washington there's lots of voices against it in this town, but in montana, in north dakota, south dakota, kansas, not nebraska, oklahoma, texas, and we also worked with the company to get the oil from north dakota on to that pipeline which actually improves the situation. another thing the oil companies have to do in canada is mature people understand the jobs connected, not just direct concern but we have taken about a year but there is 400 companies and the united states that supply material and oil in canada. finally, i think it was the governor from montana but said it best. i don't send my national guard to risk their lives to edmonton. they are in the middle east, and that is a strong argument, that is not the only argument we can

make. it's got to be jobs, it's got to be improvement in the emissions and i think that's very important. .. because the conservative long-standing honorable interest in developing the north and asserting the canadian civilization goes right up to the north pole, but to make a picturesque and attractive to voters, he asserted, saying that

there were pressing threats against canadian sovereignty in the north and b canada could ever defend unilaterally against those. quietly, that silly position has been modifying and the five years the prime minister has been the prime minister and american sailors are on canadian naval boats patrolling the north even the vicious norwegians are sometimes invited in and the terrifying russians. >> not the danes. >> right, not the danes. [laughter] the real work going forward by the fourth of -- force of necessy will become a fascinating and exciting place for cooperation of our two countries and others in the future. now that our government is getting over it and claims it can stop american nuclear subs. >> you really have a thing about this. you really have a thing about this. me too.

about how the prime minister somehow had to change his policy on this. the conservatives do have a long-stainhistorgogba ak a aoayn th. therarthat i n't think they are the traditional threats. we have been doing some studying on this at the defense and national security committee. we do have russian incursions. everybody is testing their equipment. probably one of the biggest concerns that people have out there is the presence of the chinese and in incredible numbers. they are doing all sorts of activities there. we need cooperation to figure that out there aelivy sll indisteeeecanada an amic o this and they think we are going to continue to actually work cooperatively. we are going to take over control of canada, the arctic council shortly and that is going to be followed by several years of americans taking control over that. so we are on the right trajectory on this discussion.

it doesn't mean we don't have issues to deal with and we are starting to see other issues emerge. the chinese human smuggling, other questions like that weren't on people's minds when we were talking about simple sovereignty and that we would plant the flag and send our ships. the sutures are real because the globe is shrinking and we have to deal with it that i think that we are on a corporative path, and every time we sort of move from something that was a war or a battle or you know some other approach to something that works, i think actually people who are involved in making that happen should be given some credit as opposed to criticize for it. it is not like you know we have some stupid position and -- these things have toe worked out ande veo veha diussionnd weado know what was real and people had to put resources on the ground to figure it out. >> senator --

[inaudible] >> we can't depend on the the to line for northern. the technologies change. there is going to be a different >> if what canada is after in the arctic is environmental protection and surveillance, why make the issues of sovereignty? are the americans interested in the same thing? >> well yeah but we can have sovereignty if you are going to cooperate with aerican i actulyhink erydyants to send a lot more time in the arctic has it is nothing and in the next couple of decades it is going to be navigable and there are huge issues that are really expensive up there. we rent halifax -- not only have we not mapped it and the

russians and others trying to figure it where the resources are in all of that and a precious part of the planet, but also you have to start to navigate by the stars when you get out there. we need a constellation of satellites up there and we needed not just for the military and the coast guard protection that we needed for commercial purposes and we also needed are the way it seems to me when you start talking about things like communications or remote communities in the north in canada. there are a lot of very expensive things that need to be done that require public credit rt are a fantastic canadian invention, but they partnered with intel for the parts in the early days. canada in and the u.s. if we work together, and if we get public-private collaboration, can do a lot of amazing things. search-and-rescue, absolutely. >> when you talk to people in american military even though the impression is the u.s. military is the the biggest and as all of these resources, they

have a lot of missions around the world in places like afghanistan, iraq and the south china sea. although the arctic mission is important and president bush to put us on a path to having a stronger presence there and be able to take on these functions and president obama pick that up and has continued it, there are only so many dollars to go-round and at a time in capitol hill talking about budget cuts we are going to have to be smart about the investments we make and isn't this an area where bilaterally we can get more done together and share the cost, share the burdens were the benefit of taxpayers rather than wasting money fighting. >> i think we are going to try to work on the -- see together brown the broader issue we may agree to disagree and the united states doesn't look at waterways as a one off. they are making decisions on the other the straits of hormuz making decisions on waterways in a much broader security environment. so a lot of us would like to have just this one unique

challenge on our sovereignty and how we manage it. but it is mark obligated for the united states because they have greater geosecurity issues and more places and i don't like having a one-off position that may prejudice and hurt them in other places. as far as i can tell in my short involvement here. >> as much as canada and u.s.. is a understand that virtually nobody else in the world agrees with our position. >> yeah that is right. >> as long as we don't claim soveignty on it. [inaudible] >> we have lots of agreements and lots of various and this is one where we don't have one. >> let's talk about defense and canada's role in afghanistan because that is a role that senator wallin is very familiar with and she worked on the

commission advising the government on how to proceed with theere the americans are vy aware of the role canada plays or is played from a time when i think the u.s. had pretty much given up hope on the capabilities of the canadian military to now hold them in relatively higesteem. what does that do for the relationship? >> i think we havearned enormo credit for what we have done so far. i think we were in jeopardy of sacrificing a lot of that goodwill by the abrupt decision of the prime minister in the middle of the campaign to adopt the position on this which was we were going to go home and 2011, exactly the arbitrary deadlines he has rejected before. it is fortunate that i accommodation of circumstanc he has been browbeaten, shamed and pressured into at least extending the mission beyond 2011 in a trniaci. but i pe thaweilst i uphe on that. i think there is hard work still

to be done there and the americans don't get to go home so i'm not sure why we get to unilaterally decide we are going home. >> afghanistan should open a much better discussion in canada. canada needs to make a generational commitment to return as a security power. there is something weirdly lopsided and -- with the way canada deals with the world. i remember when i was a while ago in the days before modern computers i was working at "the wall street journal" and i would have canadians visit me all the time who would say none of the media and the united states pay any attention to anything that goes on in canada. what you wosedo nada.e granted oath of them worked -- [lghter] but canada has this on arms role in american finance and american trade and commerce.

about what canadians want to be consulted also on the security aspect of the relationship where canada has to bring more to the party if it is to carry the weight the canadians expect and that they deserve this of their importance and all of these other are. that is something that has to be really adopted as part of canadian political culture. i remember going back a long time is a hh school student writing a paper on the canadia decision to downgrade e world and germany and the late 60s. the cable cross in the library of book passionately denouncing this idea which was written by a democratic member of parliament. there was this kind of lost civilization in which they were, he was a veteran of course and there were new democrats who has young people fought on those battlefields and who were as people of the left wanted to nationalize the banks and all

that but when it came time to read soared across the canadian political spectrum. canada once a voice in the world. it is paid the blood price i afghanisn. what is kind of shocking now has to paid in cash prize rebuilding afghanistan. >> i think we we are really saying that. at the beginning thereas a ma think there w a lot of liticsrod this decion if weer'toing to iraq and we would go to afghanistan and it was the good war and iraq was a bad war and it was all that sort of thing. >> what if we win the bet for? >> exactly. but we went in i think what increasingly happened is we started to appreciate that we had en stories started to filter home and it was not for lack of enthusiasm and it is still trueoy. utanhe fwa ora anas i the middle of afghanistan and you ask how many people are on their third, or

their fifth tour in almost all t hdso . d'tava ndortwor tyn afghast. op ath volunteer or that in the canadian military. so they are there and they are there not for the good weather. they are there because they actually think they're making a difference. and that is translated back home, and we have started to provide as one of the things the independent panel recommended as we had to get our men and women some air support to get them up off the ground so they were having their legs blown off by going down these ied written roads. so we made some progress. we are about to have that debate again about the f-35, that you can't just say okay we are going to do our bit in afghanistan and then we are going to go home on some arbitrary date. i certainly have disagreed with that position. if you are there you are there until a job is done that now we are the other side of it as we are starting to see a commitment that we don't know what tomorrow's fight will be our next year's fight will be and we

need to have a military that is properly equipped because i think what people have come to appreciate is something david was alluding to. we all have this memory of the canadian image in world war ii, and we became peacekeepers somehow although the numbers didn't actually substantiate whether or not we really were peacekeepers of the world. we didn't break that high amongst the world and now we are seeing a guinness people who have somehow merged the two fierce warriors and humanitarians, and that is something canadians have trul-- viraloorbl with n,haeano th and thk he the bks and men and women in afghanistan put ourselves back at the table of people who are considered serious players when it comes to security and that is amazing, given how the numbers are so low >> let me pick up on something you talked about. we focus on much on the hardware aspect of this debate. all of the new equipment that

the soldiers had, have been given which as been great but the software side is just as important. the united states has changed its counterinsurgency doctrine. we are very different than we were in world war ii or korea to fight aongside. almost no one fights alongside as well as the canadians do because you have been in the trenches with us. you have learned how we fight now, and now by taking on a training role, by continuing to be involved in afghanistan you can give to the danes, the dutch, the germans and other real insight. >> but i think there is a feeling in a lot of canadian societies that when it comes to something like afghanistan, canadians can't say no if there is pressure on the americans because there will be consequences. >> is not just america. this is a nato mission, u.n. endorsed at the end invitation of the u.n. government. the americans weren't there in great enough numbers although

certainly much larger than ours, but even talking to senior americans to your very point about learning to work with each other, a senior american general saying to us sitting in a meeting room over in the kandahar airfield, you know, if i could put every single american soldier under canadian command i would, because you guys have actually figured out how to work this on the ground. the problem for american soldiers it is, because you are often unpopular in places that you go, you travel in larger numbers for self protection, for force protection. canadians when you are talking about a clear and hold strategy and going into villages to protect it we put down our arms and go in and stay there for two or three days or a week or a month or whatever it takes. everybody strategy has evolved and we really have worked together. now the question is, you know what do you have? it is not just the canada-u.s.,

it is what is nato and the future? what do we respondo? o cis es isu a ats intohr o ovallel commitment? >> peter, we have said no to vietnam. we have said no to iraq and we did say yes right at the initial stages -- i wasn't trying to be a politician. but thank you very much. wou ira tghecseheri and thamics nndn emotionally very difficult. it was difficult and people would have different views on the wisdom of that decision here in the room. i can say one thing. the canadian soldiers that i know, not just in the embassy by people i know and the 17 wing or other members of the military i know just as friends, they did not want to go in with everyone and leave ahead of people.

for a number of reasons, to complete the mission with their alliedeandecond, hor tseeoe atid n afghanistan. i just think that is something to consider because those people that are -- risking their lives to care about completing the mission. >> when chris sands talked about hardware and software, i thought chrissy meant maybe a little bit more than just different military doctors and counterinsurgency versus software. also having eyes and ears in different parts of the world where next year's fight might be coming. in june in 2000 her and i were here and june 2001 andrew and i were here in washington where people talked about, i don't know if you were here andrew people talked about the threats ahead in henry kissinger was in the room and brzezinski. there was a shooting war in

georgia a couple of years ago. there is no canadian democracy promotion agency with an office in georgia. we were blind, deaf and dumb. there is a scurrilous attempt by the government of belarus to steal yet another election. that canada's ambassador in warsaw has a credit haitian because our policy is we don't talk to the belarusian government which means we have, we have no capability there. our american friends have learned you never know where the next flight or the next opportunity is going to come from so your diplomatic corps has to be present and active and have freedom of maneuver around theor,ndurasfe gornnti think have deluded themselves into thinking you can shrink the world into productive will threats and opportunities. it just ain't so. >> very quickly. >> as quickly i think it is really clear that in the questi oafanta t w

na herd tt has an incredibly important for canada and on principles that is at a benefit to the canadian relationship with the united states. and you contrast that very is very serious and very real contribution on the world stage with a different political decision it a different day in canada. in canada have the opportunity to be a partner with the. withalst msi den at n ct a -cadand canada were to us as we so. so i think when you take something seriously and you take a position whether not the united states agrees or disagrees, weesct. d thk e alngiso ha aererus debate about the global threats and make a decision that way. i think the united states has to respect whatever candida does ifhais theay it is prend. >> but we also have to understand there are consequences and there are -- there were two the ballistic missile defense. >> their work consequences.

