[inaudible conversations]

>> last month, more than 300 members of the u.k. youth parliament, ages 11 to 18 gathered in the house of commons for a debate. the students debated several topics including sex education in schools, the war in afghanistan and the rising cost of university tuition fees. the speaker of the house of commons presides over this 90 minute debate. [inaudible conversations] >> colleagues, please be seated.

welcome to those, only the second ever sitting of the u.k. youth parliament here in the chamber of the house of commons. as he will have heard already, because the point is being made, on the 21st of july this year, the house of commons voted to allow the u.k. youth parliament to meet annually for the remainder of this parliament to debate the subject, which you have decided should be debated. that decision, with a ringing endorsement of the outstanding success of the first-ever series of debates, which took place exactly a year ago and it was

also, members of the youth president, a symbol of the commitment of the house of commons, better to engage with civil society in general and with young people in particular, a car which i imagine by now, many of you will know, is very dear to my own heart. i mention the 21st of july, which has an historic and enduring significance for you at the parliament. three days afterward -- and if i may say so at my request to the chief executive of the parliament, on the 24th of july, i traveled to belfast because i wanted to be present on the occasion of your annual general meeting. and i was, i confess,

overwhelmed on that occasion by the warmth and generosity of the welcome that she extended to me in return for the warmth and generosity of the welcome that you extended to me, i., on behalf of the house today, extend the warmest and most generous welcome possible to each and every one of you sitting here at the chamber and two of the people who have aided and abetted to in coming here today. and i offer you that not merely out of politeness, because there's nothing wrong with that, but out of respect, respect for what you are, respect for what

you do and respect for what i know you as a parliament will increasingly become. the legitimate and respect good form for the expression of the views of young people and the engagement and debate on crucial questions, which affect you, your fellows and society as a whole. and i know that many of my parliamentary colleagues here today, from the deputy leader of the house, david healy, to the chair of the business committee, thatcher and go and from all parliaments, are united in respect for what we can learn from your own parliament. in terms not merely of

enthusiasm, though they certainly have a president and the range of subjects that they discuss, which is easily observable, but if you're representativeness as an institution. i have always been struck by the 50% if you care about your female, approximately 20% if you are from black and minority ethnic communities. in approximately 10% of you had some form of disability. so in terms of representing the kaleidoscope of modern society come at the u.k. youth parliament does it very impressively and does it and away from which the elected house of commons at south can learn. on this great occasion, i would like to say something about a very special man, who is sadly no longer with us.

and that man is called andrew rau, who served as member of parliament for midtown and then forefather shown and it can't and he sadly passed away two years ago. andrew rowe, served as mp for that constituency, was as farsighted as he was a warmhearted man, whose visual and inspiration that was to see established a u.k. youth parliament as a forum for young people to debate, to articulate, to engage with each other and to contribute to the democratic process. he is turn off minimum of fashion to establish the parliament with a relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters. i know how proud he would be

today of your presence and of what you're going to offer. and from my point of view, it's a joy and i think it is for you, to be able to welcome andrew's family who are in the gallery over there, his children and his grandchildren. you're hugely welcome and you could be so proud of what andrew did. he was truly a great parliamentarian, a thoroughly decent man and what hugely appreciated. [applause] [applause] we are going to get onto the great debates. enjoy yourselves.

speak up and speak their minds. speak for yourself, speak for your fellows come to speak for your areas and recognize that it's a great privilege and it's a privilege which should be truly rewarding for you. we're thrilled to have you. we are going to get on to the main business of the day because there is much to do as winston churchill did in very little time in which there is to do it. [laughter] order, order appeared to youth parliament will consider the first motion of the day, relating to sex education as printed on the order paper. to move the motion -- and i ask you to give him a very warm welcome. i call mr. joe vincent. [applause]

>> thank you very much, mr. speaker. may 1st thank you in a process for getting us here today. we'll greatly value how you felt this so far. mr. speaker, the highest teenage rate, an increasing number of transmitted infections among young people knows compulsory sex education in the united kingdom. this is a dire situation we find ourselves in today. in current legislation, no school in england or wales is compelled to teach their students about sex and relationships in italy the governors of the school that decide what is taught. this is a disgrace. this approach has not only left many people naïve enough nowhere in this created an adversary postcode lottery. if you don't live in the right area, you won't be taught the copyright status. because the school doesn't have to teach any of it. in fact, the only compulsory elements of sex education are

contained in the science curriculum. and let us be clear, sex education covers a wide range of issues affecting young people and these include: safe practices, transmitted infections and legal issues surrounding consent and abuse. these, mr. speaker are clearly beyond the realms of science. it is this lack of education that is haunting society. the most recent figures showed that almost 43,000 young people, it is up to 19 had an abortion in 2008. and in different terms, that's 117 abortions every day for those aged up to 19. other countries have shown that by teaching your people about sex and relationships from an early age, teenage pregnant he, sexually diseases: mr people or complement about themselves. we can't say that it singly or

in person pulled from the tribes of previous generations. it makes sense if you teach a young person the basics of what is a good, healthy relationship is before there'll want to sex him about the confidence to make healthy decisions. sex education in this country is too little too late. we need to wake up to the facts. when he took what were doing to young people and say this is enough. why are we waiting until there is a problem to teach young people about sex education? were treating it like were covering up behind a 30-ton. sex educationists circulate to stop the damage before it's too late. on a similar note, if we are serious about our commitment to ensuring a person is seven left in the dark, but we must remove a parents right to take their child out of sex and relationships education. it would be ridiculous of me to stand here and i mention religion. and i recognize the difficulty

they propose to certain religions, which is why support the previous government's proposal to allow the source to their belief in education, too. i cannot stress enough how important it is that no young person falls through and not. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for getting us off to a confident, clear starter. there lots of people to hear from today, but i do want you to appreciate the blood of my parliamentary colleagues are you today. as evidence of their strong support for you as an organization, for each of you as an individual. timor 10. he's very shy, but your handout. lynn brown,, not. kerry mccarthy was the labour

member of the minister and no doubt the colleagues who is now leaning forward expectantly. we wouldn't want not to notice you and it would indeed be impossible for any length of time. [laughter] is great to have you. i call ms. maria finnerty to oppose the motion. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are a generation like no other. and the world in which information can be trained mended at the click of a button, it is unsurprising that young people develop ideas influenced the media. images dominate media activity and often presented socal and so recklessly that it is fido that

our young people are provided with immediate responsible counterpart to sex and relationship education. 76% of teens surveyed across the country, including those in my own constituent he thought that they needed more sex education. young people are clearly provided with inconsistent and in opera. sre. however, teams that take sex education to young could exacerbate the effects of the media. i'm sure you'll agree that an understanding of relationship cannot simply be taught on the chart board, but requires experience of life, which primary children do not possess. any primary school teacher will uphold, promote and encourage the role of parents as an educator, particularly between the impressionable ages of five

and 10. it is simply not necessary for the state to interfere with the powers and race to enter this crucial that that delicate moral issue with their own young children. essentially, we are experiencing a traffic laws of the child. and what, high street reveals a distressing turn to the adult design. children with playboy symbols. our children are being sexualized too young and we must aim to protect this short-lived innocence. sre is simply an appropriate within primary curriculum. the issue quite clearly does not lie within the thought, but how thoroughly and how consistently. the sex education recently brought up the main concern of

youths is in my normal? we must not do love young men and particularly young women to their self image is tormented by a media which often fails to acknowledge differences in shape, size and appearance. we must dispel the illusion that they must conform to the media image of perfection and teach them and set the value of their own unique bodies. i believe that teaching children sex education at primary school will be too much to young. let us defend the innocence of childhood. it is a sedentary school age that sre becomes crucial for the health and well-being of millions of young people. thank you. [applause]

>> maria, thank you for an excellent contribution. now, who wants to take part in this debate? any people to indicate, and you've been told how to do so. >> we are separated by or social backgrounds more than anything else. therefore would be blind to believe that when unilateral policy would be the answer. what is needed is a policy-based and a solid aim to reduce, teenage pregnancy rate venture promote all aspects of relationships. sex education is not a. one size does not fit all to solve this problem. it's a waste of time, money and resources that an effective policies launched the entire country.

education is bad for ignorance. ignorance will exist not only to pass an exam, but how to take care of their own well-being. with the right education and the right to help comes the rights of the health education. it is not a question of morality, but a question of equality. why should some children in this country have education when others do not? they also have some form of personal health education and sex education as a new part of action that came through in a local area priorities for what they wanted to do. at only 1.6% of people who voted out the dirt education was an issue. however, 60% of young people feel that their education is out of touch. the government has to take

responsibility twos education. for inequality, which affects the basic well-being of the human being is unacceptable in state society. financially, sexual education is highly viable. if you teach teenagers about prevention measures, then it would reduce the cost and accept thousands each year, thus helping the 20 billion pounds efficiency and productivity savings the government had introduced this year. but in education needs to be on people. the right topics are introduced, the numbers continue to rise, money wasted. this is why a curriculum finalized the local level and meet the needs of each young person. this way, every young person is to be valued and every young person in this country can be

equal. [applause] >> young gentleman with the red tie at the back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. other members weekdays a fast growing and serious issue. >> from which part of the country? >> i was mips -- [inaudible] as my reasonable friend that in the past three years we have a sre relationship and people in my constituency sex education when it exists is very limited, often focuses on contraception, inception and not getting pregnant, but it doesn't tackle the issues of feelings, emotions, competence or communication. and we need to put this in an appropriate cultural context. and also i would like to remind the honorable members here that the children and families those

in parliament in some concessions along the way due to our position. not me personally and my constituency believes that this is an absolute disgrace and a complete betrayal to young people who actively requested that sex education is to be better provided. [applause] >> magnificent. the suit were very reluctant to go first. can we have someone from northern ireland. chairwomen there. >> i'd like to look at this from a large perspective first of all. i believe teenage pregnancy is an appropriate measure of the excessive quality of sex education jurisdiction. it's often about to say with the highest in western europe, but that's in context. first of all, 1971, 50.6 births

were teenage mothers. however, in my own region, north of ireland, only 23 were to teenage mothers. but the massive decrease. and i can perhaps attribute type to the education is initiated by or department of health. a 6.6% decrease since 2000, despite the fact they were come pretty assistant during the 90s. the point would be that we are at severe risk of over sexualizing our primary school children. their innocence should be safe, not sacrificed for the sake of a statistic. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. the young lady here. >> bobby simmons. i feel we have misnamed this

debate. i feel that relationships, are more important and this is why i've completely wholehearted he agree with the decision to take them to rsa. we have our priorities wrong. relationships should concur. relationship is key to good, safe and informed sex. we need to look to relationships first. but then again, i'm not saying that sex is wrong. it's not wrong to have. it's good and it can lead to better things. [cheers and applause] and with that, it shows they guess we are extreme deep sexualizing our primary school children. but why should we teach them about relationships? why should we teach them about life? why should we teach them about how to have good relationships and then it could lead onto sex.

