receive. >> i think my right honorable friend makes an extremely important point. we have to make sure those who carry knives and the result of that will be a prison sentence. we had a situation where knife crime after knife crime was met with a caution rather than actually having proper punishment in courts. they were soft as anything on knife crimes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the provisions of the health and social care bill were not before and after the election and given the extension of commercial providers, is it the case that the nhs is not safe in the hands of the government but the hands are in the safe of the nhs? >> frankly, i can't -- on the nhs i cannot do any better than, quote -- i cannot do any better -- i can't do any better than, quote, than, quote, the

shadow secretary of state on our plans and he said this and no one in the house of commons knows more than the nhs than an-andrew lanzly. no ones has visited more of the nhs, no one has talked to more people who work in the nhs than andrew lanzly. these plans -- these plans are consistent, coherent and comprehensive. i would expect nothing less from andrew lanzly. that is labour shadow health secretary. i couldn't put it better myself. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the government committed over 100 million pound investment which promises to bring new jobs and businesses to my area of lancaster. can the prime minister reassure me despite our economic difficulties this government will continue to invest in major capital scenes particularly northern areas like mine which is much affected by the previous labour government? >> well, my honorable friend

makes a very good point and we have prioritized spending on capital infrastructure including the scheme that he talked about. it's very important as we go for growth in our country we put money into capital expenditure into our roads and railways and things that are actually going to help our economy to grow and that's exactly what we're doing in his constituency and many across the country. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister -- the prime minister insists that the financial crisis was caused by a lack of regulation but even after the collapse of northern rock, he complained the banks had and he was bankruptcy and regulation. and he says and i quote government needs to do less taxing and regulating. is that why they have given the tory party so much money? >> i remember a time when he used to write the last prime minister questions. i think from hearing what he said i think the last prime minister is writing his questions. [laughter] >> the fact is they left us the most indebted household, the

most bust banks and of deficit. >> order, the prime minister's answer will be heard -- order, and with some courtesy. that's what the public wants to see. they are sick of death of this sort of behavior. >> prime minister? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to make one point the city minister when the city blew up is now your city chancellor. great pick. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can the prime minister give an assurance that parliament say that the prisoners will get the right of vote and due to the public's disdain of unelected democrats, will the prime minister defend our country of any further sanctions? >> well, i think the honorable lady knows i have every sympathy with the view she puts forward. i don't see any reason why prisoners shootings the vote. this is not a situation i want this country to be in and i'm sure you'll all have a very lively debate on thursday when

the house of commons will make its views known. >> order, urgent question, mary kray. >> here on c-span2 we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move on to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister question time aired live wednesdays at 7:00 am eastern while parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific off c-span. and for more information, go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions plus, links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues.

>> we just heard british prime minister david cameron. we'll hear him in a few minutes. in a moment we'll hear from german chancellor angela merkel. they spoke at the munich security council in germany last week. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: well, ladies and gentlemen, david cameron, among all those guests i would like to single out the host of

yesterday's -- yesterday's dinner. actually it was luncheon and it lasted for six hours but we did get some success in the end. i'm very pleased to be at the munich security conference at a time which i think we would all agree is indeed a very thrilling one. the last decade of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century i believe one can safely say -- have in many ways completely changed the face of the world as we know it in the post-war period. at the beginning and we're more aware of this. and i need like to freedom and

finall finally. the and the fall of the berlin wall that's perceived at this end and also the opening of the ronald reagan whom ronald reagan would have celebrated his 100th birthday i would like to remind all of you that he is one of the few to say this openly when i heard him and that i would like to remind you on the other side of the iron curtain, i thought well, many people have said many things but the fact that this had turned into reality so quickly was not something a lot of people have predicted at that point in time. now, nato has now a more important role, the blocs that used to divide this world are no longer in existence.