>> howden norad had to split into different. >> we have time for one last topic. it might be interesting as well and that is just sort of attitude. what do canadians think the americans and vice versa? who would like to start? >> i will start without. with that. my favoritebjt. ay shena appointed to go to auto was during the second term of the clinton administration i bought a tour book because i wasn't sure what the capital of canada was. of the canadians can joke about american ignorance to canada. i was ignorant, and wind and loved it, fell in love with the country. is spectacular but what shocked me was the level of anti-americanism that was there. and that was during the clinton years. i can imagine what u.s. diplomats and the americans that serve during the bush years must

feel. i just think that there is a serious anti-americanism. now in contrast in the united states there may be some ignorance but we have done a lot of polling and survey research in the canadian american business council and the truth is as worried as canadians are about not respected enough, americans to the extent they know anything about canada, they love it and if they don't know anything they're willing to give canada the benefit of of the dow. >> i don't think i've seen a pollhat is that canada is the u.s. best friend. >> i don't know about best friends. were not sure about best friends but we love canada and would love the place and we think they are nice and all of that. canadians don't really play that up enough. there is a huge beneficial art fair in american public opinion that i think canadians are surprised about. >> it is too simple to say that it is anti-americanism. it depends which question you ask. i think it is very conflicted. we are in a very productive

period of confusion right now. because for the longest time we in canada particularly were basing our sense of nationhood on artificially embellished differences. we relied upon characters of ourselves and the americans and in themselves americans with a free-market country were more a big government country when in fact up until the early 60s we were the smaller government country. it is a recent self-image of ourselves of the suite of north america. so now we are in a state where we have had a couple of very interesting debates happen in the last two years. what is in canada. we had this big fight over the long gun registry where i think a lot of people were shocked to discover the remains of gun overs -- gunowners in canada so the notion that we left their doors unlocked at night in those michael moore stuff complete fiction. >> gesture border patrol. >> similarly to come the americans to talk about universal or near universal health care which if you invested a great deal of your

sense of self and the idea that would make the difference in the markets as they don't have universal health care we are shocked at that kind of nationalist but i think wh the tin gngn adha thste o eno a thgsiktholpi io inthe i much more growing sense of innate self-confidence and canadians that doesn't locate itself in drawing the artificial things that is an threatened by the idea that maybe we have a lot in common with our northern neighbors. actually think things are improving in that regard. >> i want to have a meeting with the state governor at one point to say, because there was a big phase of by american and bistate only in a post-9/11 time and going in and saying look, this is going to cost your state hundreds of jobs and you buy canadian products and there are canadian plants and you have got jobs at stake and all the rest. he looked at me really puzzled and couldn't figure out why, display and what i was talking about. he said no, no the legislation is -- foreigners. i said yeah and we are a foreign

country. he said well we didn't mean you. and sometimes you aroften caught in the n bause they don't mean us. >> i have an exact opposite story. i hope this proves retailing but i'm hoping my friend had it right. my friend was in kuwait in 1994 when the iraqis a mass troops on the border for the second time in people thought there was going to be a second more. canadians who were there were issued by the embassy as a buzzer device like you get when you go to the cheesecake factory. the instructions they were given were existing buses, don't pack a bag, just get a toothbrush and get your family go to the embassy compound. canadice and have helicopters and certainly doesn't have aircraft carriers and of course it was completely taken for granted. it was the americans job to do this for canada. i tried to explain that there

were two absolutely unforgivable mistakes that you can make in dealing with canadians and one is to forget that canada is an independent, sovereign foreign country and the other is to remember. [laughter] >> i hear this thing about every bill on the hill we have to clarify that over and over and over again. bu t p rsechept celyamouansa y kn tt tmics efreto trade with canada 76% higher than any other country and you will notice in the midterm elections there was lots of anti-trade ads in terms of jobs. mostly focused in at the person who has just left for chicago today in his country. i think that is very positive. i actually think from the time i have come here, used to like a little bit of the american swagger that i used to see here as premier and certainly i saw -- i am actually going to american businesses and saying, you know, it would be bad to get

a little bit, the bit of your swagger back because really when you look at the american economy and the entrepreneurs and the universities and the creativity and the inventions and they products, i think american business has to get a little bit more positive in the public arena. i actually think more quietly, actually think there is benefit benefit of a cross here in terms of canadian confidence quietly and american swagger that has been reduced in the less period of time and a little bit of that is not phony bravado but a little bit of confidence in getting that message out to the american public is good for america but it is also good for those of us who want to sell to america. so i want american business to get a little bit of their swagger back. i think it is good. >> there is a dimension and to some extent this brings us back to where we started. there's a dimension to this which has to do with nationalism. canadians remember the days when they were dealing with the québec nationalists who were

there is is the them. when americans were nationalist after 9/11 you were us, we were them and it made it harder to manage the relationship. and canadians became nationalistic around the olympics and they have been pushing back a little bit of makes you more confident but it makes you them and us or us dumb and you are us i think. [laughter] >> we know what you mean. so i think they're going to be these periods in our relationship where we are both pushing a little bit and getting on the other sinners by reminding each other we are different in a way that doesn't, isn't intended to be insulting but sometimes seems that way. aweum wkiakaly te - [inaudible] some of our tv shows depict his swaggering america's to take over the police investigation. it sounds from what i'm hearing

is that there is a back-and-forth and sometimes it is an priority complex a sometimeits a security complex. >> it is a manifestation of the inferiority complex. >> here is what i think it is. i think we need some metaphors in the relationship and i'm glad we are going to bury the elephant in the musnd i don'apy me. e taor tnke ve ee because i'mcto outnumbered appear, is i think we suffer from what i would call binocular center and the binoculars syndrome is i am canada, you were the united states. i'm looking at you through these for not lears and you were looking me through the same set of binoculars. when canada was with the united states everything seemed eager and closer than it really is. at the other looked through innocuous backwards everything seemed smaller and fuzzier. the binoculars, you are never going to invite me back a miss the canadian media. we need to get rid of the binoculars and see each other for who we really are and not suffer from too far away and too

blurry or two up in your face because it is really and i think you started the discussion this when ambassador it is a great partnership and a great friendship. i don't know for your best friends but we are definitely not perfect strangers and we just need to be realistic about what it is all about. >> the canadian people and american people are pretty good friends i think most of the time and what we are starting to realize this week i'll hate washington. [laughter] on that note, we will take a short break and be back with questions from our studio audience. our town hall from wshington on cpac o c-span here in the united states. >> as you just heard, this panel is taking a one minute break. then we'll resume our live covera. ju aeminder, you c watc this tn llve o u.-cadretis again in its entirety on saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> we are talking about the relationship between canada and the united states. our topic tonight is canada-u.s. best friends are perfect strangers? it has been an interesting discussion and now it is time to hear from our members of the

audience. let's start over here. go ahead. >> my name is printed on the washington bureau office for the canadian manufactures and exports so i spent a lot of time watching what is happening in washington. two observations in one question. my first observation is after 20 years of being in washington d.c. i've never heard the canada-u.s. relationship in terms of carbon monoxide. i don't know what to do about that. i just took note of it. and the second one is, smart border come efficient border, it is a border. it is an oxymoron and i think we need to have a healthy debate about border rather than a smart border and efficient border might make us feel better to talk in those terms but a border is a border and third, getting back to jobs, let me just repeat that. let's get back to jobs. i haven't heard much about manufacturing on today's panel. my manufactures, small and medium-size, they are doing a very brisk dialogue with their key west business partners.

that conversation is brisk, it is dynamic, a lot of mojo, a lot of swagger, thank you very much. we are very bullish on north american manufacturing. the conversation is all about right now growth, product growth, job growth in the s. export growth. so while canadian exports abroad to third countries may be rising in contrast to the united states, it might be the commodities. it might be by value, but components, widgets, auto parts, electronic parts. it is going north from the united states from alabama and north carolina. is going south from otao bea. >>ouava qstn r a pal? smyueio i. you can say is spent a lot of time thinking about this. my question is things are moving rapidly. the president of china's income. $74 billion in contracts announced.

minutes two or three years, this panel, what i would like to hear, where's the competitive advantage that canada and the united states will enjoy and who will enjoy it? >> i think you can y manufacturing is a competitive and one of the challenges we have is how we perceive it. u.s. manufacturing output is up but manufacturing employment is down, so we tend to think of it is a declining sector. everyone wants a high-tech job or a green job and it in a fracturing still employs a lot of people. it has just become more automated than it has been and what that issote logistics, thed assurance up and down the supply chain that dozens of companies in th production of a pruc that you know from the name brand that is on it wh you buy it. that is the reality of our economy that most of us don't perceive and at one of the strength of of the canadian american relationship is in the management of supply chain. that is why we are so dis oakt

ngge tli to d c ce ic supply chain to look for efficiencies, ways we can become more productive and americans can teach some canadians business is a thing or two as well. this is a home area and don't talk about the mag's jobs versus the good old-fashioned blue-collar jobs. they are much more white-collar, green green educated job, high tech jobs while at the same time they are a lot more invisible than they used to be. >> brigid you asked about in two years where rarity in this conversation and i think some of that has to do with the conversation we haven't talked about it all yet which is mexico. and canada-u.s. relations there is often a question about whether or not you trilateral eyes and how do you work that? that is an active conversation even now and where we go in manufacturing will depend upon how our border policy goes, whether supply chains can become more efficient and as david

pointed out order policy and interior in the united states difference in the northern border and the reason i point out mexico tonight is if you look at the figures that have come out, the mexican auto sector has outpaced the canadian auto sector this year in growth. a great canadian company magnet which sells auto parts has 48 plants in mexico whereas in 2001 they had every single one. i do think we have to figure out without trilateral icing the relationship because i don't want to do tt, we haveo gu out wt the deals a north eran how thewa t mpe economically in the space versus the rest of the world. >> just a quick note ono dierceanteio he mish or me yotaedarer aou what is a product becomes difficult is things are made both side of the border supply chain and one interesting consequence of that is here we have the canadian dollar now that is above parity with of the american dollar and it is not - that it would have

in the past. even as they are taking a hit on the sales side they are saving money on the input side and it just shows you the degree to which those economies have become so much more tightly integrated over time. speech is a quick thing on what the canadian product, great canadian company has a new jet called the c series. it is manufactured in the back but it is 55% american parts, so is i cnadianlan becae it s made the or anmican anbecause it is most our stuff? it has also got some chinese parts in there. >> i think the.s. createand manufacturing test scores led by thk mr. oom who was al involved in a bilateral relationship on the ongoing history. we were quite frankly very worried with what would be in that report and it was actually quite fair in terms of dealing with the manufacturing jobs on both sides of the border. if you go out the door here you will notice there is a flyer

from winnipeg that is also completed in st. cloud because of the buy america provision back in 82 and notwithstanding. >> by american works. >> we of the jobs in winnipeg and a few in st. cloud and it is perfect. they got quickly to theo emisonus bau cafoia actllbu me seth a o cna and for aerospace. again if you get there quickly and you train your workforce you are going to be, to have the agility and as you know, to be on the leading edge of building products and therefore having the jobs. i think the dollar used to be an advantage. it is not any more. i think most workers knew that was happening slowly. sometimes it happen much typically in canada. when the dollar goes up that is very important factor. the training, we are getting

more people graduating from the out of her college's post-secondary facilities, not just the traditional universities but also on the scope side. we have to continue to do that in my view. the r&d incentives are very positive as well. but we won't be able to compete with the united states or integrate with united states or compete in the world unless the worker today is using computers and designs right on the shop floor and we have got to make sure our education system is absolutely the best they can be because otherwise we will not have those manufacturing jobs. >> is going to continue to be a relationship with united states. one of canada's largest trading relationships is between home depot head office in atlanta georgia and home depot and canada. one of our largest trading relationships. >> candidate does more business with home depot than it does with france. [laughter] absolutely. >> you get better service from home depot.

