>> it's somebody that i believe in a lot and somebody to follow. you know, secretary babbit as john said in the introduction, sometimes history has an

interesting -- you know more than this than i do, but history will look back and look at the matters that were taken on and make sure we were taking an ethic with a legacy 150 years on down the road. bruce babbit and udall are both still good friends, so i look up to them. >> both udall and babbitt for supporters of the act in 1906 meaning keeping the ability to create national monuments. there's a regret of press action coming out of the tea party movement. are you willing to embrace and make sure that the antiquity facts stays on the books and makes sure there's not an overturning of the antiquity fact in >> the answer to that is absolutely. i think when you look 100 years

of exercised executive thor, president obama and this administration and i will be in a position where they want to give up that authority, and now, having said that, i do think that one of the things that we are doing so differently in the america's great outdoors is we are listening to what communities want us to do. as one the exarpts within -- exarpts within the report is we will reach out to listen to communities across the united states to find out which of those areas they believe are the ones that are appropriate for monument designation under the antiquities ac and we hear from governors and congressional delegations where there is a unity of wanting to have these very special places protected. >> one of those places i'd like to see is the national park in the north woods in mains. you have to get the congress to go along with that, but i was

wondering, do you get frustrated at all? i know you've been to pelican island, florida where the reserves were started and there's board walks and you look at all the things clinton and babbitt for able to decide. do you get frustrated with the political climate and the fact so much has been saved, you can't create a trophy list like some of the previous presidents did? >> you know, for me, frankly, it's not about creating a trophy list, but i am, doug, very excited about what it is we can do. i'll give you just two examples of new national wildlife refugees we created. one is in the foothills of kansas where the last remainingal grass prairie of 1.8 acres is going into a program and whiled life refugee. it's interesting. when i went to a meeting where

we dis nateed the area, we sat around people and it helped us in the creation of the flint hills conservation area, and yes, it consistented of the organizations like the nature conserve tan sigh and incomed the cattleman's association, the farm bureau and so on and so forth. there's a recognition in kansas that this is good for the economy, preserving the heritage, and it was good also for preserving the environmental values. we've done the same thing with the head waters of the everglades where we have a new national life refugee we're creating there and the everglades really today represent the single most successful world heritage ecosystem restoration program on the entire planet, and we have lots of other ideas we're moving forwards with in an agenda i'm

proud of. i'm very excited about the opportunities to do things in conservation that have not been done. there's one aspect that's most important more than ever before, and that's that we connect up the landscapes because what happened historically beet with the public -- both with the public domains and private assets is they are checker boarded. we want to work in partnership with private land owners to connect up these landscapes for wild leaver and other values that allows us to manage this as a whole opposed to managing it in a fragmented way. >> we hear about the wildlife corridors you mentioned as a checker board. the administration is spot on on addressing this. where in the united states can this happen? >> i think it can happen everywhere because, i mean, we have wildlife and fish and important ecological values in

every single state and community of our country, and i guess it's just a matter of a willingness of local communities and a partnership in some cases with the united states government and other places where the we can provide financial incentives for people to come together to create the connectivity. if i may, just to say a quick word about america's great outdoors at least in the way i see it in my eyes, there are four essential elements to it. the first is, you know, we want to create the next generation of great urban parks, and that will take us from new york harbor and the hudson to st. louis and the arch to the mississippi and to the dred scott courthouse and places in san fransisco and great urban parks. the second will be how we connect up these rural landscapes and the flint hills

conservation areas is an example and many others around the country. the third are riversment i think we need to put a new focus on american rivers urban rivers and other rivers to make sure we take care of these places where the first 300 years of civilization in the country until the 1970s, people turned their backs to rivers #, and they were the wastelands and places to dump waste, and what's happened now is we're turning our faces to them and embracing the rivers as economic generators as well as places where we do environmental restoration. now, the final point on america's great outdoors is the connection to youth in our efforts across the board to connect up with young people. >> the administration has talked about a youth conservation core. i've heard of u.s. fish and wildlife climate corp.. how are you going to get more

young people engaged with what some think is nature deficiency disorder? how do we get young people engaged with their national parks, monuments and wildlife refugees? >> two ways. we have 21,000 young people working with us as part of the efforts. they were not working with the department of interior until we took on the initiative. but the young people are helping us do the job on behalf of the american people, and two, we are creating the next generation of conservation leaders, andother agencies within the federal government helping us do that. secondly, we have a tremendous opportunity within the united states and the department of interior because we get so many people who see the very special places that we have whether it's glacier national park or the statue of liberty that tells the

story of immigration, so how we use the great assets we have as the cues toadian -- custodians of the natural resources and heritage to educate young people about our country is a phenomenal opportunity so secretary orny duncan has been working with fish and wildlife and john jarvis from the national park service to integrate the opportunities with the school system. >> are you worried about melting glaish sures? i was in the glacier bay park in alaska and a lot of the glaciers are not just receding, but disappearing up there. have you looked into climate change and why the frozen is melting? >> doug, you know, for me, i think i have the greatest cabinet job in the united states of america.

john might agree with me. [laughter] you know, i get to go from sea to shining sea and out into the oceans, and it's part of my responsibility to watch these places. there was a time last year where i was in park in maine and watching what's happening with acad ya national park with the rising sea in acadia. i was by lake superior and it's five degrees warmer than years ago. i asked the scientists what that means, and that went from there to glacier national park with the two senators from montana, baucus and tester. we flew around glacier national park and saw the disappearance of the glaciers, and the scientists whether they are democrat or republican, but they tell me the glaciers in the park will disappear from glacier by the year 2020. that's like in 8 years.

when i look at the issues, they are real. in the colorado river where we have one of the largest rivers in america that is the place where most of our agriculture products are coming from, we are expecting to see a 20% decline in the amount of water that will be available for agriculture municipal as well as recreational purposes in the water. that's what we are trying to address. >> do you bring these matters to president obama? like after you go to the places, maine and wisconsin and montana, report back to the president on a concern about these, you know, the disappearing glaciers, the rising tides? >> yeah, we have an ongoing dialogue about the issues and certainly was reflected in the president's statement on the america's great outdoors after he received the report, and in terms of his push on both conservation as well as the push

to gasp new energy future for america, you know, for me in my role as interior, one of the things i'm proud of is the fact we've moved forward with renewable energy in a way that's never happened before. we just, in 2010, have permitted 3700 megawatts of solar energy in the deserts of the southwest. you know, that's the equivalent of more than 10 coal fire pour plants where we capture the power of the sun to power our economy. >> we're dealing then withs segue to renewable energy. how can renewable energy be used on public lands? how can the government raise money and get fossil fuels using wind turbines or solar? what's the interior's vision on that? >> we believe we have a significant role to play because as we manage with the service, 30% of the land mas of the

united states, we leave appropriate places to site facilities. if you tax, for example, the southwestern part of the country in california, nevada, arizona, new mexico, and colorado, the labs said that's where we have the greatest potential for solar energy development. we will make believers out of skeptics who say it cannot be done because we have the ground breakings on the largest solar scale facility in the world. i think once that electricity from the solar plants gets or not grid and -- on the grid and people see how we capture the sun and clean energy, it will have a transformative effect and make believers out of skeptics. we have a significant role to play and spent a lot of time working on it over the last several years recognizing not every place ought to be used for solar energy or wind energy development, so our con cement is -- con cement and slow --

concept and slogan is be smart from the start. >> one event that's happened today is you releered a ten -- released a ten year vision for the national wildlife refugees. people who don't know we have over 500 wildlife refugees and spectacular places in saving habitat and wildlife. they do an incredible job of managing these. i think they think of national parks as interior, but these wildlife refugees are remash -- remarkable. what's the plan you have to manage these properly? >> we want to move forward with the next generation of national wildlife refugees and with our vision for what the reality is that we're doing today in terms of the wildlife refugees. we have an asset which belongs

to the american people of 150 million acres, and these are some of the greatest pieces of land and water areas in the world from pelican island to alaska wildlife refuge to other places around the country. 553 of them, and what we need to do is figure out where we are going in the next generation and how we're going to connect up to the american people. one of our challenges is to make sure that we are connecting up to young people and having them come out and understand what our refuge systems do. there's a whole chapter on that as well. there's a planning document to take us into the months ahead tieing in nicely with the great outdoors and the plans that went on in the planning of the flint hills conservation area. through that process what we identify is a number of candidates for additional wildlife refugees to be identified in years to come as

well. >> you mentioned the wildlife refuge is controversial base there's oil there. will president obama hold the line there's no oil drilling in the arctic refuge while in office. is that a firm interior department position in >> yes. the president was clear on that in his time as u.s. senator and clear on that now during the time he's been president. that's the direction that we -- i mean, that's where we are and that's the position. >> we have the bp spill report, the riley-grahm report come out this year, and a lot of your clock was eaten up grappling with that bp spill. where are we at in the gulf south right now? what's going on with the wetlands, and from a conservation point of view, what is interior doing in the gulf south making that particular ecosystem stronger and more

viable for long term wildlife prosperity? >> well, we have approximately 35 national parks and wildlife refugees in the gulf, so we have an interest in protecting and preserving those. i will say this about the bp oil spill. first, it was a tragedy for the nation and a lot of lessons to be learned, and we'll move forward with oil and gas development in ways that will bring about a new gold standard for safety and environmental protection in oil and gas development, but i would also say that in many ways, i think the possibility is here that for the first time we'll will able to embark on a serious gulf coast effort that is funded allowing us to take the mississippi river delta that's so degrated by the hand of man over 150 years and that we'll be

able to restore the flow of the water of the mississippi to have that delta rise again that's been degraded. we'll take the barrier reef and islands that protect the gulf and make more out of them than what they have been and we'll be able to deal as well with investments in places like the everglades and other important areas in the gulf coast. if bp is liable, responsible under the law for natural resource damages as well as other damages, and the president has endorsed the recommendation by secretary baibus and others and us and penalties are to be paid by companies that have liability here should go to ecological restoration. what we have here is a possibility of turning this tragedy in the gulf of mexico into what will be one of the most significant ecological

restoration efforts in the history of the united states of america. >> would that restoration include perhaps opening up the flood gates so to speak of the mississippi river that's been channelized to allow sediment into the gulf marsh lands? >> we have identified a list of projects, several billion dollars of projects, some of which relate to the diversion structures off the mississippi river because essentially the continued dead dre gages of the delta there long before the bp oil spill is caused by the sediments starved marsh lands of the mississippi river delta. there are projects designed close to permits to move forward with as soon as we get the funding to be able to do it. >> i wanted to ask you a few personal questions. we deal with the word wildlife a