the world in many ways has become a more complex place to be and one where it is harder to make any safe predictions. and then freedom actually was able to win the day and was unstoppable. in the first decade of the 21st century we saw a number of events happening that actually made us land back of reality. there was -- books were written by the end of the 20th century by the end of history as we knew it and at the very latest with the balkan war. it became very clear that it would not be quite this way. then we had the 11th of september, 2001, 9/11, as it is commonly known, and we'll look back at this as a big economic crisis and one we hadn't seen

for decades. which actually laid open excessive of the market of the free forces and we also saw a third phenomenon and i do think this did play a role at the end of the '80s already when these changes were ushered in, in europe. the breakthrough of a new technology of information security. at the beginning of the '80s, at the end of the '80s, at the beginning of the '90s, information was more widely accessible than in the past and this is going to change the world as we know it and it's maybe it's very difficult to predict this twitter facebook -- the social networks, no one on this planet can actually hide what he is doing. no person can be hidden and everything is actually out in the open. and these days in particular -- and this is something that could not be foreseen when you plan

for this conference, again, we see images on television screens that remind us in many ways of what we've seen here in europe. people who dare go out, people who dare to get rid of their fears and to say what they feel is an injustice and to say this openly and who would we be if we were not siding with these people who are saying openly what is distressing them and this is why we're saying it so clearly. it is absolutely indispensable that those freedoms that we hold to be universal, freedom of the press, freedom of opinion be upheld not only in europe in the united states and all over the world but that those who are in responsibility in egypt are also called upon to ensure that these rights are respected and yesterday, a day that was comparatively is peaceful and i hope this will continue. there will be a change in egypt,

quite obviously a change needs to be shaped in such a way that it is a peaceful, a sensible way forward. and perhaps i should relate something from my own history. back then, although i know it cannot be completely compared we didn't want to wait for even a single day. we were told you have to wait until 1990 to get currency in the union. we didn't want to wait for germany october and when it took place on the third of october and how much the transition was, we were actually quite happy that there were a number of people there who had prepared the ground smoothly and carefully sort of shape needs to be -- change needs to be shaped carefully and we yesterday said so in the european union. we wish to forge a new partnership in order to help them shape this change. we are the neighboring region.

we have foundation there is and we have a lot of contact with the civil society and i just now also address this issue with hillary clinton. the united states and europe can work together on this very closely and we want to do this and i see this as our obligation. now, we have made a difference in the world. what we have seen was the consequence of 9/11 the conflict in iraq. the conflict in afghanistan. we have seen that simply exporting i may call it democracy -- i'm saying this knoll full well that the prime minister is with me here that exporting this on a one-on-one basis will not perhaps work all over the place. so we are -- it is incumbent upon us to help and secondly we also have to say, what actually

can we expect in other places and what can be safely transferred and what is essential to the other country's culture and civilization and we should not mess with this and there's other line we shouldn't cross is the convention of the human rights of the united nations. all of the -- almost all of the member countries of the international community have subscribed to this. so in respecting the dignity of the individual, there should be no compromises, whatsoever. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: now, what does this mean. it means first and foremost in everything we do and there are two we need to ask ourselves, have we always done this sufficiently? everything we do we need to uphold those principles, those human rights wherever we go and whatever we do by way of

cooperation with others. but it also means -- let me say this quite clearly that we cannot simply change the world or will have shaped the world to be completely in line with the traffic of human rights tomorrow that is why the security policy is facing challenges. let me say quite clearly we are on the one hand duty-bound to pursue a foreign policy that is based on values and on the other hand, we are duty-bound to see to it that this is a stable and secured environment that we create and there are sometimes contradictions and inherent tensions. i only think that what should not accept compromises that leave respect for human rights completely out. all of the associations in which i ever participated -- for example, the mediterranean policies on the close neighborhood policy of the european union we've always

upheld our principles and have always stood by those principles and it was said in the e.u. council meeting we're going to abide by these rules even more so in the past whenever we give financial support. now, let me go back over the past two decades and the development of the transatlantic relationship. as i said, freedom has now been victorious and we share values on both sides of the atlantic but still we underwent certain difficult patches in our history. for example, on the war in iraq, there was certain misunderstandings, certain tensions and we also had successes that i would like to mention. when i as chancellor attended this conference for the first time, i talked about my wish that nato should yet again be a place where political discussions take place, not only military discussions and we've been able to do that. we've been able to carry the day on that one. we have a new security concept