[laughter] >> my name is medea benjamin and i work with the human rights group called global exchange and appease group called code pink. is part of my work i traveled all around the world and i wonder if you could guess the one cuntry that i have not been allowed in? >> you are here in the u.s.. >> i have been rejected in the last two years three times, every time i've tried to go to canada and i have been told canada is sharing a database called the national criminal investigative database, it and cic and that my name appears as having been arrested three times for non-violent civil disobedience processing these wars. this is happened not only with myself but to many colleagues and impact we went to your lovely embassy here to comai anthey we givean8 page process to try to go through

that is not only time-consuming but practically in my case impossible, and it was to get rehabilitated so that we would then be able to go back to canada. so i wonder what it is about using this database. i heard that this is t on cotry right now sharing thi database but thelans are to she it with her couri meeting will be not be able to go to these other countries and what can we do to not have this happen to people like myself? >> ivan had a situation, or a case like this brought to my attention so i can't give you a good answer to your specific question. i have had lots of people and lots of senators raised the issue of people that have had convictions for drinking and rii itlthibio ad information of sharing so i don't know about the situation of peaceable protests and where that fits so i can't give you good answer. >> do you think this database and they say that you have no

misdemeanor so whatever is a misdemeanor here gets bumped up in canada and is a reason not to let people in? i just wonder about the sharing of this and why should you even having canada information about my arrest in the united states for a misdemeanor? >> even before 9/11, we did share information about potential arrest. but i do know the o drinking and driving cases that happened a long time ago when people are arguing there should be an appeal. it is still on their criminal records so i can't answer your specific question and i'm not going to try to have been an answer but i will look at the specifics of what what you have asked. >> tiberian i grew up in port huron. byplay travel a hockey so i was there for a week. my question is, suppose you watched over the last year our

debate on the health care issue in the united states. we spent an entire year where we were not even allowed to discuss universal he vote and we finally got some typef health care program. now, yesterday, the opposition party that came into power suddenly decided for political reasons to take that away from us. now, i wonder how canadians see this, seeing as how you do have a system of health care that everybody is able to enjoy, whether everyone likes it or not or, but everyone is able to enjoy that particular system. my other quick question is, what i hear from you on this panel is that you seem to be fighting in a war in afghanistan that has been chosen by the united states and that you you are sending your children off to fight a war

and you were spending money on a war that really is the united states choice and you seem to be swept up into it. and i'm wondering, since over two-thirds of americans today do not want to be in this war in afghanistan, and i am surit must be equay as mh in canada, why are governments not listening to us and getting us out of these crazy wars? >> lets deal with health care first. >> i will answer the first question. watching the american health care debate i have to say, i thought what could be more canadian than to be having a massive nervous breakdown about some imagined threat to your health care system? the only difference was in the united states the threat was the public option and in canada we go bananas over private option. but in both cases you know i think cooler heads eventually prevailed on those. what was striking me also was how little currencctllhe naan otion ad they

american debate. we have a lot of work to be done on it and anyone whon ari thkse vehect st i tliou d't is a great system but it needs a lot of work. cora me s opvenirs trtee ida hivsaoraut you been a long time to be treated. those stories are not just myths. each country has its own health care system and we are both working to achieve what i think is the best of both worlds which we universal coverage and yet efficiency and competitive dynamics within that system so you were getting the best bang for the buck. >> you know know i think obviously we wouldn't want americans telling us what to do in canada on our health care system and i was very aware that coming here. what surprised me is that fact in canada we built this system piece by piece over a long. of time including the proposal that that came in and was paid for right up front in terms of hospitalization because farmers

are losing their farms if they didn't have a room in saskatchewan. senator wahles problem. and another things weradded piece by piece by piece by piece. and it is the end result and one of the issues the canadian system was defined by people who are opposed opposed to all health care in this country but what shocked me is that there wasn't a more gradual approach to dealing with preexisting conditions for kids, preexisting conditions for laid-off workers, cost affordability on state plants across states to save money. if i was giving advice i would go to items on access and two items on cost. tort reform was not even -- it was not even touched and so here in canada you talk about competitive advantages. and i'm saying nobody has a perfect system, but the cost of gdp in canada is about 11.5% and it is rising over 18% in the united states. that is huge, huge issue

particularly when you look at the imploding entitlement of the demographics in this country versus hours. that will be in it bandage for the manufactures. >> that cost differential points to one area. one of the reasons -- don't think it is 18% but it is moving. maybe it was 17 when -- [inaudible] one of the reasons the american system cost much more and there are many reasons is that providers and i don't just mean doctors and nurses but all elements of the system are much more expensive in the united states. one example is the pharmaceutical industry. as the american titan the bolts there are going to be pressures to squeeze providers including pharmaceutical companies. the pharmaceutical company will say wait moment yes it is true we do charge a lot in the united states because this is where we can recover our tacoma cost and

we can't have if they're going to be drugs for the world almost all of which are in the united states, and if american companies companies are not allowed to recover all of their costs inside of the united states which the campy, they will have to be recovered somewhere else. and this is a think i sea real area of future aberration. >> one of the things i was fascinating about the health care debate here was the extent that canadians got dragged into you. it is funny because the united states and if the -- past couple of years is ideological. at present somewhat by the utopian on the other side's disaster. ordinary commonsense people want to say well, in between all of those dire and utopian predictions what is going to happen? in canada, it is similar enough for americans and no insult intended, that they feel it to work there why can't it work

here? of the debate had to get into the details of the canadian system. people want to know, canadians haven't tuedommuni. ey havet gten si o ere arises b i wt practical demonstration of how some of these theories really work. we are going to have more shoes like that. we are going to be looking to ourda as a laboratory reform states and look and see a laboratory as well. we have to learn to learn from each other and not get too worked up about the fact we are talking about each other behind their backs.f you ask in a poll, public opinion poll, you get majorities in canada calling for a quicker withdrawal than a later withdrawal. and i would hate to see canada's foreign foreign-policy effort to find is what is the next war we can get into? that being said i get a little hot when i hear it argued that this was america's war and we

t agd tot th w aoveign cic caide deo lp fen [applause] and since we have a point of evidence senator wahlen's party that called usually, for a longer and more robust involvement in afghanistan has increased its advantage over every otr party in every election since 2001 >> i agree. i were to say it mean something to be an ally in that mean something to be in nato and our countries have collaborated for dedes. ifou wao ha t bnefit he nato alliance for example, and you have got to be willing to be an side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder and nobody is a better example of that in canada. i think candidate doesn't for its own reasons and the alliance and the friendship is valued here. >> microphone here. >> i am a media consultant and we work in both canada and the h are we doing gary?

how are we doing laura? >> i was interested in the amount of information that flows across the border. it is a one-way information flow. canadians receive all the american media and the americans receive very little canadian media and i think that creates a certain barrier of information. one of the problems is americans actually will readily tell you they don't know a lot about canada very specifically and perhaps the upper part for canada is they think they know more. and they form opinions based on that. so my question then, first of all i want to say that this forum here tonight is a wonderful example i think of helping to break that down. i think the millions of viewers and c-span and cpac watching us, think we will start to create -- i think it is a positive step forward all kidding aside. i think we need a lot more of that kind of -- how do you get across the border whether it is in media, whether it is the

internet or new media and i wonder if there any thoughts or concerns that the media could be doing a lot better job across different bottles of telling the mutual stories? >> i just want to say i thought this last year was particularly great for canada because of the olympics and the timing of the olympics and the coverage that does place in the united states but ats unusual. it dsn'tapn obouy every year. the someention of canada a thfinancial pe dli with banks. there was some mention about canada's post-secondary graduation rate again covered by some of the television stations. some coverage of canada being third behind shanghai and finland on public education test results. so, there is not a lot of coverage. i talked to a fairly prominent journalists, american journalist, who is very aware of canada and he made a point to me that our cameras, the last two times or cameras moved out of our studio to an embassy here in washington.

one was covering the tragedy of haiti and the second time was covering the shootings in juarez to an embassy. so a lot of what happens in this town with the media is very much focused on american issues but when it goes international, it is not always what you would prefer to have in terms of getting attention. >> there should be a lot more for this reason. notches because you know canada is a neighbor and candidate is terrifically important. here is i think the thing that we need so much to teach each other. as societieshey are the two most similar societies on the planet, more even i would argue that in germany and austria. and yet they consistently produce very different results. why is that? that is because through accidents there have been two different sets of very different kinds of political institutions laid upon them which produce radically different results. and both countries can be inoculation to the other.

the things that happen in the country happened because of the nature of the people or the deep culture. a friend of mine who studies both countries close to me made this wonderful.. canadians believe candidate is a left-leaning country and america's a more right-wing country tf te it ste we gerd t cadn constuono e 80th rean yrshawod ve enovnor i prime minister tip o'neal. and that is an important thing for both americans today and they can't do the same way. if canada have direct elections of its chief executive officer, think canada would have had a conserved conserved of chief executive officer for most of the period since world war ii and not a liberal chief executive officer. >> i agree with everything you said but that is not going to lead the news. >> a very short answer over here. >> i do think part of the problem is just simply the size of the canadian market.

we are 30 million peopleersus 300 million people. our media world is much smaller and so we consume and we use. all canadian telogen -- aleteysen networks have the overriding interest. we are constantly watching american news. the american media does not need to do that. they don't need to buy a ctv or cbc story so it is just a case of the size of the market. >> is also true that we need to disintermediate this relationship a little bit more. i grew up in detroit and for most of you who haven't grown up in detroit you would imagine it is a war zone like living in baghdad because all the news out of detroit is dismal. but bad news leads. the united states is always putting out a phony image of ourselves. we don't have car chases all the time and wre not a hin sewi erydye etnd we a n as fuy we aron

tv and uimely we are not as if noxious on a panel as bill o'reilly and keith olbermann. [laughter] onhat nte, that will do it for questions and answers but we have timicy to have uline drj gives the fil outsefe s go nit. >> off the top by since in your comments a nostalgia for a day when we took on these great big projects together like the free trade agreement like norad and nato etc.. the problem i think we are facing is our success. you can only strike the world's largest free trade agreement once and to lveit at i thinthsuesofhasa th t iueoismu smaller. i rarely quote -- but i think in a situation where you manage one fall of the that may not be as exciting or glamorous but it is good news colin all. >> youound like the guy at it theatt fi i19 beusevytngadee innt [lghr] ha aartielieve that

two of the most blessed countries under the eye of god are going to say we don't know that, we built nafta, -- did a lot to bring the warsaw pact into nato. on 911 the air lakers gathered and now we are done. i would like to think there was work ahead. >> there is. >> alright, well on that note i want to thank you all. thanks to her audience in canada and watching on cpac in our audience in the united states watching on c-span and our audience here at the newum. thank you for coming folks. good to have you here. [applause] appreciate you joining us. and course weill contin watch for the candidate u.s. lationipakes us anwe will be watching more closely in canada then you might not -- here. it has been a good discussion tonight and the chance to air some different points of view

and we appreciate you showing up to participate. i am peter van dusen in washington and from all of us at cpac, thanks for watching and good night. [applause] ..