lot and it becomes bureaucratic here in washington. specially as a rancher, is there a particular animal species taking a great interest in your life that you wanted to make sure it stays saved and healthy and strives? is there a type of wildlife that's personal to you in your career? >> the grizzly bear. you know, the grizzly bear is such an iconic species, and i hate to think the grizzly bear of other species will not walk this planet, this earth so that our children and grandchildren can see it. you know, there's lots of debate always about the endangered species agent and what it does, but there's tremendous successes whether it's the hooping crane on the south flat river or the endangered fish in the colds river or the grizzly or the eagle or so many other species

saved from extinction, there's a lot that we can celebrate about these esa. it doesn't mean we can't do things better, and frankly my hope is we can do things better because at the end of the day species are protected by how we protect the habitat. when we taked about america's great outdoors and the connection of landscapes and wildlife quarters and a focus on rivers where most of the species live, you really are looking at having constructive solutions and trying to get ahead. nobody wants to list any species as threatened our endawrnlged. that's -- endangered. did we can get ahead to the right type of landscape type scale, we will be able to protect the iconic species. >> do you recall where you were when you first saw a grizzly? were you a boy or on hunting

trips or hiking? have you personally seen one in the wild? >> i have seen bears in the wild, close to cafes in bears in the san juan mt.s, but never a grizzly in the wild. i hope this summer if i get a chance to go up into alaska in some of the areas where we know there's grizzlies that i can see one. >> great. what has being a rancher in colorado and connected to the land, what do you bring being interior secretary coming at it from a rancher's perspective? >> first, i think there's the philosophical sense that a rancher brings to the land. as a rancher and farmer you know how you take care of the land will create your future because if you don't take care of your land this year, in two or three

or four years, you took the rig out from your feet for your survival. taking care of your land is essential to survive as a farmer and rancher, and i think most recognize that. number two, there's also a political reality here that, you know, we need to bring ranchers and farmers together with conservation organizations and environmentalists and move forward with an agenda that is not as polarized as sometimes it can be, and the story i just told you about the flint hills and the national conservation area there, that was a statement of american unity about how we're protecting the ranching heritage of the area as well as the wonderful ecosystem, and that kind of template is happening all over america today which is one of the things that me as a secretary gets excited about the possibility of the america's great outdoors. >> part of what i'm interested in urban wilderness.

you've been a great spokesperson on urban wilderness, the idea that many people live in congested cities and can't get to the arctic refuge or the national parks. how does the interior department create an urban wilderness, and what is that? what do you mean by that phrase that's coming into vogue? >> my hope is the president or in a very difficult time proposed fully funding in a land and water conservation fund to incentivize these things to happen at the local level and as we had conversations before, doug, it was during the most difficult times of american history where you had presidents standing up for conservation. it was abraham lincoln with yosemite and other z and

franklin roosevelt in the middle of the dust bowl in the depression doing more for soil conservation. wii at those -- we're at those times as well today. my view is that even though the times are tough economically, it's also the time for us to invest in conservation because ultimately it's good economics for our country. specifically urban wilderness probably the best thing is to give you an example. my hometown or home state of denver, there's two wildlife refugees. one used to be an abandon military arsenal, and it's located on the south padre river. down the road there's another refuge called the rocky flats. there are rivers through the south plattes that cut through the tributary. it would be easy with the leadership of the governor and

mayor of denver to create an urban wilderness experience from those places that ties the 3 million people of the denver metropolitan area to the wilderness areas that are located right within the city. last week he was in new york with mayor bloomberg talking about the future of the new york harbor and the hudson estuary, but we own as a united states of america about 27,000 acres of land including jay may cay bay, and the fact is we never connected it all up to new york and its future. it's a huge opportunity to connect up the 18 million people through the right transportation corridors and improvement into these wildlife experiences. i expect that by the end of this year we'll have in place in new york city the greatest and largest urban campground in america. we're doing that right in the middle of new york. if we can do that in new york,

we can do it in st. louis and lots of other places all across the country. >> where is the urban campground in new york located? >> a place called floyd bennett's field. it used to be a military base. it's been abandoned and there's plans underway to figure out what the future of that field should be. it's next to jay bay and we can make it accessible and bring it kids from new york city and other people outside of new york city to experience the outdoors in their own backyard. >> yesterday i was in dallas talking with a group of officers in the u.s. military, some who have been in afghanistan, and i also interviewed general kean in haiti. it dawned on me that many people

in our armed forces love the public lands. many soldiers grew up hunting and fishing on public lands and also they use them for recraigsal purposes. you don't go into the military to make a lot of money, and so you're not a big land owner perhaps if you're a career military officer, but having access to these great places in wild america is important. can the interior department work with the department of defense in any way to get a connection going between when soldiers come back using the land, special programs between defense and interior? >> absolutely, and we have been doing that, making sure that there's opportunities for our military personnel coming back and our veteran's to access our public lands and provide lots of programs for them. we are one of the lead agencies in terms of provideing job opportunities for the military

personnel coming back from afghanistan and iraq. it's something that we take very seriously. it's also just, if i may, a note on rural america here because 40% of our people who go into the military are actually people who come from the rural parts of the united states of america. even though i think 16% of our population is rural, they provide 40% of the personnel who actually go into our military services. for people in rural america, there's a great connection into the outdoors were a lot of reasonsment one is tradition and heritage, but there's also a great sense of the economic connections so when you go to communities that are close to a national park, frankly, many of those communities exist because the national park is there, and thinking back to the pbs series of dayton duncan and ken burns talking about america's best ideas and parks, they say in the

program we have here in the united states in terms of conservation is uniquely american and uniquely democratic because places like yosemite are reserved for the common person, and that's so unique for us here in the united states that it's a concept we need to continue to make sure everybody understands and keep pushing forward. >> well, thank you very much, mr. secretary. i'll now start with some questions. this comes from fernando and asks as a sporesesman in new mexico, how is the america's great outdoor program going to help us see that the otero mesa will become a national monument. >> we had conversations with senator udall and senator

bingeaman. it's one of those special areas we want to hear more about from the american public with respect to how it is how we protect those areas, and so that's part of what we're going to be doing for this america's great outdoor process. i will say beside the otero there is a huge opportunity to create a national park that is 100,000 acres, a historic place, and we're hopeful to move that process along. lots of projects in new mexico that we're looking at. i think that it tells that -- it tells me in every state it doesn't matter if it's utah, wyoming, new york, maine, or florida, that people have these ideas. we want to do is through dialogue with the american

people is to have all these ideas surface including this idea of otero mesa. this -- >> this is from matt. please discuss the wildland policy announced. many republicans vow to kill the policy. can you discuss the misrepresentations out there about this policy? >> well, there's, you know, as we manage the public estate, from my point of view, we need to manage it for all of its purposes including wilderness characteristics, and that's part of what we do with the public estate. as i said earlier in the conversation here, it's less than 9% of the public domain with a designation of wilderness or a wilderness study area. we inventory the parts of the public domain with wilderness characteristics and our management approach takes that into account. i will say this. i think there are people who

have made more of this issue than they should have including people who are doing it for whatever political agenda they want to serve, but it's interesting when you look at the bills that have been introduced even in this house of representatives that there are wilderness bills that have been introduced by a number of republicans because wilderness is not a bad thing, and they recognize it. somebody handed me this as i was coming on the way over, and i was just going through these things. representative darrell uslip, the beautification act of 2011, representative dreier, the forest enforcement act, central idaho recreation act, and it goes on with places designated as wildlife wildlife wilderness including from republicans in

the house of representatives. one thing i think we can do is to tone down the rhetoric and to say we, in the united states, have some very special places. they are not republican places. they are not democrat places. they belong to all of us. yes, republicans can support wilderness and democrats can support wilderness, and i think we can find some commonground here, so i'm hopeful and looking forward to conversations with even those who are critics of the wild lands policy. >> very good. oh, this is from the sierra club. how does the department of interior plan to prioritize climate smart land management plans? ps -- great ago report. you got a fan letter there. basically, how are you going to prioritize climate smart plans.

you touched on that, but elaborate more. >> we have centers around country and we have support in the congressional resolution that was just passed by the house of representatives, there's still continuing support because there is a recognition that climate is having an impact on the world and on the united states and that we need to better understand it, so we have climate science centers that we're opening up in anchorage and other places working with other federal and state agencies and universities so that we have the best science available to us as we begin to plan for the impacts we're going to have from climate change. doug, it's always interesting to me. when you talk about climate change, you know, a lot of times it gets hot and political right away. you get down into the colorado river basen and talk to people from arizona, colorado, utah,

wyoming, montana, there's conservativism, moderate west and also republicans, they recognize if you talk to the water herders, the ranchers, farmers, that the biggest challenge they face now in the colorado river as we have entered into the driest period of history on the colorado river, that the water supplies of the colorado river are directly related to the changing of the climate. you have a legal framework and water allocation made on the colorado river under some misassumptions that missed the mark 100 years ago by several hundred million acre feet. you reduce that by 20%, what's that mean to the city of l.a. and the farming community that relies on the colorado river system? what's it mean to the tribes? they get it.

they get it. what they say to us is we support understanding the changes that climate change will bring to these states, and we want to get ahead of it. dealing with the science and making sure we have a good understanding of the future is a very important thing there in the colorado river, and it's important to communities throughout our country. >> very good. this one is from reid olerich. he's from utah. i'm concerned about the public lands in utah, mainly the swell, two, recapture canyon, three, cedar mesa. any comments? is is there any action on breaks getting machine knewment status? >> you know, we'll have a conversation bout all the lands moving forward with the public plan issues in utah in days

ahead. in fact, i have a meeting with governor herbert who has started a public plan use lands policy within utah. some of these projects are projects and land areas that we will have on the table for discussion about their future. >> okay. we're going to wind down here in a minute, but i am going to to morph a couple here because they are similar. one from patrick in madrid. it's about how can the department of interior help support development of ru anible -- renewable energy on tribal lands? >> we have great potential on tribal lands for renewable energy, and i think that's a recognition first that has to be made, and then secondly, we are working both the department of energy as well as with the secretary for union affairs and

my department to identify those areas on reservations where there are great potential for renewable energy. the navajo reservation that's such a huge expansion, and arizona presents a great opportunity for solar and wind energy and very close to transmission, and so we hope to be able to work closely with tribal communities so that tribal communities are not left out of the renewable energy revolution which i believe we are in the midst of. it will happen in this country. the tribal communities should not be left out of that energy opportunity for america. >> last question from chris who is with the conservation lands foundation, and they are very pleased to see the antiquities act mentioned in the great outdoors report as a key tool for protecting critical

landscape and places of historic importance. can you comment on how this antiquities act and the monuments help local economies? they understand you're safeguarding the treasures, but how do monuments help local economies? >> well, i think monuments like so many other iconic places of our natural landscape here in america are economic generators. you know, we think about the state of montana that has a population of less than 1 million people, and yesterday there's 11 million people a year that go there to hunt, fish, hike, bike, raft, and just enjoy the great outdoors of big sky country, and so all of these places are economic generators whether it's wildlife refuges or the blm and so we need to

understand and i think the people of the united states are understanding that there is a direct connection between conservation and the preservation of the lands and economic vitality. john spoke to it in the introduction as something i think president clinton recognized back in the 1990s that when we take care of our place and protect our environment, it is consistent with also good economics. i remember a long time ago in colorado when working on economic development there we said part of the reason we want companies to come to colorado is because the quality of life we offer. that's the kind of experience we're able to provide to companies and their employees in terms of the connections to the outdoors. >> well, we will end. i want to tell you you are always so thoughtful and answer everything that's asked of you, and i'm amazed at how much knowledge you have of the treasured places in the united states, and thank you for your

public service, and thank you for being here at the center for american progress. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remapped seated -- remain seated while our speakers depart. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments, the palestine center hosts a

discussion of political unrest in the middle east, and how the u.s. is seen in the arab world. in a little more than an hour, a discussion of global trade in development from the world economic forum. after that, a look at plans to expand a portable broadband access to the internet, and later o forum on his pappics and immigration.