which is a clear-cut one. the concept of military issues but also political ones. we together went to afghanistan and that is my wish that we make it out of afghanistan. we agree on the concept as we called it network security or a integrated approach or we said clearly that we will stand together in fighting international terrorism that has been our greatest challenge ever since 9/11 and we stood together in our transatlantic relationship but there's something else that we realized. maybe that none of the big international conflicts between the united states and europe can be solved by one of us in nato. we have in afghanistan many other allies that stand shoulder to shoulder with us on proliferation issues, thinking of iran and north korea. we have the c plus c talks.

we have the six-party talks set up on north korea in the middle east we set up a quarter where the united nations and russia play a very important role. with russia we have forged a partnership of a completely different quality that is now actually turning the end of the cold war into tangible reality step-by-step although we still have to discuss with them issues related to human rights and we also have learned that terrorism, international terrorism is something that we cannot fight without acting in concert and cooperation with arab states. saudi arabia, yemen and also egypt over the past but to mention a few you. this is why i also tell you -- obviously, we have the responsibility on the one hand within our alliance, within nato to continue to match this pillar

of the alliance and to see to it that it is capable and it did not exist 10 or 20 years ago. we did not have these questions related to proliferation or to international terrorism and quite this dimension at the time. but we now know that the transatlantic alliance alone, nato alone will not be able to solve the big conflicts in the world of today. we need partners all over the world. and we need to take care to draw those partners in because this is a multipolar world because new forces will have to take over and new responsibilities. so now let me come to the global economic crisis, the global financial crisis and these new

forces and -- divisional forces in the world. i've always said there's a new deck of cards on the table and it's a completely new ball game as it were. and that's exactly what happened. if you look at economic progress and economic clout, the so-called emerging countries are far stronger these days than they used to be and they're going to gain in importance and this means that exactly those emerging countries that have such a growing economic importance will also have to be bounded step-by-step into more responsibility, foreign policy responsibility, security policy responsibility and i'm firmly convinced of this and that's why it's important to have china and iran on this. and it's important for the six-party talks china has to play such a prominent role and even toe it's difficult in the process, we we in the transatlantic process, now and again responsibility has to be taken over more and more by those who have more and more of an economic importance.

ladies and gentlemen, i'm firmly convinced of this. let us not beat around the bush. there are certain challenges we have no convincing summons if i like at our nato conference, it's quite laid out in this concept that cyberdefense and cyberattacks loom very large on the agenda of this concept. we will all to have learn our lesson. it's not a classical military threat as we've known it. i mean, terrorism is rather difficult also to combat because people are ready and willing to sacrifice their open lives so deterrence doesn't really work with these people. with cyberattacks, too, we have a situation where military and technical -- there's a military and technical interplay, if you like, in the completely new shape and form. so we will need international agreements that allow us to meet

this challenge of cyberattacks. if we don't come to agreements, there's going to be an escalation here and a spiral. people will try to mount ever-higher defenses. we will waste a lot of money on this without actually seeing an army on the ground. and we will not be able to solve our problems. so we need to reflect how to come to international agreements on this as well. now, as we got the concept of network security or an integrated approach to security is something that needs to be built on because we've learned over the past decades also that military solutions alone will not pacify a situation for the duration during the cold war. there was deterrence, military action actually adds as such did not happen to that extent but the present situation tells me that there has to be some concept of integrated security

of network security. and we also have to deal with the challenges that information technology is offering. i mean, i don't want to comment on wikileaks but just look at, for example, passenger records at swift, at the discrepancies there were as to the position of the united states and the european union. there too we need to find ways as to how the individual's right to information or self-determination as we call it and the necessary -- the necessary defense against terrorist attacks plans in such a way that there's an equitable kind of balance here. the transatlantic pillar will not allow us to solve each and every conflict in this world. acknowledgement we need to make. we need to contribute to a situation where others will be in a situation that will enable them to solve their own conflicts. for example, our partners in the