to a group of u.s. business executives. he called for cooperation between the u.s. and china in the global recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. the chinese president has introduced by former secretary

of state henry kissinger. this is half an hour. pplause] >> mr. president, distinguished guests, before i say anything else, let me congratulate president hu jintao on his successful summit in washington, which i'm sure will be marked as a turning point that starts the cooperative dimension in dealing with the important issues that are before us.

when we finished the communique announcing my secretisit, he turned to me and said this will shape the world, and it did. the opening of relations between china and the united states after so many years of separation did change the world. since then, eight american presidents, for generations of chinese leaders have worked on this relationship. and when i think of the chne leaders from which chairmen mao who unified the country to with

deng xioaping who started an opening to the who implemented one of those concepts in difficult periods and then to president hu jintao, who developed and built on the achievement of its predecessors and came to a situation that both inside china and all the relations of china with the rest of the world into a small contribution to call for cooperatn and friendship.

it's called for a harmonious world. the cut close cooperation with the united states, between the united states and china. if our two countries worked together, most of the problems that are before us will find a creative solution. and if they don't, then there is no possibilityfor si o the her achieving success over the other. ,there wca this summit a success not because it

helps out every problem but because it has shown a way by which the problems can and will be solved, and the manner in which our two esidents have worked together and the arrangements they have set up indicate a direction and an obligation to all of their sissy s twkretive. is is gat chievement, an it makes us proud to be in this room now looking back to 40 arofassocon toe nd an o tamians

here, china is not a foreign country. china is a countryana thtawm hae edaneeriences and which create an imperative within us to ntuethi direction. i began by saying that the prime minister said we've done something to shake the world. this generation has different task. this generation came together in a period of controversy. this generation lived in a period of transition. and in this period of transition , we can say that we

are working to build th worl, not reshape ianit's in a spirit we thank the chinese participantsre, a le tontu pridt whhate so much to make this possible and for the vision that he has given to his society and hours. [applause] ppuse]

and orval conversations >> [speang chinese] >> transtor: dr. henry kiinger, gary locke, ambassador herd, investor cook, ambassador john huntsman, the

charter of the u.s.-china business council, ambassador, chair of the national committee on u.s.-china relations, ladies and gentlemen, friends, i wish to begin by thinking the u.s.-china business council, the committee on u.s.-china relations and other friendly organization for hosting this luncheon. i am delighted to agree new friendship and plan for the future. of like to expand best wishes to you and pople from various sectors of the united states uld have cared for and supported the growth of u.s.-china elations. on ts day 74 years ago, the

president's franklin roosevelt made his inaugural speech he called on the american people coming out of the depression to you might want and redouble their efforts along the road of enduring rogess. today t is caught by the international financial as well as the economy is returning to growth. yes, they're still exist many answers and factors making it the world acknowledged the recovery. all countries in the world including china and the united states not to fully emerge from

the crisis as soon as possible and achieve a full recovery of the world economy. in the face of the complex international situation and challenges the people of our two countries stood step up cooperation and work with people across the world to share opportunities, meet challenges come and build a better future for mankind. 32 yrs aomr. deng xiaoping teams archtects of chinese refo an pd a tic vist to the united states he said during the visit the pacific ocean should no longer be an

obstacle that sets us apart. rather it should be a bond ha links us gether. hiory as pren this importan statement. in the decade of thcentury chinand te nited stas woed together and made steady prre iildg opat a cprenve retish or the 21st century. china and u.s. relations have reached unprecedented breadth and depth. given the ever changing circumstances in the world and respective countries what should we do to take a sound and steady relationship in to the new decade. to answer this question one must

first identified the basis for thdevelopment of china u.s. retionship. itfaio say tt r cont's av nver enjoyed such broader common interest and assure such important common responsibilities as we do today. china and the united statesr committed to upholding world peace and stability and reforming the international system. china is delighted developing untry while nited stas, the largest develin one. the atic of grwth of our relations itself is a major contribution to world peace and stability. our two countries have engaged in coordination and cooperation on a range

coordination and communication in both the traditional and non-adiol. geere she mor prra ith ineatol efforts on climate change and nonproliferation and facilitated positive outcomes to the g20 summit and the other meetings. we have joined the rest of the international community in a common effort tosafgud tabili itheintenation der and advanced reform and development of the international system. china and the united states are committed to the development and the prosperity of the asia-pacific region. the asia-pacific region is where china and the united states interestcooperion between the two countries in the region is crucial to the regional situation and growth of our

bilateral relations. china and the united states have maintained close communication and coordinatn on the regional hospot ises suchas the korean nuclear issue, afghanistan and south asia and play a constructive role in promoting peace development, mutual trust and mutual beneficial cooperation in the region. both china and the united states are committed to stronger bilateral cooperation in the off years to the benefits of the two peoples. the united states is china's second larges export market and main source of investmen china is the united states third largest export market and also the fastest growing one.ct have saved american consumers

ov$6bilon. fo eracompaetheir sinessn ina hae become the biggest source of profits their global operations ev i2008 ain009 en the international financial crisis was most. over 70% of the american companies in china remained profitable. today some 3 million tourists travel between the two countries every year. the friendly exhng hnttoeir own, but also the exchange's between the eastern and western civilization's, and they have given a strong boost to the overall progress of human civilization. looking ahead we are fully

confident about the prospect of china and u.s. relations. here i would like to propose that we takehe following stce for te sound and teay grow of relations. first bearing in mind the overall interest to give long-term perspective and make active efforts to advance china and u.s. cooperative partnership. china and u.s. relationship is not one in which ones gain means the other side's loss. rather it should be a relationship in which the two sides respect each other and endeavor to deepen strategic mutual trust. it should be a relationship that highlights common interest and stronger cooperation in all. the two sides should handle the bilateral relationship from a global perspective and keeping

with a trend of the times. we should keep our relations on equality, mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual benefits and common development. to do that we should increase high-level exchanges, deepen and expand communications at all levels, to better appreciate each other's strategic intentions and development path and further increase mutual trust, despite misgivings and build the consensus and second, seize opportunities and take innovative steps to build mutual beneficial economic cooperation. both china and the united states are advancing economic restructuring, increasing input

in the environmental protection, new energy and the technological innovation and promoting the development of health, education and other social proams. de enne ornies foaestto ste new aras ofckwlge cooperation. china wants to work with the united states to forge a framework of broad and strong economic cooperation. we can carry out fiscal, financial, and business cooperation on the larger scale, expand exchanges and cooperation, the energy, the environment, agriculture, health and others and brought in the cooperation in new areas such as avtion, infrtructure a smart power gid. thisway e will make a business ties even stronger and

create more jobs for our people. third, in terms ofur communatn donsta and deenooinioan eson aalot spot issues china and the united states should pursue global cooperation as partners to fulfill commonly responsibilities and meet common challenges we should enhance consultation and coordination on global issues such as the a und netiio ca chgene a rou security, public health security to bilateral and multilateral challenge is to maintain dialogue and exchanges on regional security, regional

cooperation and hot spot issues. together for a more equitable, just interest and better managed international system to promote peace prosperity in the regions engage in open -- in the from the imported region where china and the united states work closely with each other on the basis of mutual respect. for comedy and friendships, the forward looking vigorously promote friendly exchanges between the various sectors of the two countries. the development of china and u.s. relations and finer analysis hinges on the broad support for all walks of life in

the two countries we should draw a good plan for our exchanges and cooperation and culture and education, science and technology and other fields and encourage more dialect and exchanges between the local authorities, business communities, institutions, leader organization and other sectors so that more and more people will become supporters of stronger china and u.s. relations and get actively involved in the cause. we needo put an extra efforts to boost excanges between our young people and carry out forms of exchange to ensure that the youngest generation will carry forward china rlatiohip. ft treatach other wh spt d asequas nd anle major sensitive issues in the proper manner. a review of the history of the relations tells us that china

and u.s. relations will enjoy a smooth and steady growth when the two countries handle issues involved in each other's major interests. otherwise r rlans are cotant touble en nsion. taiwan and tibet related issues concern china's territorial integrity and they represent the core interests. the touch upon the national extent of the 9.3 billion chinese. we hope the u.s. side will honor its commitment and work to preserve the hard-earned progress of our relations. china and the united states are different in history, culture, social systems and development level it is only normal that we have friction. we should view and handle bilateral relations from

strategic and longer-term perspectives and with a sense of response of the to history and to the future. we should prevent our relationships from being affected or held back by any individual incident at any particular time. we should increase mutual trust, obstacles and work together to build a china and u.s. cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and benefits. ladies and gentlemen, the first decade of the 21st century is just topped. it was a decade when china be a remarkable achievement endeavor and its relation with the rest of the world notably strengthened. the chinese economy bring new levels and the chinese people's liliod pro.

the of 87 billion u.s. dollars worth of goods on average every year and created more than 14 million jobs in the relevant countries and regions. china joined the international community in an active effort to counter the international financial crisis. the reform of the international economic system and promote the peaceful settlement of teationadiutes a hot spot sses china took an active part in the international cooperation in addressing global issues with countries around the world to save the world peace and promote common development. despite the remarkable achievement china's development, we are keenly aware that china is still the largest developing country in the world.

we still have a long way to go before we can achieve our national development goals. developmt leads to resolving the problems in china and we must pursue scientific filament that puts people first and emphasizes comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable development. we need to adopt a more holistic approach for development and attach great interest to ensuring and improving people's welleing and promotingocial equityand justice. china set out the guiding and major tough for economic and social development in the cming five years. we continue to deepen the reform and open up advanced economic,

political, cultural and social restructuring in an all-around way and improve the socialist market economy. very developed socialist democracy under the rule of law. vigorous development and prosperity harmony to improve our open economy and more respect. through these efforts we make continuous progress in our endeavor to build a prosperous, strong, space, cultural advanced and harmonious country. we stick to the basic state policy of opening to the outside world and follow a strategy of opening up. we will continue to advance china's interest in the broader context of the common interests of the international community and expand and deepen the

converging interest with others. we welcome the participation of other countries in china's development to share our development opportunities and we will explore new areas of space for opening up and contribute to the common development in the region and the world through our own development. we will remain committed to the part of peaceful development to a peaceful international law enviroento deeloour sef d paed andproot wd peace through our own development. china stands for peaceful settlement of international dispute and hot spot issues and fellows in the washington defense policy that is in nature they posed a military threat to any country, china will never

cede to germany or pursue angene the sustain, sound and steady development of the chi u.s. relations the fund will delete the fundamental the interest of the two peoples but it's also conducive to world peace and development. working together hand-in-hand we will both build and develop a china u.s. cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefits. and in greater benefits to the people of the two countries and the world over. thank you. [applause]