it is not wrong for sex, but yet it's too early. therefore, i think we should teach in more context of private school relationships and then move onto sex. so my point here is that we have our priorities wrong. relationships first, leading to and that's how we should educate our children. [applause] >> young men they are. yes indeed, sir. >> yes, i'd like jamaica plain first of all about age in primary school. i can't imagine praised by telling this is what happens when you get an. it shows that relationship first and other things in relationships to sex education

that you can bring an earlier and think about and education primary school defensible. it must be mentioned that he pushes a button in today's society and you see images they are learning from friends or roommates. the government has an opportunity to tell people versed about sex enemies to keep up with the media speed and sexual imaging. thank you. [applause] >> members of the parliament, we've been joined by tumor colleagues. valery who is worse outcome a labour member. and allison mcgovern is with us as well. the thank you both for coming. >> my name is landry ever allowed, of london. i think it's important that we

keep the innocence of young people. i don't think it's a good idea to corrupt the minds of young people into thinking i'm going to catch and std if i do this and do that because i wouldn't want my brother coming home again told me today learned about and chlamydia. that is not good at all. also we've got in primary schools i'm sure they teach sex education from the age of year five. they teach them about sex, the basics, not about sexual transmitted infections. that's when they start to learn more in detail about what's going on if you do this and you do that. so we should keep it at that instead of making them think i'm five years old, when i get to lebanon to this and this is going to happen to me. now. [laughter] >> thank you.

colin ashworth. >> my name is owen ashworth from halt the north was. young people with the quality of sex education is diabolically of the information they have taught today. that is the best case they can get worse for some individuals, which has gotten a disability get no sex education because it's the social norm. [applause] >> the young woman over there. >> johnny davis from bristol.

as it has been said before, this is not about teaching girls about std's for using a. it's teaching gross to have a healthy relationship in the future. his teaching about confidence, and in my normal thing, same everyone develops at different stages. everyone is ready for sex at a different age and this is not about the facts and the figures and the birds and the bees. they should be left to when you're older. the young people are having sex from the age of 11 or 12. and if we left it too late, these people can already get pregnant. i have known by people of that kind of age that i've got pregnant. we need to teach people about the respect and when the right time is a need to teach that not necessarily from site, but from a quite l&h.

i would have someone tell me, maybe they should drink some more alcohol, then they'd be ready for their first time, which is completely out of order. no one should have to feel pressured into anything. the age of consent, std's, everything else. not enough is put on feelings, personal appearance and confident to say no until you are ready and in a healthy relationship. [cheers and [applause] >> thank you very much indeed for what you have to say. have we got a female member from the west midlands who might like to contribute, no? yes, i think we have. [inaudible] i just like to say in private schools i think we should secure the relationship and making sure they have a healthy relationship between the persons. it's not actually that much more

familiar and used to be improved on. the thing is what needs to be improved on we also need to government relationship and sex, but also we have new sent this for these children to. u.k. i think maybe we should have this game, which then goes to school, which young people would feel more comfortable talking to persons like that. i think some teachers feel awkward and i cannot sex education in that situation should be -- [inaudible] thank you. [applause] >> whoever got from wales who was waiting to speak? young woman mayor. thank you.

>> i have been taught nothing of relationships or sex education at her. i got nothing until i was in biology lessons, i thought how you actually got pregnant and how humans reproduce. i was utterly shocked and that's probably different as i'm sure a lot of people's parents would give them that information. but i simply believe in primary school age they should be taught about safe and loving relationships. by your parents or stepparents order who brought you up and is developed here because that is the way forward on that. and i don't think that in secondary school it should be brought into much more depth, not only do things such as

pregnancy and sdis, but also more the relationship side of it, so that it can be attacked as a good team, which is like the dangers that are always shocked to you, that you almost do it because it's dangerous. and i learned far more from the show that maria mentioned that i have ever learned in school, which i think is just wrong. [applause] >> i'm going to call the young woman from buckingham. >> hello, i am at their psyche.

ladies and gentlemen, britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in europe and there was a social and political reasons for this. but the most paramount thing about rectifying this issue is education. we need to educate young people on sex and relationships. and it is not just making it compulsory, but we need to have a basic standard of sre and schools. see, if we look at the system at the moment, the fluctuations between different schools, different counties is now says. some of my friends have had comprehensive and consistent sre education, whereas i in my entire life can count about three and a half hours. two of those were in primary school when i learned about how the human reproductive system works. one of those within europe when

i walked into a biology class and that is slightly more in depth about how the human reproductive system works. and one of those was 45 minutes in which i learned how difficult it was to put on a condom. so the thing about it is we need to prevent young people from learning about relationships and sex through google and costa. we are thoroughly distorting the ideas the better relationships. we need to teach young people about contraception, about safe back, but relationships, but how to spot an abusive relationship before it starts. it is a huge thing. and for those who say that sre is by the pairings for the children -- [inaudible] who feel thoroughly mortified

about having to talk with parents, raise your hands. [inaudible conversations] cameras in my hands, mom, if you're watching as well. [cheers and applause] every single context they form an existence has had. okay, we start when we were teenagers. [applause] >> right, before this debate is found up with that time -- i'm going to create time for two very short contributions. young women here. and then for the east of england. just at 10 yeah speaker. i believe that it's paramount

not only to teach children and young people about what is a healthy relationship and how to manage one's, but to help teach them about managing quality and to bring the policy and society. and the only way to do studies teacher and from from a young age that is perfectly acceptable to have same sex relationships, for example. i'm not in my constituency, there still is a lot of that occurs and i'm sure the same approximation. and the only way to tackle this is to teach children from a young age that is perfectly acceptable to have the same sex relationship and it's perfectly normal to have a relationship and that's the only way to stop this inner quality that so does occur. [applause] >> thank you for that speech. as you can taught me the real impact. east of england, whoever got from the east of england?

young woman here. [inaudible] >> why is it so important because why should a young person be free to be intimate and have sex when it's not safe over the edge number they could access a much different information when you could go to a school in a safe environment of veteran teachers. i think it's much better. and also, what information you find i know quite a lot of young people that would want to know about it and the only other solution is the internet because personally i wouldn't want my parents to talk about sex with my parents. i would be able to do it. i think it's better that it's taught in a safe environment rather than going to the internet for your produce a much different information. [applause] i'm afraid that excise the time

available for speeches. please don't be upset or in any way discouraged if you didn't have the chance to speak in this debate. there were other debates upcoming as you know. if you're keen to contribute, please stand and i'll try and get as many of you as they possibly can to have your say. i call and i hope he'll give a warm welcome as i call her, ms. felicity stone hill. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, honorable speaker. i would like to thank all of you for a very valid points. sex and relationship education is a new topic to be debated and i myself am honored to be able to discuss a crucial topic with all of you today. but compulsory sex and relationship education is something that is strived for and it is something we have been campaigning for a further five years. last year we were just days away from making compulsory sre laws

and yes, we did have a disappointing outcome. but i believe is a unified organization we can make the government set up and listen to her campaign. i would like to mention us as our dependence and by many others before her, that this is not just sex and sex education in the anatomy of it. this is sex and relationship education. many believe teaching children about relationships ring on each such as primary school is finally important to their development. and those children should understand the needs of relationships, such as trust and respect. not just respect for yourself, the respect for one another. maybe with this knowledge as they mature, we can have a generation with a better attitude towards them. today we're asking what age should education be applied? somewhat argue secondary school. the connect independent sre, said many worked successfully to provide sre, even in faith

organizations with their particular surrounding the delivery of sre. also, it was highlighted this education is strongly valued by parents and young people. right now, our generation could have a much bigger view, from things such as peer pressure and as bernie mentioned, sexualized media format. and this can lead to repercussions such as teenage pregnancy, which is something for all fully aware of as we've heard so many times. this can lead to negative opinion of her generation and this is not the way that young people to be represented. i think most of us can agree that sex education is important to young people with the right education, teenagers know what to say now. so what i'm asking you today is to think about your own experiences and decide which you think could have been done differently. anything current sex education would've affected you or change her attitude toward sex and relationships today. thank you.

[applause] >> felicity, thank you for winding up our debate so welk yr winding up our debate so well. the debate really has been very striking, characterized by people speaking with knowledge, with passion, with poise. and i think you'll find that the serious media will treat you with great respect because what you've done has been frankly fantastic. we now move on because it's time for the youth parliament to consider the second motion of the day related to university tuition fees have printed on the order paper. to move the motion, please give them a warm welcome. i call mr. james bartel. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, as members will be aware, a few weeks ago, brian brown published his report into the future of higher education in this country. lord browne listed the cap and university tuition fees, paving the way from raising fees to an average of 6000 pounds. mr. speaker, this price in fees is absolutely necessary if we are to maintain high standards in our education system. the reality is that at the moment we are reaching a crisis point in university funding. many universities are starved of cash with which your cuts of some 2.9 billion pounds to university and there is a massive gap to fill. the director general of the russell group, which represents 20 of the uk's type university said we desperately need our money if we are to give students the education they deserve. mr. speaker, there is a real risk that standards and universities will fall if

investment is not sustained. but of course, mr. speaker, quality is not the only factor we should consider. turner should be at the heart of our university system. we must all remember that students do not pay a penny for their university education. you don't pay a penny until you leave. nobody will pay for their education until they've left universities, they started working and they are earning over 21,000 pounds a year. if their wages go down, so will the payment. if they stop working, the nonpayment will stop as well. mr. speaker, that is fair. because in the end, the person that benefits more from having a degree is the student. if you have a degree, you can get better paying jobs which would be significantly harder if he didn't have a degree. it's estimated over the course they graduate with an average

23.5% more than somebody who doesn't have a degree. so why should the taxpayer has to pay for the privilege of that young person to have enough extra money? turning to the issue of debt, people are rightly worried about the level of debt they get into at universities. what they should think about, amounts they would add to the level of national debt in this country if the taxpayer had to put a gap in the funding. the debt we get into at universities in goa, compared to the 952 billion pounds of debt, which our generation has been set but because of the economic mismanagement of the previous government. it is true and that is a record that the previous government should be ashamed of and a record for which, mr.'s weaker are yet to apologize. mr. speaker -- are back again, this is true.

no mr. speaker, in this debate we have a clear choice. we can vote for bill universities come which are funded to a fair contribution from graduate or we can say no. the students don't have to pay any more. we will then have to upset that we have third-rate universities, which gives students decrease of little value. i know the choice i would go with. i hope also share in a few and i commend this motion to the house. [applause] >> thank you for that very robust opening speech. to oppose the motion, i shall in a moment i'll mr. connor morgan. i know you'll give him a warm welcome. and i just informed members of the youth parliament. but, will say some words and irish gaelic and he will then, for all of our benefit, repeat the media in english. mr. connor morgan. [cheers and applause]

[speaking in native tongue] >> loosely translated that was thank you, mr. speaker. it was a great honor to stand before you and have the opportunity to address you in irish now back to thank you for the opportunity. cop mark 70,000 pounds -- the amount a student will pay is 32,000 pounds, the amount of data never suitable patient they cast the left as indicated in the steamy affair. then they put this in

perspective. the average wage in the u.k. each year is 25,543 pounds. but let me ask you something. is that very reason the capital tuition fees, educational become a privilege only for those that can afford it? [cheers and applause] is it just that the members of parliament who have an education paid for the state may expect us the innocent and disenfranchised this economic mess to pay for the mistakes they have made. as of right turns are we as young people are considered or constantly being told we are the future? our future appears to be a burden of debt and uncertain job prospects. we are the representatives of young people. we believe education is to write that everyone should be entitled to. we do not believe the welfare class should pay a factor and we most certainly do not believe we should be expected to begin our life trapped beneath a burden of death of up to 30,000 pounds.

this also meant 5% of young people, all of whom opposed nothing. we do not think the young people in these proposals have been adequately consulted and that those who choose not only to maintain education began an enormous debt, but they are choosing to worsen an already entirely unjust circumstances. what kind of society do we live in when one of three young people choose their university based on how much it will cost them? for panic education system allows them to be left behind? account decision makers on the latest of young people, but also make rash decisions -- i can ever pronounce this word, decision so negatively affect the lives of many. we must stand up come we must. we must send a clear message to decision-makers that our education must never be a compromise. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you and congratulations. can i just issue on appeal? i'll try not to make the mistake myself, but the appeal is if you've already spoken, please don't stand at this stage because obviously there's lots of people who have another chance to speak at an invite to give them that opportunity. perhaps we can at the young woman here. yes, you. [laughter] >> no disrespect, this young woman here. >> i'm alex from the midlands. but kind of society do we live in where you could date job where you have to go on to university and the degree is not a level. we should be able to leave school and then go get training argot apprenticeships into that. now i've got to go into debt to get a job that's not as good as we would've gotten four years ago. it's not right.

