has come at a very significant cost to this country. i think it's undermined our interest in the world. you don't need to go beyond asking any journalist in charge of many become an and women in the military, record suicide, homeless and all the rest but one consequence of taking the nation to war. so i think talking about going to war with iran and fairly

specific terms should be carefully reviewed and that's pretty dangerous talk. it's easy to get a nation into war might not so easy to get a nation out of war as we are finding out. i'm not sure the american people are ready to go into a third war. second, if you subscribe to lubber bertinelli doud bourn our task force has found in particular the internal dynamics occurring in the iran while in the world would you, as barbara noted, want to get in a way of that? >> we do have some rather significant evidence that sanctions are working and they are working because we, our government, our policies, in perfect for all problems, every policy has those, but nonetheless, it has accomplished

something even bigger than sanctions and that is a broad consensus together of most countries. the chinese are involved, russians are involved. we have a rather significant consensus up to a point in all you need to do is reflect on the united nations vote on this as a pretty good indicator. now that alone won't change the dynamics but as barbara lee doubt if you look at the task force has come up with, aren't we why is rather than to get ourselves into one another very difficult predicament because we also know wars have consequences, most of the time and especially in the world we live today the have unintended consequences. the of uncontrollable

consequence is. we live in an interconnected global community, and i think again we should factor that in. last point i would make as to the question are and we distilling the iranians to buy time? may be. we have to recognize the real world is about risks. you cannot approve your decisions and policymaking based on that risk analysis is it risky to go to war right now were to go to pursue the policies we are pursuing? policymakers have to decide. they have to sort their way through that and come to a decision. it is far riskier to talk of war than to go to war.

as the ambassador noted we are the mighty military force on earth. the world has never seen such military power. but that military power must always be tempered with a purpose and the military option is always on the table for any sovereign nation. the same time we recognize the option is there the leaders of our country, the leaders of the world are not living in an alice-in-wonderland type of world. they are living in the real world and have to make real decisions based on what they calculate to be the dynamics and facts as they are today but probably more importantly with the think they will be. that's leadership so that's how i would add to the investors.

>> let me add to sentences of the record about the atlantic council. senator hagel, republican, ambassador eizenstat, democrat, it's not the reason they were picked and not the reason they decided to do that but it just reflects we are after a centrist consistent policy not only on iran but all the american foreign policy with our allies, and when we don't do that, when we don't get into the partisan bickering over the matters of national interest where it's hard to beat -- it's hard to beat wellcome won what want the enemies take solace from the partisan bickering over the matters of national interest and friends get frustrated so this is one area we are looking at this but the council works on achieving this occur the oracle what radical centrists some.

[laughter] >> thank you for clarifying that. you mentioned alice-in-wonderland. picking up on ambassador eizenstat's useful suggestion particularly the one about the finding one's goal, but one of my favorite quotes from alice in wonderland when you don't know where you're going can't really take you there? [laughter] i think we do need to decide which road to take and so my first question to barbara before the audience joins us and the question is afghanistan going to offer the first opening perhaps because in the and you have to deal directly with the government. you can't negotiate the people of iran who have to be with the government that's in power. so do you see afghanistan as offering that? >> as i was preparing this i had conversations with the officials, and one said they don't see afghanistan in the silver bullet that solves our problems with iran but i do

think they see it as an area where iran and the united states not only have common interests but really do need to cooperate. if afghanistan is quick to be stabilized it's going to need all of its neighbors to sign on to whatever coalition government may emerge or peace talks may emerge, so i think it is one area where the u.s. and iran can talk to each other without a lot of baggage, without a lot of difficult history, although it is a different government, a different president that's in power now in iran than in 2001. if you look back at the period, not only was iran supporting the northern alliance, which was pivotal in getting rid of the taliban in 2001, but the u.s. and iran actually had a fairly senior diplomatic talks from the fall of 2001 through may at

2,003. in europe they were led by deputy assistant secretaries of state and so on and this was a period that now a number of people like ryan crocker look back on as the sort of golden age jim bob -- dobbins when al qaeda were turned over and extradited and understandings were reached and it is sort of a pity that ended with the invasion of iraq. i don't believe you can get back to that but you can include iran and the multilateral discussions that are going to be held and we should do that. >> thank you, barbara. now we will open the floor to questions. who would like to start? >> please wait for the microphone and please identify yourself for the record. thank you. >> richard [inaudible]

you mentioned afghanistan as one of the two wars. what about extending the [inaudible] >> if i may just repeat the question for our television viewers. what about the war mica iraq? >> sure. i actually didn't go into iraq on this piece. that might be a topic for a second one. iraq is interesting and everyone's always set of course the iranians got a lot of influence when we got rid of some usian and that's true but iranians are carrying out of iraq right now, tonight. i remember getting an e-mail from an acquaintance of mine in tava on predicting that maliki

would be reconfirm the primm minister at the end of september and we of course still don't have a new iraqi government. this is more ticklish because although there have been reports that iran is getting some support to the taliban now, the reports that there is involvement in iraq is much more serious and we know that american servicemen and women have died because of ied technology and special groups and others that have been supported by iran since 2003 and so the u.s. and iran have not been able to cooperate in any way on iraq. will that change? i don't know. that's why i suggest of tennessee because we have a history of cooperation. it's ironic i mentioned these talks that were going on from 2001 to 2003. there were iranians offering to help the united states and iraq as well when it became clear that the u.s. was going to be invading the country as well and

the dutch administration said no thank you we can handle this on our own so we have to think how history could have been different if we decided to cooperate in 2003 in iraq. >> we for the microphone please. >> jim load, inter press service. i would like to get the comments of all three if possible. how exactly does seem that all options are on the table help the case in iran for human rights or anything else or even with respect to the nuclear program? assuming what senator hagel was saying is correct that attacking iran will have unforeseeable consequences, which i think any

rational observer would conclude might involve or very much could involved the necessity for ground troops. however this point could this be a realistic threat on the part of the united states, and given the other to wars, so again, my question is how does repeatedly saying all options on the table help any of the causes that have been laid out or that are of concern to the task force? >> my personal view is the united states has to say it but it's an option that should be exercised at this point. i took my cue from iranians particularly of the green movement is a the one thing that could destroy the chances for democracy another generation would be a u.s. attack on iran. i think perhaps ambassador

eizenstat and senator hagel will be a petraeus on the better as to why you have to say that option remains on the table. >> ambassador and senator either of you want to comment on the iraq question as well. >> i guess i would see if you really don't mean it and they know you don't mean that it's not significant, but from my standpoint while i agree with everything that has been said and i emphasize the weekend to to give sanctions a chance to work, we need to give the increasing isolation the chance to change their policies, we need to envoy avoid driving the opposition into the hands of the radical elements we also have to send a very clear message in my opinion what is most unacceptable is iran having a nuclear bomb. and if they don't understand we think that is indeed an acceptable, then they have no

incentive to change. so there's always an escalating sense and there are things short of bombing. we've seen already in news reports of worms, you know, in some of the machines that drive the centrifuges. there are a whole range of actions that can be taken to slow down and even cripple the process short of this imagery of having a hundred thousand troops invading in waves of bombers. we feel the options but to me it really is critical to make it clear to iran we are getting this extra time we are going to keep the sanctions pressure on the. we have strategic patients. but at the end of the day it is not acceptable for iran as it is

currently led to have a nuclear bomb, and in my opinion a nuclear capability. if we don't send that signal then i think we are in serious trouble. >> i would add this. i am not so sure it is necessary to say all options are on the table. i believe the leadership in iran, regardless of the five power centers you are referring to whether it is the republican guard, the commission's have some pretty clear understanding of the reality of this issue and where we are. i think the plant in your question really brings out, which is a very good one, if you are going to threaten on any kind of a consistent basis with

the latest from leadership in the congress or the administration or any one who generally speaks for this country in any way than you better be prepared to follow through with that. stuart noted putting 100,000 troops in iran just as a member as far as a plea to this, the fact is i would guess we would all -- i would be the one to start the question and would ask where are you going to get 100,000 troops. so you're point is a very good 1i think. i don't think there's anybody in iran that doesn't question the seriousness of america or allies or israel of all this for the reasons we made clear. i do think there does become a time when you start to minimize the legitimacy of a threat. when you threaten people or threaten sovereign nations, you

better be very careful and understand again, consequences because you may be required to employ and activate that threat in some ways. i don't mind people always as we have laid out and i think every president, every administration, anybody of any consequence who's talked about this can say and it does say by think it's implied the military threat is always there. stewart made an important point know there are a lot of ways to come at this. but once you begin a military operation, you ask any sergeant and it's the sergeants and the guise of the bottom, not the policy makers that have to fight the war. they have to do all the dying and fighting and make the

sacrifices, not the policy makers. but my point is once you start that you better be prepared to find 100,000 troops because it may take that or even sure where you're going in my year earlier point you don't know and you can't just start out with the concept of well we are going to do this but will be marginalized and limited warfare. i don't think any nation can go in to replace about would be what i would add to the rest of the conversation. >> i would emphasize number one we need to give as barbara is suggesting sanctions and a potential outreach on a positive and a broad initiative the chance to work. but if it's rejected we have to consider granting of sanctions more, but we also, again, have to make it clear, in my opinion that it's not acceptable to get

a nuclear weapon to get there are a lot things that go along with that that are short, and that is likely that what we put 100,000 troops, but that we are sure of that that that can be taken against iran that can be very disruptive. i hope we don't have to get to that, but i don't think the option is sending 100 those and troops were doing nothing. that's not the option. we have a range of options and we feel a little bit of time more as barbara's report indicates than we thought we did six months or so ago. ..?ñ????????????ç??