>> a former official of the arab league of states says it's being hampered its relationship with israel. they speak on the political unrest in the middle east. hosted by the palestine center in washington, this is a little more than an hour. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you, all, for coming today on behalf of the directors of the jerusalem fund and palestine center which is bringing you this program today. welcome. it's great to have you here for a very timely discussion on the events that are taking place

throughout the middle east and their broader implications. i'm very happy today to have three great panelists to discuss this issue and their everyone cations with us. before i introduce them, i'd just like to remind you to turn off cell phones or anything else that might distract our attention from our speakers today. for the audience that is watching the live web cast online, you can participate by sending in a question or comment via facebook and you can also send us messages through twitter by using@palestine center. our event today as i mentioned is focused on the uprisings in the arab world. i'll introduce the panelists in

order of which they'll present, and i'll turn it over to them. michelle dunne in the middle, an official at the state department and white house in foreign affairs and served on the national security counsel staff, the secretary of state's policy planning staff, and the u.s. embassy in cairo. she holds a ph.d. in arabic language and literature from georgetown university where she's an adjunct professor. seated immediately to my left is nadia hijab, frequently a commentator and serves as a senior fellow at the institute of palestine studies, coauthored citizens apart, and she is editor in chief or was editor in chief of the london based middle

east magazine before joining the united nations where she established her own consulting business. of course, a man who probably certainly needs no introduction, am base dore yous i have f, directer of global south in washington, d.c., director of arab states from 1961 to 1996 and was appointed at the chief representative of the arab league to the united states and the united nations in september of 1979. i just wanted to mention that some of you may recall ambassador maksoud spoke at the national conference last year in october only a few months before the events began in tunisia,

egypt, and now throughout the arab world, and he began comments then by saying he is the living dinosaur of the arab world -- [laughter] and that he wanted to disclose his deficits before he spoke about his assets. he is an arab nationalist and he doesn't think that there is a delivery of palestinian rights except through a moment of arab renaissance and unity, so this is, again, just a few months before the events we're seeing today, so i'm glad to welcome the panelists to hear their perspectives on the events sweeping the region. turning it over at this point to michelle. >> thank you yousef, and thank you for the director to invite me to be on the panel. quick words on events of the region and then i'll comment on what this means for the united states for u.s. policy in the region.

i think it was, i think it was commentary i read earlier today describing the uprisings as a seismic shift. he's right about that. we're facing a new chapter in the middle east. the effects of these uprisings in tunisia and egypt so far libya ongoing and where else it will go will continue to spread for several years at least, and i think if some of these countries makes successful transitions to democracy, tunisia, egypt, iraq, which is still in the process, in a transition process, then the esks are going -- effects are going to last much longer than that, longer than a few yearsment i think the

grievances that motivated the uprisings and the phenomena that set them off are quite widely shared. we're all aware of the demographic youth bulge in the region, something that many people had been watching for a long time and wondering what kind of an effect it would have, and unfortunately the unemployment and underemployment that accompanied that youth bulge and the sense of disenfranchisement, at the same time, i think it's undeniable that the changing information environment, the fact that this young generation that was coming up had access to so much more information, so many different points of view from within their own country as well as from other countries and had the ability to be in touch by a new media with many, many others to exchange viewpoints in ways

generations before them could not do. i also think that there's been an increasing focus over the last decade or so on domestic affairs inside of arab countries opposed to foreign affairs. that's not to say people in arab countries don't care anymore about events outside their own countries. certainly they do about the palestine issue, about iraq, about many other things that have gone on, but definitely there has been an intensified focus on what is going on inside their own countries, and then there's something that happened in the last few years which is a sense that developed that their governments were perhaps vulnerable, were not to be feared quite as much as they were in the past. now, i could go on and on about all these thing which are very

interesting to me, but i don't want to take a lot of time. we can discuss them more if you want to. i think the case of libya also is pointing out quite painfully the significant differences. i don't want to overplay these common issues among arab countries because i think the very, you know, frightening scenes playing out in libya now point out the difference between countries where there are strong institutions and countries where there are not. in tunisia and egypt, there was a cohesive military that was able at some point to make a choice. to make a choice, you know, between restoring stability to the country and maintaining loyalty to a particular leader. unfortunately, in libya, i think there is not, and there is not by design that kind of a cohesive military, and so we see this kind of fragmentation and

use of violence, use of a much higher level of violence against the population than we saw in tunisia and egypt, although, let's not forget ring quite a few people died in tunisia and egypt as well. the implications i think for the united states and for u.s. policies in this region are enormous. u.s. priorities, policy priorities, have been completely upset by this. the obama administration came into office two years ago planning to work on israeli-palestine peace, planning to engage with iran to try to prevent the emergence of iran as the nuclear power, and frankly, it had no interest in what it saw as the failed freedom agenda of george bush. now, what we see is that these,

you know, the demands for change in the region, were democratic government in the region have forced themself on to obama's agenda, and that he has chosen, i think, wisely to get on the right side of this and to be in favor now of this spread of democracy and human rights in the region, but i think the administration is playing catch up. they are trying very much now to show they were on top of the issues all along and were in favor of these things all along, but, you know, to be honest, there really wasn't much attention and much priority given to these issues to what was happening inside arab countries and change that might be coming from inside arab countries. there was not much attention given to that at all. over the last couple years, now

the two other issues that obama wanted to work on, of course, are still there, and they are not going to go away. the palestinian situation, the israeli-palestinian situation, i think is unsustainable. i know that nadia will talk more about that, so i will not talk much about it, but i do think that the obama administration doesn't know where to go with that issue right now. we've seen several chapters of frankly failed efforts on the palestine issue, and i'm not sure they have a clear plan where to go with it now. also, unfortunately, you know, they are dealing with an israeli government that has showed really no interest i think in reaching an agreement with the palestinians and now seems to look at regional events as a

reason to do less rather than more about that. regarding iran, i think we have brought some time with the effective sanctions and so forth, but the issue will be back. i don't agree, by the way, necessarily with the assessment that these changes that we see going on in the region and egypt and so forth are going to tilt the regional balance in the favor of iran. i think the united states needs to do what it can going forward to encourage successful transitions to democracy in egypt, tunisia, as well as continuing to do that in iraq, and let's hope there will be that opportunity in libya as well. in dealings with the other countries, the united states is going to have to start raising

much more seriously the kind of significant reforms that -- there might be time still in other arab countries for leaders to take on top-down reforms rather than the bottom-up change that we're seeing in other countries. i think some leaders might be capable of doing that, others clearly, are not. i mean i think in libya, for example, there's no, you know, there's no and there never was a chance for real reform by the government. if we don't do our best to help successful transitions in the country where changes are already underway, i think the alternatives are dire. i still think the united states will have to learn new ways of working with democratic governments in these countries and will need to grow a thicker

skin as these governments are going to be more responsive to their public opinion when it comes to the kind of foreign policies they're going to have, the relations they're going to have with the united states and so forth. the model that the united states has pursued which i thought of as kind of a 19th century model of personalized diplomacy with an individual leader or a very small group is just not sustainable. it's not even the way we do diplomacy in most of the rest of the world, and it's going to go out of fashion in the arab world as well. i'm not saying any of this will be easy, but i do believe it can be done. i think the united states can have good relations with democratic countries in the middle east that will be, although they will have their ups and downs and those governments will make decisions that we don't like or elect people that we don't feel comfortable with, i think these can be ultimately more mature

and sustainable relationships. >> thank you very much. . . that may be the palestinian revolution would lead to revolutions throughout the arab world. that didn't happen. on the contrary, the arab regime consolidated their power and the plo and the palestinians, the

palestinian revolution faced repeated crushing military blows including as you know in jordan, 1771 in lebanon in '82, '83, and the occupied territories many times most recently the 2,002 horrific invasion of the war of the city and gaza in 2008, 2009. and so, while many today are asking if the palestinian revolution is even still alive, it's really fascinating to see the arab world. being swept by non-military revolutionary movements. a civilian uprising, which are using both new and old techniques and bringing together all ages and all religions, many of which, many of these techniques and approaches were in fact previously used by

palestinians for the example in the first from 87 to 1983. so i guess the irony and the question for us today is can the arab revolution resuscitate the palestinian revolution. - perhaps the first most immediate impact of the egyptians in israel uprising followed as they were by what's going on in yemen, bahrain and libya as well as iraq has been too underscore beyond the shadow of a doubt that the arab people are willing to stand their ground and face death and injury to demand their rights, their basic human rights, including, but not only the right to free and fair elections so that their governments can truly represent them and be accountable to them to the electorate and so the state budget -- we always talk about elections but we forget

about the budget, state budgets or corruption free and provide free, fair and meaningful opportunities. so, the remaining arab regime, the ones that are not facing these uprisings are trying to head of the process either by providing more money to people and other ways. similarly the palestinian authority and, has helped move from ordering its security forces to crack down on the demonstrations in support of the egyptian revolution and to try to get closer to the people it claims to represent. and furthermore, it's trying very hard, the p.a., to reclaim space credentials and revive mandates that have long since expired. as you know, the p.a. quickly announced the cabinet that followed also very quickly by announcements from municipal as well as legislative and