[applause] >> whoever got from the northeast england? motives, got some young men here. >> thomas robinson from middlesboro and northeast. young people in bittersweet constituency by midterm report suggestions for him. and middle story we have been magnificent teesside university, which was recently named university here, the 16th out of 23 and middle spurt are socially deprived, so it's obvious that our young people do find it hard to pay to go to university, even when they're academically able. we believe the rising tuition fees will make our higher education system belly disco or the rich can afford to go and the poor cannot. and we urge the coalition government not to make such a devastating decision, which will no doubt exclude so many young people from achieving their true potential. thank you. [applause] >> someone from london. young women here.

>> barnburner boren -- [inaudible] i should go to the university next year. i suspect quite a few of you are. how michael and pay pay my tuition fees when i leave, but also how mike went to live and have a social life when i fall into the as i would get nothing. i look at the lowest amount that the government can possibly give me. how many times do you hear i learned friend from my learned colleague. there learned because they go to university. how many bmps haven't been to university? they practically all have in their charge take that away from our generation, away from us. is that really fair? [applause] >> thank you. what about somebody from the west midlands who hasn't spoken before.

what about the young man here. yes. >> thank you, speaker. my name is tommy and i am from birmingham. at the universities that allow the tuition fees at 10,000 pounds a year. a young student in the university will attend 50,000 pounds. working-class demands, like my constituency, may be put off and go to the university and following their dreams. these universities and institutions for the rich and not the institution for the talented. [applause] >> can we have somebody from wales? who have the cup from wales? two people standing for miles. yeah, the young woman here. [laughter] >> how many of you live in this

state? [inaudible] well, seeing as most of you i disagree because some emily is may be able to afford their tuition fees. some may not as they might have more bigger families. but people with vigor families would stop their children from going to university. or would you stop them from having more children? and from my point of view, i would say to stop them -- stop the tuition fees from getting tinier as some people might not be able to afford them and some may, but the people who can't, then you should think of them more than the people who can. [applause] >> thank you. what about the southeast? what about the young gentleman here? yes. >> the young man from

buckingham. may i point out that the government has promised that should university tuition fees drop, there will be enough money to get from student loans or more scholarships to cover the cost? now i actually think that the government and the loan repayment threshold actually puts them into a different decision because they will have more money and they may not get it back. yeah, 40% cuts in the university budget are over four years. it is inevitable that we have to stand against it because simply we can't. what we should focus on now is how much university fees will rise by, whether there were still be a cap or not. whether we're going to turn into a free market, where universities and churches much as they play.

[applause] >> to do we have somebody would like to contribute from the east of england? i think the young woman in the back is about to explode. [laughter] 's >> thank you, speaker. i am from the university and i am very proud of what i'm doing right now. when i had about tuition going up, the next day it was shocking. there were -- discerning mac i do not agree with what he is doing. you have the ability of what it's causing. add value to get a career, not a jot. i don't think you should say you have go and you don't need a degree. but i want to get a degree.

the one thing i've realized, cleverly, with economics, they said just recently, that there is a public or universities, that they go private. this is a process that happens in america and we see how unspent our process is in america that sees bitterly equaling encourager blames the amount we pay and i? i be horrified to have to leave to the death of 50,000 pounds. it's a privilege we have the universities in the u.k. so lord browne, please consider them because i do not agree personally as students who have to now think about okay, if the university. it's a massive thing. and to conclude one argument that i won't say about lord

browne. there is a standard in terms of the points. future taken into account the budget for them to pay. students will not be eligible for financial report integrates were below the standards. so what is the standard to detain universities? [applause] >> i'm looking for a speaker from yorkshire and humberside. we've got a whole gathering of you there. what about the young woman with blond hair. yes, yes. >> i just like to say that in 2008, i actually headed in the house of lords and for abolishing university tuition fees. in two years time i still agree that it should be not to your son where we are by what we

wanted and was to lower it to not have existed soever and cut the education they deserved. and it's not working that way. i understand the universities need the funding, but if i'm coming from somewhere else, i mean, not two days. not completely. without the other other day trying to write for next year. i thought this one screen and i could think about was the death of money and how much i wanted to go and how much i knew there's nothing more that i want to go to university. i've always wanted to go. that's something i've always wanted to do. and now i'm doubting whether i can. thank you. [applause] 's >> can we have a speaker from northern ireland, please, which is what we're looking for.

[inaudible] .. steve. [inaudible] we cannot fund gorn more people.

we live in america -- and i believe it would create more of an aristocracy. [applause] >> it is time for somebody from the northwest. and actually, the moment they girls are out doing the boy so we need to call young men at this stage. peter, is it you? yes indeed it is you. welcome. >> i represent -- and like to jog your attention to --

[inaudible] i wonder if you can tell me what is there about this. students at the moment pay the same that those locally, so in the e.u. if you came from the e.u. to study in scotland, you pay what the scots pay, which is nothing. if i were to study in scotland i would have to pay 1175 pounds probably more. i live in the e.u.. i am english and i can't study in scotland for the same money. how on earth is that fair? [applause] >> what about the young man just at the end of that little court if? you, you are looking around. no, the check to your right. yes, you. indeed.

welcome. >> ben lacy. the government can't afford to put any more money into the university system, which is what is causing this rice to each individual in student fees, but the other option is, the truth is there are too many people being driven into universities when it is not the right option for them. more partnerships and more work placement would mean less strain on the university system and allow government to fund those spaces and give them the education they need, without driving up debt to that individual. [applause] >> okay, you have been waiting very patiently. >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the academies education system should return

to the latest system. when a brown report is adopted the coalition -- we are told with a the kaplan piece we will have no effect on young people. opinion such as this demonstrate how to -- even going as far as to cutting at the annual program which encourages young people to attend the university. generation of politicians that attend universities for free and sure thousands of disadvantaged young people from reaching their potential. no that there is going to be the university tuition fees, the future jobs bunch of benefit and of course surely young people are in a more than most. [applause] >> i am looking for a female speaker from the southwest. can we have a female speaker from the southwest?

okay, your good self. >> i am from dublin. just some rough numbers here. a three-year degree for the current university levy, 9900 pounds. student accommodation for the first tier 150 pounds a week in 40 weeks is 6000-pound. the second year 52 weeks, 9100-pound, 9100-pound. books for degree each year, 300-pound, transport to and from university per and am 500-pound. this gives a conservative total of 35,500 pounds. now consider raising the levy for the university brandon. recalculate this total and you get 46,000 pounds and 600 plus 2.5% above inflation. now consider a medical degree for seven years, and then if someone wants to go to a

university the cost could go up to 12-pound a year. now in effect this is discriminating against young people from poor backgrounds and i believe that everyone should be born into the world with an equal rights to succeed. even though this is never going to be achieved i think that we should try and move one step further towards that or in this case, prevent the government from moving a step backwards. thank you. [applause] >> here here, thank you. once again time is their enemy and to conclude the debate i do need to call mr. daniel palmer. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. i've always wanted to say that. there it is. what do you think the effect would be if tuition fees were to rise? that is a question i've been asking young people and they came back to me and said that people from low or middle income

families will be put off from going to the university, causing them to be institutions for the rich only. they said a rise in tuition fees would also cause the gap between the rich and the poor to increase and said it would be unfair that people who cannot afford to go to university should be deprived of the opportunities of those who can't. now there has been a lot of strong support and justification for a rise in tuition fees. some of these being that universities and always the right path ferber want to go down to get a higher paying job but the rich should be promoted by the government said said his apprenticeships come and college education. they argue it is a rise in tuition fees would deter people to fool around for a couple of years at the taxpayers expense and set the reducing member people which go to university increases the value am the worth of a degree. fairness. it has been mentioned in the media quite a lot recently and also in this house today.

i would like to ask the house to think about these following questions before they vote. is it fair that the people who cannot afford to go to university don't have the same opportunities than those who can't afford to do so? equally, sit there that the taxpayers should pay for your education when you take all the benefits? youth parliament. should university tuition fees rise? [applause] >> thank you for another lively and well-informed debate, which i hope you enjoy it. again i say to people who didn't get called, don't despair. have another go. this i'm afraid is the daily experience of colleagues when normally the demand to speak exceeds the number of slots available. youth parliament will now consider the third motion of the day and the last of the morning session, relating to job

opportunities as printed on the order paper. to move the motion i call mr. mohammad abbas honey if. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. mr. speaker members of the youth parliament, education is the passport to the future for tomorrow belongs to those who favor it today. how many of us are prepared at 16? how many employers want to employ 16-year-olds in the current economic climate? by giving young people to extra years of school or training we are giving them breathing space. an extra two years to gain additional skills, an extra two years to prepare but most importantly a possible two years in the -- y. through 16 euros out in the cold economic climate right now when we can do something about this? that is why support raising the age to 18 immediately. the school age is rising to 18, however survey opportunities for

young people are decreasing month by month. cuts haven't been implement it everywhere. young people are finding it difficult to get jobs or even internships as older more educated people are taking them. the office for national statistics shows there are currently 742,000, 18 to 24-year-olds who are unemployed. some may save the school isn't for everyone and not everyone is an academic but let me ask you something. who said you have to pour your head into books for another two years? who said you have to do exams for another two years? you can do practical partnerships and part-time education or training if you are employed, self-employed. as we heard last week at this very -- releasing another 490,000 jobs. is that there? is that fair for 16-year-old to leave school knowing that 490,000 jobs are being cut and his or her chances have become even more difficult? is met there for them to another

two years and possibly have a stronger case to gain a job when the economy has recovered? the extra two years also gives the government time to source more jobs for those who intend to leave education at 18. this way young people have time to build more academic or practical skills be a training accountant or a decorator. work experience is another major factor. one experience is not enough for young people to decide which course they want to choose and turn into the future career. work experience provides invaluable experience. provides people to learn directly about working life and allows them -- i believe we need more experience. some people may say that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to choose to go to work or stay in school or training. simple answer to that is, how in this climate will a 16-year-old be able to find a job that so many others are fighting for the job with education and experience? being unemployed at such a young

age has a long-term impact. do we really want is for young people? this isn't about me or you. this is about us are going to stick together and work on the bigger picture, getting our young people the best possible start in life in tough times. i believe staying in school until 18 is the way forward. thank you are very much. [applause] steam ahamed, thank you for that splendid and articulate speech to open our debate. just before i called the second speaker to oppose the motion i would like to mention that jim dobbin, my parliamentary colleagues from the northwest if memory serves me heywood and middleton is present and behind him, looking suitably self-effacing as in beer but this is the honorable gentleman from aldrich brown hills mr. richard shepherd. so we will welcome him. [applause] and last but not definitely not least i think lurking behind the chair is the honorable

gentleman, the member from bowls over, mr. dennis skinner. [applause] i want very warmly to welcome dennis, because he is a parliamentarian who has always spoken his mind without fear or favor on every subject, and if memory serves me correctly, he entered the house on june 18th,. and he has served without interruption since, for 40 years, four months and 11 days. he is a very senior member. dennis you are very welcome. [applause]