>> yeah, and meaner brand has been under one sanction or the other but what is different is that these are now multilateral sanctions. as i pointed out in the mid-90s, when the u.s. had a policy of dual containment, europeans, asians were gladly going on their way signing agreements with iran. there was a lot of business. that has changed, and actually the report, we have seen a shift, european trade is coming down. china for a time seemed like it was going to fill the gap, but even chinese imports of iranian oil are going down now and also chinese investment in the iranian oil sector is going down now according to reports that i cite in issues brief. i think the world is getting the message that this is a government that is not behaving well, and the u.s. has never had this kind of consensus behind

this policy so i think it has a much greater chance of working unilateral sanctions almost never work but multilateral sanctions sometimes do, and we see remarks by iranian officials the former president rafsanjani said the sanctions are no joke and that ahmadinejad should pay attention to them. there are lots of commentary even in the very controlled iranian press about the impact sanctions are having, so i think that it is a different situation now, and the other aspect is the human rights aspect, the revulsion that so many people feel over the human rights abuses that have been committed by the government. you know, we all knew before that this regime could he on occasion very brutal and people were executed and assassinated and so on but we never saw it before the way we have seen it now on youtube, and facebook and so on. we also have a new crop of

iranian emigrates, people who are part of the reform movement who have been forced to leave the country since last year and they are very outspoken, and you know they have fresh information and knowledge about the society that perhaps we didn't have before. >> if i may, would like to add just one thing. one point of perspective, because it rarely gets brought up for obvious reasons. the whole nuclear issue did not begin with this administration, this being the iranian administration, or previous administrations after the revolution in 1979. nuclear program started under the shah, who was our puppet essentially. we financed them. we liked him. we set him up. like maybe too strong a word but it was clearly in america's interest to have a strawman dictator. when you talk about some revulsion's of human rights,

history is instructive here. and so, i think not to defend anything or anyone or certainly not this current government in iran, but when we are looking at this, and this is why taskforces are important and taking time to hear from experts. but let's open up the aperture here and get the entire fish and an of history. that wasn't that long ago, 1979. the people of iran remember that not all of them. barbara said, they have one of the youngest democracies in the world which is hopeful and good for freedom. but we have got also to factor in the frame of reference, the framework of thinking of a lot of the iranians and the brutality that came as a result of the shah's actions that we supported, that we propped up that goes back a few years

before 1979. so, again that doesn't change the dimension of the dynamics or the risks or the threats, but it is instructive to go back a little bit and understand why certain countries think the way they do, certain people think the way they do. it was noted here earlier, and i really do believe this and in fact i was with some people last week who are currently leaders in that part of the world and there were two iranians in the group, and they said one of the things that would fasten that society back together quicker than anything else would be a military attack. and that would bring the iranians back together, for cultural reasons, for historic reasons. now, maybe a military option eventually will be the only thing that is less. i don't know that, but again like we have said we had better be careful and we had better think through that and employ every other option before we

have to make that decision, if we have to make a. >> thank you senator. we have a question here. >> hi, i just wanted to make a comment. >> identify yourself please. >> the ambassador said unacceptable and i had a question, what does that exactly mean when there are five countries or six countries that keep on saying this, that it is unacceptable and iran keeps on enriching uranium? we have the example of north korea, and at that time those same countries said it was unacceptable and it actually happened. so, what does that actually mean? and the other question is, what the word democracy, when you say you want a democratic iran-- we have already said that iran is not a totalitarian regime. there are many different centers of power.

so, i guess what you mean is you want a country with more human rights. how does that exactly serve american interests? it serves the interest of the iranian people, but is that risks for as american policymakers? >> barbara? >> well, ambassador eizenstat said it was unacceptable. i didn't say that. my personal view and this is just my personal view is that the united states could probably contain, deter, live with a nuclear iran as it has a nuclear pakistan, a nuclear india, a nuclear israel, nuclear north korea. there are a lot of reasons why iran wants his capability. i'm not sure they would actually go to a weapon. i think it frankly doesn't serve there to teach it interesting

actually have the weapon. i think it serves their interest to think the world might have a weapon but i'm not sure that they would go beyond that. but that is something that we can address certainly as we work our way through this task force. i think the united states should give a better definition of what it means by a nuclear nuclear capability, nuclear weapons capability, should decide whether it can put up with some limited uranian enrichment as opposed to all enrichment. these things still have to clarify. on the question of democracy, vis-à-vis human rights, think what iranians want is a more representative and less brutal government that will be focused on the national interest. and frankly if iran had a different sort of government i don't think the world would have such a problem with iran having nuclear weapons. it is the nature of the regime that makes it "unacceptable" because iran as we notice and act as a very constructive player in a number of areas in

the middle east, and it treats its own people very poorly. so whether you call it democracy or you call that human rights, i've spent a fair amount of time in the country over the last 14 years and i think i have a sense of what iranians would like ideally if they could get it. i'm not sure that they would come if they want a complete transformation but they certainly want a more open, a freer system where people will not dethrone imprisoned for demonstrating peace in the streets and certainly won't be shot to death for demonstrating peacefully on the streets. >> you are suggesting with your various other messages like greater access to the internet, greater access of communication inside the country. the u.s. and other countries can help with. we have a question from ambassador limber. >> john lambert,. barbara first of all unwanted thank you for very memorable

phrase you used about iranians which i have stolen on numerous occasions, which is the iranians consider themselves the rodney dangerfield of the middle east. just don't get no respect. and, in so many areas, including an air one, this issue of respect, of being dictated to, it comes up over and over again. and we hear it, we hear it from president ahmadinejad. we hear from many others. we hear it in the context of the nuclear program. we heard in the context of the tehran research reactor deal. what your view and senator hagel yours, and what is behind this statement, and how does one deal with-- how does one deal with something like this? is this a smokescreen for other things or is there some, is there some way of dealing with

it and how you view this constant refrain in the iranian position. >> john you are much more than the university professor as everyone hears those. john was most recently the deputy-- in one of her contributions was to help change the language the u.s. government uses toward iran so it is more respectful. i think respect is a very important word and president obama when he refers to iran always talks about mutual interest, mutual respect and i think this is key to happen understanding of where they are coming from. when we approach any kind of talks with them, any kind of negotiations, you know, we have gotten beyond the condi rice formulation, you know what you need to do. we don't wag their finger at them quite so much as we used to although every now and then it slips into the state department briefings, and little bit of that.

respect is important, but so is power, and so particularly as the power to inflict economic pain on my room and i think iranians have shown that when their national interests really are at stake they can make decisions, whether you are respectful towards them are not. so i would hope our diplomats would use appropriate language. iran has very skillful diplomats even now after the purge that ahmadinejad has inflicted on the foreign ministry. there are still some pretty savvy people and one would hope that they will approach talks in a respectful manner toward the united states. iran doesn't help its case when ahmadinejad comes to the u.n. general assembly and alleges that the u.s. might have been behind 9/11, so you no respect is a two-way street and i think they understand that. >> anything you want to add? >> only this. i think barbara said it very well.

i would connect benjamin's question into your question, because i think they do present integration here of interest and ultimate outcomes. when you connect but benjamin said, what he asked regarding what does this mean when you say these things like unacceptable weapons, what is acceptable enrichment of uranium? what rights to countries have too possessed nuclear power and nuclear capability? which we have stated that, that all nations that do have that right. where is that line and it blurs over it seems to me into what you are talking about and you are knowledgeable about this john as anybody. certainly anybody in this room.