presidential elections before september. and as you know in those protests that the palestinians were able to hold in the occupied territories once the p.a. listened up the people demanded an end to the split between hamas and gaza and the west bank. so we have now another response from the palestinian authority partly in response to popular feeling that hates this split. but also to the disappearance from the equation of the mubarak policies on palestine and the loss of a major backer of mahmoud abbas and the p.a.. we see the p.a. now making gestures toward hamas, as we see a shift from a quick shift from the unilateral elections which hamas immediately rejected in the absence of the national unity to the invitations from the ramallah based to join the

government. equally important, they said hamas could stay on the gaza strip and keep up its security control and i think perhaps the most important thing he said so long as hamas meetings the koln and in other words the cease-fire with israel that nothing else mattered. everything else could be worked out. so, as time goes on, we may be look back at the statement of fouad as the beginning of the end of the three conditions of the quartet to have hamas joy in the political process. so suddenly the palestinians are beating in response to their own demands and needs and not in response to external in post agendas. the arab and revolutions have also impact on the relationship with its main backer, the united states. we saw the p.a. stand and the plo stand their ground on the resolution condemning

settlements and they refuse to back down as requested in a 50 minute previously the u.s. had to use both carrots and sticks to try to get the p.a. to withdraw the revolution so they wouldn't have to veto, but despite a 50 minute phone call from barack obama to mahmoud the loss they refused to do so. of course the p.a. position was already weakened because of its stand it took towards the report, but had already made it vulnerable, and in the week of the arab revolution simply could not say yes to barack obama. and it's really interesting to see some elements of the party kind of of the antiin the relationship with the united states and the kind of replay

you have the p.a. officials in east jerusalem now breaking off contact with the u.s. consulate in jerusalem and refusing to accept aid from the u.s. so rather than the u.s. boycotting the p.j. or the palestinian authority the reverse needs to happen and the jerusalem lights are urging other palestinians to do so. now should we see these moves and understand these moves as a shift to self-reliance and to reclaim the leadership of the palestinian struggle or simply as a way to buy time and to stay in power by the regime and i want to see regime because we have to, one in the west bank and one in gaza. certainly some of the moves are genex and show the democracy better than the real thing. we have fouad going on facebook and inviting any palestinian who likes to suggest people,

ministers for his cabinet, and so, that is i think to my mind a gimmick. what is certain is they do not really address the challenges that face the palestinians. the attacks on gaza are continuing every day. everests of the west bankers including children are continuing every day. the intent of colonization of east jerusalem, nothing stopping that. the expulsion of the palestinian beduins and others from the homes and land of the west bank as well as in israel itself where the civil liberties of the palestinian citizens remain under threat. none of that is challenged by these actions of the p.a.. and as meshaal pointed out, you know, there's been a focus on the domestic affairs of different arab countries, similarly this attempt to put the palestinian house in order

by the p.a. by bringing them back together is only scratching the surface of putting the palestinian house in order and i think the palestinians most pressing demand and need work very well expressed by the general union of the palestinian students of the end of january in a statement in which they launched the beginning of a campaign for direct elections to the palestinian national council for the reason of, the reason being to restore to find a way to restore the palestine liberation organization as the sole legitimate representative of the palestinian people where are they maybe. the statement goes straight to the heart of the we palestinian governments have been completely skewed and they pushed the drive to get the states almost any price completely away from the movement for liberation for the

palestinian people. the plo has been allowed to shrivel and we have to look at the student union and give it some importance because the student union is an integral member of the plo and has many of the palestinian leaders and we all started as leaders in the general palestinians including arafat and others. so it has some potential to begin or to join a movement for change on the ground. so just a couple of words and looking to the future. there are some trends that would help the p.a. regime maintain its position and putting the fact that the west and the western media remain very vested in what i call the fouad dream of institution building under occupation and to try to get a say as well as growing support

for the u.n. to the p.a. plan to seek new recognition of state couldn't timber and supporting and allowing the p.a. to stay on could be hamas willingness to strike a deal so it, too can stay in power so hamas would strike a deal and other palestinian factions would join them or not as they want. so all of this could perpetuate the regime in the west bank and gaza but none of that would help to shake israel's control of the territory. on the other hand, there may be a real palestinian revolution against the regime claiming their presentations starting from the grassroots movements and perhaps spreading to other unions and as well as palestinian community in exile to revise the plo so they have authentic representation of

their aspirations for freedom and self-determination so for the palestinians for the other arab sisters and brothers the outcome will depend on the extent that they are able to stay the course and impose their will. thank you very much. [applause] >> ambassador maksoud? >> fees' point the way for me to say one, that we are at this moment of history at the palestine center, palestine remains the center. and in that sense, i would now try to disabuse some people about the trust of these

movements that have taken place now and are in the planning perhaps in the rest of the arab nation. you'll excuse me i will mention the term arab nation. and although that still doesn't sink in, the fact that the interrelationships that have developed with similar objectives meant that the arab world was a wealthy nation of poor people so how do we structure or how we understand the dynamics of the evolution.

i say evolution of development because they have not been -- they haven't fulfilled the evolution itself they constitute the vessel and in power in the political what miss thir and those who obstruct the half of the evolution the evolution of this context cannot be perpetual. the revolution is a blockage to the evolution that it possesses. when the process is arrested, it was also be a human rights, human needs through the power of governments reckless sometimes, roofless most of the time and

that the revolution becomes the instrument of the story and the historical evolution to its normal course. if we understand this to mean what took place in the arab world than we can come to grips with an easier understanding about why the united states in particular have always identified stability within mobility, political and mobility now has the president has explained, there is perhaps a reassessment taken place. stability in a poor nation with rich people is provocative, and

with the communication revolution, it speeds out the awareness and the consciousness, and what is taking place throughout the arab world is a transcendence to a very large extent. of the diverse components of what constitutes an arab, and because they have been traditionally translated or interpreted as a sort of ethnic etc these young of the trade unions of women have transcended

in defining the various categories of components of the arab people in to diversity sabrue the diversity as rejecting the spirit of what constitutes pluralism. that is where the term arab becomes the law event because it is becoming our identified with the inner-city and the notion of equal citizenship. this is why lebanon still remains a healthy civil society and the most reactionary system of governments.

fifer the shiites etc., that remains that lebanon is complete sympathy with what is taking place on the level of civil society and a genuinely worried about its pluralistic system becoming a system of diversity. diversity in the sense that you don't eliminate particular is some, but bring it to a population. this is one thing. the second, there is as i read today in the papers expressed by mr. netanyahu and all that about the iranian model that is now becoming the most important regional power let me also try

to construct this growing realistic assessment which is not realistic i will put it in quotations. what is more relevant if you want to have a paradigm in the region what is more relevant for this era of national people uprising is if there is to be a model is turkey, not iran. iran might have been an attraction when it overthrew the shah of iran and promised, but turkey has evolved and a more peaceful way secular alternative to islam, the process is starting. and that is why when the year and a society of israel and some

of its basic neoconservatism in the country, what about everything the youth came and empowered. they attracted the most educated students and teachers. all they can think of, what about the muslim brotherhood? the muslim brotherhood took three days to join, then if they had to join the young earth elements moved into this liberty square until the leadership followed. second, muslim brotherhood is basically social service which achieved popularity in certain sections. but if you exclude them, you deny the legitimacy of the upheaval and the uprising that took place.

and in terms of responsibility, even the strongest advocates of islam in the fundamental views are impacted by the liberal democratic social litmus fear that is emerging and accompanying the of people in egypt. same thing there is a fear now but not the prime minister but the leader who was received first thing he said is we are not going to ask the women to wear the pune job or not the the the fear of islam is being replaced by the impact of liberal democracy on the muslims who felt it was the only anchor for their opposition and that is why many of them have

experienced suffering and discrimination. so,, there's lots of issues. unfortunately there is now i hope a temporary exception between the two countries which are still amenable for this space transformation and with no apologies to the new neoconservatives, iraq is not one of them, a democratic achiever. neither is lebanon in the sense of the word. there secretary and predicated on the sectarian divide. they are pluralistic in their society unlike what happened in the square in iraq and cairo where the muslim brothers

protected the prayers and the christian copps protected the muslims against the regime. it's nice not to save regime. [laughter] so, how does this impact, how do we see is the infection and expediting the process between the focus of having it transformation. all of a sudden within two, three weeks, egypt which is the center, and egypt -- i know some people say and partly reality

this is an egyptian, not arab, of course not afraid to say arab, of course the people, the observers, the experts, the think tanks, no, no, you don't understand. this is nothing to do with arab or the legacy. this has nothing to do with palestine in the sense of the word, and approval of the matter is that the army when it assumes the power of transition said we are going to maintain our international agreements and relations with israel. maybe. maybe. i'm not saying it is not possible. but let me say one thing, because i know a little bit about egypt. if from now on what may be very

clear and asserted and it is not my wishful thinking, if israel's security for the last 50, 50 years in in the occupied territories continues, egypt will have imposed a cost on that but not by breaking relationships. it might have the investors, but it is not going to be a license for israel to do what it's doing in the west bank and gaza. and kennedy is going to be penalized. what kind of penalty it will take at this moment, i cannot state. but the impunity of israel, the egyptian people who are now involved in leading this

transfer of power who are the way to be mostly recipients of the government, the army recognized the legitimacy, and it is now transferring of the legality through a transitional period. now, when hooley devotee of legitimacy blend together, then there's going to be a reassessment. there's going to be an insistence between peace and egypt and israel. we want to know what is the status and in the united states is very important what is the status of israel's presence in the u.s. and gaza, you would say occupied to read as israel acknowledge it is an occupying

power? is settlement the reflection of the ownerships, isn't it a reflection of not ownership only the of progress rather than occupations? and therefore, that kind of avoiding and allowing somebody to manage the relationship with the authority was one of the greatest moments of reason in dealing with the palestinian question. and so, when i said we are at the palestine center they are saying the main center criteria despite the fact that at this moment the priorities are there to consolidate what has been achieved. thank you very much. [applause]