>> strayed from the coal face dennis just said to me. thank you dennis for being with us and giving your encouragement. tony baer who retired from a house in 2001, famously said, and not with dennis's, tony blair said any purpose of the oldest to give encouragement to the young. so there we are. to oppose the motion i call mr. adam osmond. [applause] >> thank you very much for this opportunity for everybody here to get a new facebook profile picture. [laughter] allen sugar, richard bronson, delius smith, three people who built themselves up from nothing, three people who worked hard for what they wanted, three people who got where they wanted to be. but what do all of these people

have in common? they all left school at 16. i am not for one minutes ago suggesting that everyone should go out and get a job when they are 16 because we all know that the jobs are simply not out there. the point is, everyone should have a conscious choice to continue with education or get a job at 16. nobody should be forced into education against their will. that is a presumption frankly originating from the dark ages. it will cost 60 million pounds to keep everybody in education until they are 18 and in a time of cuts, that is ludicrous. education is not for everyone. and i appreciate it has been said already that this motion does not just include education by training and apprenticeships as well. however, it must be said that with the loss of the connection service in most local authorities due to the cuts last week, it will be harder than ever to find these placements. the work connections did to get

young people into apprenticeships and training is invaluable and will be sorely missed. because of this lack of support to young people, job opportunities will be lost and youth unemployment will rise. these people who would have left and found a job at 16 will be forced to say in school and possibly become a disruptive influence in the classroom. there is a point in my area. a nice little plug. his father's a owner of a local sweets shop. the boy helped out with his father in the shop for generations, as generations have gone before. when he turned 16, his father was taken ill and could no longer work. under the motion put before you today, he could not take this business on. are we really saying they wish to see this family sweet shop and other businesses sold up the cassette 16 he has to be in education and is clearly not mature enough to run a business?

nowadays, employers increasingly preferred to take on workers who have ample work experience needed to do the job. so by writing the age of 818 -- 18 u. of two years less work experience compared to somebody who left at 16. for what? a few extra qualifications? one life experiences more valuable than anything. extend this to the end of the university. you will have six years less work experience than a graduate of the same age. what does the graduate have? eighth two-2-degree in klingon, a 40,000-pound debt and they are unemployed. how does keeping a young person out of the system for six years solve our nation's youth unemployment crisis? the answer, it doesn't. [applause] >> i'm looking to call people from parts of the country is so far have been slightly underrepresented in the debate and beginning with wales.

somebody from wales who wants to speak. the young man there, please. >> josh from wales. given today's economic climate this country does not have the money to fund qualifications to some people who to be frank don't want them. there are some people who are quite happy to leave school at 16 and go work in a shop. there are some people who are quite happy to settle down, have a family and live on jobseekers allowance for the rest of their lives. i don't see how these qualifications will benefit them. it is a total waste of money. [applause] >> thank you. i see we have enjoined by the honorable member from birmingham, give us a wave. [applause] thank you very much for joining us. i'm looking to call someone from the west midlands.

the young man there at the end who just had his hand up. >> a new recent survey conducted by -- we found one in three young people who don't receive enough support from education system. is the pride we failed these young people for an extra two years? you don't agree that education becomes about passing exams. we need to change this and change education so we are producing branded young people that have the skills to go into employment, to go to university and only then can we meet society's demand and take our education system into the 21st century. [applause] >> i'm looking from someone from london. hands up, somebody from london. the young woman there. yes, your good self. >> i represent london. ladies and gents, can we take

into consideration that the government would like to cut people like -- as well as they are now hiring the age to 18 for people to take -- stay in school. they want people to go and stay until 18. however, they want to cut down the people that get into university. at the end of the day, the people that get their extra qualifications and get into university have -- we have lowered our hired the age of joe barton james. who is going to get a job to pay that much debt off? everyone says education is not for everyone. some people wanted in some people don't. internships and job opportunities and -- is named for people. academics and education and to get our heads in the books is needed for others. can we think about this wisely?

wasting money and saying how people cannot invest and how the lady back of the band said that she actually wants to learn not to get a career but learn to get her degree. can we take this into consideration, please? thank you. [applause] >> i'm looking to call from someone from the east of england. who is from the east of england? a young woman there. you deserve to be called because i called you earlier and someone thought that i was calling them so go ahead. >> to consider that the motion is not to keep everybody and lessons until they are 18 is to keep them in education, not necessarily in books. we can have apprenticeships, work experience and work with books alongside job opportunities. everybody knows what they want to do at 16. i am fortunate that i know what i want to do at 16 but not everybody does. keeping them in education for two more years might help them

gaining an idea of what they want to do when they are older plus the rising university fees the government is insisting on would have not help to get more qualifications to help them get a better job in the future? [applause] >> yorkshire and humber side. yorkshire and humber side. sir, let's hear from you. >> i think not everybody is capable to stay on after they are 16. nick brewer. everybody is capable to stay on the extra two years. i think the have got to make the choice whether they want to, whether it is right for them. because of the cuts in the loss of the connections and most parts of the u.k. due to the cuts it is going to hinder their choice to decide whether they want to stay or not. of. [applause] >> someone from northern ireland. the young man here has been

patiently waiting. >> alex easton from east belfast in northern ireland. i think it is an absolute disgrace that people are sitting here to say that i should be dictated to and told i have to leave school at 18. if i want to leave school at 16 i should be entitled to prepare if you raise the age to 18, how long until they risa to 21 and the tuition fees thing, what is going to happen to that? we live in a state where we are controlled and watched in the thought of controlling our education even more is an absolute disgrace. thank you. [applause] >> how about somebody from the east midlands? yes, the young woman here from the east midlands. yesterday, you. >> i'm from east midlands. personally i think making the age to 18 will benefit the statistics involved with youth unemployment. but it won't hide the fact that the financial problems young people face.

i realize you need a job and you are at college and i am not amazed that any money i get at the moment is from my parents. and the fact that ama -- people whose parents have a lot less are going to struggle a lot more. so i think that raising the age isn't going to benefit in any way. [applause] >> thank you. somebody from the northwest. hands up from the northwest. what about the young man there with a checkered shirt. to. >> if education is made compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds, it will be disruptive and more vocational cause will be wasted in a way. this will make the standard of the drop and could affect those who want to be in college. thank you.

[applause] >> somebody from the southwest. yes, the woman here with a red blouse. >> i'm vicki from -- people think in education is not necessary to the employment. for many people education does lead to a better job. to some it doesn't. gordon ramsey for example left school at 16. he is now worth 67 million pounds, much more than most people believe school at 18. staying on at 18, he could've got in 1-800-level. perhaps he could have done free technology learn the same skills that he now has but not as good. it wouldn't have been any good to him. and if he had not stayed in school he would have been in a class full of people who maybe didn't want to learn, may be disrupted the class of people have already mentioned. and that could have ruined his

life chances. many young people, staying in education is essential for them. young people should be given the choice. may be encouraged to stay in encouraged to benefit and improve their life chances but not force. young people desire the choice. [applause] >> thank you. someone from the northeast. what about the young man right at the back? >> tom hunter. i think ladies and gentlemen we are thinking too much of statistics at the moment. i think we need to remember that these are real young people we are talking about. we need to remember that they should have a chance is at the age of 16, you can decide whether not to engage in sexual activity. you can decide whether or not you want to go and fight in the armed forces. why it 16 can you decide whether or not to leave education? we need to make it clear to young people what it is like out there if we are going to send

them out at the age of 16, because then if we do change it, if we do raise it to 18, then they could choose whether or not to stay. so we just need to make sure we give young people the choice because that is the only fair thing to do. thank you. [applause] >> and a further interest from wales? yes, the one -- the young woman there. >> i think we have to acknowledge we have got a problem now in the a lot of young people especially in this room will be finding we do have this problem now with an increase in the number of young people looking to go into university. fewer young people are leaving school at 16 like our parents generation did but this is the problem i think is going to get a lot worse if we choose to raise the leaving compulsory age to 18. i can see that money, which could be a substantial sum, would be put into an extra two years of education could be

spent so much more wisely on structured placements up to the age of 16-year-olds that will not only help those who do choose to leave school at 16 to get a job and move more seamlessly into the world of work but those who then choose actually to stay on until 18 and go through to university to compete that much more easily because i'm sure a lot of you here know experience is the magic word for university of at the moment. [applause] >> the southeast. whoever got from the southeast? yes, the young woman here who has been standing several times. >> thank you mr. speaker. melissa cham from southeast england. i feel personally, i am sure all of you have been aware of the troublemakers in the class of people who can't wait to get their gs at sea over with. i've always felt a anoints believe that people who want to

carry on their education will do so i'm not necessarily a holiday regardless but an academic such as master english or maybe go into performing arts. there are apprenticeships, there were placements and where we can fund the extra money into more education for 16 to 18-year-olds instead of making it mandatory, making it optional. so if you do want to go into education after your gcse, you know you have the security and support. if you don't want to necessarily go to college you might want to do in a partnership than you think i would love to become a plumber or a carpenter at how do i go about doing that? so, thank you. [applause] >> i'm afraid we have run out of time for speeches. just before i called the person who will conclude the debate, i would like to refer to another row or colleagues who has just entered the chamber and i am referring to the member for west

ambassador. j. simpson, give us a way. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to mention joe for two reasons. if memory serves make correctly when she came into the house of commons at the age of 25 she was the youngest member in her intake, and secondly, she has been a champion of youth centers, youth participation in youth empowerment from the moments he set foot in the house of commons. is absolutely right and drop or she should be here today and i think we will take an example from her. [applause] so, thank you once again for some first-class speeches with different opinions and sincerely expressed with real knowledge and fluency and passion. i think all of us today who said

in the house of commons on a daily basis are incredibly impressed by what we occurred. to conclude the debate i call ms. holly maddy on the. [applause] >> thank you mr. speaker. my name is holly and i'm from the youth council. do i hear you ask yourself what job opportunities are available to you? should you be educated until 18? are you competing for jobs with people more experienced and qualified than you are? this is extremely common in our current economic climate. will race in the school and training leaving age to 18 solve youth unemployment and fix these problems? 71% of young people already say say -- stay in education until they are 18 but it is a 29% we need to consider today.