and it blurs into your point, because if we have any hope of making any progress through the diplomatic channels and all the other influences that we are using and coordinating, do influence and outcome? that is all going to be framed and partially part of whatever acceptance there is to what will we accept? what will iran accept? and i go back to this real example. the turkish resilience so-called compromise, which essentially basically be laid out on the table year ago, and then we walked away from it, only our fault. the iranians blew it up too. but that is not a new assessment. so, my point in bringing that

up, the brazilian turkish.point is because it goes back to benjamin's point because he gets to the issue which we are all going to have to give the-- to at some point. how much and how do you do that? the russians, you remember, but the deal on the table a couple of years ago that we will enrich it and return it and so on and so one and so on so this also gets into the technicality and the depth of this that i don't think you can pull apart. it is all woven in that same fabric and this is part of the real complexity, as you know especially john and many in this room, is trying to find some resolution here. and i think what we need to do as much as anything else, and it goes back to what stu was called -- talking about and what we have all referred to, barbara, purpose and so on come

is to try to continue to put this issue not unlike the middle east peace process on a continuation of high ground. i don't think you are going to solve the iranian peace and i don't think it will be solved in six months. maybe it will be but all these questions like the middle east issue. if we continue to keep moving up on higher ground, higher ground and get it to some point where there's a confluence that will dictate a settlement that will be, that will be in the interests of all countries. we should not underestimate again, and barbara has brought this out and talked about it or read-- the regional aspect of this. this is critical and something i have always thought we made huge mistakes when we went into iraq and afghanistan, the way we did it, that we didn't regionalize the strategic concepts, the geopolitical strategic dynamic of all of those, of all of those

movements and decisions and actions that we took. we are now trying to do that. we are going to have to do that but it seems to me that iran is a clear case of that. >> just two sentences. let me underscore what senator hagel just said. if you just take a look at the way turkey looks at missile defense versus the way poland looks at missile defense, geography makes a difference. and, we will have an agreement in lisbon and the nato summit in a couple of weeks but it will be a very careful agreement that takes into account turkey sensitivities which i think is very important. the other thing is just for the clarity for the atlantic council you have heard one member state is unacceptable to have nuclear weapons and another one say one could contain, deter, lived with the humana council itself doesn't take positions. task force does. as you can see this task force

hasn't really decided that point but i don't think you really have to. i think the questions that we need to get out is what should we be willing to accept? what leverage do we have to actually determine that, and then how do we determine what we should be willing to accept? for example, it is not just could we contain iran? it is what we do about proliferation and the wider region? it is not just you know are they going to carry through on threats to you no push israel into the sea? it is also what is the impact on hamas, hezbollah etc., etc. so i think what barbara said about the nature of regime would have been, would have been ambassador eizenstadt's answer almost certainly. >> and also the strategic patience doesn't equal implementations. i think that is the message. if a question from benjamin and then sean. >> thanks. benjamin from hamdan.

thank you for convening this great group of radical centrist. my question i will offer to barbara. now that we are hearing reports of sanctions are beginning to fight from a domestic lyrical standpoint how how do iranians view the enrichment program, and how will this affect iranians as they go to the negotiating tables over the next couple of weeks? >> well, you know it is hard of course to do proper polls in iran. there have been some, and this is just really from anecdotal, my own sense of it from having traveled there a long time and i don't think iranians really-- they care about the notion that iran should have advanced technology. they don't want to be deprived of that. they think it is their right, but if they were able to trade that for a better economy i think they would do it in a minute. this is, you know there are so many slogans that are tossed around in that country and

people repeat them pro forma because they have to. they are drummed into them at nottingham. in the book that i wrote about the u.s. and iran i titled the first chapter death to america and cannot can i have your autograph? going to one of their celebrations as i think it was the 29th anniversary of the revolution, and you know everybody is chanting death to america, death to america. there were a group of kids, they'll have placards on them saying nuclear is our natural right and you know all of this stuff. and there were a bunch of young kids who spotted me in the crowd and saw that i was a foreigner and after-- asked where i was from. ahmadinejad is up on the platform blah, blah, blah.israel and the holocaust and so on and i swear, 50 kids, young girls all came and asked for my autograph. just because i was from the states. so you figure it. i think that it is just, it is

an issue that the government uses for nationalism. is something that they try to build up, to unite the people because there isn't enough to frankly unite iranians anymore. the islamic republic lost its religious fervor a long time ags iran's right, but it is certainly do not-- certainly not the first priority for iranians in my view. >> we have a question over here. >> my question is for ms. laban. >> would you mind identifying yourself? >> my name is sean. i guess, first thank you for your report, 10 you to the atlantic council for having me. but, my question is really related to the last two. namely, beside the current political instability is potentially a good thing because the follow-on regime could be more open, maybe more democratic

and more respectful of human rights and then you and then you go on to say, and more likely to vile a confrontational with e often democratic regime with the more and i feel, you know i think you as an evidentiary point and the ahmadinejad was elected. was close to little early but ultimately, it is not clear that weak support in broommack areas. and you yourself site that a lot of his internal opposition is from hard-line reactionary elements, right? regime if we are patient comes in with more respect for these human rights and whatnot, why

would we assume that they would not pursue as aggressive, a shiite presence extending foreign-policy? i don't know how you characterize the influence in lebanon is anything but destabilizing. what evidence do you have from your study? >> well i think the evidence really comes from the policies that were in effect when mohammad hockney was president. iran was a lot less confrontational. it sought that her relations with saudi arabia and the arab gulf. hosni went to lebanon and gave a speech in beirut. he didn't go to the border with israel and make a lot of threats about wiping israel off the map. there was a different time. the nuclear program, the enrichment program was suspended for two years when hosni was president while europeans negotiated with the united states so we are to have an example of what a more construct if iranian administration can

look like. i make this statement because of the comments that have been made by mousavi and the leaders of the green movement have repeatedly talked about, the fact that they would have a different policy toward the united states, toward the west. i take it from my experiences visiting iran over the last 14 years that they would have a different approach. the economy is very important and if you are recalled one of the slogans in one of the demonstrations that took place after the elections last year was let's see, no to lebanon, know two guys on my life only for iran. iranians resent the fact that so much of their money is wasted in their view on supporting hezbollah, hamas and so on. and i think they would take a very different view.

i don't think they would devote those kinds of resources to these kinds of radical movements hosni also used to say that if the palestinians reached an agreement with the israelis that iran would not stand in the way of that. it was a different perspective, so we have to hope i think that the future iranian government would be more nationalistic and a sense of dealing with iranian interest. would give up its claims to influence in that region? no. i mean the shah was the one who started meddling in lebanon. the shah was the one who had the nuclear program, it was under his government that three small islands were seized from the united arab emirates so i don't think he was seen and to pray-- person nationalism by any means. but the tactics i think would be different and certainly there would be less of a confrontation hopefully with the united states and the west. >> thank you arbor. i'm going to ask senator hagel and fred if they would like to say anything before i wrap up this discussion with my thanks.

>> only to thank you again for your good work and of course you barbour and all who have participated over those last nine months and will continue. thank you to joining us and to fred and his leadership, the job of chairman is to stay out of the way and that is-- so ladies and jump summon. [laughter] >> i actually have nothing to add. >> uncharacteristically. >> thank to the audience for coming and to think of the members of our talk, many of whom will be watching this on television or listening to it on our web site or reading the transcript for their invaluable work in supporting what we are doing. i also want to thank again the fund for having given us the initial grant to get this going and we hope to carry it forward, picking up on some of the things that have been raised today, some regional issues that need to be discussed on a broader

level because this is the south asia center. we want to look at what india's view is, what pakistan, afghanistan, the gulf states are thinking about iran and how they can help in this relationship and the engagement between the west and iran. i also want to thank again the project director for the iran task force, mark oshinsky who had to be in china unfortunately i missed this first launch, so we want to thank him and my colleague alexandra and android so thank you all for coming. we will see you again. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> now an update on the situation in iraq. with tenet general robert cohen is the deputy commanding general for u.s. forces. he briefed reporters from iraq via satellite on this day of stability operations involving the training of iraqi security forces, counterterrorism

operations, the u.s. troop deployment schedule and the upcoming fort hood shooting trial. this is about 20 minutes. >> good morning, and good evening to general cone in iraq. of it like to welcome to the pentagon briefing room lieutenant general up cohen the deputy commanding general for operation with u.s. forces iraq. he is also the commanding general for three corps and fort hood. lieutenant general cohen assumed his duties as deputy commander for operations in iraq in march of this year. this is the first time he is has joined us in this format. he will be speaking to us today from the palace in baghdad to provide an update on current operations in the new mission profile under operation new dawn. general, what that i will send it to you for any opening remarks he would like to make and then we will take questions. >> thanks very much. i will keep my remarks very brief and first of all let me