>> we are going to pass around the microphone so that we can take questions. bye show of hand, how many questions to we have now? okay. i also want to mention at this time for those following the webcast you can send in your comments at this point and questions and we will be happy to direct one or two of those to our panel again on a sweater that is shoutmac perlsteincenter and on the webcast page. why don't we start right back there. >> if you could keep the questions brief and let us know who you're directing your question too. >> anyone who wants to answer i think the main question is why are foreign policies completely incapable of comprehending what's going down and i think they don't have the analytical

tools -- they don't understand what happened in iran two years ago, and what we are seeing is a situation has ruptured. understanding what happened five minutes ago it helps you understand what will happen five minutes from now. and this is really the fruition of what was fought 20 years ago called globalization and it is going to spread into wisconsin -- [laughter] and it's going to completely undermine the corporate model. >> anyone want to take a stab at and why we fail to see any of this? >> just briefly, look, if we look at, you know, there were these trends that i mentioned, you know, the demographics, the change of information, you know, the fact that there was a young

generation coming up that just were not willing to keep pleading by the rules that their parents had played by in terms of the relationship between citizens and their governments, but these things are all very sort of -- they were all seen as a bit amorphous, and let me just speak of the last couple of years when the current administration came they felt a lot of damage had been done to the bilateral relations between united states and the muslim majority countries and they set themselves to that asked of improving sort of government to government relations. they returned to i give very traditional conception of diplomacy and, you know, they were much less focused on the people of these countries, with the u.s. relationship with them is or trying to understand what is going on with them. and there were a number of people saying that this is an

anachronistic, you're conducting diplomacy in a way that, you know, the water is effective and no longer works, but i think it's taking these events to really bring that to the surface. >> where's the microphone? right there and then we will come up here and go across the room. >> [inaudible] i have two questions, one of them regarding the national council and the other is regarding israel. my question is concerning the palestinian national council and i think one key factor to the restoration of the palestinian is the involvement of hamas and the plo, and my question is do you see any potential for hamas

joining the plo under the current situation? my second question concerning israel, when the revolution was going on in egypt, one of the israeli government spokespersons said israel is not interested in a space regime in egypt. my question is what was the reaction to the government in egypt and other countries? >> first of all, when the plo was conceived, it was an organization of palestinian people, and identity for the right of refugees to return. it was called the palestinian liberation organization, which meant it was the framework of palestinian people.

of course, hamas at that time wasn't present in the early part 1987. if the plo is to be represented of the palestinian union which it seems to be representative of all the palestinian people, then now the advocacy restoring the palestinian national unity is that hamas has to be included in the framework of the palestinian organization. it cannot be an alternative to neither can it be excluded, so this is going to be what you might call a catalyst movement within the palestinian organization or both would be irrelevant to the requirement of a palestinian national unity. the second question is of

course, israel considers stability is the situation should be stagnated, not stable, and therefore, it uses the term stable because stability to the revolution because they want to stabilize even after the fulfill their objectives the want to stabilize. when a stability is fixed with stagnation then they don't want change and the of proven that. with their anxiety at this moment lies more with egypt under sadat and under mr. mubarak where they were selling the gas at one-third the price that they were charging

but the egyptian people. so, i mean, they were having lots of advantages. had it come at the time they didn't have the need for the relations to the stability it doesn't mean stability in the usual connotation especially when it pertains to the arab region and especially when it pertains to the stability in the perpetuation of the peace treaty as it has been practiced not as it has to be changed at a later stage. >> can i just quickly add up the plo and hamas. i think what scares me is that hamas by the way is always a part of the negotiation between the reconciliation, one of hamas's demand was to reconsider

the plo and of course to bring it and other excluded political forces within the plo, and hamas also still pays at least pays lip service to the palestinian refugees right for return, both of those things. and i think what one has to look for is whether because the people who on the ground can control, have more power to control than the people who are in exile and whether hamas will kind of at the expense of if you like the plo and the palestinian refugees and that would enable them to stay on even in the current situation that is not -- doesn't bring about freedom not even for the occupied territories so that is what would be worrying. >> can i just add one more point

because -- first of all, the veto is a combination of the field process because when president obama with the most decent requests asked to freeze the settlements for ten months, you don't freeze settlements, you dismantle them because you don't alter the demographic character. as much as this legal base for there is no negotiation, there's discussions come streaming of police from who might be part of the resistance, yes, you might have technocrats in the stage, yes, but you don't feel the

settlements. when you put the bar solo no negotiations took place. one of the victims of this whole process was unfortunately senator mitchell. when you don't acknowledge this is an occupied territory under the convention it becomes almost hopeless and the best is not to veto, it is when he asks an extension of freezing from israel and its rejected and then still the united states votes to keep a certain atmosphere of process continuing. that's my observation. [applause] spin again the interest of time we are going to take a few questions together. i saw hands up here. right here and then can you get

the microphone up here and then we will come over there as well. >> thank you. my question as was just mentioned that i was really confused by the explanation that ambassador rice said -- she voted against the decision, the plo, but at the same time said this should not mean that we think the settlement the legal. what does that mean? it doesn't make sense at all to commend my point is do you expect any change after this? [inaudible]

i want to keep in mind there was a column in "the washington post" who said today obama is very slow in reacting. >> we had a hand up here. >> [inaudible] about non-violence during this last month. i had been so impressed that all of these movements have taken such a nonviolent approach to the revolution. and i wonder what impact that will have on the palestinian movement and what impact it will have across the arab world to witness such a change with the protesters taking up arms. particularly as you look at some references to gone beyond the nonviolence movement and dr. king and the nonviolence movement here or what impact you think that will have and will be

sustainable in the future. thank you. >> right here so we can get another question. >> thank you. why work for a u.s. government body and i am not speaking on their behalf in this case. i doubt that the u.s. not getting involved in this process is going to be an option, and i do wonder what it is we can do in ways that don't fall into the traps that we often fallen to where we are looking for personalized leadership or we are trying to manipulate local politics and in that not doing a very good job of it which we have our old fears of muslims we still have to overcome. what are things we can do that would do the most and cause the least amount of harm and what sense is doing nothing a useful

option? >> so we've got three different questions. would anyone like to begin? >> i could start quickly with the question on the non-violence which is a very good question on how the -- hauer it will impact, and i think one of the things i find somewhat frustrating is the myth that the palestinians resort to violence because the palestinians have had several non-violent uprisings in their history including 36 to 39, 1936 to 1939, and including for about four or five years was an almost completely non-violent uprising that was -- that have a huge impact on public opinion around the world, but unfortunately the plo did not know how to translate into political power. however, i do think that now

seeing how long violence can lead to tangible results will give an additional push let's say within the palestinian context to the to ongoing nonviolent struggles. is the struggle against the wall which has been under way five or six years now and which everyday people are paying a heavy price to go protest against their land being confiscated as well as the boycott and sanctions movement which is a very, very good mom for went tool and i think that will spread in the other countries. very quickly on the question of what should the u.s. to i like the option of doing nothing really. i think that was a good and healthy approach. there is nothing to stop the u.s. instead of treating the region as its to control or seeing the resources has

basically its advantage to treat the air of a country as though they were britain or france or a sovereign nation that nobody's going to stop selling oil. they need to put a sovereign nation but interacts with nations i think the days of trying to -- well, i don't think they are over sadly, but they should be over and the sooner, the better. >> okay. let's see. just briefly on fees three questions. look, on the veto at the u.n. security council, you know, i think clearly first of all i think president obama wanted not to use the veto at the u.n. security council at all during his presidency. there's this renewed emphasis on the multilateralism and so forth. so clearly they did reluctantly in a way that i think what it was is it was many years of past practice and intense pressure

from the congress and so forth, and coming into the midst of the rest of this crisis and so forth, so they did what they did. regarding the use of nonviolence and the impact on the region of course we are going to have to see in a way how successful, what is the ultimate outcome, how do these situations look? they started out nonviolent and then in tunisia and egypt in a rather inspiring way what is the outcome going to be a few years down the road? i think at the moment it is notable that al qaeda has been pretty quiet because this is not there model change in the region, right? people could bring about, you know, nonviolent change, and so if it succeeds in bringing about space governments people are reasonably satisfied with and what ever i think it will be very important models.

regarding what the united states can do, i'm going to differ with you will let -- a little bit, nadia, because i think we are going to have -- these new government all role for the asking for assistance from the united states so what we going to do? cno? especially country like egypt, a former major ally and aid recipient and so forth and now they say we are making a transition to democracy. please help us. we are going to say no, not any more. i don't think that's really an option. i do think though that in the assistance -- echford symbol in the assistance, the package to eject i think needs to be completely rethought, the balance in that assistance, $1.3 billion military 250 million economic i think is inappropriate in this new era and needs to be completely revisited. i think in the kind of

assistance that the united states offers in these cases we should do what we can, understanding we are outsiders and understanding there will also be other europeans particularly vv, you know, will be involved in the development of systems in these countries. you know, space systems, and to, you know, stay a little distant from the outcomes. i do agree we shouldn't be trying to pick winners and that kind of thing. >> non-violence, there is no question i lived in india for six years, and nonviolence should be the means of resistance. resistance three demonstrations come through appeal to the conscious of the world come through appeals to the united nations all of these exhausted as priorities distinguishes from

terrorism. but it doesn't mean dropping the option of militancy because it allows those who are violently denying wright's that this becomes not peaceful resistance. resistance involves the options as first options, and militancy where hamas made a mistake because it transfers resistance through revenge, and that's where the palestinian authority drops resistance as an option in order to give way for the

peaceful negotiation. the second thing what can america do at this moment? it can't do much. let me say why. it is committed to a strategic superiority and also now with the f35 going to israel it's committed to the strategic as a constant of its relationship with the region. with this new revolution in the development in the arab world accept that that around 280 million people equal to around 25, 70 million approximately -- 7 million to have strategic over the arab

world. i don't think that is going to be sustainable. it can be enforced but it can't be sustainable as an enforcement measure. the second thing is president obama has many priorities, this is a temporary parity taking place. this pretty are the internal priorities of the economics, social security, and yes congress which when apec goes to the congressman the immediately sign so it's around 329 congressmen saying that he's there because he's asking for the freezing emphasizing on pressure on our only ally and the only democracy in the

region. now, how he has to calculate the analysis they can inflict on his other agenda politically because apparently israel has become willy-nilly a political factor in the united states nobody is saying abandon israel. nobody's saying don't help them, but if it is going to be on the basis of continued strategic superiority over the palestinians and over the arab world in general, it's when to be included when the legitimacy becomes legal. it's going to be included egyptian policy, and even instances with others, so if i have any kind of appeal to the

senators which i did in 1986 when they signed something about -- at that time senator biden who revisited when i was in the route he came and we had lunch and was friendly, not friends but friendly, he invited us for breakfast with some of his colleagues four or five senators and he said what you want us to do? i said nothing. they are able people, just give the impression and since then he was very upset with me. so in a sense the constituency of elected obama in the united

states to explain, to counteract the notion of the strategic superiority and from israel they have the influence to do it, that you are an occupying power because israel doesn't define it used to be on 276 the united states has occupied. they might say occupied but they never treated such. you don't deal with israel is an occupier. it's an occupying power i tell you the peace process is the process without peace like the road map is an is a road without a map. >> thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

this is 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, could i ask you to take your seats and? those of you can find any. let me start this session by saying my name is peter sutherland. i am the moderator of the session and will be introducing the report. first of all, i would like to welcome the very distinguished panel that have come here this evening and who have been responsible for the creation of the report which is the backdrop to the meetings which we have this evening and which i will be referring to leader in some little detail. i should say first of all, primm and mr. cameron, chancellor

merkel president, but me thank you for the mandate which you gave to the group that is cochaired by myself and the professor which has produced a report on the doha around and looking at the broad issue of trade liberalization. the report itself is an analysis of where we are in the doha round. it was started ten years ago, and it has now the record as being the longest negotiated trade round in history. but a great deal has been achieved, and we are in the sense on the verge of success and failure. one of the points that is made in the report which is available and will be available to you on leasing this session is that if

the round is not concluded by the end of this year, that it will fall into the situation which makes it difficult to see it being concluded for some substantial period thereafter because we will begin the electoral cycle when the united states in particular. and we've suggested in this report that there should be a deadline placed on the conclusion of the round, and that the conclusion of the round, therefore, should be taking place in the months immediately preceding december of this year. ..