those of you who are academic, you can go on to higher education, but just take a moment to think of those who are not like you, those who struggle with education or maybe who don't understand the level. by increasing the inventory h. immediately will this give the government time to reduce the current unemployment figures? in two years time imagine this. one, and even higher number of people competing for university spaces. how many jobs are there to accommodate the number of graduates? two the qualifications that don't include practical skills required, could they not have been getting this experience in the previous two years? unemployment is higher amongst young people aged 19 to 25. what unemployment levels reduced significantly enough to warrant spending 60 million pounds annually on 16 to 18-year-olds? that we not just witnessed the

biggest cuts to public spending in living memory? keeping young people in education will give them the opportunity to experience mulled zabul were placements empowering them to make informed career decisions. if you were to leave at 16, would work experience be more beneficial from the age of 14 before you choose your subject? or if we were to wait until 18, could there be a focus on work experience for all students, academic or not, or would this be too late to influence our way of thinking? either way, more work experience will create ambition amongst young people today. so the motion we are faced today with is should the school and education leaving age be raised to 18 immediately in order to over youth unemployment? is it guaranteed that unemployment levels will reduce? i have come here today with my long-winded speech padded out with statistics. i sound like a politician, this

is not about you and i debating in the house of commons although we may enjoy it. this is about young people's lives. those in university and those on street corners. jobs are vital to create self-esteem, confidence, optimism and a positive approach to life in general. there are two simple sides to this. yes, or no. if we say yes, raise it to 18, the unemployment figures will decrease, but they are just figures, just numbers and just statistics. will those young people be happy? will they be getting the education that they need? and is it affordable? uniform costs, equipment, school dinners. are they going to be given more opportunities for work experience and will they feel more prepared for the working world? the other side is to stay at 16. unemployment figures know they will not alter, but young people will have a choice just as you you -- united nations for the

rights of the child states we should have. will young people be happier? did they know what they want at 16? is it stereotypical of us to ask are they bored hanging around on the street corners? committing crime, or is this just reality? bearing in mind that those are the young people that will be competing for jobs with university graduates. remember that 29%. the decisions we make here today, guess they are important, but how the politicians respond to what we have said, what we have voted on, will be the life changing for the generation of young people. [applause] >> thank you holly for rounding off in such. that concludes the morning session of our sitting. the youth parliament will now adjourned until 1:30 and i

invite everyone to return in a moment to westminster hall for lunch. however because we started late, we are a little behind schedule and lunch will have to be truncated somewhat. can i just just therefore emphasize to people to be back by 1:30 when we must start or afternoon session. you do you need to start coming back from westminster hall at 1:15 so a very brief lunch and then we will continue. thank you. you have acquitted yourself with great distinction.

we will hear academics and military officials discussed the effects of war at case western university in cleveland. it is about two hours.

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome we are delighted to have you here at the end and more international center for ethics and excellence here at case western reserve university for this 2010 international peace and war summit. my name is shannon french. i'm the director of the inn amaury center and today i had the great privilege of being the moderator of the first panel. we have brought quite a collection of very distinguished scholars here for you to listen to, and to engage with. we will be having a conversation up here for a while and then you will notice in the center aisle, there is a microphone. at a certain point i will open the floor to questions from the audience and at that point, please make your way to the microphone. you can form a small line behind it. and take your questions from there. we are filming so we do need the

microphones to be used. so, without further ado i would like to introduce to you our panelists this morning. in the center seat there, we have rear admiral wendi carpenter. rear admiral carpenter now serves as commander navy warfare development can't inartful, virginia. and naval aviator, she was assigned as the navy's first selectively retained graduate instructor pilot. she is a distinguished graduate of the naval war college. she has held a total of five commands as a commander, captain and flight level in the area of logistics, aviation and fleet operations. and she has worked with capability development and all of this has helped to give her a unique warfighting perspective. her awards, which are many and indeed to many to list here, to include the defense superior

service medal, the legion of merit and the meritorious navy commendation medal. at the far end of the panel, raise your hands, is professor henri hude, who comes to us. he is the head of the center for ethics research at the son sierra military academy in france. professor hude is best known for his interdisciplinary work in ethics, metaphysics, political philosophy, political science and world policy. he is the distinguished author of many books, many of which have been translated into multiple languages. she founded the military academy and has headed it since 2004. in 2005 he was honored with the -- prize and in 2008 the price of the concierge foundation. immediately to my right is

professor asa kasher. professor kasher is currently a professor emeritus of professional ethics and philosophy of practice and professor emeritus of philosophy at tel aviv university in israel. professor kasher has written more than 200 papers and several books in various areas of philosophy including military ethics which won the national price for military literature. professor kasher wrote the first code of ethics for the idf, the israeli defense force, an idf document on the military ethics of fighting terror and an idf document on the ethics of this engagement. he has served as the chair or member of numerous governmental and other public lobbies and in 2000, he won the prize of israel, the highest national price for his contribution in

philosophy. immediately next to professor kasher is professor george lucas. george lucas is the class of 1984 distinguished chair in ethics in the vice admiral jane b. stockdale center for ethical leadership at the united states laid -- naval academy, my former home and professor of ethics and public policy at the graduate school of public policy and the naval postgraduate school in monterey, california. he has taught at several universities and is three-time served as the director of the national endowment for the humanities summer institutes for college and university faculty. he is the author of many works, including five looks and more than 40 journal articles, translations of book reviews and has also edited eight collections of articles in philosophy and ethics. he is also coeditor of text that

are used in core courses devoted to ethics and ethical leadership at the united states naval academy, the united states air force academy and naval rotc units at over 57 colleges and universities throughout the united states. with a bow bowtie, we have professor noel sharkey. professor sharkey is a professor of ai and robotics and a professor of public and gage met at the university of sheffield in england. he is irish. previously, he worked at yale and stanford in psychology, ethics and linguistics and cognitive science in computer science. he is responsible for having authored more than 100 academic articles and books. he writes for national newspapers and make zines and has created thrilling robotic pc

and exhibits and mechanical arts installations. his core researches and the ethical applications of robotics such as the military, childcare, elder care, policing, medicine and crime. professor david wetham, our final panelist, is a senior lecturer at the defense studies department of kings college, london, based at the joint services command and staff college at the u.k. defense academy. david initially took a degree in philosophy at the london school of economics and went on to earn a ph.d. at kings college london in war studies. professor wetham also works as a researcher and with the osd in kosovo. his main research areas are a guest on the ethical dimensions of warfare and the development of the laws of war. he has been a visiting fellow at the center for defense leadership and ethics in the

australian defense college and has also taught at the defense college and the kuwaiti staff college as well as teaching officers from over 50 countries that joined a british student at the u.k. staff college annually. as a side note, he also fences with the medieval longsword. but hopefully not on the panel today. i would like to begin with an opening question to our panelists that will start our ball rolling. gentlemen and lady, have there have been any 21st century game changers that have forced a significant reevaluation or even reimagining of the ethics of war? or are we able to apply all the traditional rules of war to modern combat despite changes in tactics and technology? who would care to begin?

george. >> well, i will just toss out a thought on that and then let the other panelists respond. it is a caution to as we think about that question, the answers are sorted no and no. that if you think back to the adventure of the catapult by archimedes, every new technological innovations for the mongolian sweeping out of dacia whatever's the new form of warfare has always been predicted to upset everything and war is never going to be the same. we will become savage and brutal as if the warhead and already been savage and beautiful and oftentimes these new technologies and these new forms of warfare turn out to be things that can be assimilated within the familiar ways we have of arguing about this at to the. on the other hand, there are potential game changers like cyberwar. does it present us with new

challenges that are conventional? ideas of fighting a justifiable war, simply would be able to encompass. some of argued that it does and he could think more carefully about emerging military technologies and certainly irregular war and humanitarian intervention and so forth have presented us with some challenges in the way in which we think about the traditional usage of force for self-defense or for law enforcement in the international community. >> yes, a set. >> if your answer is no and no, my answer is yes and yes, and they know is this off now and the yes is a soft yes. the different levels in which we see war are related to warfare. we start with the troops to get commands, and have to know know there will of engagement. rules of engagement. then you see policies, you see

doctrines. you see principles of just war. you see fundamental moral principles, and you see the rock bottom, the pursuit of peace. only the pursuit of peace has not change. i mean, the duty, the idea that is the best situation we ought to pursue it constantly, that has been left intact but everything else has change. because all of the other arrangements that we are familiar with rest on certain assumptions that took into account the ordinary form of warfare, namely the international armed conflict. there is a state here in the state there. this status armed forces, this one has armed forces and those armed forces clash with each other. i mean, that is gone. and what we see is a state here with this armed forces and other

branches, and organizations, individuals, semi-military forces, and all kinds of other types that are engaging the other party. therefore, since the general form is different, all kinds of assumptions have begun. for example the assumptions of international law. geneva conventions related to states. the assumptions are first of all reciprocity which means that politicians signed the convention's. so the politicians sign the conventions because it is worth their while. it is worth their while because of reciprocity. i am not going to kill your citizens emma you are not going to kill my citizens. i'm going to spare the lives of your p.o.w.s and you are going to spare the lives of my p.o.w.

so it is fair and the crucial for the winning of those politicians to sign those conventions. secondly there there is the ascension of practicality. they wear their uniforms. they bear their guns openly. reciprocity is gone. practicality is gone. so we need a whole reinterpretation of the principles of just war and everything involved which means policies, doctrines. rules of engagement and commands. there are foundations fair, the pursuit of peace is there but all the rest has to be reciprocity. >> david, yes. >> we can't have a military panel without mentioning -- may clear the distinction between the character of war and the nature for. the nature of war is enduring. it does not change.