thank those that are here today for coming out and asking questions, really appreciate your participation in this conference. let me begin by saying that although the role for u.s. troops in direct combat operations here in iraq ended on the first of september, the united states commitment to iraq and its people has not ended. our work continues every day under operation new dawn, with three primary missions. those are advised, train and assist the iraqi security forces, to continue to conduct partnered counterterrorism operations, to support the government of iraq, u.s. embassy and u.s. agencies and improving iraqi civil capacity and of course inherited all of these missions is that level of force protection for all u.s. forces and civilians as they go about their duties. as the deputy commanding general for operations, i am focused on

several subtasks within this mission said. for strengthen the iraqi security forces to help continue to build their capacity for providing security in iraq. this includes a wide array of tasks associated with the advising iraqi tactical units in the conduct of combat operations across iraq. however equally important is the emphasis that we have placed in helping the iraqi security force develop complex systems such as intelligence and logistics functions that will be essential to their future success. i would also add that we are we are focused on working with the iraq is to ensure they are both a learning and adaptive organization with the practices necessary to professionally grow and improve in the future. the second part of my job is keeping pressure on the extremist networks in close partnership with the iraqi security forces. in this area, i can also cite

significant progress on the part of the iraqi special operations forces community. the capability to conduct counterterrorist operations is essential to maintain the security environment over the long-haul here in iraq. let me be clear, the nearly 650,000 iraqi security forces are fully responsible for maintaining the security environment in iraq today. we are supporting them in their efforts and their proud of how far they have come today. despite several recent high-profile attacks, iraqi security forces have created an environment where violence is 20% below the 2009 average. it should also be noted that september and october of 2010 have been two of the lowest month on record for violence since 2003. sadly, iraq still has extremist that attack innocent iraqi civilians to try and stay relevant but iraq and the iraqi people have rejected extremist

ideology and caring as an. we still have work to do here and they just under 50,000 brave men and women i had the pleasure of working with are focused and committed to ensuring that iraq becomes a sovereign, stable and self-reliant country. with that i will be happy to take your questions. >> you faiola. >> general cone this is faiola he injure from bloomberg news. how do you see the iraqi city forces expertise currently and how is it evolving in some of the capabilities that you provide to protect the u.s. civilians working in iraq right now and that will have to be turned over to someone else after december 2011? the counter i.d. capabilities and so forth. order some of the key areas that the field they may be able to take on and what kind of expertise do they have in those areas?

>> the iraqi security forces are they capable corn force and it is focused on counterinsurgency and internal security. and as a result of their efforts, we have seen attacks at a level right now of 14 to 15 attacks per day across the nation. they have work to do in a number of specialty type capabilities that they will continue to need work on. they have an emerging explosive ordinance attachment capability. >> president obama spoke before. >> they had some route clearance capabilities. all of these things are on a glide path in the next 14 months as we continue to work with them and assist them, but they are marching and carrying on. i say to your question, we will always have a requirement to provide some level of security

for americans that are in this country for the foreseeable future. and i think it is important to understand that the proposals that we are talking about post-2011 i think have provisions for security, personal security detachment etc. as we transition responsibilities to the embassy. so good progress, and a lot of work to do and they think a good plan ahead. >> kevin? >> general cone, this is kevin baron from stars and stripes. the political stalemate there has gone on so much longer than anyone has expected. it has to have some sort of effect on your mission particularly with training your counterparts in the iraqi forces. where does that stand for you guys? are you in the level of any frustration? are you completely immune? i can't imagine you are. how is this affecting your job? >> i think i view it as a real

opportunity. the iraqi said we work with on a day-to-day basis at the higher level, you know we are not certain they are going to keep their jobs, like the minister of defense has turned over but i think what has been inspiring for us is how hard the iraqis have worked in this environment. and again not for a single individual or for a particular party in power. they have done it based on an emerging understanding of the role of military forces in a democracy, an emerging democracy in a constitutional law. and many of them will point out to you that what they have done in the last eight months is really about the iraqi people and the constitution, and they think if you look at some of the polls that show the acceptance of the iraqi security forces by the iraqi people, think they recognize the fact that a lot of these iraqi's, policemen and soldiers, frankly have carried

on in this postelection timeframe and performed some of their best work. a lot of people speculated, you know, in the march timeframe, but what happens if there is not a government? how will this work? i will tell you it has really caused the iraqis to do some self-examination in some ways and step up particularly in the senior leader ranks. and so i think it has been a positive development overall. i think they have had some modicum of success. certainly attacks like this on the 31st of october in the second of november are up setting to them, but the fact of the matter is overall the security situation has been maintained. and a big difference of course is a year ago it was the u.s. assisting them are actually out in the streets with them. this year they have actually done better and it has largely been exclusively through their efforts with us as an advisory role. >> general, charlie keys from cnn.

you spoke several times about the lessening of violence. but you just mentioned those attacks last week, coordinated attacks. could you speak and a little more detail how you react to them, what impact they have on the overall security atmosphere, and what you see as their purpose? >> you right. first off, i am in sort of a learning and teaching mode at this point, so i think as i talked about the iraqi's being adaptive one of the things i give them credit for is they have run a national after action review on saturday at the ministry of defense and in a very logical and rational assessment of the attacks and they were quite critical of their own performance. i think in a healthy way, in terms of improving for the future. so i think again, they work

tirelessly and i can tell you in terms of them being on alert for an extended period of time and then frankly looking hard at how they are doing check on operations, whether they are getting intelligence to the right places that they need to get get a two and again our job is to coach and teach and support them as they work through that analysis. i think first off there is a very healthy analysis. i think it is no secret i think al qaeda has taken credit for both the christian church bombing and the attacks on to november and again we have analyzed that as part of the al qaeda campaign. of course we have been since the 25th of august without you know a significant attack, and then we saw these attacks again targeted against the christian community and i would point out that the grand ayatollah sistani has condemned that as have others but sunni leaders in the

country. and again i think the iraqi's are working very hard for protection of minorities, both ethnic and religious minorities in the country that recognized their responsibility and they think they are upping the ante as we continue. as you know they are a series of meetings going on today and they are on high alert. they have taken everybody back from leave and they are at 100% focusing right now on improving security and on critical areas and notes. >> general, this is joe tebbit with al-hurra. are you noticing any potential interference from other funded groups from the neighbors like iran, for example? >> well, there is a history of some influence here from iran and again you know this is a very complex region. iraq has to develop, you know,

positive relationships with its neighbors and they think that is very important that iraq moves on in that direction. we see all sorts of iranian influence, some of it positive in fact and in fact we believe some of it negative although it is very difficult to attribute that to the iranian government or in fact some of this legal aid that came across from other sources from iran. i think you would say probably in the last couple of months the government formation, i think that we think that the iranian influence has diminished somewhat and i think overall that is probably appropriate for where we are, at least on the violence side at this point in the formation of the government and in the current delicate political situation that we are in. >> regarding al qaeda in iraq, do you know if al qaeda and iraq

appears to have become increasingly disconnected from al qaeda in pakistan or can the leadership in pakistan? >> there is a belief that since the major attacks that took lace in april, al qaeda has been under significant duress, replaced the leadership of al qaeda in iraq, and has struggled to reconstituted lease of high-end authority, and linkage back to al qaeda, senior leadership. although i would argue they clearly are still effective as evidenced by the attack was on the second of november. again this is sort of a different form of lower level cellular formation and there have been we believe some interim leaders that in fact have been named, but the level of connectivity between those

leaders and al qaeda senior leadership is uncertain at this point. >> general, higher. andrew tilghman with military times. i'm wondering if you could give me any insight as to what the deployment schedules might look like heading into next year. i think general odierno had said something about the possibility of a six-month appointment schedule. as you look into 2011, do you see any changes on that timeline? >> no, think the army has a plan in terms of sustaining the 50,000 and then obviously when we have reached the point when we'll begin the final draw down, some of the units that are coming in but i think as we have analyzed at what we are telling all units is to plan on a 12 month rotation over here and they think that is prudent. you know there may be some puts and takes as we go along the way, but in fact i think what

the soldiers are being told by their army leadership right now is pretty much on tap. the 50,000 force has worked out well for us. we have been in that set now for a couple of months. we did an assessment across the board to make sure that we had everything that we needed or we had things that we didn't need and in fact have managed underneath the 50,000 number some minor, minor changes, probably less than a thousand in terms of adjustments of little things like aviation and p. or civil capacity teams and then identifying some excesses and sending them back. but i enlarged the current brigade rotation of one year sets will continue. >> general, high. is david cloud with the l.a. times. i want to explore the glide path he talked about over the next 14 months. i am curious whether the iraqi's that you deal with speak to you