[applause] >> president hu, we thank you for those important insightful remarks. we also thank you for your company and the company of your esteemed delegation to read this has been truly very dti dies a ntlen pease enjoy lunch and the conversation. thank you. [applause]

>> after the speech in washington to become president hu jintao traveled to chicago for a dinner hosted by mayor richard daley. president hu will meet with business leaders and return to china. >> you're watching public affairs programming on c-span2.

a panel of former top government officials discussed u.s. security issues concerning

iran. we will hear from former cia director james woolsey, former fbi director louis freeh come and former homeland security secretary tom ridge. plus former national security adviser to president obama, general james jones. the top of the iranian group mek thatdvatesthovrtro o e rnnt numr mbe o core veas the obama administration to take mek off of this department's terrorist list. hosted by exhibit faction, this is two hours and 45 minutes. >> -- this is sponsoring this event. i'd like to welcome you all to the a specialist fifa especially distinguished speakers to the conference of executive action has organized in as many months. i'm also grateful to all of the iranian americans in the audience and some of you have been friends of mine for many years. nice to see so many familiar faces whose tireless efforts in defense of the cause of

democracy have been an inspiration to all of us. as you know the regime proposed as the greatest threat to peace and security in the region and the world by virtue of its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and export of terrorism of around the world. therefore, we need to explore u.s. policies toward iran and developed policies that are going to be more effective in the future because we have many challenges at the iranian regime presenting to the united states and the world community right now. the nuclear clock is ticking faster than the pace of sanctions. so the united states must do more. it must do it faster and it must do it better. with that i want to turn the microphone over to senator robert to accepted our anannoartn to moderate this very

dungis dtguhe ceeinothou a nate, the senator was on the foreign affairs committee of both chambers. closely following the issues related to iran. he first served 14 years in the house of representatives fm the state of new jersey and then was elected to the united states senate in 1996. he joined the leadership in the senate from the outset and headed the democratic senatorial campaign committee. senator torricelli earned his degree rom rutgers universi and later attended harvard university where he completed a master's, public administration and 1980 and he will moderate this event this morning bob? [applause]

>> thank you for that warm welcome and for this opportunity this morning. there is a great observation of wisdom not from an unusual source. winston churchill who once noted the united states can usually be counted upon to do the right thing after it has exhausted all other options. soon, the international community will meet again with a government of tehran to discuss the nuclear weapons program. all options have been tried. once again there will be an temp ocve ing a foesf re tt cply th international law, common sense, and its own interest and abandon this folly. i have my own hopes for today's

discuson of each speaker will pursue their own interests and observations that they see fit. my first would be that it is time to start debating the reality of the situation. an outlaw regime hell bent on weapons of mass destruction that is a threat not only to the western world but a direct threat to all of its neighbors of all faiths and background. it was perhaps said it best by president bush when he made it clear that nuclear-armed iran is simply on epblunr a tes. is e hing for us to say it and it is another to devise a policy that will achieve at.ran

that produces billions of dollars is unlikely to be a coercive policy. reason and logic and the force of international law used against a regime that has murdered millions of its own, thousands of its own people, enslaved millions in a dictatorship and violated all forms of international behavior is simply not a realistic policy so for my first hope today would be this. between democrats and republicans, we can debate whether the motion doctrine of the preemptive action was the right policy in a rock. but it is a policy and of itself that in a world of weapons of mass destruction be retaliation

or action after the fact on any form is insufficient with a preemptive action as a necessity. indeed, if you knew that the iranian regime was capable of producing another holocaust having stated their belief that israel should not exist is the right and moral policy to act preemptively to deny those weapons. second, as a nation of many qualities that i love about america, sometimes they our naivete, the willingness to look for hope over facts is a good american quality. but at some point it runs its course. myecond hpe r das scsi ionofheoly wi oontsf the regime who

shares the iranian identity. does it make sense, does it have benefits that we continue to ostracize, label opponents of the regime as terrorists when the fact sayotheis wein tngro potil rseofakg esideits when we know it has no policy benefit and undermines the legitimacy of the teen possible to propose a terrorist state and be a terrorist yourself, is it possible to be a terrorist if you are on armed and promoted the last decade under the perception of the united states

army. it's time to deal with a reality we are not going to convince the iranian team to policy and undermining the credibility of their opponents is only doing service to the very people that would choose to oppose and must for our own security undermine in their nuclear ambitions. let us begin the discussion for the first speaker today it is might very privileged to introduce the 81st attorney general of the united states judge mukasey was a united states district court j have ben prison for their role in 1993 bombing of the world trad center.

attorney general ichael mukasey. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and neal livingston for organizing the symposium to executive action for organizing at. and of course a great privilege wos yw w owophone at this timei that future generations will ask it is needed to advance what go a oose wt i athg t ripaof a on, coitions we are here to address have become even more urgent. as before, the regime in tehran

is the center of the threat of the terrorism threat against us and to deploy the western civilization as we know it's coming and to do so is possible by obtaining nuclear weapons. if oprah's is its own people, threatens its neighbors. it has made clear that if it gets nuclear weapons it will not hesitate to use them. there are 3500 members of mek to live on the border f isred to a, city would probably be a better description. these people fled iran and set themselves up near the border so that they can live and support efforts to free their country. in 2003 when the united states invaded iraq, the residents of the camp surrendered their weapons. the weapons they had to defend themselves had accepted written confirmation from the commander of allied forces in iraq,

general jeffrey on behalf of the united states that they were protected persons under the fourth geneva convention. from 2003 unil0 l he itd atprected e sinc aulfilleth solemn obligation we have undertaken in 2003. but in janury 29,asomof y khe id es tuedveespoibitfo safety and security to the iraqi security forces. before that transfer took place, geral david petraeussaid that the united tates had been assured by the government of iraq that the residents would be protected and that he was proceeding with a transfer on the assumption that the pledge would be adhered to. obviously the residents have been a great source of anxiety to iran which would like nothing better than to see them repatriated to iran or at least crippled so that they cannot pose a threat to the regime. iran has brought increasing

pressure on the iraqi government within the past month. the situation of the residence of the camp have grown from perilous to guess where it. on january 7th, 2 days after a visit to baghdad by the irony in foreign minister, the residents of the camp were attacked by deflecting a the direction of the iranian quds force stationed in baghdad in cooperation with officials of the iraqi government and many were injured seriously. the iraqi security forces were supposed to be there to protect the residents of the camp had to turn a blind eye or actually assisted the attackers. even though the government of iraq promised the united states it would protect the residents. those iranian forces supported by iraqi forces were placed at the gates someone under 80 loudspeakers better used to threaten and harass the residents day and night, 24 hours a day and to prevent them from sepin thpshogil esrehas

beenngngorlmot year. medical care continues to be denied the residence and at least one patient in the last month has died due to lack of medical care. this is history repeating itself. we've seen this before. in june of 2009, nouri al-maliki, the head of the government, headed to iran for personal reasons and the next month in july of 2009 the iraqi security forces attacked residents. to add insult to the united states to injury suffered by the citizens that attack took place during a visit to iraq by defense secretary robert gates to be inside of the spot in the face to the u.s. government and in spite of the solemn assurances given by the american military when the residence surrendered their weapons in 2003, and our secretary of state which was questioned about then said that the attack was an internal matter for the government of iraq and not a concern of the united states.

while we are on the eve of negotiations on the iranian regime while our government and others, the history of the relationship between the united states and the iranian regime since the 1979 revolution can be summed up as a series of attempts by the united states to a diplomats to engage the iranian regime each attempt slightly less successful them the one that preceded it. i don't have to redo the entire year history but an important part of it begins in the 1990's during the clinton administration when the people's mujahideen organization of iran also known as the iranian was designated by secretary of state under u.s. law as a foreign terrorist organization. that designation continues to this day. it continues to be as it was then unjustified. just as i did not have to review in detail the whole history of the u.s. government attempt to engage the regime or of tirana i don't have to review the entire history of the mek but we are

entitled to ask what has it been in recent years. quite simply mek as an organization of both inside iran and outside iran that opposes the current regime, favors government is organized along space, secular, non-nuclear, democratic secular nonnuclear republic and i should add this is not one of the few organizations that fit that description. it is in point of fact the only one. as many of you know mek position has positioned the state department to be removed from the list of the foreign terrorist organizations. it's clear that the regime believes time is short and would like nothing better than to have the residents of the camp driven out before they succeed being removed from a list it should never have been on in the first place. why is the timing crucial? of the residents were still there when the designation is removed the in the united states and the iraqi government will

have no choice but to protect them. the designation gives those in the government to want to curry favor with the regime there only excuse for not protecting their residents. it's important not only that this designation be removed but it be removed quickly before iran and those acting on its behalf can wear down the residence and forced them to leave or in pose even worse on them. it is certainly helpful for the mek to remain a bone in the throat of iran and had a version to the regime because of its potential to undermine the regime, but the me has been more than just a bone in the throat. it has provided valuable information and intelligence on the iranian program to the united states. it is fair to say that the united states wouldn't have known a great deal of what it does now about the iranian program without information obtained by the mek including but certainly not limited to the nuclear facilities in iraq.

a disclosure of which led to the beginning of the pressure on iran that arises from what is obviously a nuclear weapons progra here it bares mention that the mek has been removed from any list of terrorist organizations in the united kingdom and the european union. if the mek has posed no threat to any u.s. personnel or interest and in fact has been of affirmative assistance to the united states as it has it is not regarded as a terrorist organization in the united kingdom or the e.u., then why does it say on the list, why does it continue to be on a list? of such orans'sy ed rn du clinton administration was to curry favor with iran and to use the designation as a way of entering the dialogue with the regime. i'm sorry to say that even during the administration i served we kept it on the list of designated organizations of which by the way include the irg

sea, the revolutionary guard corps out of the fear that if the mek were removed the iranians would provide them with weapons in iraq including ied, of course they are doing that anyway. these are misguided reasons for continuing to brand as terrorists a group of people who so far as anyone can tell how are interested only in bringing for their country the same benefits of freedom that we have. and also it doesn't work. the regime is now in the position of having the united states does it need is a terrorist organization. a group of iranians or a threat to that regime and the armenians have the great work for them. what is the practical effect of the wall of an organization being on that list? and organization on the list is subject to having its assets in the united states seized. it's nearly impossible for the aretas asian to raise money in the united states because anyone

who contributes to the organization could theoretically be prosecuted for providing material support to a terrorist organization. beyond that and particularly in the united states people are concerned about even appearing in a rally sponsored by something that they know is designated a foreign terrorist organization or given any hlp at all. people who are not aware of the details of the case including many iranians may feel reluctant to support the organization. and of course the continue designation of the mek has a foreign terrorist organization gives great comfort to the iranian regime by putting on the sideline and organization that is potentially a grave threat to the regime and it also provides an added justification for the regime to execute mek members in iran and in doing so is executing terrorists. a 63-year-old man whose only crime was to visit his son was executed at the end of 2010 as

one guilty of mt against god or terrorists. what is to be done? well, there's an ongoing case in which the challenge to the designation. injuly of 2010 the court repealed for the district of columbia circuit issued an opinion essentially sending the matter back to the state department. and the secretary of state asking her to reevaluate whether the mek should remain on the list. the court did something more than that. it expressed a good deal of skepticism about at least the unclassified portion that was relied on by the state department and maintaining a list. without getting into the detail, the secretary of state may choose to base their determinations entirely on classified information that he didn't do that in this case. she said she based her decision goes on classified information and on and on classified information and revealed that a lot of the non-classified information consisted of unsubstantiated and anonymous rumors as the liability was