10 years of effort and a herculean effort -- i should say by the director general who is with us here on the panel this evening, have brought very significant results but there is that little piece more that is required to bring about a concluded agreement. it is important in the resistance of protectionism. it is important in the development of multilateralism in an interdependent world that the great advance that took place in multilateral governance by the creation of the wto, which is probably the greatest advance since the inspired period of institution building

that followed the second world war. it is important that should not be lost or damaged and that its credibility should not be undermined by a failure to recognize with its achievements have been and will be through concluding this round. i need hardly point to the fact that the global community now basically all except a rule-based economic system and the trade system itself is governed by rules which are promulgated by the wto. there are countervailing tendencies towards regionalism outside the multilateral system, towards bilateral -- i let her lissome and agreements between member states which exclude others from the same benefit which is advantage of the most favorite nation principle which is at the heart of the wto.

the achievement of the creation of an organization which has an adjudicating capacity and you make decisions in terms of the rights and wrongs of trade disputes without eating blocked by one of the parties to it is a significant step in creating an attitude towards national sovereignty and interdependence, which has been crucial to the positive benefits of globalization. and those benefits we believe are now at risk. in the agreement in the south, there is a very significant market access provided for industrial products and goods, which can bring very significant benefits. there may be a debate as to price this -- for cicely how much those benefits are worth but minimum figures often are

expressed in the order of 360 2500000000000 a year in additional trade. but apart from that, we have a substantial change in ogre cultural policy. we have the opening to least developed countries, the 49 countries that are the poorest on the globe, to provide them with access to markets which is, remarkable and disturbing but important to them. but above all, it provides a framework for the harmonious commercial relations between states, which in history, has he doubled the relationship between states and cannot be allowed to do so again. it has to be said that over the years, edgy 20 meetings, at g8 g8 meetings we have been used to statements of general intent.

the only chance that we have to conclude the round now is for the heads of government to become directly engaged in the process of concluding the negotiations. trade negotiators negotiate in their own arcane language as interminable length as authority proves. we need the impetus and dynamism of leadership which has been provided by those who sponsored a report which is being opened to you this evening. and that engagement we believe is absolutely necessary for the satisfactory conclusion of the round. we basically believe as the report indicates, that all the major parties have a little bit more to offer and that little bit more will be enough to drive this to a satisfactory conclusion, but the negotiators need a political cover provided

by heads of government. and it is vital therefore to demonstrate that multilateral -- faulty lateralism and multilateral institutions have the future from the creation of the bretton woods institution. i am now going to ask each of the panel to comment and finally will open this to anyone who may wish to participate in questioning people sometimes feel like this is monty python's dead parrot. i profoundly believe this is an true and i to make brief points because i want to give the maximum allowed time to the convince the cynic's out there that this can be done because it

can be and i believe gleefully provide the political will to make it happen. four quick points. first of all this is an excellent report. is very powerful about what needs to be done and what and methods would flow from doing the deal. this is perhaps unfair but it has been taken an irishman and an indian to write a report that has the powerful logic of the german but the passion for free trade of an englishman. it is a very good report and i commend him for it. [applause] anyone who occasionally feels doubled by go on dialogue out that it means, this does explain the modalities and the differences in the things that need to happen. the second obvious point, free trade is one of the biggest wealth creators that we have ever known. we can see its power in the developing countries inside east asia plowing ahead with growth and was trade. is the countries that are trading the most that are doing their best. this is at a time when we need to stimulate our economy's in your. this is a stimulus that doesn't

cost money so it is a stimulus that we need. the fairpoint and apologies to those who already had me speak this morning. we have to get across, and this is something for the political leaders, this is not a zero-sum game. we have got to stop talking as if one export is a success and one import is a failure. trade is good for all. opening our economies is good for all and we can create the overall increased overall wealth of all the world. i think it is very important we see it like that and negotiate like that. fourth and final point, i really to believe this can be done. as peter said, if everyone puts a little bit more on the table to make the deal a bit vigor, to make it worth a bit more, then i think this can happen. this has to be year in which it happens. we cannot go on after a decade with another year so there is no later as far as i'm concerned. no one should hold anything back for what might happen in a future negotiation. now is the time for all political leaders to instruct their negotiators to put everything on the table and poor

crucially to allow negotiators to negotiate with each other. as peter said, the benefits for the poorest are absolutely because of the duty-free access for the poorest countries. the benefits for a rapidly developing country as we can see in the trade before us already and they would get more of it in the benefits for the developed world of access in terms of things like services and access to markets is also i think clear. what must point that peter made. failure would not just the failure in terms of economic failure, trade failure. it would also be failure in terms of a multilateral system that worked well and the alternatives don't really bear thinking about so i think one last great big effort and actually confront people including political leaders with the consequences of failure if they don't sign it and it can be done. speak chancellor merkel.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: let me try to bring a senatorship together. i have seen many g8 meetings and recently cheap 20 meetings. they always have in the same way. lycée firmly and solemnly, we wish to bring the doha ran to an end and actually that is something we should have done and all to have done and had the financial crisis ever happen. now this crisis has happened and i think we have done a lot of good things, but a great things that we know from the experience of the 30s that a lot of the the -- that were done then failed because we reverted back to the same old protectionism

and isolationism and not finding the right answers. so, the right answers must be also reduce barriers, try to learn and companies global thinking, get rid of your fears of new competitors coming to the floor because the cheapest form quite frankly that we all have even though we all have heavy burdens of debt are the cheapest way to lose competitiveness and to give a boost to our economic economic -- is free trade. we can make it and today i sit here on this panel that we have. we have our french do 20 and g8 which is a very good thing. this goes together this year and it is not about that friendship in the driver seat this year. i think we have a better opportunity perhaps i never to make this happen and the president has -- his political

weight behind us. went to see the report, you will see that these deals with highly complicated issues and the two authors together with their group have actually made it look easy, seo it is something that is also understandable if you like politicians are go for us here who are in political responsibility. i do think that it is indeed now a matter for showing the necessary political will to make this happen also at our level and it is certainly something that is up to us now to solve this and show that we have the same responsibility. we need to be very careful that we don't -- and there's a gap between the rich and the poor in this world and there is a right timeline i think. it would be a very good thing and it would be before christmas that we set our calendar and i

think we have to make the best possible use of our time. i have every confidence in him. >> now president maher colin you? >> yes. from the especially developing countries, not only the engine of growth but it also a means for development. and for us, we also consider that they are free and open trade is more important than a. that is why the firmly support the conclusion of this doha development round. we do not start from the beginning. we build on progress that we have achieved already. what we need is balance and comprehensive agreement, and i fully agree with what has been

said by a minister cameron and merkel on the importance of political will. not only political will but also responsibility. all countries have a responsibility as well as individual responsibility. the benefit is real for poor in developing countries and the situations that will further increase global output and also will create -- so in essence, i fully support the conclusion of this doha development round this year because we always say every year that we have a narrow window of opportunity. so we should not re-bid this thing again and again. thank you. >> thank you president.

>> well, what we have just heard and what we have just read in the reports is fairly clear. the deed should be done now and second, the deal can be done. the only question that remains open is how. on this isle, which is sort of my midwife role, but may give sort of four midwife advised. number one, please build on what is already on the table. 80% of this round is already on

the table. of course we have got everything is a greater nothing is agreed. we all know that. that is a principle of trade diplomacy which we cannot reach. of course 80% as an average. we have got more than 80% of agriculture and less than 80% of the services and more than 80% on transportation and customs procedures in less than 80% of the deeds on fisheries but 80% is a very solid good base to finish. number two, use this window of opportunity, which the g20 table has recognized after a good

discussion and without opening all the secrets of the g20, i think i can publicly say that the three heads, members of the g20 two happen to be with us tonight, have been the ones that have been leading the pack within the g20 to get these deals done and we are in public and i want to thank them for that. so there is a window of opportunity. it has to be used. we need to accelerate. as a result, a good -- has taken place in geneva. those of you who -- mission room there is much more steam in the

machinery now than there was last year or even at the beginning. there is good momentum but we need acceleration if we want to plan within the timing which has been identified in the table. three, be prepared for the give and take, which are necessary to cover the remaining 20%. and that means you will need to spend particular capital, political energy at home in order to offset the resistance in what remains to be done in terms of give and take with created hope.

your constituents love to take. they don't like to give. precisely some of your constituents are in this position and we need you within your sort of let lyrical legitimacy to make the necessary decisions. if we are serious about the timing, this time of a, very soon. so please be aware of this and factor this into your own political scheduling and sequence. and lastly, lastly, please remember that a large part of the deed is about the system. of course i know full well that if i have to go to my parliament and i say please ratify this

because the multi--- multilateral system is a good system, they don't care a lot about the system. but you know, you have experienced this during this crisis. during this crisis, you have had a system that has protected you all from protectionist developments. so the system has a huge value. what will remain 10 or 20 years from now is not the one or 2% of the plastic eggs which were negotiators are fighting like hell about. but would remain is the system which is the contribution to international governance.