african union we can share with them our experience but there is no way that we can help them from sudan, ivory coast and have a transatlantic alliance and help them with military -- certainly not with military action in most cases this will not be possible but even in peace missions were not always welcome but trying to render them capable of attaining peace that ought to be something we ought to do. ladies and gentlemen, these past two days we've been trying to reflect on what we have done wrong as regarding our systems of systems that seem to be fragile and collapsing but maybe we ought to take time and reflect over what we've been able to also bring into this world, the big technical advances that have changed our life. the internet, for example, computers, they all come from free from liberal societies,

from free creativity of the intellect, from those societies where you're allowed to have your mind roam freely so i am optimistic that this system that respects the bigity of each individual that allows each individual to unfold his or her capacity to be able to bring those abilities to bear is still the best possible system that will allow us to fight against terrorism, to fight against attacks against those liberties and against freedom. so even when we take time and reflect what have we done wrong, we can also look back with pride and say, we have been able to allow for a number of things that are taken as a given in the world today. facebook, twitter, social networks, the internet -- it's getting more and more difficult to block this freedom of access to information. that, too, also is a way something that we have brought to this world and i think that if we remind ourselves of the

transatlantic pillar can actually do a lot to move the world to the better, although we still have a lot to do. thank you very much. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you very much, madam chancellor. before i would now like to give the floor to the prime minister, just one remind enter. those who would like to ask make comments you have two possibilities. first of all, you can raise your hand and wave your hand so that i can see you, and there's also a much more subtle way. you can use one of the question cards that you have found in your munich conference folder

and then give it to me by assistance and you will ultimately be on the speaker's list or the questioner's list. you can choose your own method. we will have time to discuss later, it is a great pleasure for me to ask you, prime minister, to take the floor. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. it's a great honor to speak. this is my first munich security conference and it's good to speak in a conference that's older than i am. so it's a great honor to be here. [laughter] >> it's a particular honor to be here with my friend, the german chancellor. she has told you about our day yesterday in the european council. my wife called me at about 8:00 last night and said, darling, where have you been all day? i said i've been having a six-hour lunch from my friend from germany, angela. i said don't worry there was

also a man from belgium named herman there as well. now today i want to focus my remarks on terrorism. but first let me address one point. some have suggested that by holding a strategic defense and security review, britain is somehow retreating from an activist role in the world. and that is the opposite of the truth. yes, we are dealing with our budget deficit but we are also making sure our defenses are strong. britain will continue to meet the no, i 2% target for defense spending. we will still have the fourth largest military defense budget in the world. and at the same time we are putting that money to better use, focusing on conflict prevention and building a much more flexible army. that is not retreat. it is hard-headed. every decision we take has three

aims in mind. first, to continue to support the nato mission in afghanistan. second, to re-enforce our actual military capability. as chancellor merkel's government is showing right here in germany, what matters is not bureaucracy, which frankly europe needs a lot less of, but the political will to build military capability that we need as nations and allies that we can deliver in the field. and third, we want to make sure that britain is protected from the new and various threats that we face. that is why we're investing in the national cybersecurity program that i know william hague and i'm sure to work on counter-prolive medication. the biggest threat we face comes from terrorist attacks some of which are carried out by our own citizens. it is important to stress that

terrorism is not linked exclusively to any one religion or ethnic group. my country, the united kingdom still faces threats from dissident republicans in northern ireland. anarchist attacks have occurred recently in greece and italy and, of course, yourselves in germany were long scarred by terrorism from the red army faction. nevertheless, we should acknowledge that this threat comes in europe overwhelmingly from young men who follow a completely perverse, warped interpretation of islam and who are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens. last week at davos i range the alarm bell for the europe to return to their economic dynamism. though my message is complex, my message is equally stark. we will not defeat terrorism simply by the action we take outside our borders. europe needs to wake up to what