about the desire to have u.s. forces at some low-level continue in iraq after next-- after a year from december. obviously, that question is kind of in in advance because of the political turmoil there but it is not completely out of the question i would assume that there would be some some follow-on agreement that would allow some continuing small level u.s. presence. wood to the iraqi's you deal with say about this? >> if they were to say that to me what i would do is take it as an opportunity, as a learning point about the fact that their soldiers and their job they should leave political decisions to politicians and the reality is, what i tell them to do is make sure you give your best military advice when you are asked them regard to what capabilities, what are needed, etc. not certainly trying to bias the situation in any way. but i think it is very important

that they learn what the role of the soldier is bore the military leader is in terms of providing advice as time goes on. again that will be a political position and it will be ipers m. you know at some point between the iraqi government and the u.s. government and it will be based on higher-level objectives. but right now we have a security agreement that says we will be out of here by the first of january of 2012. i think but it's been really interesting is from my perspective, is sort of the credibility that we get i'm making an agreement with another nation and then honoring it, and self enforcing. i run a committee that basically tracks down violations of the security agreement, and did my time here, a little over eight months, we have not had a single incident. i mean we have had accusations of violations of the security

agreement. when they are investigated we find there are none so we hold this meeting and basically say in the united states and literally the iraqi's have to step forward and say as the united states violated the security agreement and they say no and we move on to other issues. the fact we said we would be at 50,000 and the fact that barring a political change, that we will be at zero on the first day of january of 2012. >> leaving aside the politics which i understand, in your military judgment will the iraqi's need continuing partnership and assistance after 2011 to fulfill the security agreements-- requirements they face? >> we of the comprehensive plan right now to work with the iraqi's and is why i will tell you frankly we are very busy right now working with the iraqis. really when you focus on sort of their 19 major capabilities that

we work on with them and then identify the conditions that need to be established by the time we leave, we are working and we have a plan where we can leave here at as scheduled. there are things that someone might like to do or think could be done better, but again i think those things will come into the political negotiations. >> general, larry shaughnessy from cnn. i want to ask you about your other role as head of three corps and fort hood. after the article xxxii hearing for major hasan is done in the other pretrial matters are taken care of, commanders going to have to decide if there is a recommendation for a court-martial to either go ahead with it or not, and then there might well be a recommendation for a death penalty. will you be involved in that in any way as the commander of three corps?

>> i want from here and again it depends on the timing of all of this it plays out. in fact when i left, signed over legal responsibility as a general court-martial convening authority to my deputy when i departed the country. so i have been over here. it will be depend on how far this all progressives and it will depend on other legal considerations that will be assessed at that time. but again, right now i am removed from the fort hood case and i have legal authority here over a like number of soldiers. so again, we will deal with that i think in the future. >> there was a legal fight over whether or not you should be deposed in this, in the hasan case. did you ever sit for deposition in the case? >> i did not. i was in the process of deploying effect came down and again, think certainly given the technology we have today, you

know we could have done it from here but to my knowledge there was never any requests to be deposed since i have been here in iraq. so again, these are all you know important legal processes that we follow the procedures exactly to the law to make sure that this case is fairly tried. >> okay, general it looks like you have exhausted the pentagon press corps of questions so i will send it back to you for closing remarks. >> yeah again i would just like like to thank everybody again. veterans day is coming up and that is really important for, think for so many who have served this country and serve as an inspiration to everyone. and again, they are in our thoughts and prayers here in iraq bertko here we continue to grow capabilities and capacity for the security forces of iraq and again things continue to move all the trends in a

positive direction. again i am proud to work, the worker servicemembers are doing and i can tell you each and every one of them is making a difference. again, thanks for coming to the press conference and i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. thank you very much. >> general, thanks again for your time. >> president obama spoke before india's parliament today and endorsed the countries bid to become a permanent member of the u.n. security council. the president's remarks are next on c-span2.

[applause] >> earlier president obama dressed indian parliament in new delhi describing an economic and security partnership with india. the country is the president's first stop on a 10 day trip to asia. this is about dirty five minutes.

>> mr. vice president, madam speaker, mr. prime minister, members of lok sabha and rajya sabha, and most of all, the people of india. i thank you for the great honor of addressing the representatives of more than 1 billion indians and the world's largest democracy. [applause] i bring the greetings and friendship of the world's oldest democracy, the united states of america, including nearly 3 million proud and patriotic indian americans. [applause] over the past three days, my

wife michelle and i have experience the beauty and dynamism of india and its peoplf humayun's tim to the advanced technologies empowering farmers and women who are the backbone of indian society. from the celebrations with schoolchildren to the innovators who are fueling india's economic rise, from the university students who will chart india's future to you, leaders who helped to bring india to this moment of extraordinary promise. at every stop, we have been welcomed with the hospitality for which indians have always been known. so, to you and the people of india, on behalf of me, michelle and the american people, please accept my deepest thanks.

[applause] bahoot dhanyavad. [applause] now, i'm not the first american president to visit india, nor will it be the last. but i am proud to visit india so early in my presidency. it is no coincidence that india is my first stop on a visit to asia or that this has been my longest visit to another country since becoming president. [applause] four in asia and around the world, india is not simply emerging. india has emerged. [applause] and it is my firm belief that the relationship between the

united states and india, bound by or shared interest and our shared values, will be one of the defining partnerships of the 21st century. this is the partnership that i have come here to build. this is the vision that our nations can realize together. my confidence in our shared future is grounded in my respect for india's treasured pass, a civilization that has been shaping the world for thousands of years. indians unlock the intricacies of the human body and the vastness of our universe. it is no exaggeration to say that our information age is rooted in in indian innovations, including the number zero. [applause] of course india not only opened our minds, she expanded our

moral imaginations with religious texts that still summon the faithful to lives of dignity and discipline, with poets who imagined a future where the mind is without fear and the head is held high. [applause] and with a man whose message of love and justice indoors, the father of your nation, mahatma gandhi. [applause] for me and michelle, this visit has therefore held special meaning. see, throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, i have always found inspiration in the life of gun dg and his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world. [applause]

and just as he summoned indians to seek their destiny, he influenced champions of equality in my own country including a young preacher named martin luther king. after making his pilgrimage to india a half-century ago, dr. king called gondi's philosophy of non-violent resistance the only logical and moral approach in the struggle for justice and progress. [applause] so we were honored to visit the residence where gandhi and king both stayed, mani bhavan and we were humbled to pay our respects at raj ghat. i am mindful that i might not the standing before you today as president of the united states had it not been for gandhi and the message he shared and inspired with america and the world.

[applause] an ancient civilization of science and innovation, a fundamental faith in human progress-- this is the sturdy foundation upon which you have dealt ever since that stroke of midnight when the tricolor was raised over a free and independent india. [applause] and despite the skeptics who said this country was simply too poor or too fast or too diverse to succeed, use or mounted overwhelming odds and became a model to the world. instead of slipping into starvation, you launched a green revolution that fed millions. instead of becoming dependent on commodities and exports, you invested in science and

technology and in your greatest resource, the indian people. and the world sees the results from the supercomputers to build to the indian flag you put on the moon. instead of resisting the global economy, you became one of its engines, reforming the licensing roche and unleashing an economic marvel that has lifted tens of millions of people from poverty and created one of the world's largest middle classes. instead of succumbing to them division you have shown that the strength of india, the very idea of india, is its embrace of all colors, all castes and all creeds. [applause] it is the diversity represented in this chamber today. it is the richness of faith

celebrated by a visit she my hometown of chicago more than a century ago, the renowned swami. [applause] .. and vibrant civil society which allows every voice to be heard.

this year as india marks 60 years with a strong and space constitution the lesson is clear. india succeeded not in spite of democracy. india succeeded because of democracy. [applause] just as india has changed, so too has the relationship between the two nations. in the decades after independence, india advanced its interests as a prada leader of the movement. the 12 in the united states found ourselves on opposite sides of the north-south divide. estranged by a long cold war. those days are over. here in india, two successive governments led by different parties have recognized and

deeper partnership with america is both natural and necessary. and in the united states both of my predecessors, one a democrat, one a republican work to bring us closer leading to increased trade and landmarks of all nuclear agreement. [applause] since that time people in both our countries have asked what's next? how can we build on this progress? and realize the full potential of our partnership. and that's what i want to address today. the future that the united states seeks in an interconnected world and why i believe that india is indispensable to this edition. how we can forge a truly global partnership, not just in one or two areas of, but across many. not just for mutual benefit, but for the benefit of the world.