if there is anything you can all do for development, which remains a sort of the number one economic issue on the international agenda, assuming we accept this crisis, the best thing you can do for development is open trade and make it more more. developing countries are exiting this crisis quicker than other. they are more trade dependent than others and the reason why they now are half of the engine of the economy is because the system has remained open, so this is a major contribution. not only to you all come not only to your domestic constituencies, not only to the system but to development which again i believe remains priority number one of the international economic agenda.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you, peter. i don't know how many of you know that pascal rents a marathon every year. even his last lap, he will be out there with lemonade and everything, do that last mile. he has to become permitted on that. in doing the last mile, we need the leadership of the prime minister, the chancellor, the president and in fact when this was being put together it was amazing i think that the russians and the german government in particular would tell you there were large numbers of people who -- prime ministers who wanted to join the initiative as sponsor so i think in fact the support of the level of political leadership or statesman is very large. it has to be made more effective and i would st say that i think without singling out my own president obama who i was it that disappointed and someone

who could be brought on board because they think he could have stayed 10 years in chicago without being corrupted by free trade principles. in my opinion, he is hesitating and i was a bit disappointed in the budget in the state of the union speech that the word doha was not mentioned at all by him, even though he spoke nicely about -- and the least disturbing explanation of course which i hope the prime minister will enjoy a sense you are a man of great wit, is that he wants to bring about stability and discourse any certainty doesn't want to pronounce the four-letter word. so i think that was probably the explanation, but i think it is something where, think the statesman like you can actually bring him on board because there are pressures on the other side in the united states as we all know, but it is within reach and i think india would come on

board. a lot of other countries have expressed privately a lot of interest without which we couldn't do that last mile, and i think this is something, think we need statesmen who will go out and deal with it and i think we need not hesitate about it. an abundance of evidence shows that both developing countries and develop countries prosper and it's not a matter of economic prosperity. is the poor people who actually benefit from it. almost 500 million people since china and india shifted have been rescued from poverty. before that there was a stagnation so if you, actually if you look at the virtue, it is on our side, not on the site of the free-trade and i think you need to do that. i will just remind you of one particular thing which some of you might not remember, that the u.s. secretary got his nobel

peace prize. in 1945 because he was a free trader among other things. today it is almost unthinkable that but the first thing you should start is conveying to your counterparts in norway that this is the time for -- and actually asking for something that is important. >> thank you very much. i would now like to open up to anybody in the audience who would like to ask a question or make a comment. we have persuaded everybody without any doubt or difficulty whatsoever. is there somebody at the back over here? >> good evening. what if we meet here in 2012 and there is --

[inaudible] >> sorry but you repeat the question? the what if we meet you again in 2012 and there are no results? water the next apps? >> well, think it would be unfair to top at the prime minister chancellor or president but that particular question, and therefore i'm just going to repeat what we said conclusively in the report as we believe there has to be a deadline and having been director general myself at the time of the uruguay round coming to an end where the deadline played a very important role and i think it is both necessary and desirable. otherwise talk and talk as they used to say is the inevitable consequence and is particularly important for reasons we said. the presidential election is coming and everybody agrees that the apple been at best paralysis of the whole process for a period of time. so we strongly advocate a deadline.

how you describe that deadline may be in different terms, but i think those who have commented from a position of head of government here this evening are generally approving the report and i'm quite happy with that. >> i would just add a think what happened is seoul was that we agreed that we should take what we have, we should make it a little bit bigger and did that we should confront ourselves with the prospect of success or the prospect of failure. and that is what has to happen this year, and they think if we come back and we are still talking about it, think that will be hopeless. so that was the aim of seoul was to bring this to ahead a head and that is why angela and i and others commissioned this report was to set out of roadmap for what you have to do this year to make it happen. >> we are prudent people and careful as well, so when you see

a setting appear on a panel and declare to the world what we are about to achieve, there has to be a certain probability out there somewhere to actually make it. secondly, we are politicians who know that if you put a little bit of pressure on yourself, then you stand a better chance of actually achieving this goal and when you have a final deadline it gets even more probable that you reach it and i think in the ten-year history there is never been actually any sort of firm commitment or obligation and this has come out in seoul of the heads of state and government, that they actually make a commitment. so that places all of us under an obligation and sometimes it actually works. so i shouldn't be so pessimistic if i were you. >> yes, 4 liters, the meaning of deadline and failure is not an

option disc giving clear instructions for the negotiators and administers and also in the negotiation process. of course we should clearly -- we have to say what kind of thing to be given in order to have a compromise, to have a consensus? so i'm also a has to get up we really, we are really committed to the conclusion of this round, i think this can happen. >> i think there was another question here. yes. wait for the mic. thank you. >> thank you. there are a number of small economies that are committed to the multilateral trading system

and are convinced of its value. but are also very concerned that the development aspect of the round has been watered down, and as such, how central is it to those who are committing themselves to concluding around? >> well, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. there is no way, given that two-thirds of wto members are european countries. there is no way a till around will not be -- and what i see for the moment if they a look i look at the various constituencies, who is pushing the most for a deal today are

countries like yours. it is the africa group. it is the acp group. countries in the asian region. so, if that is their position, i am not speaking for them. i have to remain neutral but there must be something there and i believe there is, by the way. and i feel the numbers which we have used are a clear demonstration of this. now, true, and a global open trade system, there is not one-size-fits-all. there is no way that a country like yours, like jamaica, will be treated the same way as china or brazil or the u.s. and of

course once you recognize this, how different is the treatment is a matter for endless discussions by diplomats. but this will be the reality. >> do we have any further questions? yes, please. >> just getting behind that final negotiations and perhaps a question for mr. lamé. is there a push to produce a bigger services package with something bigger on services than we might have seen before? >> yes, certainly. the service negotiation is one of these areas which in my view are sort of bobo the 80% average

i mentioned which is again an average on the 20 topics which have been bottled in the back of the negotiation. but, but, contrary to the time of the euro year around, the service negotiation is not anymore and negotiation where rich countries are requesting developing countries to open more of their markets or by existing markets. service negotiation now is a negotiation where some develop a can countries are asking countries to open more of their markets because in the meantime they have gained a competitive advantage. so, like much of what remains to be done, and i think i should be very clear on this, most of what remains to be done is not a north versus south issue.

northern countries have -- rich countries have different -- on what needs to be done. developing countries have different positions on what remains to be done. it is something which is more complex than that but for sure, services remain notably in a big emerging market and four u.s., japan, canada australia and a few others, an area where the necessary give-and-take remain to happen. >> allow me if i made to make one remark. and the into now tenure history about the doha negotiations, at some point in time, which is quite huge thing because the united states united states in

europe had actually calm to fairly large agreement and so they thought they would be the ones who would actually achieve the -- it was a miserable failure. and it shows also the change in the balance of forces in the world. perhaps take a moment and reflect where possible come from a desire or possible areas of compromise her and i sit here and in deeply convinced that we need to achieve success but i also represented industrialized country that has quite a lot of vested interest, so when you ask me to show the necessary sense of compromise, that is met with certain responsibility. i have to meet with a certain response here so i would like to to -- the representatives of the emerging economy here, that they should always have an eye on the timeline. the development in the emerging economies is happening so fast

that if we happen -- talk about transition periods, we cannot simply be satisfied with looking at a status quo and completely neglect those development we have and in certain industrialized economies. we have to look at the speed of developments that we have seen in this emerging economies and this dynamism also has to be factored in. i know we have to be fair and i know we had to be equitable in another a lot of countries that still have a lot of ground to cover and a long way to go yet but each and everyone needs to show a sense of compromise. for us in europe, and let me be very self-critical here, just going to be very important for us to fort sensible intelligent positions and uniform positions. when you have 27 countries with different strengths and went back chu weaknesses it is not that easy. it is not trivial looking at --

the sort of issues we need to settle between ourselves. so a lot is asked from europe and we in the european union will also do our it must in order to not create too many difficulties for the country to come up with sensible solutions. >> we have come almost to the end of our time. would like to take all the panels for their contributions and also for the questions that have been asked. let me make a final personal comment on this. seems to to me that apart from the leadership which is clearly evidenced by the panel here today, that it is particularly important that we show leadershileadershi p at the end of this round so many rounds before from the united states, from china, from purcell and india. the european youth union is the largest trading bloc in the world. it has its place to play as well. and at the moment for the poor countries of the world, it is

really phenomenal. it has been mentioned earlier that the 49 least developed countries in the world have duty-free, quota free access to all markets in the world. in industrial goods virtually all tariffs in the oecd countries are already great to be abolished. this is a substantial move forward from the point that point of view of development. it happens also to accord to the interests and responsibilities of the developed countries and developing their economies. we have a single global economy, functioning as such because we have a rule-based system that is terribly valuable and we have seen i think the contributions this evening as valuable and why it deserves support. thank you very much and d.. [applause]

with congress in recess and in a march 4 deadline for funding the federal government to see what house member said about h.r. 1 funding the rest of this fiscal year.

now discussion on broadband policy and competitiveness. the city club of cleveland heard from blair levin, the chief architect of the national broadband plan when he worked at the federal communications commission. the plans goal is to extend affordable broadband access. this is an hour. >> good afternoon. and welcome to the special city club forum today where we are honored to have the principle architect of the national broadband plan, brought to you in partnership between one community and case university. i am dorothy vonnegut and i'm honored fail is to make the introduction of our guest speaker for today. i have been involved in technology in this community for many years as the founding

president of nortech and just recently i have been asked by cheryl to join the team as the interim economic allotment directors i am very excited to be here at the city club with all of you but mark cited to introduce your guest speaker. here in northeast ohio we are fortunate to have several organizations that have recognized the importance of broadband early on. thanks to the work of one community and its cofounders including case reserve university nortech and idea stream our regions have been positioning themselves to compete in the 21st century knowledge economy. many other local leaders have emerged as well, some of whom you will hear from today. as part of the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009, the federal communications commission was charged with crafting a national brought and plan to spread affordable broadband access throughout the united states. with the goal of creating jobs,

improving health care and encouraging energy independence, the man chosen to lead this ambition, ambitious endeavor was blair levin. mr. levin and his team presented the plan to congress in march 2010. among its recommendations were connecting 100 million u.s. households to affordable, 100 megabits per second broadband service by 2020. identifying and making 500 megahertz up wireless spectrum to be authorized or shared and used for mobile broadband by 2020. building a network nationwide interoperable mobile broadband network for public safety record and agencies, and restructuring the ftc's universal service fund including the redirection of $15.5 billion from traditional telephone subsidies to broadband deployment.