is happening in our own countries. of course, that means strengthening as angela said the security aspects of our response. on tracing plots, on stopping them, on counter-surveillance and intelligence gathering but this is just part of the answer. we've got to get to the root of the problem. and we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie. and that is the existence of an ideology islamist extremism. and we should be equally clear must distinguish it from islam. islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. islamist extremism is a political ideology supported by minority. at the furthest end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal and an

entire islamist realm governed by an interpretation shari'a. move along the spectrum and you find people who may reject violence but who accept various parts of the extremist world view including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values. this highlights insignificant problem when discussing the

terrorist threat that we face. there is so much muddled thinking about this issue. and the one hand those on the hard right ignored this distinction between islam and islamist extremism and just say that islam and the west are irreconcilable, there's a clash of civilizations. so it follows we should cut ourselves off from this religion through force, repatriation, or the banning of new mosques as is suggested in some parts of europe. these people fuel is lawofphobia and i reject argument. if they want to know how western values and islam can be compatible they should look what happened in the past few weeks on the streets, hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy. the point is this. the ideology of extremism is the

problem. islam is not. picking a fight with the latter will do nothing to help us confront the former. those on the left ignored this distinction. they lock all those limbs together piling of list of grievances and argue that if only governments address these grievances the terrorism would stop so they point to poverty that so many muslims live in and say get rid of this injustice those found guilty in the u.k. and elsewhere, often middle-class, a point and grievances about western foreign policy and say stop riding roughshod over muslim countries and the terrorism will end. muslim and non muslim alike who are angry about western foreign policy but could don't resort to act of terrorism.

they also point to the profusion of the elected leaders across the middle east and say stop propping these people up and you will stop creating the conditions for extremism to flourish. but this raises the question if it is the lack of democracy that is the problem why are there so many extremists in free and open societies. i am not saying that these issues, poverty and grievance about foreign policy are not important. of course we must tackle poverty. we must resolve the sources of tension, not least in palestine and we should be on the side of openness and political reform in the middle east. on egypt our position should be clear. we want to see the transition to a more broadly based government with the proper building blocks of a free and democratic society. i simply don't accept that there's a dead end choice between the security state on

the one hand and an islamist one on the other. but let us not fool ourselves. these are just contributing factors. even if we sorted out all of the problems that i mentioned there would still be this terrorism. i believe the root of lies in the existence of this extremist ideology. on what argue an import reason so many young muslims are drawn to it comes down to a question of identity. what i am about to say is drawn from the british experience but i believe there are general lessons for us all. in the u.k. some young men find it hard to identify with the traditional islam practiced at home by their parents whose customs can seem stayed when transplanted to modern western cultures but these young men also find it hard to identify with britain too because we have allowed the weakening of our collective identity.

under the doctrine of state multiculturalism we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives apart from each other apart from the mainstream. we fail to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to be long. we have even tolerated these sigrid -- segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views we rightly condemned them but when equally unacceptable views or practices come from somebody who isn't white we have been too cautious and even fearful to stand up to them. the failure for instance of some to confront the horrors of forced marriage. practice where some young girls are believed and sometimes taken abroad to mary someone when they don't want to is a case in point. this hands-off tolerance has served to reinforce that not

enough is shared. always some young muslims feeling rootless and a search for something to be long to and believe in can lead them to this extremist ideology. they don't turn into terrorists overnight but what we see in so many european countries is a process of radicalization. internet chat rooms are virtual meeting places where attitudes are shared, strengthened and validated. in some mosques creatures of hate can so misinformation of the plight of muslims elsewhere. in our communities groups and organizations led by young dynamic leaders promote separatism by encouraging moslems to define themselves solely in terms of their religion. all these interactions can engender a sense of community. a substitute for what the water society has failed to supply. you might say as long as they

are not hurting anyone, what is the problem with all this? i will tell you why. as evidence emergeds that the background of those convicted of terrorist offenses it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some called non-violent extremists and then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing the violence and i say this is an indictment of our approach to these issues in the past. if we are to defeat this fred it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. instead of ignoring this extremist ideology we as government and societies have got to confront it in all its forms. second instead of a encouraging people to live apart we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone. let me take each in turn.