of course only indians can determine india's national interest how to evidence the mahmoud will stage. but i stand before you today because i am convinced the interest of the united states and the interest we share with india our best evidence in partnership. i believe that. [applause] the united states seeks security. the security of our country, our allies and partners. we seek prosperity, strong and growing economy that is open international economic systems. we seek respect for universal values and we seek a just and sustainable international order that promotes peace and security by making global challenges through stronger global cooperation. to advance these interests i

have committed the united states comprehensive engagement with the world based on mutual interest and mutual respect and a central pillar of this engagement is forging deeper cooperation with 21st century centers of influence, and that must necessarily include india. [applause] india is not the only emerging power in the world. but relationships between our countries is unique. for we are strong democracies whose constitutions begin with the same words, the same revolutionary words "we've the people." we are greek republics to the kid to the liberty and justice and equality of all and we are free market economy is where people have the freedom to pursue ideas and innovations that can change the world and that's why i believe in the and

america are indispensable partners in meeting the challenges of our time. [applause] since taking office, i therefore made a relationship a priority. i was proud to welcome the prime minister for the first official statement of my presidency. [applause] for the first time ever our governments are working together across the range of challenges that we face, and let me say as clearly as i can, the united states not only welcomes india as a rise in global power we fervently supported and have worked to help me get a reality. together with our partners we have made the g20 the premier forum for international cooperation is bringing more voices to the table of global economic decision making and that has included in the a.

we've increased the role of emerging economies like india financial restitutions. we valued india's role at copenhagen where for the first time all committed to take action to confront climate change and stand by those actions. we salute in the us's long history as a contributor to the united nations peacekeeping missions and we welcome india has its prepared to take its seat on the united nations security council. [applause] in short, with india assuming its rightful place in the world, we have a historic opportunity to make the relationship between the two countries a defining partnership of a century ahead and i believe we can do so by

working together in three important areas. first has global partners we can promote prosperity and both of our country's. together we can create the high-tech, high-wage jobs of the future. with my visit we are now ready to begin implementing our civil nuclear agreement. this will help meet india's's growing energy needs and create thousands of jobs in both of our countries. [applause] we need to forge partnerships in sectors like defense and civil space. as we have removed indian organizations from our so-called entity list and we will remove and reform controls on exports. both of these steps will ensure that indian companies speaking high-tech trade technologies from america are treated the same as our closest allies and partners.

[applause] we can pursue joint research and development to create green jobs, giving the a more accurate to call the error affordable energy, made the commitments we made a copenhagen and show the possibility of low carbon growth. together we can resist protectionism that stifles growth and innovation. the united states remains and will continue to remain one of the most open economies in the world and by opening markets and reducing the barriers to foreign investment, india can recognize it's full potential as well. as she 20 partners, we can make sure the global economic recovery is strong and durable and keep striving for a bohon route that is ambitious and balanced with the courage to make the compromises the furnace azeri so global trade works for all economies.

together we can strengthen agriculture, cooperation between indian and american researchers and scientists sparked the green revolution. today, india is a leader in using technology to in power farmers like those i met yesterday to get free updates on market and weather conditions on their salles phone. and the united states is a leader in agricultural products of research. now as farmers and rural area space climate change and trout, we work together to spark a second more sustainable ever green revolution. together we are improving in the in weather forecasting systems before the next monsoon season. we aim to help millions of indian farmers, farming households save water and increase productivity, improve the food processing so the cops don't spoil on the way to market and enhance climate forecasting to avoid losses that cripple

communities and drive up food prices. and as part of our food security initiative, we are going to share in the's expertise with farmers in africa. and this is an indication of india's right that we cannot export hard earned expertise to countries that see india as a model for agricultural development. another powerful example of how america and in the in partnerships can address an urgent global challenge. because the will of the nation also depends on the health of its people we will continue to support the efforts against disease like tuberculosis and hiv/aids and as global partners we will work to improve global health by preventing the spread of pandemic flu, and because norwich's the currency of the 21st century we will increase exchanges between our students, our colleges and universities which are among the best in the

world. as we work to advance our share of prosperity, we can partner to address a second priority and that is our shared security. in mumbai and met with a courageous family of survivors of that barbaric attack and here in the parliament, which was itself targeted because of the democracy it represents, we honor the memory of all those who have been taken from us including american citizens on 26/11 and indian citizens on 9/11. this is a bond that we share. it's why we insist that nothing ever justifies the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. it's why we are working together more closely than ever to prevent terrorist attacks and deepen our cooperation even

further. and it's quite as strong and resilient society as we refuse to live in fear. we will not sacrifice the values and rule of law that defines us, and we will never waver in the defense of our people. america's fight against al qaeda and its terrorist affiliate's is why we persevere in afghanistan, where major development assistance from india has improved the lives of the afghan people. and we are making progress in our mission to break the taliban's momentum and to train afghan forces so they can take the lead for their security. and while i have made it clear that american forces will begin the recession to have can responsible the next summer, i've also made it clear that america's commitment to the afghan people will endure. the united states will not abandon the people of afghanistan or the region to violent extremism who threaten

us all. our strategy to disrupt and dismantle and defeated al qaeda and its affiliate's has to succeed on both sides of the border, and that's why we have worked with the pakistani government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region. the pakistani government includes and revises these networks are not as if read outside pakistan, they are a threat to the pakistani people as well. they've suffered greatly at the hands of violent extremists over the last several years. and we will continue to insist pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable and that terrorists behind the mumbai attacks must be brought to justice. [applause] we must also recognize that all of us have an interest in both

and afghanistan and pakistan that is stable and prosperous and to the democratic. and india has interest in that as well. in the pursuit of regional security, we continue to welcome dialogue between india and pakistan, even as we recognize the disputes between the two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. more broadly, india and the united states can partner in asia. today the united states is once again playing a leadership role one asia strengthening alliance is committed and relationships as we were doing with china, and we are the engaging with regional organizations like asean and joining with the stage a summit, organizations in which india is also a partner. like your neighbors in southeast asia, we want india not only to

look east, we want india to engage east because it will increase the security and prosperity of all of our nation's. s2 global leaders, the united states and india can partner for global security, especially as india serves on the security council for the next two years. indeed, the just and sustainable international order of an american seeks includes the united nations, that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate. that is why i can see today in the years ahead i look forward to a reformed united nations security council that includes india as a permanent member. [applause]

now, let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility. the united nations success to fulfill its founding ideals of preserving peace and security, promoting global cooperation, and advancing human rights. these are the responsibilities of all nations, but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century. and so we look forward to working with nds -- and other nations that aspire to security council membership -- to ensure that the security council was effective, that resolutions are implemented, that sanctions are enforced, that we are strength and the international norms which recognize the rights and responsibilities of all nations and all individuals. this includes our responsibility to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. since i took office, the united states has reduced the role of

nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and we have agreed with russia to reduce our own arsenals. we have put preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism of the top of our nuclear agenda, and we have strengthened the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime which is the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. together, the united states and india can pursue our goal of securing the world's global nuclear materials. we can make it clear that even though every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear energy, every nation must also meet its international obligations and that includes the islamic republic of iran. and together we can pursue a vision that in the leaders have espoused since independence -- a world without nuclear weapons. [applause] and this leads me to the final

area where our countries can partner. strengthening the foundations of space governance, not only at home but abroad. in the united states my administration has worked to make government more open and transparent and accountable to people. here in india harnessing technology to do the same as i saw yesterday in an expo in mumbai. the landmark information act is importing citizens with the ability to get the services to which they are entitled. [applause] and told officials accountable. voters can get information about candidates by text message. and you're delivering education and health services to rural communities as i saw yesterday when i joined a e-panchayat with the villagers in rajasthan. now and in collaboration on open

government, our two countries are going to share our experience, identify what works and develop the next generation of tools to in power citizens. and another a example of how american and indian partnership can address global challenges we are going to share these innovations with civil society groups and countries around the world. we are going to show that democracy, more than any other form of government, too livers for the common man and woman to it likewise, when indians vote, the whole world watches. thousands of political parties, hundreds of false sense of polling centers, millions of candidates and pull workers, and 700 million voters. there's nothing like it on the planet. there is so much that country's transition into autocracy can learn from india's experience. so much expertise that india can

share with the world. and that, too is what is possible. when the world's largest democracy embraces its role as a global leader. as the world's two largest democracies, we must never forget the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others. [applause] indians notice for it is the story of your nation. before he ever began his struggle for indian independence, gandhi stood up for the rights of individuals in south africa just as others including the united states supported in the independence, india champing the self-determination of peoples from africa to asia as they too broke free from colonialism. [applause]