unknown and couldn't be tested. information the court wasn't impressed with and said so. if that kind of information is the only kind of information a secretary of state has then the decision would have no basis whatsoever. recently the state department has admitted it has no further on classified information to rely on to make its case and it is promised a scheduled meeting to discus futher steps. the secretary s knowledged this is the first occasion the new administration has had to evaluate the designation. this is an excellent opportunity for her to learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat thm. as youreaware there s a growing consensus in is country and outsi the need to the list and ever-increasing number of members of congress are supporting a resolution favoring that result, and there is great consensus outside of the congress as well. that is all well and good but time is not aware friend. as i pointed out, the regime has

made clear that it wants residents of the camp driven out before the designation is removed. in a sense, this is about more than the case in the district of columbia and more than mek. this is the posture of the united states with the regime. when ronald reagan took office he was asked what the strategic approach would be to the cold war to dealing with what was then the soviet union. he said aces to st during the debate to a strategic approach would be we win, they lose. at that time there were people who dismissed that as empty rhetoric. even dangerous rhetoric. on the end, that vision wound up prevailing because it was supported by a sound understanding of the country's interest and how those interests are at their strongest when our policy is consistent with our ideals. i take the case has been made that when they go to the street and put their lives on the line for freedom as they are doing now and as they did after the fraudulent election in 2009, called the response through those in the government to speak

for us must be more than to remind the mullahs as we did the world is watching. the world was watching? the world has watched frequently while the war was committed and did nothing. the world was watching when they committed genocide and murdered in world war ii. the world was watching when the revolution was preston's eastern europe. the world was watching genocide rwanda and darfur. the world is watching isn't enough. we owe the people and the freedom that we stand for much more. what is necessary is to make clear in word and deed that we can offer more than condolences when things go wrong to people willing to put their lives on the line for freedom. we must offer support and treatment and we must make it clear in the word and deed to the iranian regime that we stand with those who stand for freedom and demand regme ang eectiveayo do tat wod be enterthe upcin negoatns with ranhavg

kem he ltf t foei trostnitis icud sh that we will not use mek and we will not let anybody else use mek as a bargaining chip. it has been said that it's not a favor to the organizations like mek to advocate for them because they can then be accused by the regime of acting as tools of the united states. there are two answers to that. the first is that whoever opposes the regime is going to be attacked as a tool of the united states regardless whether or not they receive assistance so they might as well get the help. second, we ought to let organizations decide for themselves what is best for them rather than let them decide for them. in the middle of the 19th century, abraham lincoln refers to the united states as a last best he ofearth i think that those words re not even true i hest century th th were when lincoln first spoken in the middle of the 19th. i think also that it is ti we

sttetainan einas bie tm en ccdienratinsonsider the question that i presented at the beginning of these remarks of what we did to advance what is good and to fight what is evil they will find an answer that we and they can live with. thank you very much for the privilege of speaking. [applause] [applause] >> general, thank you for those comments and principled stand. 28 years ago tom ridge came to washington as a member of the house of representatives. he went on in his career to serve as the governor of pennsylvania which we refer to as the suburbs of new jersey for

two terms. anth as te fit ecry hld curitmyfrnd tom ridge. [applause] >> thank you for the kind introduction and for your very warm reception. i very much appreciate it. i hope it iso lost inall in tendance t sifican bipartisan nature of the participants in today's forum. we are looking for things in this town for policy objectives and out comes that we would like to be shared by both sides of the aisle, and i guess it's a very important and a visible statement that these republicans and these democrats work for republican and democrat administrations feel unanimously that the designation of mek

should be lifted and should be lifted now. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, i said this before in some of my friends have heard it but i will keep saying it until the designation is lifted, is not our ally and our collective efforts to prevent but tyrannical regime in tehran from becoming a nuclear power as a matter of fact, time is running out. we need to understand that. i would like to read you something that was written and spoken in september of 1995. listen carefully. i wish to address a pivotal issue, how to confront this regime and the fundamentalism and terrorism that it fosters. the issue is key because of the

international level, all approaches and policies, the move is religious terrorist dictatorship have proven futile. inedin mncaesth he tan angef rme which has been the only party to benefit from them, september, 1995. president-elect, national council of resistance of iran. ..

and if they agreed to meet in december, knowing full well when representatives from the iranian government. and we're not inclined to discuss the nuclear intentions. one does wonder why everybody bothered showing up. because the only thing they agreed to do at that time was they agreed to convene again. in anticipation of the next meeting, which is in the next couple we, the u.n. ambassador has basically said that in regard to the u.n. and e.u. sanctions that have been directed against iran for its noncompliance with u.n. resolutions with its nuclear program, the ambassador said sticks and carrots prove to be unsuccessful and that iran would t spndo ptil esrer sanctions.

they won't respond to political pressures. they walked on to sanction. the certainly be willing to meet over the next 16 or 17 years so every legitimate effort is well intentioned it made has proven to be quite unsuccessful. nothing has changed. time is running out. i'd be very interested in hearing the observations of my colleagues colleagues on the panel. in my judgment the western world presently faces no greater threat from iran. and i have any give them some of my colleagues do, but that is certainly myn fascinating to me that when we talk about iran in this discussion, we don't understand when we talk about every and were about hamas, hezbollah, the militants are supporting in afghanistan and in iraq, al qaeda, the palestinian islamic

jihad. so you've got iran and all of these circuits. and the only way is to do list this, give us the same opportunity in a very controlled and repressive society, which is using the mek designation to continue to imprison -- the press, imprison, torture and often murder. that's all we're asking. i asked a very significant political leader a couple years ago in the middle east, given all the challenges associated with the middle east, how would you identify the top three priorities, the top three problems? genu at the individual said? iran, it ran and iran. as we take a look at the rest of the world trying to do with iran through discussions and

negotiations, does anyone think he had stopped for a minute, pause for a second and their accelerated attempt to achieve nuclear weapon capability? does anyone doubt for a moment, given the fact they've ignored with great impunity to u.n. resolution after u.n. resolution? how many resolutions hesitate before the u.n. finally decided they were not being terribly affected and we have not been able to influence policy? it's a real challenge now for the united states, but the rest of the world cup in the multilateral organizations is great one of the great ironies in my judgment is every year, genocide appears before the u.n. fascinating. he comes to the 90s states and is able to express an like that same opportunity to express personal feeling is lost to mek

and the iranian opposition. what i think is another irony is iran maybe she would love to come to the united [applause] the inconsistency in policy is pretty difficult to understand. as for the designation needs to be listed. you know, the 20th century, our enemies are evil, but i think we all agreed they were fairly rational. th cared little oruman life, but they car great deal about preservation. they allow for a window of compromise for negotiation to access. today i don't think any exist with iran because we are fighting an ideology, not one single ideologue.

the approach taken by the united states and some of its western allies has evolved during the past 30 years. again, the passage of time has caged in the need to consider in one form or another, different strategies. senator torricelli talked about somehow we ironies, which it's all right to be naïvely optimistic. you move in a direction you're hopeful it will perceive. there's been no change in the outcome he sought to perceive. at the end of the day, shouldn't you say to yourself, we need to change our approach? it hasn't worked. i think one of the best ways to do it and i think would have a prou iacon the netiiotha ar sheuled atheesnation was lifted before the other countries met with iranian delegation. i would be a significant change of policy and from a different signal to theiit istnet streets.

quite quickly the administration responded in a very positive and supportive way of those voices of democracy, voices of change. interestingly enough unlike iran, the military didn't come to the assistance of ben ali. for whatever reason they stayed on the sideline. the administration applauded, wooed the effort to bring democracy and freedom to tunisia. they were fairly mute out your elections in iran. again, i don't quite understand the inconsistency in policy. as we say time and time aga otpuic a pvaly restce thek ty a noloin for money. they're not looking for arms. they just want the freedom to speak. i want to be delisted and take action into theirown hands.

we need to do that for them because ti is running out. in the late 1990s, the curry favors the attorney general mentioned u.s. declared that people associate dean of iran to be a terrorist organization and many outlets followed suit. a goodwill gesture at the time, many people have said they were involved in that decision. based on a strategic goal of entering project to ts ndhesathis a iusct a tn un lgr on. goodwill gestures have no impact on those people or countries who have no idea what goodwill is all about or unprepared to extend it. you may hand -- you may extend an open hand to try to resolve the challenge. but on the other and if there's fist, it's very unlikely you're going to be able to reach a peaceful and pass on those issues. time is running out. a policy must be changed. the strategy of peaceful

engagement, well-intentioned, has been totally ineffective entire project is. i would say this and i hope everyone listening in this administration with the western world are well, and nuclear in which 'ewesrn dilom or even me agical from the failure wesern wel. one would think that more than any other part of the world, the west understands the tragic, unthinkable consequences of appeasement. there're some pretty profound lessons of appeasing repreiv regimes that the western wod has paid theonsequences in both treure anlives. and so we must rect is inconceivable in an insert any notion that a terrorist supporting nuclear armed and threatening iran could somehow be restrained to recalled were strategy of deterrence. i believe a nuclear iran would become an even global scourge,

more emboldened, more destabilizing and more threatening hanghepptutync agn share these thoughts with such a distinguished panel in such a distinguished group, i had an occasion to look at the 10-point plan for future iran which was announced agin five years ago, 2006 briefly. from our point of view, the ballot box is the only criteria in legitimacy. it will give you a short stint, abbreviated version. when a pluralist system, freedom of parties and assembly. and iran of tomorrow we will respect all individual freedoms. in a free iran of tomorrow, we support and are committed to the evolution. for the iranian resistance, well-established separation of church and state.

any form of discrimination against followers of all religions and denominations will be prohibited. we believe in complete gender equality in political and social rights. wewant to set up a modern legal system. it goes on and on recognizing the importance of the rule of law and due process. were committed to universal declaration of human rights and unless other covenants and conventions. ifou tk look in the u.n. charter, you would see the existing iranian regime violates them everyday. the new iran accepts an embrace, promotes and supports. we recognize private property, private investment in the market economy. a foreign policy would be based on peaceful coexistence, international regional peace and cooperation as well as respect for the united nations charter. and finally, we want the free iran of tomorrow to be devoid of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

[applause] that's the iran the resistance, people associate dean, mek has fought for, believe in. remember, they relinquish their arms. we have to send a message to a maliki and the iraqi governments. the united states proves handed responsibility of protecting these individuals who are protected under the geneva convention to you. how can you tolerate this love beakers? and what about these incursions that have precipitated challenges instead of c trf? and promised to protect them under the geneva convention. right now one wonders sincerity of that initial promise.