first, confronting and undermining this ideology. whether they're 5 and in their means or not we must make it impossible for the extremists to succeed. there are some obvious ways we we must ban preachers of hate coming to our country's. we must prescribe organizations that in sight terrorism against people at home and abroad. governments must also be shrewd in dealing with those. in some cases the non-violent are part of the problem. we need to think harder about who it is in public interest to work with. some organizations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the muslim community are showered with public money despite doing little to combat extremism. and others have observed this is like turning to a right wing fascist party to fight is far the white supremacist movement. we should properly judged these

organizations. do they believe in universality of the rights including 4 women and people of other faiths? do they believe in the equality? do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? do they encourage integration or separation? these other questions we need to ask. failed these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with these organizations so no public money. no sharing of platforms. at the same time we must stop these groups from reaching people in publicly funded institutions like universities or even in the british case, prisons. some say this is not compatible with free speech and free intellectual inquiry. i say would you take the same view if these were right wing extremists recruiting on our campuses, would you advocate in action if christian fundamentalists who believe

muslims are the enemy were leading prayer groups in our prison and to those who say actually helping to keep younger vulnerable men away from violence i say nonsense. would you allow the far right groups a share of public funds if they promise to help fuel a young white men away from fascist terrorism? but at route challenging is ideology means exposing its ideas for what they are and that is completely unjustifiable. we need to argue that terrorism is wrong in all circumstances. we need to argue the prophecies of a global war of religion putting muslims against the rest of the world are nonsense. but government cannot do this alone. the extreme as we face is a distortion of islam so these arguments must be made by those with islam. lettuce give voice to those followers of islam in our own

countries. the often unheard majority who despise the extremists and their world view. lettuce engage groups that share our aspirations. we must build stronger societies and struggler identities at home. we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years at a much more active liberalism. a passively tolerant society says to its citizens as long as you obey the law we will review a low. it stands neutral between different values. but i believe a genuinely liberal country does much more. it believes in certain values and actively promote them. freedom of speech. freedom of worship, democracy, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexual out. it says to its citizens this is what defines us as a society. to belong here is to believe in these things. that each of us in our own

countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defense of our liberty. there are practical things we can do as well. that includes making sure immigrants speak the language of their new home. end of the elements of a common culture and curriculum. we are introducing national citizens service, a program for 16-year-olds to live and work together. meaningful and active participation by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people. a common purpose can be formed as people come and work together in their neighborhoods. it will also help build stronger pride in local identities of people feel free to say yes. i am a muslim. i am a hindu. i am a christian but i am also a londoner or a berliner too. that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries that i believe is the key to

achieving true cohesion. let me end with this. this terrorism is completely indiscriminate and has been thrust upon us. it cannot be ignored or contain. we have to confront it with confidence. confront the ideology that drives it by defeating the idea that worked so many young minds that they're rich and confront the issues of identity that sustain it by standing for broader and generous issues of citizenship. none of this will be easy. we will need stamina, patience and endurance and it won't happen all if we act alone. this ideology crosses not just our continent but all confidents. we are all in this together. at stake are not just lives. it is our way of life. that is why this is a challenge we can avoid. is one we must rise to and

overcome. thank you. [applause] >> ben bernanke is on capitol hill to testify about the economic outlook for the country. live coverage from the house budget committee begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span2. now are a look and the political unrest in egypt. the georgetown university school of foreign service hosted this discussion on a recent changes in egypt, to need and the arab world. speakers included history professors from georgetown and george mason university's.