and along with the united states, you've been a leader in supporting space to the limit and civil society groups around the world, and this, too come is part of india's greatness. we all understand every country will follow its own path. no one nation has a monopoly on wisdom and no nation should ever try to impose its values on another. but when peaceful space movements are suppressed, as they have been in burma then the democracies of the world cannot remain silent for it is unacceptable to gun down peaceful protesters and a incarcerate political figures decade after decade. it is unacceptable to hold the aspirations of an entire people hostage to the greed and paranoia of bank of regimes. it is unacceptable to steal elections as the regime in burma

has done again for all the world to see. faced with such gross violations of human rights is the responsibility of the international community -- especially leaders like the united states and india -- to come dennett. and if i can be frank in international fora, india has often shied away from some of these issues. but speaking up for those who cannot do so for themselves is not interfering in the affairs of other countries. it's not violating the rights of sovereign nations. it is staying true to our space principles. it is giving meaning to the human rights that we say our universal. and it sustains the progress that in asia and around the world has helped turn dictatorships into democracies and ultimately increased our security in the world. so prompting shared prosperity, preserving peace and security, strengthening space governance and human rights -- these are

the responsibilities of leadership. and as global partners, this is the leadership that the united states and india can offer in the 21st century. ultimately, this cannot be a relationship only between presidents and prime ministers or in the halls of this parliament. ultimately, this must be a partnership between our peoples. [applause] so i want to conclude by speaking directly to the people of india who are watching today. in your lives to have overcome odds that might have overwhelmed a lot of your country -- overwhelmed a lesser country today than just the kids to have achieved progress and development that took other

nations centuries. you are now resuming your rightful place as a leader among nations. your parents and grandparents imagined this. your children and grandchildren will look back on this but only this generation of indians can see the possibilities of the moment. as you carry on with the hard work ahead i want every indian citizen to know the united states of america will not simply be cheering you on from the sidelines, we will be right there with you, shoulder to shoulder. [applause] because we believe in the promise of india. we believe that the future is what we make it. we believe that no matter who you are or where you come from, every person can fulfill their

god-given potential just as dalit dr. ambedkar could lift himself up and in the words of the constitution that protect the rights of all indians. we believe that no matter where you live, whether a village in khushab or the bayh lanes on an old section of calcutta or in a high-rise in bangalore, every person deserves the same chance to live and security and dignity. to get an education, to find work, to give their children a better future. and we believe that when countries and cultures put aside old habits and attitudes that keep people apart, when we recognize our common humanity,

then we can begin to fulfill these aspirations that we share. it's a simple lesson contained in that story which as guided indians for centuries. it's the spirit of inscriptions seen by all who enter this great home. that one would is mine and the other is stranger is the concept of little minds. but to the large hearted, the world itself as the family. this is the story of india. this is the story of america. that despite their differences, people can see themselves in one another and work together and succeed together as one proud

nation and it can be the spirit of partnership between the nations that even as we honor the history which in times has kept us apart, even as we preserve what makes us unique in a globalized world, we can recognize how much we can achieve together and if we let the simple concept be our guide, if we pursue the vision i've described today, the global partnership to meet global challenges, then i have no doubt that future generations, indians and americans will live in the world that is more prosperous and more secure and more just because of the bonds our generations has forged today. thank you and jai hind. long live the partnership between india and the united states. [applause]

okay. we are going to get started on the next session if you will take your seats.

a very good. thank you very much. i want to start with an announcement. neither sam or all i are running for the presidency so if there is anybody out there who is really screaming with rage, don't direct it at us? sam pitroda, we are very privileged to have him here. there is a characteristic innovation that i think is wrapped up in the story of sam and what he has done with his life. the first part is that so much innovation really only have been when a truly innovative person gets the idea and follows through on it and then the second chapter of innovation is that it affects whole groups of people and whole nations and that's kind of the sam pitroda story if you will. he grew up in a small village in india, he ended up as an adviser to the prime minister and a literally why did the indian

nations, and that this sort of chapter 1. chapter two is what he is now in the midst of doing. in fact she's leaving for new delhi again i think on monday isn't it? so sam, why don't we start by just telling them the 1980's chapter of this remarkable story of why iran a whole nation and not only the technical part which is the lawyering but what it does for a country and its people. >> in 1980i sold a company that i had in chicago to rockwell international and i decided to go visit india after having made a little bit of money. i had never been to new delhi. went and tried to call my wife from a five-star hotel and couldn't make a call to chicago. so a little bit of arrogance and a lot of ignorance said on and

going to fix this thing. so then i decided to commute back and forth for several years trying to convince government that we need to focus on i.t. and telecom for nation building. i was convinced that information communication technology brings about openness, accessibility, connectivity, networking, democratization, decentralization and as a result, social transformation. based on my own background i was also convinced that technology is igorot to be a great social leveler. i believe technology can be an entry point to bring about generational change. so i got a chance to meet mrs.

mrs. gandhi and i told her we need to focus on i.t. because we have a lot of young talent, of doherty but rural india, access, sustainability, development, the digital switch cannot rely on multinational and at the end he said would you want? so i said give me 500 engineers. i got 500 engineers average age of 23 and we build all the products india would need to why your for role in urban nds we build fiber-optic factories, switches, software and the trend almost 30,000 people. this started the new revolution and then mrs. gandhi and i and ultimately i decided to go back to india, change my nationality

back from u.s. to indian, and then spent about a decade working on all aspects of telecom, i.t. software. i remember jack welch coming to india. he wanted to meet the press minister. the prime minister was busy so he said can you handle jack? so jack and i had a breakfast. we had never met before and jack said line here to sell engines and i said jack, i'm not buying engines, i'm going to solve your software. [laughter] so he said i'm not buying software. so then he said what we do? [inaudible] finally, he let me tell him a little bit about software and he said what you want? i said give me a 10 million-dollar order. this was the time when there

were five people. jack gave 18 million-dollar order, i picked up ibm and that is how the software industry does start. so all kind of interesting stories but we have a great time in the 80's. i was convinced i.t. changed india, the democratization of information is the key to strengthening the indian democracy. spent to give the audience a scale of what you're talking about when you started there were how many phones for the population? >> it's interesting. in 1981 we had 2 million telephones for 800 billion people. it used to take 15 years to get a telephone connection. if you got a connection, have

the time you got a dialtone, half the time you have to wait. it used to take a great deal of pride connections to get a telephone connection. i had a friend who went from u.s. to india, and wanted to get married and decided he was going to marry a girl with a telephone connection. [laughter] today we have 700 million mobile phones. we are adding ten to 15 million a month, month after month of new connections. in the next 24 months we will probably have 900 million mobile phones. for the first time, a country of a billion people is connected. we are in addition of connected

billions so we need to think differently. ten years ago we were the nation of of the lehane and connect at. so how do you strategize for the future with this connectivity? so my job now is to look at public information infrastructure. >> let me come back to that. that's chapter to and i first want to wrap up chapter one. there is at first glance when listening to you it sounds like this is not difficult to what you're up 900 billion people and so on. there were all sorts of obstacles that you have to overcome, some of which a sociological, some of which are penal, some of which are infrastructure and so on. gophers of the things you had to get to where india now this. >> first of all we had to decide i want to build a nation had not build a business.

so i had to give up everything for 11 years. i spent lots of money going back and forth. i had to take the donaghey approach. sense of sacrifice, love for everybody, simplicity, openness, trent pendente. there was reason india that the cia planted man in the prime minister's office, there was me. you had to be very careful that you are working with the system that doesn't expect also intervention to change overnight. i have to give up my nationality. it was pretty painful but it had to be done. i had done to children born and raised in chicago.

i had parents in chicago so i had to move my family, left my parents there. at a personal level it was pretty tough. the political level, i had all the support from the prime minister. so i believe political will was very important. without political will, i wouldn't have done what i could do. and then they're real support came from younger talent. as you know in india we have 550 million young come below the age of 25. we essentials the need to build their future, their prosperity, jobs, growth, education. that's the main challenge today. so it was tough. >> and there were systemic problems the federated nature of government, the level of

corruption, lots of people benefited from the system the way it was and you had to do for all of that. now, chapter 2 which is what you were engaged on now and is even more pervasive and impressive than chapter 1 explains why year and the country for all the information and the use of clouds as a generating mechanism >> the last five years i have been working on knowledge commission as the chairman of in the's knowledge commission along with about seven of my colleagues we looked at five aspects of knowledge. access to knowledge which include languages, libraries, portals, broadband, quote does come all concepts, school education, your education, distance learning, vocational

information. we also looked at the creation of knowledge, innovation, to panora ship coming use of knowledge and agriculture, small and medium-sized industries and governments. about 27 giffords subject we spent five years preparing the road map for the next 20 years. if you go to www about knowledgecommission.gov you will see hundreds of pages of documents on the recommendations for the prime minister. for the last year i am focused on building six different platforms to this predominantly connected country. bulkeley broadband platform on

the libraries and institutions is planned to cost at least three or 5 billion, the government is already approved. it's under way. 1500 points will be wired and 20 degette. then we ought to create the i.t. platform that the former head of his working on. but all billion people will have fingerprint and [inaudible] then we want to create security structure, applications, payment. these are the platforms that we need to create. to do this we need to connect to hundred 50,000 local governments we negative 800,000, a fiber

already underground. it's also a dark fiber most of it, so we are using that fiber and creative ways to what you're up the local government. to include education like last night there was a discussion on education. what we were missing was the role of technology. we don't learn the same way i learned 50 years ago. a teacher does not need to create content. teacher does not need to deliver content. today most of the time 90% of the time teachers create content and deliver content. so the rule of the teacher will change to that of a mentor. so how do you define new teachers? so we are looking at a lot of these things in light of what technology can do.