i'll conclude ladies and gentlemen with just a couple of additional thoughts. i spent sometimewith some olderiranan women when i was in paris in december. and we sat down and through the interpreter we had conversations with them. and i wish i could take tho were gngo mak t dision anthe ste department erto erndn t e me carefully. these older women carrypire tcrs o spuses has been, children and grandchildren

some of them were apprehended in , imprisoned, tortured and killed and some were simply apprehended and tortured and knew who knows, perhaps awaiting execution. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is something we embrace in our declaration of independence. it just seems to me that mek is asking us to do in a cd list. the e.u. has let at this designation and said no, the u.k. has looked at the designioansa n cmes inprrie. hecot ts s io mmts inappropriate. listen to the cries of these women in the pleas of these women about their families, representing all families and the thousand thousands that have been murdered because they are part of the democrats

sistan. and alsoisn and learfrom the lessons of tme. the strategy hasn't worked. within a 97 as a goodwill gesture has not affected a single change in their approach. has not take celebrated, removed or interrupted their intentions to become a nuclear power and certainly had no impact as he take a look around the world, particularly in that region. hamas, hezbollah and other challenges not only to the united states, but the western world around the globe. so we say to all those in the state department involved in making the decision in this administration, it's about time. lessons of history in the pleas of these mothers and wives should be listened to now. the list that mek andthl dbring freedom and democracy in the kind of iran that would live in

harmony and the peaceful coexistence with its neighbors in the region and the rest of the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor, very, very much. from 1997 to 2000, general anthony served as commander-in-chief of the united state central command. he was elected in 2002 asa special envoy of the united states to israel and the palestinian authority. if there is anyone who can speak with a nonpartisan authority over the reality of the situation in camp ashcroft, and

it would be gneral. general, welcome. [applause] >> thank you. first, limiting the people of this very timely and important conference. you know, i know you'll realize you are seen not only bipartisanship was mentioned. uic and leadership from our congress, administration past and present, from our military and from our intelligence agencies and law enforcement. you have an sectru ere that feels thsa way. i thk whatoue going to ar appear a continuous set of comments, much like you've heard already. i need to remove the mek from this list of terry's and indeed to support the opposition groups and understand who they are.

i wa perspective. because obviously that is my role in my experience in all this. i was the commander of the u.s. central command before that the deputy commander back in the mid-to-late 90s in the year 2000 as was mentioned. when i first got the u.s. central command, my biggest concern was we were going to have an incident with the iranians islamic revolutionary guard maybe that would trigger, miscalculates and escalate into something very serious. they continuously challenged our ships. they jumped into it. the preacher breached medication was very hostile and i always imagined thewere in the middle night i would get a call saying one of the captains of our ship retaliated in what he believed was an attack on his ship, does deliver branding and bmping of things we couldn't tolerate now and barely could tolerate now. but in light of what we overseeing the uss cole and other things that have occurred since then, that would be not even acceptable.

there is a limit at which you would not even be able to accept those ships coming close to you. we went through this for a number of years. we were following what was then called the dual containment policy. the dual containment of iraq and iran. what was confusing a thing for me i clearly understood iraq and the measures we had to take him i didn't quite understand iran. because although we had a stated policy, there weren't any clear containment measures we were involved in. arsgo,99 ihi e then. we begin to believe with the election of president have to be that mbehings ulchge heesists gtvuteoong didu, seemed like there may be an opening or opportunity, even though the ship of payment are hired

although not from a became more personal. i remember president clinton trying to get a grasp and understanding if there was real changes in a real opportunity. another of us agencies, looking to see whether judgments were on this and looking to see if there'd be a reciprocation. if you remember back in those days, we took small steps with restrictions on carpets and pistachio nuts. sent chris ayres and other kinds of social interaction. and unfortunately, there was no reciprocation. i remember sitting in conference this in attending a regional forum, where we had the minister of defense and the foreign minier from iran president. an acid rhetoric, anti-american, anti-anti-west, the threats that

were made, not only to us, but those in the region, that weom o fiendip, ur cooraonn r ve itaslear treas a sfa façade omaybe a warming, a more ratnalethu tue. cae youuppt, bie orotheslic rvluonary guard gave to saddam as saddam tried to violate the sanctions on the gas and oil sanctions that we haveput on to prevent two ships from getting out and selling it outside the u.n. restrictions. the islamic revolutionary guard were actually hoping, providing prottion, escortg a irania territial wate. and the threats ross the gold continued. even to this day, his many friends in the region who maintain friendships with the senior leadership out there. i can tell you those occasional trips by president ahmadinejad

and those on the surface may appear to be family. as one senior told us on the other side of the god there's always a point of making a final not so veiled rant about support for the u.s. are aligned with the relationships. and what that means in e region. it's clear that this regime in iran has always sought to be hegemon and the region, to be dominant in thatreion. the . oif, thhreat they've made, e suort has this mentioned the other groups in the region that clearly are terrorist groups continues on, unabated, even today. i'm shocked and surprised that we still chase the solution that there can be a meaningful dialogue with the regime that has been described, even by her current secretary of state as tonl rious fanacs, the

crinallyutiesf e votiar gard. itscom crrupmilitary regime. and the greatest influence has now become the islamic revolutionary guard. it has become an oppressive military regime combing old with religious fanaticism. i can't imagine anything worse. imagine what you made its niche. i want to draw another parallel. remember the soviet union, which happened in hungary and czechoslovakia. why was it different in poland? i can tell you why it was different. because suddenly attention was drawn to the opposition movement and the oppression. everyone from the pope to the western world focused on and they cldot tolatit any loern the vi union. they could not use the heavy hand of oppression and violence to put it down. and it grew and arguably may have been the greatest contributor to the fall of the

viet eire and nopart of e orld. and weave an opportunity, just had one with this opposition was in the street so we missed it. we put the mute buttonn. aisaminabt is opposition and if that was many from incentive and that man should get out and meet and talk about the situation. what has impressed me the most is how great this movie knows. it is not singular. it is not onlylicl. oescro enir sptr oiria ciety. women's groups, journalists, ethnic groups, workers groups. it represents every aspect of society that feels the pressu this regime. lack of freedom of speech, lack of the ability to fulfill their destiny. lack of a voice in the own litica sym. la of faness it way ey're ead becae their ethnicity. and so we have a broad-based

oppositionntire society is displeased with the oppression they face. the opportty wastheand still there tobring ligt, li happened in polad to his movement. who are they? what is there suffering? pressure from the world begins with putting a blight on the kind of oppression that occurs and the opposition movement, the courageous action to resist it. we've missed that before. and we've got to change our policy and our attitude. what was strange about the dual containment policy is how much we emphasize supporting the opposition in iraq and the iraqi community outside iraq. and i would offer to you sometimes we did make the best choices they are and they did not have the kind of support in the kind of credibility inside

iraq. it's exactly the opposite gear we need community, the diaspora community, those outside their brand, many of you in this audience. you are credible. you are committed to. you are respected. and i'm amazed we have not reached out and not even given a 10th of the support and credibility we gave for those in iraq. dual containment made one thing on one side a we have the illusion that could be meaningful dialogue. which ishe solution and it didn't work. we now find ourselves in the zero to 60 policy mode. it's either dialogue or military action. and i believe there's something in between we need to think about more clearly. i don't believe this regime is not afraid of international pressures and sact,nlike what tnkosofheworl lees

think begin internally. they fear the opposition more than anything else, more than what we could bring from the international day of. secondly, they fear regional cooperation. and here we have done a lousy job of working with the region to crate the serity ooperationthe kind o assurances on secuity that would isolate iran. those trips across the goal for kids those threats on the ther side are done deliberately to try to prevent any kind of regional cooperation. i don't know if any leader in the region that doesn't he iran is the biggest threat in the region. they may not be so publicly, but certainly they will pipe publicly. they feel threatened. they see the weakness sometimes in the western approach. the vacillation between a hard-line and a soft line in chasing dissolution of some kind of beautiful dogdialogue.

we he to be careful of several things one is that the salue weavtoe rel ser thgs onishathsatis at eretmpmeedndutn actooturthpeoan n in any way curtailed the ability of the opposition to communicate, to organize and structure themselves in the right way. i think we need a policy that reaches out toheiranian community outsde in nd wor th tem heeaes t cneiotoho si in atreraedo fit r eem d r e right. i think we need to work within the region to create the kind of security cooperation and give the guarantees that we will be by their side should iran threaten them in any way and allows them to isolate this regime is right in the rgion. there are many measures that could be take efore we start talking about military action. i don't think you ever taken option off the table. a look, as someone who is seen

more many, many times and as someone who has suffered in bloo and more and from someone who was seen the greatest sufferers than war, civilian populations, i'm telling you that as a last resort and that is something we want to avoid. the last thinge want to do is bring more pain with the iranian people. we can see what happens in iraq and afghanistan come in vtnam and elsewhere when we resort as a measure before we've exhauste all others. so i believe there needs tbe fresh lo at our policy. we need to examine that area uoathen the sor o s nowhere. you have presented an opportunity. you have offered the opposition. no one is asking for money, military support and guns. they are asking for him to be

reached out, you like to be shined on what they're doing, support come the use of the bully pulpit, working within the community, working within the region to make sure we bring about change. lest this gime would ear that they may need to rattling, international sanctions that wef stressing a new approach to policy. examine thosmile areas. quit resisting reaching out an grabbing the hand of the opposition, giving them legitimacy credibility and giving them an international and world stage where they can demonstrate pressures that they are put under. i know the panelists will follow me and those gone before feel strongly about this. we've lived through. we've seen aspects of this. in my case, the military aspect. we have seen the actns that have been taken.

we see every day the violence that is perpetrated by this regime, notably with in iran, but outside the region. not only against those in the region, but her own people, our troops, our diplomats. we've got to wake up and realize we can no longer continue to tolerate this and there are measures that can be taken. thank you very much for your support. [applause] >> thank you general, ry, very mu for your options. like tom ridge and me in 1983 bill richardson came to washinon as a new memberf the house of representatives where we ha a ditinguished career. he left us to join the clinton

administration where he served as ambassador to united nations and secretary of energy. he later went on to anher distguhe caeer the vernorf e mexico. this is perhaps the person on the panel for which i need to have notes the least. a longtime friend and colleague, bill rhaso [plause] >> thank you, very much. thank yo, senor wh i was i thcgrs of thseto we us tca h the torch because he was unflagging champion of human rights, whether it was cuba, sudan, iran, he was always fighting. and i see that site is still very much with him. i'm the only person here who is

unemployed. last night i left office two weeks ago, but am so going to have knowledge to three iranian american new mexicans. they're the best in ththe lot, so thank you ry much for being here. you know, when i accepted the speaking engagement, would've my assistant said you know, bill, they didn't call.com the governor anymore. your vie are not going to coincide with many of those here. and i said why is that? they said well, you're just in the korea talking to the north koreans. you talk to saddam hussein. this was when we're trying to get a couple of americans released. you've talked to the cubans and you've basically said, i noticed that senator porcelli didn't notice my campaign for the candidacy, a very forgettable

event. what i was saying is that i just believe that sometimes you've got to talk to your adversaries. now, i'll explain what i mean by that. but president clinton to say, when i was sent out on these missions and i did one with president is to north korea with a republican member of the cabinet, secretary of veterans affairs. we brought back some remains of american soldiers. president clinton used to say, send richardson to talk to these regimes. that people like ken. so that was supposed to be funny. i guess not. let me just talk about three areas that i think we all share, at least i sare. and i'm notew to thi issue. i' e gono eht yes. d thentn n atat

orots up to speed as many of my colleagues here. this is a very distinguished panel and made to me now. i want to thank tom ridge for talking about bipartisanship and on the speakers have been great d ny zin. here a gu tlkngabt soft power, perhaps one of the solutions. here are the three areas where you think a lease my views coincide with all of you. one, i think it's important that we find ways to better treat the iranian opposition, both in iran and outside of iran. ending u.s. policy, i mean citizens. i think it's important that we embrace this movement for freedom. secondly, with the mek, yeah, i think it makes sense to take them off the terrorism list. you know, north korea was taken up the list. i don't know if you know this some time ago. and this is something that i'm not going to say.