executive director of the national broadband plan was mr. levin's second row with the fcc. previously he served as chief of staff to chairman reed hundt from december 1993 through october 1997. mr. levin oversaw among other matters the implementation of the historic 1996 telecommunications reform act, the first spectrum auction on the development of the digital network television standard and the commission's internet initiative. mr. levin also spent eight years as principle telecom, media and tech regulatory and strategy analyst at legg mason and stifle nicholas. mr. levin now serves as communications and society fellow with the aspen institute communications and society program. please join me in welcoming mr. levin. [applause]

>> thank you very much. is a great pleasure to view today and i want to thank my cousin adam who is a native. here he is over there. a native of cleveland. is a great pleasure to see him and his family, but i'm actually not here just to see family. i'm here to talk about a sputnik moment. nation is having a sputnik moment. in late november energy secretary chu suggested the gains in the clean area energy should be seen as a sputnik moment. shortly thereafter a reagan official pat had an op-ed in "the wall street journal" saying a recent international test scores showed an education we are in the midst of a sputnik moment. at the same time senator kerry was on "meet the press" saying we are having a sputnik moment and the president went to north carolina and devoted an entire speech describing this generation's sputnik moment. many other started using the phrase.

david rocks from "the new york times" summed it up by saying it represented pervasive sense that the nation is at a sputnik moment where it either rises to base international competition or it does not. so if you look at google trends transit will see that the sputnik moment had no traction from 2003 to november 2010 and then show we say shot up like a sputnik rocket. this by mama includes many things including the belief shared by 65% of the public according to an august survey that america is a country in decline. but as many now analyze the meaning of this moment to ignore a general question which are what are the requisite assets we need to successfully respond to this moment and that is what i want to talk about today. now 1957, when sputnik went up, we have the necessary assets to respond. great research institutions, great engineers, political will and cohesion and financial

capital to effectively react to the threat we perceive sputnik represented. but today's world is very different. important element of today's challenge was acutely described by the great business visionary peter drucker in 1999 but he wrote the most important contribution adage that needs to make in the 21st century is to increase the productivity of knowledge work and knowledge workers. the most valuable asset of the 21st century sedition whether business or nonbusiness would be the knowledge workers and their productivity. it is on the productivity of knowledge work above all that the future prosperity and indeed the future survival of developed economies will increasingly depend. and his dorothy mentioned, knowledge work is that long of our economy now and drucker understood this. mevacor task in such an economy is the task of knowledge

exchange. knowledge exchange is fundamental to what most of us do. we gather information. we analyze it and we act on it and then through a feedback loop continually revise courses of action based on new information. the way we do this has been completely transformed in the last two decades. by three revolutions, the data revolution allowing us to collect and provide trillions of data points previously unavailable, the computing revolution, analyzing the data, making test that once would have seemed like finding not just a needle in a haystack at a needle in a galaxy of haystacks as common as finding the moon in the night sky and the communications revolution which allows us to transfer the data and and and analysis anywhere, anytime to anyone at at this bit of a cause that really were totally unimaginable when say the grounds for the rock 'n roll museum a few blocks away were broken 18 years ago. so, this knowledge exchange revolution is not a high-tech phenomenon. it affects every sector of economy.

is how walmart became the largest retailer, how the largest manufacturing process in the country, boeing's development of dreamliner is being done both here in the united states and across many countries before the final assembly and everett washington. it is vital to every construction project from high raises two houses and essential to farmers on tractors. now, what is interesting is that all of this knowledge exchange now shares a common platform. it is the broadband ecosystem, the combination of networks, devices and applications and above all, people who know how to use that combination. so for management to rise to drucker's challenge to increase productivity throughout the economy, we needed rock band ecosystem to enable high-performance knowledge exchange. having this ecosystem is not assuring success in not having a guarantees failure. so my principle.today is that the table stakes for responding to the sputnik moment include

issuing a broadband ecosystem that facilitates high-performance knowledge exchange. congress and the recovery act as the fcc to develop a plan for country to have such an ecosystem and during that effort certain things became very clear. number one is not just about network. it is about the interaction of networks, devices and applications and above all people. number two it has to be ubiquitous all can benefit and all are included in the work of our economy and our society. number three just to be diverse. you have to have different things driving innovation from all its different parts. and number four, it has to be constantly improving. improvements in each element in the constant virtual feedback loop better applications driving upgraded networks driving more powerful devices capable of better application. government is not the primary provider of any part of this

ecosystem but nonetheless it has an obligation to assure it rules drive dr. and did not suppress improvements in this ecosystem and further an obligation to how it delivers essential public services in light of new opportunities created by this ecosystem. so i'm just guessing but i'm pretty sure no one will find anything i just said either controversial or more surprising but what i have to tell you today is that what i've just said is deeply deeply at odds with prevailing government policies. rather than what i just said, the most dominant idea and broadband policy is that the primary metrics by which our policies should serve is to maximize the speed of the wireline networks to the most rural of residence. this is a profoundly bad idea that is hurting america. it is the principle way we

actually act. it is wrong in almost every respect. first of all there is no primary metric. how would it profit us to have high speeds of our devices are slow or applications useless in their users illiterate? consider how the iphone change the mobile ecosystem and lead to an explosion of use and innovation than in the not coincidently accelerated network upgrade. contrast this with set-top boxes that connect our televisions and the fact that only two companies produce more than 95% of the set-top ox is may have something to do with with the difference in innovations throughout the mobile world we have seen the last few years compared to the multi-video world. hopefully that is actually changing but the key point is that the telling measure is improvement throughout the system which leads to a second problem. a knee-jerk focus on speed. speed as an input and what matters is the output. the data that we looked at in the plan shows that while we do need to increase speed in

certain strategic areas the biggest untapped promise has much more to do with applications particularly new ways of delivering education health care public safety job training and other critical public services. a third is focusing primarily on wireline services. wireline is important but mobile wireless services are every bit as important and in terms of economic growth in the next decade, maybe more important because wireless today is a horizon industry again vanishing again and she that points out how retail manufacturing agriculture transportation and health care every segment of our economy can improve what they do. emerging developments in nanotechnology awareness applications in machine to machine communications will make wireless even more important. but because policymakers don't think of wireless as an essential underpinning of our economic future we are slow to grasp the potential danger of lack of spectrum. in just a few years and sufficient spectrum could lead to higher prices and worse service and will cost our

economy billions and billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs. there is inertia need to act and a simple solution which has bipartisan support allows the spectrum license holders to participate in an auction spectrum. if there is no action in part because some want to tie solving this problem to shifting supporl america. and as to rural, it is important to connect all of it at rural should not be as effectively as the major focus of our effort. the same with residential. a great example of the wrong way to think about the problem was a recent op-ed in the "des moines register" by the head of the iowa telecom association who attacked the reforms proposed in in the national broadband plan. is extremely well-written and i highly recommend reading it. it also happens to be wrong in almost every way. [laughter] it attacks the plan is anti-rural when in fact the plan

is is the first ever to actually connect all of rural america. part of the problem today is a rural divide caused by our current system. we subsidize some small rural carriers to essentially provide a mercedes quality connection of providing other rural carriers nothing. effectively telling their subscribers to walk. be offered solution surprisingly is more government solutions for his clients and nothing to solve the problems of unserved rural aries but the worst part of the editorial was it actually sounds great. after noting the planned of at least 100 million american homes having access to networks capable of delivering 100 megabits at 100 million bits per second he wrote poe it is hardly the fcc does not believe all iowans should have access to the same type of broadband speeds. this sounds like a lovely democratic small d idea but it ignores the fact that it is the market and not government who sets the speed more -- most americans need and provides the

same speed to rural residents would require taxing current subscribers $30 much which will cost tens of millions in which is hardly the result we want but the most important thing is that it ignores a robust constantly improving broadband service is essential to all the economic engines and need to have some sectors have far higher speeds than it today prefer example of a research institution certainly are critical asset to responding to the sputnik almond or to remain the best in the world, they need world leading connectivity the same with her medical centers and other institutions public and private that are key to our international competitiveness. so we need a broadband plan that serves the strategy of economic growth, not a burst of that serves embedded interest. the danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence. it is the act of yesterday's larger. or policies today are based on

yesterday's logic in yesterday's realities. we identified a number of radical needs in ecosystems such as we need more digital literacy training. need gigabit connectivity to every community. but we don't spend any money on those things because instead, we are spending billions of dollars on doing such things as subsidizing some carriers $20,000 a line per home. or subsidizing a dozen competitors in some areas. another example of yesterday's logic is how we further subsidize rural phone companies are an outmoded set of intercarrier compensation rules that are so arcane and complicated they would probably take me 25 minutes to describe it and i guarantee you you you would all be asleep by the second minute. but there were two things to understand about this. first it is a system that perpetuates inefficiencies drives business models based on records or arbitrage and it stifles innovation. and second and perhaps most interesting, for over a decade

there has been an intellectual consensus on how to fix it and yet the system remains intact. we are also present yesterday's logic in how we use the network. emergency alert system on a platform most americans spend most of their time disconnected from. by the way is anybody there watching not in this room, connected to the radio or the television broadcast television right now? no one is. how many of you have a cell phone in your pocket? but their record reflect basically everybody so if there was emergency now how would you like to be informed, by television or radio which you are now watching or by cell phone? answer -- the question answers itself but the more interesting thing is not only are you connected 24/7, doing it for this mobile communication means you can adjust for the language you want dan, what area you were actually in. you can get much more information in terms of interactivity in terms of where you need to go and what you need to do.

so we have an emergency alert system that is about yesterday's logic regards occasional materials we deliver through a technology that was delivered five centuries ago, textbooks instead of e-books which are easier to update assess and would provide students far more diverse and dynamic modes of learning in ways that were best for the individual student. all at a cheaper price. while we apparently will endlessly debate health care reform, we almost never focus on the fact that in nearly every metric used to measure the adoption of health care technology the united states ranks united states ranks in the bottom half of comparable countries even though such measures could save us half a trillion dollars in 15 years. our job training program, government job training program imports huge dollars and a physical centers or private efforts show job training as well as job searching is chiefly done over broadband network. i could go on but the point is our public arena is still using the logic of the past on the air of low performance knowledge

exchange. or were surely the news is not about that. there for us to respond properly in one of the best is the one community effort here in cleveland. that effort, the coordinating deployment of fiber network institutions to improve the performance of some 1500 schools hospitals clinic, government public public safety entities serving over 1 million citizens. it is an effort an effort that is not just about applying faster networks but also helping develop educational and health related applications, training people to use these tools. for example there is the one classroom initiative offered in over 70,000 students additional skills they need to compete. now fortunately we are aware of this is where you were doing the plan and wind of this effort several times in the plan and it was an instrumental part of the background of two important recommendations, the congress preempt st