without technology we cannot meet our aspirations. what you are proposing is more radical than what we were talking about for america. but as the situation in public, government and educational establishment as far as change of that dimension one? >> like here we also have a lot of lobbies and we also get lots

of assistance. our job is to go out in public, talk to the democracy, promote our ideas and caring young people with us. in many of these areas we have main street situations. we don't have a lot of investor interest. i give you one example. in the u.s. we have 1200 centers for the government. everybody and his brother came up to the data center. in india we tried to build for because we are starting in 2010 as opposed to 1980. so we have sort of an advantage to leapfrog mainly because we are doing it now. so we are counting on that and we keep fighting the battle everyday. >> the session we have coming up

after this is on india and china. now you're obviously taking radically different approaches to the use of technology and the use of information because it is such a different political system. how would you characterize, if i can put it this way, the competition between the two great and very large countries and the roads they are wrong and what your prospects for them are? >> i don't see it as a competition. the of a billion people to serve, we have a billion people to serve. we have a democracy. so we focus on democratizing information. we will focus on open government. we will focus on technology to deliver public services, education, health. we have very serious problems of our own. disparity, disparity between the rich and poor, urban and rural, educated and uneducated.

demography, 550 million young below the age of 25. defilement, we are doing everything, but we are not doing it fast enough. we need more of all of that. so our pattern is quite a different, it will be slow compared to china. like in shanghai they wanted to build the road coming from the airport to the city. somebody finally drew a line and said that's the road. in india and you can't do that. you have to vote like this. but that's the price to pay for democracy and we are happy to do that. >> we describe it a bit the scale of transformation that comes when you why you're a whole country for mobile telephones. what we didn't do and could do in examples of people can get an idea how does it change the life

, today what is primarily fundamentally different now telephone communications where you didn't have any of any kind before? >> interesting. first of all, people can pick up the phone and call a member of parliament and scream and they think that's great. wake them up at midnight, ask for help to take somebody to a hospital, asked for all kind of things. number two, the get a lot of information about their jobs. weather forecasting, information on seeds, pricing for goods and services, lots of tomatoes to sell i need a lot of calls and find out where to sell. so i think communication has opened the horizon. we still have the

nineteenth-century mindset, 20th century process and 21st century needs. but when a little kid in the village can get in front of a screen and visit the museum it changes his perception compared to then i can to america in 1964i had never made a telephone call in my life. i had a master's in physics. i had never seen television. i knew how to design mumbai at never seen one. compared to that, kids today see the world of their aspirations are very different. their reflexes are very different. so why take technology has given us a new road map to build a nation. we the next 25 years are going

to be critical for india. we have a window of opportunity for the next five, seven years to put all these things in place and someone like me at my age can do. >> this is a little of the subject we've been discussing now but we have the uniques each region. you are an indian and also the long american heritage. we have a president about to go to indy 500 on what is a more consequential trip than usual we tend to think. what are some of your thoughts about what ought to happen on this trip and in your area of modernization development what would you like to see come up? >> there are a lot of expectations about this. everyone believes that the oldest and the biggest democracy is coming together would mean a lot to the rest of the world.

we have signed the nuclear treaty, we need lots of energy, we believe in open government, and i believe this visit of president obama is being watched by the rest of the leaders in the world at an important event, and i hope we can send the right signals to the world that we want to build a different kind of pull together. i think the u.s. needs india and indian needs the u.s.. more so than ever before. earlier the u.s. looked down on india for a long time. there are all kind of stories about how mrs. gandhi got along. i think it's about time to look in your eyes of the same level of respect and began a whole new chapter. a lot of hope.

he's quick to be spending two days in mumbai i am told to but we are trying to see if we can work out programs of open government and send signals we want to democratize information together. >> sam, that is a very good note on which to -- >> if you will just give me one minute i want to talk about racial. [laughter] we've set up and national to get five aspects of innovations. one innovation as a platform. so it's not about products and technology and high-tech and science, it's about innovation in government, social sector, families and look at innovation as a platform. to innovations.

we believe, especially on i believe the been solving the problems of the rich don't have problems at all. the problems of the poor don't get the right kind of talent. we want to get the best brains solving the problems of the poor because we have lots of pork and the world is looking to us with our talent to solve the problems of poor in the world. we ought to create a new ecosystem for innovation. we want to define new drivers. for example disposable versus durable. we want to create a course on innovation so we are working on lots of interesting things to make sure that innovation comes out of the lambs into the mind of the people. again it's going to take a

decade but the process is on. >> thank you. it's quite a story and so good to have you here. [applause] the subject is india and china but i'm going to throw in the third nation because it is consequential to both of those and the whole east asian region and that's us, the united states, particularly since there's quite a bit of news coming up you've heard us mention the trip a moment ago, there is the g20, our own election of what is going to happen afterwards sweating a little bit of u.s. and how it relates to india and china is in order. now we have on our panel to the starting on my far left is robert. he's a long and distinguished career in public life and the

investment community of new york. he's currently u.s. undersecretary of state for economics, business and their cultural affairs. next to him is journalist and author of great distinction and great courage. he's the publisher of a magazine that is particularly known for very brief investigative reporting. and on my right is the mit professor of political economy and international management. and on my far right is an economist and author formerly was goldman sachs and she has written a very provocative book on how the west was lost so let's get started. bald, let me start with a few statistics to get a sense of the tale of what we are dealing with and the change.

china has a gross national product of about $5 trillion. compared to that the u.s. has a gross national product of 15 trillion but the chinese figure is growing at a rather dramatic rate closing the gap all the time. the third player, india is only about one-fourth the size of china in terms of gnp but the growth rates and all of these cases except our own are on a very fast scale. china is expected to grow at 9.5% rate, india at 8.5% rate and comparing us to the two of them we are expected to grow the rate of 2.5%. but what do we expect from the trip obama is taking and how special we think this one is

given international presidential travel? >> i think this to this special number of ways. spec let's check to make sure everyone can hear. >> excellent. >> if not just shout and we will pass this back-and-forth. >> first of all its fondest period of time president obama has been out of the united states. second if you look at the trip there's an important signal here. he's going from india to indonesia, then he's going up to correa and japan. these are the biggest democracies in the area, and if you look at this trip it's really too underscore several things. first of all, india. the growing importance of india and the u.s. political security and economic relationship. second, indonesia, a democracy that this been growing rapidly and has become a vibrant

democracy over the last ten, 15 years. then self triet which went from the and all authoritarian kind of system to a democracy and is a prosperous country very close to the bricks in terms of its growth rate and dynamism and of course our old allies in the region, japan. so working with these countries is important to demonstrate we do support democracies in the region. when you look at india in particular there's a tendency to look at india versus china to read it's not really india versus china, it's in the and china. the united states has to have a relationship both but we have a compelling relationship with india. sam pointed out india has demonstrated very balanced growth over the last several lawyers. it doesn't depend on heavily exports as china and the information in india makes it even more bribery and society and one for the benefits china

has in terms of its growth one of them isn't democratization of information and therefore one of the points the president is going to emphasize is how we can work with this democracy to work with open government democratization of information, increased trade, increased cooperation with india and the security of the indian ocean and support for the politicians in india who've been reforming the country at a rapid rate and the other point is when you go, when the other meetings in japan and korea the meeting in korea is a meeting of the g20 collis of india is a very important part of the g21 we work with the g20 it is quite large and you need to have partners within the g20 to cooperate on certain items. we are going to work very closely in the g20 on a range of things been going to japan for apec, asia pacific economic forum which again is supposed to emphasize cooperation in the

region and the last point i make is the particular element of the trip is worth noting and in the region that the united states has not been pleading over the last seven or eight years as practically rule in east asia as many countries in the region but light.