>> we're going to get started here. unlike to welcome you all to the center for contemporary arab studies at georgetown university. and i would like to welcome you for the first installment of a lecture series that will be taking place this spring and titled revolution in the arab world. the long view. tonight's talk to introduce this is called the and predictable presence, reflections on revolution in the arab world. the lecture series and tonight's event are spurred by recent events indonesia and ongoing and tunisia and egypt. and a desire on our part to put together a set of interventions

into public debate on the subject, the events that are unfolding and not be merely reacting to current events the trying to situate this in longer-term context, histories, culture, actors and so on and to try to tease this out in as many ways as we can and not thinking solely as a set of events that could be understood by one academic discipline. tonight we have four speakers. our first speaker will be osama and the sec will be james collins who teach ates and early modern french history at georgetown university. hour for a third speaker will be assam haddad from the department

of international affairs at george mason university. he is also a visiting professor at georgetown university. finally, myself, i teach arabic at georgetown university. i will be the last speaker. >> thanks, everyone, for attending. i am glad to speak in tandem with my colleague, jim collins. somewhere between the ousting of ben ali on january 14th and egypt and january 25th, he and i initiated a conversation about how he has a historian of early modern europe and i --

>> get the microphone. >> would situate the tunisian and egyptian protests. historically and theoretical as well as contractual terms. these exchanges were somewhat complicated by the pace and magnitude of the events and it is beyond question the recent developments in tunisia and egypt marked a watershed in the history of the two countries with fundamental implications for the political landscape of the region as a whole and by extension for its relations with the world at large. from the perspective of historians in north africa the repeated consensus that the region is now fundamentally transformed is more a thesis that a verdict and the thesis in question is whether the theoretical framework with which historians typically analyzed social movements in the region

are able to interpret and explain the recent developments in meaningful ways. and there is nothing in the academic training of historians that would give them superior tools to interpret events on the quick. historians are notably reluctant to leap into the fray without caveat or producing any grand social theory. because historians are not bound by an exclusive philosophy they are happy to borrow for many social scientific disciplines and to display conceptual frameworks that render meaningful and structural and verbal terms the patterns of human behavior and historical change. this kind of the radical cross-examination may prove particularly desirable and useful in the case of the recent protests in the arab world

because these demonstrations are dictating paradigm shifts of political and social dimensions. like the iranian revolution of 1979 the protests of 2000/2,011 are mixed in that they are sweeping away not only political regimes but a particular world view as well. tunisia and egypt have shattered a number of dogmatic assumptions and presumptions about the arab societies and their challenging basic historical convention on how revolutions will play out in the arab world. as a result as follows, we may need to reevaluate the prevailing academic notion on the nature of social movements and political action in the region. first glance, protests are proving the conventional wisdom of the middle east north africa is out of step with developments in the region especially the level of ideological pluralism,

popular culture and mass media or at least social media. the larger problem is north african studies are mired in a modernization theories and continues to resolve in associations with contentious geopolitical interests. and the specific chapters on popular action in societies, historical understanding, and the standoff between two philosophical and methodological schools of plot. on one side we have the proponents of the sociological -- and the theorem of dirktime. this holds that every group action is a reflection of its commitment to a particular system and studies inspired by the school have focused narrow minded leon the ways in which elites make use of ideology to gain political legitimacy. in the context of the police in

north africa and especially since the iranian revolution of 1979 this school of thought has regarded islam as the ultimate normative system and its history of movement is an account of the role of islam in shaping political action. this has certainly nourished the authoritarian regimes and the conservative elements in western and israeli academia and policymaking. according to proponents of this school the security apparatus is the last bulwark against islamic theocracy. if anything the recent events into these and egypt exposed limitations of this viewpoint. with consternation, on the part of commentators, may provide

social and political cohesion for a mass protest movement in the arab world. this consternation comes with the scholars who rushed to the egyptian revolt. in the lens of the arrest and media, it seems to me, the moment is a real to pray, the way they were reported. automatic reflex, he was returned to the category of a muslim who by definition according to the news report was

mobilized by appeals to his or her religion but it bears noting this perception was among the first to be revised as the protests wore on and their pluralistic profile came to the floor. one centss that something akin will take place at the level of scholarship. the second school is proposed for neil marxist historians for home shared beliefs derive from shared interests and social movements are the result of shifts of production. here is an interpretation that doesn't apply seamlessly to the tunisian or egyptian context especially when the demonstrators have not justify their political actions by invoking the classic themes, symbols and arguments of class struggle. the egyptian and tunisian