a character who were has to change as the nature of war manifests itself in the real world. so i think the question is, has there have been fundamental game changers? in the character of all, yes, of course. the character has changed enormously in many ways as opposed them through the middle ages into the 21st century. the growing use of standoff weaponry, remote killing, the new environment makes it clear that the character of a war is constantly evolving and constantly changing. does that mean the rules are going to have to change? the rules, yes but the rules are simply how we apply the underlying ethical principles and i would say that those along with the nature of war, do not actually change. the underlying ethical principles need to be reinterpreted for the new environment but they are still very valid. >> may i just come my point of

clarification, those underlying principles to which you refer, do you mean for examples example that basics like proportionality and something also that asa mentioned, distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants but those remain the same but the application becomes challenge? >> i think, absolutely the application. it may be harder in many ways but it is nothing new in the sense that these have been fundamentally opposed throughout history and it had to be interpreted according to the context that is there. >> we had a yes and yes n/a and a no and no. you are almost saying like a maybe and it may be. and that is what i would say depends. if you are talking about state conflict and certainly those kinds of things that we have always found apply, since we are not talking about different kinds of what i call actually

regular challenges, not this is very warfare. sometimes is actually short of warfare that some entity may be executing tactics designed to accomplish some goal in mind for them but it actually stop short of warfare, and i think certainly, my own job, i try to envision what is the future and what our potential game changers from a technology standpoint or from an application of technique and tactics, and then i try to influence the policy and the doctrine that will give at least spare time forces and joined forces as they interact with those folks, the ability to execute the kinds of things we need to. technology wise, there is certainly major changes that have come about, the cyberpeace that we mentioned, that may even be again, that may be short of warfare. it may be an attraction interaction that someone does

but is it a declared war as we have had in the past? so certainly we have from a policy perspective and they have political perspective have that open dialogue across not only nations that non-governmental organizations that are now very prevalent in the dialogue out there and the way we do things. when you think about the humanitarian interventions are the kinds of things we are now doing, many people think that haiti is a great example. the kinds of interactions and things that we did in haiti but i would say to you that from a maritime perspective, u.s. navy has been active in humanitarian assistance for many, many gears. i am actually writing operational level doctrine right now to codify what we have been doing tactically for a long time and even from a financial standpoint in the last i would say six or seven years, we have actually moved to put money into the legit every year that allows us to go out and do those kinds

of humanitarian assistance pieces with our forces, with our hospital ships like mercy and converts to actually go out and do those things because we look at them a security force assistance that builds up the capabilities of other nations, or entities to actually do self-defense for themselves so that we don't have those kinds of nonstate actors that come in and create those irregular challenging environments for his. >> so the areas that have humanitarian crises can end up being a breeding ground for future conflict? >> absolutely because those are much the same for where we are active in the horn of africa and working on the piracy issues. the piracy issues have been there for a long time. the kinds of reading ground that come, that generate those environments that allow those types of operations to be going on have been going on for a long

time. the solution to piracy is not more navy vessels out interdicting. certainly we are going to continue to do that than we do that by the way in a coalition way. we are very interoperable with a number of other navies, both with designed counter piracy task force is, the command of which has moved from a number of different entities, pakistanis have had commanded the bricks that had command in the australians have had command of that entity, but we also have other ships out there operating independently. however, we also have the commander in the region actively working with interoperability and the legality policy issues and the state department to make sure that if we in fact take on pirates and we interdict them and arrest them, what do we then do with them because we don't want to keep them forever. so you have to translate them back into kenya or some other area that is willing to actually

prosecute them. so the solution set is not only a military one, it is across the diplomatic and information pieces as well that we have to be worked in with and also economics. >> henri hude which you care to comment? >> you used up all the combinations tonight. [laughter] we have done no, no, yes, yes and maybe, maybe. >> i will say yes but maybe a yes. my concern is one of technology because i am a technologist and also safety civilian. i think there are massive changes. george mentioned there are complaints from everyone and i think one of the problems is that you have got it very very rapid technological development, much greater than you ever seen before and it is very difficult to keep up with it.

what i would say is from what i know of international humanitarian law and international law, things are pretty much protecting civilians but would he let god is a mapping between each new technology and those laws are problematic. so, with a very fast accelerating -- like all law, there are are always ambiguities in bowl. what new technology allows people to do is to exploit those ambiguities, to find loopholes in the law and do things that might take 10 years for the united nations to argue and get changed, and i think one of things things for instance and i want go on for too long otherwise i will have nothing else to say, but one of the things is the cia use of drones for code drone strikes and how that is self-defense. we need clarity there. we need to disambiguate that love. >> could i trouble you, could you tell everyone in the audience if they don't know what article li of the u.n. charter

basic lee is? >> i wish you hadn't asked me that. it says you have the right to self-defense. a simple one line summary. but what do self-defense mean? one thing that these new weaponry give you is a greater facility to do things that you could have done before, and actually you talk about weapons being more accurate and of course drones for existence are much better than carpet bombing. of course, but you wouldn't go carpet bombing, you couldn't go carpet bombing somalia or the yemen but you can, because of the sort of illusion of that receipt take a drone in there and kill individual people. and what is the due process for that? so we really need to look at these laws pretty carefully. of the things that are changing as well as the whole notion of risk-free or fear free warfare, and the idea, what everybody is pushing towards is you don't put your soldiers at risk ever. i don't know if you have for watch the star trek where

captain kirk gives the whole speech -- because that is what stops you from doing it all the time. >> i am on record as a star trek fan. >> we don't like to see body bags coming home. nobody wants to see our young soldiers being killed but if the public don't see body bags coming home you can start wars all over the place and they are not even wars because you can take a robot i'm talking about, really, take your robots into all sorts of things and nobody's going to complain. there are worries here about how that fits with the laws of war. i don't think we need to change the laws of war, just to clarify. ..

technology new aspects deeply impact the character and these are globalization and prosperity and among the traditional conditions for the just war, which are listed in the just war iraq here we find legitimate

authority. so what is legitimate authority? i don't want to go into the u.s. and national power alliance and so on the issue, but i would like to call your attention to the growth of the power which is an overwhelmingly powerful media it started during a the first goal of war. it is clear that democracy needs prepress. free and responsible information and responsible. >> uncensored press. >> yes, but at the same time control not only a business.

i remember having read a book written by british john lloyd on what the media does to our politics. the recent book two or three years ago, and it seems to me that we should question how the reason of the public opinion at large and of the policy makers is impacted by information making, information and giving, which sometimes means more public appealing and business making than exercising citizen responsibility.

on the second point i would like to -- and this is a real problem of military ethics at large. not only focusing on the soldier or the military personnel, but this is responsibility of the political leadership and the society at large and the elite again, we are very aware right now -- >> post-traumatic stress disorder. >> the need to be welcomed when they come home as they just cannot stand the new condition, and most of them are drawn into

despair. so, it seems to me we have to address the problem of the gap between the values of the society, and the easier -- >> and fewer people are in the service. >> the military force at large remains the same. it is all about the selflessness and discipline and forgetting one's self and so on, and if the gap is too large, too wide between the values of society and values of democracy and the values of the military personnel, so what does it mean that the democracies are not able to define itself and so how will it provide?

>> i think professor kasher wanted to comment. >> first of all, i mean, the principles we have known to a certain extent until now 21st century are okay as they are and they should be kept as much as possible and not to revise. i beg to differ. for example the distinction between combatants and not combatants. think about the contents of, the attitude which is shown in the literature in political practice and the media expression is, but hints are instruments. they are the of the right to kill and are bound to be killed so who cares about them?

they should just when the war. noncombatants are they should not be touched. now this cannot be morally justified. i think the best kind of attitude is perfectly all right those are just instruments that are perfectly wrong and they are not instruments, they are citizens think about some of the states but they are citizens of democracy. they have -- they are entitled to the protection of human dignity. they never lose their rights to have human dignity protected. so a certain role they risk themselves and others and unfortunately many of them get killed. however, the moral situation of the combatants and war has to be changed even if we haven't seen a single terrorist we should have changed the significance of

the protection of the combat tent. second, the idea of protecting a noncombatant it sounds very simple, but it's very complicated because noncombatants' on both sides, so a certain state tries to protect its own noncombatants. now to do that it has to attack the other side. now the other side has also known, since. now if the nature of the war, not the nature, the character of the war that missiles are launched from residential areas, so in order to protect your noncombatants, you have to attack the missile launchers who have neighbors who are noncombatants. so just protection of noncombatants is not the name of the country or solution you have

to get justified doctrines and principles but what took you what to do under such circumstances. >> i'm going to take a few more comments, but i just want to articulate this was actually the next question on my list as it happens and we blend quite naturally in to it so let me put it out there as it will affect the forthcoming comments. how much additional risk should regular combatants have to accept in order to reduce the risk to the non-combatants? and is the answer dependent on the precise nature of the conflict? savitt is a question for a much on my mind and i would like to hear some further comments on that if he would start us off, george. >> i suspect the members of the audience probably want to get into this very soon and there's a lot of stuff on the table people would have strong opinions about or probing

questions. >> they are formulating their questions i can see it. >> to keep that sort of dynamic alive, just flag quickly some things mentioned about technology and the way in which it outpaces long governments and ethics we have to keep up with trying to figure out how to map our existing conceptions of accessible behavior and constrained behavior on to the new technologies. the great fear of those is they will lower the threshold for the war. that is instead of making the war west destructive and discriminant or by doing that, they will also make it easier for the governments to use the war and instrument conflict resolution because the public will not notice it so much and won't notice the cost of them. the costs will be hidden or perhaps nonexistent to one side to keep the light on the technology side and then return to this issue that was mentioned for us and that is you might want to ask what the difference is between a warrior, soldier,

and a domestic policemen, law enforcement. imagine as the admiral mentioned that he operation and the american navy helping out. people wearing naval uniforms, providing food, also carrying weapons and providing security in a time of chaos. are they legitimate targets of violence because they are military personnel? the conventional way we understand format to go back to the professor kasher's distinctions earlier is that combatants are entitled, given permission to kill each other, shoot at each other and they also serve a consent or something would call the war convention with a moral equality of soldiers that says once you are in an armed conflict between conventional nation states the warriors on both sides are liable to attack and that is not in itself a crime to shoot at them whereas the noncombatant

civilians haven't lost their rights not to be shot at, and this is the thing he's questioning and the regular warfare or the regular challenges as the admiral carpenter called them i think rightly they are not even war at all, he is not a war. what we are trying to do is prevent the state from feeling in the aftermath of a tragedy and i would submit and many of these instances are soldiers and sailors became more like security forces were domestic constabulary's. they are there to provide order and safety for victims of disasters or political chaos and while it is a dangerous job and they can get shot at and killed no one has permission or license to shoot at them. the job is risky but it doesn't include a legal entitlement for them to become targets of violence when they are engaged in those activities. i think the game change or at least one important game changer

is many more the conflicts and which we find our military's involved are of the sort. they are like fighting international criminal conspiracy as opposed to fighting conventional war against enemy nations, and that means once over soldiers must subject themselves in a way to more risk than trying to be constrained to resorts to the use of force on their part, not sure that the people they are protecting the the the same time, they are not any longer legitimate targets of an enemy, there is no enemy. they are only people who are not to formant chaos. so how to figure that out in the context of our current conflict is a challenge. >> we have several. i think admiral noel. >> that to the question how much risk, i'm not sure you can answer that. >> i like to have answers to questions put those are one of

those areas where our policy makers or politicians when they make a decision to enforce for whatever reason the it because we are trying to do humanitarian assistance, which, you know, pc is clearly not and there are other instances we do tsunami relief and other things, there was a high-level policy discussion particularly during the tsunami about are you going to send forces in in uniform who are also carrying weapons, and the answer to that much of the time is no we do not do that because you want to be able to have those people who are victims understand we are there to help and distribute food and care and not there to either occupied or to other things. we have the distinction that's very important to make is we do not insert forces for example in haiti or where we did the tsunami really if there are other areas we did not go in and put anybody on the ground.