this is bureaucracies. you know, bureaucracies move slow. to thoseamilies got to do soe kind of igaic leps. i'not makingny excuses, but this is something we need to reassess right away. and it seems that this is a nation, an important movement and we should take st to make it happen. the third is the camp ashraf situation. obviously we've got to find ways to protect those iranians that are there. i think it's inexcusable that we're not doing it. talk about how they leverage with the government of iraq. we do have it. and so we should find ways to make that hpe not thsa te, tnkt's poanto recognize why iran is important to ameca tialecurit obously wt a diert governntthre yokn, waon o of the shows this morning and everybody is talking about china, the two

new superpowers, americand cha,ay ari's retishs thoby se tts ymo. u ow, america and iran can be great players for national security, especially in the persian gulf, but also around the wod. itecause o is static imrtceit nuclear ambitions, it portends to stability in iraq, his support fo ere ab ctnsuc asezllndam f thseesr stlefo stilyebon inip process that the major oil and gas producer. its importance to the flow of oil. its role as a leader in the world of islamic shia population. thste esreli ats case.

now, our ultimate desired weight to be had in tehran a government that is stable, that is wiofnational community, where regrettably, as we all know, the situation is currently different, radically different. so i want to stay to work in assumptions that maybe you still are agreeing with me. obviously, i think in iran there are thousands and thousands of people that reject extreme fundamentalism, violation of human rights. you i te resintial ection thagreat movent of democracy after more than 100 years of struggling for democracy, iranians longed for a regime that respects citizens. here's a country, iran that is three times larger than france. mlipolaons. wenoth chisry of the

persian empire that stretches back 6000 years, the iranian people we know are proud of their heritage, their contributions to art, science, learning. and despite the preoccupation that many have with the views of some of it leaders, represent leaders, represent leaders, represent, iran has aliment in iran of modern and very strong democracy. and it's got an iranian community like a peer. and bt youthatetr idea from this nel can co fm manyf u as thow we can make a diferce. sowhat w ndodo s hoo we me progress? we know that the iranians chari deeply thought national pride, that the country be respect to its history, its accomplishments

and its geostrategic importance. the second premise, where i still think we're together as there is no excuse for the current government document support for international terrorism, violatioof human rights, rejectn of internatnaovtures to com to a deal on the nuclear program. the denial of the holocaust much more, the difficulty in obviously trying to negotiate with the current president. so maybe a two year we are all in agreement. the challenges which we do about all this? you know, besides give some good speeches? how can we have things forward? i want to focus on to aliment of american policy. one focuses on the iranian regime and the other focuses on the iranian people. ithi geerinhas een ryooids tt. at dealing with the current regime, as we know from the cold

war, the turns are above all a matter of clarity and credibility. we have to make sure that the iranian government knows that a nuclear iran is unacceptable a had to be edble whenwe sath we wi dwht it takes if iran continues to disregard the will of the internional commuit and i hve't rd uch discussionbout sanctns here. it sort of came up a little bit. i'm for sanctions. i think that for the first tim e sanctions might start working. i was energy secretary and i recall and i think it's still the case that iran imports house of the gasoline and half of its food. so i think some of the

distinctions that are supported are the international community, our european allies to finally have gotten a bit serious unsanctioned, that we must continue not just pushing them, but finding ways to make them more for this. you know, maybe they're not going to do the trick, but i believe it makes sense to try to find ways to make them work better. the united nations, where he served as ambassador has obviously dominated by china and russia, which has veto power. so it's important that through international mechanisms and through other means, that we continue this effort. in dealing with hard-line governments around the world, i was just in the korea. i feel that it's very important that we find ways to know as much as we can about our

adversaries. and name-calling and refusing to talk to people i think it's you know where. indeed, they usually backfire o. i'm not saying you don't call somebody what they deserve, but think we should from and what john f. kennedy said. we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. i'm not saying we negotiate with ahmadinejad. i'm saying is they find ways of the iranian people by supporting opposition, by finding elements society that need community. i wonder every day as they ogs, there's gotd blackberry, to be a way to communicate, not

just among young people in iran, but across the needs to explore. and maybe technology and many of you that are here at communicating more effectively than we have. we have to recognize also that there is national pride involved. i'm under no illusion that a dialogue, government to government, may be going through istanbul today is going to work. but i think not having sanctions and a unified international prchs a bde an te ft ththenid tis and eurpean counity deonstrtes two other siificant players ofhe tire international community that the united states has made an honest and genuine effort to

engage and find ways to makehe siatnetter. esenbh rsd s policy. i think it's the right policy, the sanctions. president obama is doing the same. we ralied support for increased pressures, sanctions and isolation. so i know many of you are saying well, governor come within spitting putting sanctions on iran for a while now. it isn't working. they just accentuate political dispositions f government critics. it's another example of the remes disregard for their general well-being. the sanctions offer another reasonto cricize soald eran arrogan. and i thk somebody said here, a. but i think sanctions as a tool that has to be refinednd ntue buth h t be combinedith

new aroachetotalk tothe iranian people. one is through the mekgrup. ateastve the some edily, talto them d nd wa oghe hotbot the other obviously is protect the rights of those that obviously is something that i wasn't aware of until this morning. and a third is how do we communicate with the opposition in america and europe, in iran quakes and somehow, ts oury isreat aen of so power, peoe people exchanges, academics, business leaders, the we've got to do beer d , i gus ere i fll is

what find a way and a bipartisan way. because i neveroutha,you ow, this psidentidhi, the secrety did that. that doesn't work. look, you've got men and women -- i guess it's only men, but it served here in both administrations and had been patriots in many ways. i just think that this issue is so important that it has to involve the american people. it has to involve you. it has to involve members that are directly affected by this issue. it has to involve talking to your senators and congressmen and finding ways to get the american people in your state to be part of this dialogue. and so, i thank you for your time. and i'm going to give it the best part of my speech.

the end. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, bill very, very much. general james jones. i enjoy just reading his resume. from july 1999 january 2003, general jones is the 32nd commander of the united states marine corp after a command commandant mestimpositnf upreme allied of europe. not bad when you succeed in a job held with held by dwight d. eisenhower. anury 2009, general jones was appointed national security adviser for president of the united states, a position he held until last november. general.

[applause] [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i alsowould like to tha the organizers othis very impoant conference. and i am just honored as a member of this panel and the people i work with and it buyer for most of my adult life. i also very much appreciate the passion is in this room. i could feel it just walking in. this is a room full of people who care about freedom, who care about their country, their native coury, pele who suffered and there's nothing like individual suffering and loss to focus the attention on a very, very imrtant prole. thsenatotred o decodg nston chull que that some of u in the

military are very familiar with. i'd li t sta up with anher qbfamouic me and an 1860s, 1970s, a comedian but the name of mixing vessels was understanding of thien i'm tired of turning the other cheek were iran is concerned. and it is time -- [applause] and i would also say with all this passion for the subject matter that we're talking about the suerin of people, both here and elsewhere aroundth rl tre n cnt i e ce of this planet than the

last two centuries has reached out and done more to alleviate the suffering of the oppressed and to be a champion for freedom and ibe e oba plae suace. i'very proud of that. i think it's a unique gift of america to certainlyth20th ceur a hope o iohe st ctu and i hope that iran is at the forefront of thatffa l mju say ew thgs ou theast two years in particular. first, when administra take place. there are new people that come into positions, people that don't know each other very well. you have to get organized and you have to get focus. the one thing that doesn't happen is that time doesn't stand still. events don't stop.

crazies keep coming. and whether you're organized a ready or not, you have to do with the world as it is in the events as they come toard you. i would suggest that f those who wish to understand e prde a t mistti, he air three speees that arparticully big definginerf he asraonofonte goals tsadmnisttin. the first one was the inaugural speech. the second was the cairo spech an thetrdw thenol peace izeawas. onof the care with sticks of all three was a balanced approach that suggests that if their previous speakers have said that you know, we shouldn't hesitate to talk to those who don't agree with.

and i think the contents of that speech fully illustrate that. but i also think that it also ysthasoptouhaaka ananyo t ma adecision that's to which way it's going to go. now, we're rapidly approaching approachingthe4thmonth of isdmisttin' olicies. and i'd like to share a few things but you aboutwhere the administtion is with regard to iran. but it's bigger than just iran. it is a challenge that we face that is so enormous that i've often thought of the president could do one thing and one thing only, but could be guaranteed he would do it, what could be quite would say finding the solution to the problem of the middle east and iran inlusive is probably the one thing that would most emphatically change

the world as we know it in a positive way. we do not have a policy that is designed to limit the use of nuclear power for peaceful uses. as a matter of fact, successful in washington last year showed that the world is moving in that direction in a very unified way. but how you get there is extremely important. in the use of nuclear power cannot and should not be denied to anyone for one thing. it helps underdeveloped countries bypass, if you will come at the industrial age of energy production and get to eanenegy th ffectshe clatthat aec our environment ansoonandso forth. so these things with regard to nuclear power are very

interrelated. and i want to be very clear. the president s trel clr and cse his wor ve cefuly wen th presidt id that thpocy t ust anec s capable state. and that word prevent was the liberally chosen. it wasn't taken lightly. there were other words it could have been inserted, but he picked a word very carefully. and my knowledge, that still remains our policy. with regard to iran, there are three -- three very dangerous consequences with regard to the path of the design. the first one of course is that it becomes nuclear weapons capable. that has a geometry onto is own. ted fr yers to pvent north korea from becoming nuclear weapons capable. we are as a matter of policy bent on making sure that iran

does not achieve the same thing. the second reason and second danger that eventuality would pose if in fact it does happen is the fact that it would trigger a nuclear arms race in the persian gulf. and that is also fairly certain, a fairly certain outcropping of the first eventuality. the third one, no one to national security adviser worries me more the first two is that iran is a state sponsor of erri oudeasyese to be the type of country that would export that kind of technology, weapons of mass deruion toerri gazas. d en a ifhatppns ladies and gentlemen, world as we know it today will change because you cance on sovereign countries known to have nuclear-capable weapons

because nobody wants to be totally annihilated as a result of the first use. when you're a terrorist organizations that have that kind of type elegy, then you have an asymmetric challenge that is very, very difficult to meet and to defeat. so those t dgsre ompren teatongame d ou be omnipresent throughout the thinking of the rational part of the world. over the past o years, the united states has tried to anything successfully, try to become a leaderin the problem of nuclearolfeatnand t pbl tn i nte by iran. and i think that leadership role has been recognized. i will tell you the

rapprochement between russia and the united states started very early on in 2009 in iran was one of the cetral reason or tha rapprochement. it has not changed. anssiaasemonstteon vel caonth i ineangon with developments in iran and actually canceled the sale to its financial judgment of the 300 missiles to iran as a consequence of their displeasure with regard to the direction of the iranian regime. so too is china although delite ty, but nonhess persuavely joi te cs. anas restofour duies thheeropeans, the european ant n smoothly patentn he

adopted. and thirdly, individual countries who may not have been signers of the sanctions for nishing sanctionson iran as well. the full wght of all of the sanctions probably won't he felt for another six months to a year but this is a methodology that is unprecedented. it is by no means the only thing for the last thing that is going to happen if iran does not change its ways. but the president was clear anything most people agree with the fact that it leaves some measure of space must be left open for the iranians to come to their senses ad to do the things the world expects them to do, which are clear. we have both overt and covert discussionwi