protests may be a revolt of the pour but demands of demonstrators can't be neatly categorized into ideological or class based notions of justice. at least it is not very obvious to me and what seems to be absent in this perspective is an understanding of the historical processes that have congealed the experience of tunisian and egyptians from all walks of life into one cohesive yet largely leaderless movement. due to our near obsession with the secular authoritarianism we have not paid enough attention to the remarkable pluralism that has developed at the level of local politics and popular culture in arab societies at least over the last two decades if not longer. for the last two weeks

speculated on how scholarship may respond to recent developments i felt myself turning to european historian whose notions of social class and ideology may suggest promising new perspective for studies in north africa. this would be the first time historians of the region have reference to the similar ratings of bp thompson in the making of the english working-class and the english crown in the eighteenth century but it seems the time is especially right to revisit central notion that they obtained to our societies. what i have in mind specifically is thompson's redefinition of social class as a set of relations rather than structures. this is one way that we may understand how unified political actions are able to be

reconciled with, sociological or cultural interests. another notion is the idea of the moral economy. he useds does seem to show how the english writer in the 18th-century were impelled by a socially grounded sense of justice and this is one notion that may help historians of middle eastern north africa also -- may also shed light on what is guiding the political actions of the pro-democracy demonstrators today, this idea of a moral economy may be shaping the protests we have been witnessing and providing some of the symbols they have been using. in other words i am trying to say thompson's study of how social relations and colt -- social values coalesce into a

moral economy and the important thing to say about the dual dimensions of the tunisian and egyptian movements, vertically as a lens to analyze mobilization against white segments of society and horizontal lead to comprehend why and how the tunisian riots inspired similar movements that have resonated with local relevance from morocco to the golf. we have heard the common slogans from morocco to jordan. we have seen the sharing of national flags among the demonstrators. we have witnessed the tragic recurrence of self immolation. what are political and social historians to make of these commonalities other than that they may be connected to some sort of trans regional emerging from shared lived experience.

there's another dimension to the idea that moral economy may be interesting to investigate further and may help us trace the impact of new technologies and mass media in shaping a shared popular culture and shaping a platform for political mobilization. has one journalist recently noted where activists were once defined by their causes they are now defined by their tools and this is something we as historians need to start taking a little more seriously. it is obvious that electronic devices and innovations in wireless communication, satellite television and social media may now cultivate and sustain moral economy with which to knit together larger coalitions for political purpose and to connect them to national, regional and local developments. in this sense the micro politics of protest can translate very

quickly into a heightened awareness of political possibilities and gains to be made from local developments. this is in the case of egypt and the inspiration and has been getting from the tunisian president. finally, the moral economy will clarify how the change in relations between government and society can determine the patterns of protest and that minimum the events in tunisia and egypt should prompt us to reevaluate the notion of government as it applies to arab authoritarian regimes. this is an established relationship that is a paradigm. it is clear that this is established relationship between arab political authority and popular will has been largely shaken and regimes are being forced to reconsider the ways they enforce their legitimacy. if these regimes survived as has been the case in egypt for now

their immediate move will surely be to rethink their control over the state's institutional and symbolic repressive apparatuses and we should reflect on ways arab regimes may react to the growing fatality of the growing transnational and virtual networks at the heart of the new moral economy. some in this room may remember the revolution will not be televised. this was a revolutionary song that perry's state control over the media and its ability to marginalize. to measure how much times have changed since 1970 let's consider a revised slogan like the revolution will not be treated instead and speculate on some of the virtual wars we have witnessed in egypt from attempt by the authorities to shutdown the internet to the counterattempts by anonymous

hackers to cripple the government's mainframe computers. today it seems to make as much sense for activists to leave government buildings behind and stage protests against firms that sell internet and wireless tracking technologies to autocratic regimes. this was a new dimension of how we are trying to understand political authority and how forms of power are deployed throughout society. basically as students of the middle east and north africa, we have known for some time that the common thread of corrupt authoritarian and ruthless regimes has