we dropped some things in but left them out and government organizations to distribute some of the supplies for the very reason that we were not invited in by the local authorities or by the embassies of the forces are always under our political leadership even though we may have a joint task force commander which stood up in haiti. we are ultimately having discourse on a regular basis with interaction with what we call the interagency or state department or treasury department trying to bring an instrument of national power but not the sole instrument so it's an important distinction for those who are not necessarily familiar with those we are interacting all the time with the embassy and with the ambassador has told us to who is also conversely interacting with the host nation. we have a doctrine that in the tactics and procedures as well as rules of engagement should

something to inspire to know what they're supposed to do. there is what is called the standing roe -- >> being rules of engagement. >> in situations we are going to insert force is the chairman of joint chiefs and secretary defense and what we call the combatant commanders in those particular areas have the discussions about what do we need to do for those rules of engagement? in every single scenario so that there is as much as possible even an ambiguous situation and there are those areas where force is in circuit may be a risk we don't even know. conversely you're at risk just walking across the street or the police man here is also, so the kind of activities that we engage in f mcwherter we have those conversations about rules of engagement before we ever

force -- >> very specific because -- >> then we at the rules of engagement if the scenario looks like they are changing. that is a discussion -- one of the things we have our judge advocate general's routinely are what is, basically tattooed to the side of the combatant commanders because they always want to now what is the legal ramification come and there is the regular dialogue up the chain of command to talk to the policymakers in the white house, for example, with the force is about what would we do in certain circumstances. the same is true in afghanistan were other areas we have coalition forces we have reached collision or roe to allow our forces to go and have a good understanding of what they can do. but by virtue of the fact that you're wearing a uniform and you're going into any situation, you know that you're under a certain amount of risk and i'm not sure you can never say how much risk you are ever willing to assume because you know as a

volunteer you are going in and you may give up your life in a certain situation and it may not be able to do anything about it. >> noel? >> i'm addressing the question that really commenting on asa. we had this disagreement before. i really agree with you about the dignity of soldiers and the right to protect etc, but where we violently disagree and i use the word of violently in terms of the protection of civilians. for me that is something that should be set in stone and never touched. i think all civilians equally should be protected. we sent over soldiers in to fight so we risk the lives in sending them to fight but we don't risk of a people's civilians lives. it's just wrong to kill people. the problems of proportion of the but i won't come up with that. it might come up later. one of the things is when you have this notion of reciprocity, you killed our civilians so why shouldn't we kill yours, and

that's wrong for a start, but it gets more problematic when you're dealing with insurgent warfare because when you putting on a state actor who are the civilians? who are the taliban civilians? if you fly into pakistan and kill a bunch of german citizens, who have to be known insurgent leaders or whatever and to kill some civilians, no civilians aren't there, they would be pakistani men and women or children be the civilians, so there is no idea of reciprocity have all. it's completely wrong. but another thing is that we talk about -- and i don't know the answer to this one i'm just throwing it out there. we talked about insurgency and it's on the increase that all of the war from now on are going to the insurgent warfare and why would that be? one idea put forward simply is we are causing it. we are actually the cause.

>> and who is we have? the western nations because we all have military might. i don't know the answer to this or if it is true or not but the asymmetrical warfare, what do people do? when you attack people we don't just roll over and say okay you have the big guns let's just leave it at that. what happens is the way that the ira did against the british years ago they couldn't fight the british and beat them on the battlefield so distorted using a insurgency techniques, what we call terrorist techniques or uniform combatant techniques because it is the only way they can fight so we carry on with more and more and more technology, more and more asymmetrical warfare. it is possible or likely we are going to create more and more terrorism and what we are doing in this idea of the risk free war is risk free to the servicemen and women -- excuse me, but it isn't it isn't a risk free to our civilians. you could get the plant any of your civilians, united states

especially because you've got the biggest guns, using guns as a blanket term, you might find if you want to go abroad were the sort of europe thing you have to take an armed guard >> you're waiting to comment. would you like to jump in and respond? >> i had a comment. on the specific question i with like to come back to asa and mr. mr. sharkey's opinions. in old times, the war was basically a long the two political leaderships. the people were just obeying, so it was a quarrel to be circled between the leaders and the men of war. >> the cluster of legitimate authority you mentioned earlier -- >> there was a problem and was

quite clear except cruelty, justifiable cruelty the people should be left aside we had to address the question that democracy changes the deal completely because we, the people in each country are as it were the ruler of the ruler, and so the older reason for leaving the the people outside and respect as noncombatants is more questionable than it was in the nondemocratic times, and so we need additional statements, which in effect had in order to justify the fact that the

anniversary has no right. you say very often in our asymmetrical conflicts there is no possibility to have even the political, visible leadership, and so the situation becomes very confused. so, very quickly should we take additional risk? of a dancer with another question. who has to see that these soldiers or military personnel should take on how the field and some additional risk is it the platoon leader, is it the

italian leader, the commander that the situation goes for full-fledged exercise of moral responsibility from the part of the political leadership there is a public truce to be made. where is justice, what is self-interest, what is friendship, what is love? and it is clear depending the way we list the archives, the principles the way they are connected to each other we will make different public choices. it seems to me it is so serious

there will always be room for some kind of legitimate serious conscientious objection, but nevertheless it is not possible to treat more fair and just as a matter of technical techniques and tactics. no, there is an ethical aspect we have to concentrate which is the core of the moral responsibility, and it is for all of us in the media for being serious in providing demography with the ability of pushing the best of and not only the most -- to >> the most telegenic.

spearman that would like to live professor kasher and professor whetham meek comments. yes, a jump in here and then i'm going to be opening up to the floor so hopefully your questions are well formed and in your mind. >> i'm sure the professor is going to disagree with me as well. >> we enjoyed disagreements. it is healthy. >> the question is how much additional competence and i just want to try to draw a couple together. answering that has already pointed out, some kind of definitive formula we can say yes or no is not going to work. but you can see is a steep enough fact if you have military personnel who are trained and equipped for the environment of conflict and you have civilians who self evidently are not it seems pretty obvious which is more likely to survive or other factors give him being equal in a combat zone. the competence should therefore be prepared to accept.

it just flows from that very straightforward. the degree of risk to me comes down to the character of the environment that you're actually in. the burden of risk transfer you are prepared to accept is completely dependent upon the environment. if you are in the war of national survival, clearly you are going to be willing to accept a high year civilian death toll from your military activity, and be prepared to accept that than if he were in a humanitarian operation or peacekeeping operation or counterinsurgency operation as has already been pointed out that you're there to protect the people, the idea of transferring any risk to the civilian population to protect yourself is ludicrous. if you are being expected to

carry of the police or humanitarian role, the idea that you should adopt a radical force protection until they should ask questions later to protect your force is completely counter-productive as it will be in the counter insurgency environment as well where the idea is trying to calotte and bring aboard the local population. >> winning hearts and minds. >> it is going to depend on the character of the conflict. but i would say it is difficult to say how much risk the competence should be prepared to accept to protect those civilians. if you would note the risk altogether he ended the idea that is already been raised if there is no risk, if you are using completely robotic or remote -- if you are not actually placing your own forces at any s at all it's already been mentioned that this appears

to lower the threshold for the willingness to commit to go into war might in the first place. if there is no risk to you it is a policy decision for a politician. there is no political cost for having military action. it is the precision for the paradox or precision almost means that you can use that force far more freely than you would otherwise be prepared to come and who are not risking your own personnel at all. the body bags aren't going to be coming home it becomes a policy for the decision. it's easy. i'm sorry, risk free policy decision, an easier decision, but at the same time, what exactly seems to be demonstrating is a willingness to kill what not to die for a cause. and if you are prepared to kill but not the high for the cause what does this do to help to resolve the conflict? where is the clash of the world?

what you are actually doing is demonstrating your willing to kill but not die because you are well invested but not morally. there is no clash here. you are not in demonstrating result. in fact you are demonstrating a lack of resolve which means deterrence. if you're demonstrating you are not willing to die for something you're not willing to spend blood and treasure, only treasurer. you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of resolve, think the paradox here is on the one hand a new generation of weapons systems is lowering the threshold to the use of military force while the same time making it harbor. it is actually making victory in any meaningful sense more remote. the same time making the use of force easier. >> i would like to give a responding moment to professor kasher and open to the floor.

if you would like to begin today a line of the microphone, please, feel free to do so and we will take the first question in just a moment. please. >> juan on reciprocity. one should understand the role played by reciprocity. i mean, when politicians find and ratified the geneva conventions, they did it for reasons of reciprocity. they deemed and give something in return. as a fair arrangement to read to this day when states negotiate non-proliferation of all kind of arms and negotiate similar conventions reciprocity please enroll -- plays a role. to get and give the same kind of force. however, what happens when reciprocity is gone this doesn't mean if you kill my citizens in going to kill your citizens. this means reciprocity consideration does not work

anymore and we need other considerations and it is a very distinct shift in the world in the way the would be space world looks at the affairs that now is not just the prospect, we look at the mirror and we would like to see a beautiful face as beautiful as possible which means we have to own our constitution is not because of reciprocity considerations but because adherence to our own constitutions and democracy has the right constitution to the american officer takes the oath to protect the constitution, but the state with a commander in chief of the constitution, which means the values of the state, so now what is democracy for according to their own view of what is right to do and it's not reciprocity but something that

creates a variety because although all of them are space constitutions, the all are for the protection of human dignity, there are differences among them. now we hope there is convergence and you will get a doctrine for fighting terrorism the every democracy endorses and every democracy act according to when it has to act. now, to shannon's question. i fully agree with george under some circumstances of military activity, and military activity in the sense of the warfare but its people in military uniform who do it. i'm very soft condition, they are like police to use a police officer or five years later risk their life in order to defend

citizens of their own state. that risk is acceptable and commendable and when troops are playing the role of those in iraq to help the government defend the city since then they reach themselves on a par with police officer. however, there are circumstances we should not forget, namely it is real warfare and there are circumstances under which we answer to the question how much additional risk should a soldier take the answer would be non. there are some circumstances when additional risk should be placed and i will give you a simple the example. it is a real example. there are buildings full of

terrorists and neighbors. the noncombatant neighbors now there are operations taking place jeopardize the lives of our citizens across the border. what should we do? what should we do? if we cannot attack where there are noncombatants because of all kind of considerations with personality and similar, then what will emerge is we have lost our ability to defend ourselves. now no set of rules that are morally justifiable can tell in a text party you lost your ability to defend yourself. so we should do is warn the neighbors of the terrorists. first of all, warn them

regularly that it's not like if you're neighbor is a saint. it's a different situation. second -- third, we need phone calls, hundreds of thousands of phone calls. and your personal cell phone or apartment telling you this apartment is going to be attacked so please move to summer else, and to a neighboring place because the bums are smart. it will be diminished. then, we can see what do they have evacuated the business or not and we can see that it is effective. and then to the same site we use the procedure that means non-lethal type of weaponry on the roof of a building.

it's precise but it's very noisy. so it's a very strong hint which means there is someone there. we are about to get you unfortunately. so usually they leave. usually they are reasonable and don't want to jeopardize their life. those terrorists are the brothers are neighbors. now, assume there is a possibility there that not everyone has evacuated the building. now here i represent the soldier and in our case most of the combatants are conscripts, which means serve in the military force because -- >> they are drafted essentially. >> the privates and sergeants are conscripts.

malae and a conscript and citizen of a democracy and entitled to a very good, compelling to the column in question, why do you jeopardize my life being a citizen of the democracy? why do you put on a uniform and require the service quick perfect answer. we have you sent me to this neighborhood? perfect answer. now you're sending me into the building where there are terrorists ruined to risk my life just to see whether someone is left because he is afraid the carpets are going to be stolen if he evacuates the apartment. is the blood of a person who has voluntarily rendered himself a human shield rhetoric and my blood being a conscript who

fights for defending the citizens? the answer is no. the state does not have a good company answer. all the answers and turn the combatants forfeited the right they have for me as a representative of soldiers they are very weak, not convincing all. so under such circumstances the answer to the additional amount is none. >> i think we have a lot of thought-provoking ideas in the room already come in and does it prove that we have a long fly and at the microphone for questions. but i would like to say, and this is to the questioners, and also to the distinguished panelists. in the interest time, let's keep both our questions and answers as concise as possible. we go until 11:00. so in order to fit in as many of

these questions which i sure will be quite thoughtful we will try to keep moving at a steady pace sir, if you could ask the first question, please. just state your name if you would you estimate a major part in? >> could you state your name? >> walter nichols, world war ii veteran to the estimate and a world war ii veteran. could you speak into the mic as much as possible. >> i think i find it ironic that we can talk at such length and with such knowledge and detail about the war and the process of killing each other, members of our own species. i think it's remarkable what we can discuss this at such length as though we are discussing the angels with such obstruction and not true, our -- not choke on our words.

[applause] and one person who has seen where mack close up and with respect i would ask how many on the panel have actually been in combat situations where you had to kill another person or they were trying to kill you? i think one person has been in that situation and has seen death and destruction close war is no longer an abstraction for discussion. it is an emotional issue drives you to simplicity. i think the persons who have come to respect most when we are talking about war or those who can speak in the fewest words simply about indian war -- ending low war. so my question is can any of you

speak in the fewest number of words about the means whereby humans can end the killing and destruction of each other. >> thank you very much. anyone like to address -- is, noel please. >> here's a few words, stop fighting each other. >> would anyone else like to comment? asa? >> with all due respect i don't accept the notion that only people who have been into a certain type of circumstance may comment on it. i mean, judges for civil have never been in any type of murder, rape or burglary situation. this doesn't mean that they cannot renounce their view concerning what is right or wrong under such circumstances. i have been in situations where i was a target. but this doesn't give me any privilege or in the right. i mean, the issue is what are

the justifications for a certain command, certain rules of engagement, certain policy, and those justifications must be not might instruction. indeed, they involve casualties, they involve the fallen and their families and those are strongly emotional component of the situation and the should be taken into account, not ignored. but there is no room for obstructed justification of what should be done and what should not be done. >> yes? >> with all due respect to you, [inaudible] i said with all due respect to the gentleman and his question, i think what's most important is not the fewest number of words

but the reality of what we have to fight wars. my own father was a veteran of world war ii, the imam. i've served for 33 years and i served in the military because i believe that if we have strong military is we have a lesser chance of in fact going to war but because of the human species and individuals will try situations to the point where if one wants to preserve the peace one has to be willing to go to war, you have to understand the nature of warfare the way you must fight and that we you can detour better those who might join us to that point. >> thank you very much. next question and please come state at least your first name.

>> i have a question. i read a statistic that the afghanistan war this u.s. is involved in is the longest war the united states has been involved in to really don't know whether that statistic is true or not this started in mike 2001 after 9/11. i was wondering if the reason that it on such a long time was in fact the new methods where we are using robots and it's not like a personal combat, it's more of a remote thing and i was wondering if that is the reason it's been going on so long to be estimate the simply answer is no that's not with the war has been going on so long. those are attributes and things we are employing it now in many cases the robotics we are using on the ground are actually giving our soldiers and folks and you may not be aware we have

about 14,000 navy personnel on the ground and afghanistan and iraq. many people are unaware we have so many people on the ground over there. the robotics in many cases, and a dutiful little on some of that in my own job is because it allows us to have additional surveillance and reconnaissance whether or those uab are what mize we can use those for surveillance and reconnaissance that give better information than in fact would help us in noncombatant situations to understand where the noncombatants are and be able to protect civilian life better. >> dr. lucas were you trying to comment on this as well? >> is a complicated question in fact, that you are right this is among the longest conflict we have been involved in. vietnam is the only other one that comes to mind as a similar

length and yes, i think it is possible for these nasty counter insurgency wars to draw gone. i don't think it has anything to do with the particular tactics or weapons used, but the nature of the intractable conflicts that you are trying to resolve to some satisfactory level, and i think we will see more and more of these kind of ugly, dirty little wars as opposed to the huge conventional conflicts between the nation states that people are willing the heck out of one another and grow weary or exhausted or finally there will is broken to fight. that doesn't happen in these kinds of things. and what to do about that and how to respond and prepare a hour troops for those indeed the way in which the first gentleman suggested why should we be talking about ending these

conflicts? well, if we can get people to either in the conflict or resolve conflicts according to legal procedures the same when you argue that domestic criminals the to would be much better to use the mall to at adjudicate disputes and take the law into your own hands but until we get there as in domestic law week you can use the ability to resort to force sometimes to enforce the law and protect vulnerable people who otherwise would be victimized. there is the conundrum, how do we -- your asking to change the human situation if you pursue too far back line of thought and i don't know anyone starting with people in uniform who wouldn't like that transformation to occur. >> brief comments by professor sharkey and the professor kasher petraeus the mcdevitt to invite your superior wisdom and cause of the length of the war in iraq -- stegano afghanistan.

>> i don't think it's been caused by the robots, i don't think that has created a greater duration, however i notice as the united states pulls the allies to iraq what's happening now is the greater use of drones and the defense agency for the military, one of the big projects is called project vulture that has been awarded to boeing for developing a uav that can carry a thousand pound payload putative developed a plan that can stay aloft for a month and whether you would call up war or not i can see that the end is you find the war but then you leave the uab floating constantly overhead and whether you are prepared to call that still being at war or not i don't know whether you are just doing surveillance and killing

here and there i have no idea. >> professor kasher. >> i ron ackley one should look at the weaker parties in the conflict in order to see why it takes so long because they look at the weaponry they used. the in provides the explosive device is everyone can produce. suicide bombers which almost everyone can produce, so as long as the weaker party can use which do not involve sophisticated weaponry but just involved the way of producing them and the willingness to use them. >> yes, please step forward and state your name and question. >> my name is norman. you have delude it several times to the threshold for war and article 51 self-defense, and i

would like to ask you to discuss when if ever preemptive war is justified in this country we have had our nose bloodied with preemptive war in iraq where it turned out the major premise, wmd was false and there was a lot as the gentleman from france mentioned there was a lot of media that led to that, quote, democratic support. and i see us having that same situation now with respect to iran where even when they're thinking about getting a capability, etc., all of words like that, in some minds is justification for an attack now has preemptive, so my question is what should be the true justification for preemptive war

knowing full well as many of you certainly acknowledge the great death and destruction that will bring about. >> i think david first. >> thank you very much. it's a great question. this nothing new about the challenge of preemption and there's nothing new about the dangers of not acting. raymond brooch and i think it was the 12th century trying to work out when it was justified to use lethal force and he said, use the excess will an ambush, coming across an ambush. you are about to be ambushed by. they haven't done anything yet, but if you attack them you will be aggressive and he makes it clear he will not be aggressive. if you are about to be ambushed you take the first action because you managed to discover the ambush and are acting in self-defense and that is the key. it's not a new idea that is the

key. are you acting in self-defense? or are you imaginings were predicting a threat, a distant threat without any hard intention without any capability, without indianans and are you saying this might at some point the threat to us therefore we are going to be eliminated and getting the balance right between that which is aggressive war and preemption which can be legitimate which is when you are facing a threat and act before the threat manifested itself in a way that is going to hurt you or other parties or other innocent actors. as long as you can get that balance right you are acting in self-defense rather than aggression of war but it's getting the balance right, so again, no simple formula says this is self-defense, this is preemption it is not justified. there is no simple formula you

can say which one it is. but getting the balance right is absolute essentials. >> professor lucas. >> i think there are two issues at stake, and one of them is the cost for war or cost for using force, if i may put it that we committed the other is the procedure for deciding whether to do so or not. you may have a good reason to use force but may not have the authorization or jurisdiction to do so, and i think the second is far more troublesome in the case of iraq than the first. there were good reasons for being concerned about country and its leadership. there have been in the past and there were again at this time and there are other places in the world where these kind of concerns that are likely and bush, iran build nuclear weapons on a country rich with leal is an example, and certainly the is really attack upon the iraqi nuclear reactor under construction cutter was nothing but mr. to come from a land that

to go on line. the question is always one of a jurisdiction. article 51 grants nations were signatories to the u.n. charter, nothing in the charter will aggregate their individual right of self-defense, and that would be i think what justification for the israeli strike in 1981i think it was. the problem we faced in iraq was we had moved from a case of something like an ambush to something like suspicion that an ambush was under way without as much certainty and one would have wished for something like the analog of an arrest warrant where you took your evidence to the judge and some reasonably impartial party looked and said yes you have a case where no, you don't have a case, and that is what was missing in that instance. i think if you are going to talk about not really a preemptive, but preventive war to interdict

and prevent criminal conspiracy from reigning death and destruction of innocent persons. we need a better way of the international community coping with that and deciding not only that there is a cause, but who will be delegated or deputize and with or not the cause is risen to a level that a fair and reasonable procedure which we just don't have in the u.n. could be developed that would authorize the use of force for the protection of citizens living under the rule will fall in those cases. >> did you want to make a quick -- >> i fully agree with david and george would like to add a consideration. for the just war doctrine, that should be applied in a new way to the circumstances of iran that you mentioned. first of all, there is a consideration of proportionality taken in the of sense that what

you gain should justify ev horam you because to the innocent parties. okay. now, you can try to draw the picture of what you've been on the one hand and what is the man to be lost on the other hand where count the damage as damage to your own. now the most difficult consideration as the other kind, namely self-defense is proportional but is it the last resort? that is the most difficult question to answer because you have to convince yourself in a morally justified way that you have already exhausted all other means for an attempt to solve this problem and they all failed. now when you reach the conclusion all of them have failed it's very difficult.

so if you give iran, self defense is there. but last resort is in the dark. >> thank you very much. next question, please. >> on with the national peace academy and institute for nonviolence. my question kind of relates back to the doctor was talking about on the definition of war in the 21st century. war as we understand it is a conflict between two states and we create a domain in which citizens and non-citizens, civilians and on civilians and combatants and noncombatants are critical criteria. we talked about today we have all these extra situations that arise outside, so insurgencies' where we -- or counter insurgency is where we are justified in using were having civilian casualties or dropping in the outskirts of pakistan and

a civilian damage there is now as a part of the calculation. civil warfare where it is okay for us to use chemical weapons and also the treatment of enemy combatants that goes against the geneva convention and human dignity. we created the situations where they are outside of the definition of war the ethics of war no longer apply, so my question is is it time that we now we imagine the definition of warfare to include all of these extra circumstances savitt even if we are not leaving -- even if we don't -- if we advocate killing is okay and killing civilians is okay that we have now expanded our definition of warfare to these other