>> i would say this about that. there's some argument about the separation of powers and state in which the case has typically allow vendors to make that claim. because we're talking about prudential rules and a third party standings, i'm talking about that. one consideration is in those cases, the federal government is always very much present. it may be representing the defendant in those cases. it may simply intervene or come in, it's notice is being unconstitutional. the differencdifference in the tenth amendment setting is there's no mechanism practically to notify the states or slip of the states their efforts. if someone says the government is intruding, there's a mechanism to allow the state. if states are aware of it,

perhaps they will be allowed to but there's no mechanism. >> isn't this an issue for civil lawsuits as opposed to a criminal one? what happens in a criminal suit is defendant's conviction would be undone, but that doesn't mean that the state is bound in some way. the state was a party to the criminal action. >> the state isn't a party but what is said in this case is about the scope of the state prerogatives, vis-à-vis the federal government, could well be brought to bear in other cases come in of the settings. again, the concern for third party standing case is that you're not actually a party with someone else is making arguments innocents on your behalf. they lose because perhaps they don't all of the arguments they should be making or they don't articulate them the way the state does. >> there are two things that could happen. one is that if the state loses,

and it doesn't want to lose, it passes its own law, or if it wins, it just lets the status quo. i still don't understand what the long-term injury to the state is or could be. >> again, maybe i'm misapprehended by the long-term interest is a decision in the criminal case that says no, this does entered on the state sovereignty, is there, a matter of stare decisis. in later cases, if the state wants to include this, it's not they can't necessary to raise the point but they will confront contrary precedents the state never had a chance to voice its opinion at the time the issue is being made. >> but the underlying premise is that the individual has no interest in whether or not the state has surrendered its powers to the federal government. i just don't think the

constitution was framed on that theory. >> i don't know i would say they have no interest but i am i guess the premise i'm asserting is they do not necessarily get to a certain tenth amendment claim of the states. new york versus united states was a case where the state and nationally said we are not concerned about this regulation and then changed its mind. the court in new york says states don't weigh those tenth amendment writes. there's no indication -- >> it does assume as justice kinney said that the reason that is there in the constitution is only for the benefits for the states. and not for the benefit of the people and the states. so it's a state chooses to give it away, the individual has no standing. you say it's third parties that are raising a states rights. i think what the other side is argued this is not a right of the states. it the right of the individual

to have the state take charge of certain matters and the federal government take charge of other matters. i don't see why there's any difference from an article 1, section 8 claim. >> that's the conclusion the court can reach. but what the petitioners position essentially holds is there's never a question a third party standing for any claim under the constitution. not the kind i'm talking about, no claims are limited to certain -- >> there's a question of causality so some will not be valid because you can't show that the state was coerced into doing something, and, therefore, you can't show the violation of the constitution cause your injury. >> but you're talking a really the causality, that's an article iii. what i'm trying to talk about is separate, the next step. and i think petitioners use third party standing is just out the window whether it's separation of powers tenth amendment, anything. >> thank you. you have four minutes.

>> thank you. just a few points in rebuttal. first of all, one reason not to carve out special rule for commandeering claims is that not all commentary claims are created equal. mr. dreeben praise thee, to claim that it's been litigated in the context, the sex offender registration act that i don't know if the details are that the commandeering claim are not. but i concern imagine a commandeering case, the federal statutes. the problem is right now the lower courts are not following the standing issue from the challenges based on a careful analysis of article iii standing redress ability or prudential stand for that matter. they are resolving those with these simple and let's move on. a second reason that you should not try to carve a commandeering cases as being somehow the

residuum of the tennessee electric victim is because tennessee electric says nothing about commandeering cases. it just talks brought about tenth amendment cases. we can disagree or agree. it's kind of hard to figure out what exactly the nature of the claim was with tennessee electric. i don't think it was much different in the claim we are raising here. which is in tennessee electric they said the federal government gives deregulate power, what is late -- what is left is for the state. the federal governmengovernment go in and prosecute you for putting vinegar in your neighbors goldfish bowl. what is left is for the local law enforcement. whatever else is titled in tennessee electric limited it's up to commandeering claims in any way that would allow you to say that mr. dreeben refers to the force of tennessee electric, i don't think tennessee electric has any enduring force. a simple holding a decision was overruled their the for the go in the decision of the less satisfied editor if you all the way to ring the torso parque

site with footnote 27 as justice breyer has done, and to look at the role of this date, it turns out in the district court opinion that's in the midsection of the opinion. courts already held contrary to hold tennessee electric veggie chili companies there have standing. so what you see is it still happens if you apply the test you hopelessly conflict the merits and the standing question. that's a bad approach. it should perfect the can't decision by saying this since no longer survives. two other minor point. one is on the congress cause i think justice of your shows why the justice is right to never make that argument by do think it's important if the courses and think about the clause issue it doesn't somehow reinjected in the case in a way that would not allow us to argued that it's been clearly weight in the third third circuit. it doesn't get to confess actually the better argument to defend the statute that was never raise before.

it should be a two-way street. they should not be allowed to speak the congress cause back into the case that late stage. there is a separation of power. the best example of that is this courts free enterprise fund? no, when it wants to the site cases that the executive branch did not waive or acquiesce the separation of powers violation is a separation of powers. what is inside? new york v. united states. please reverse this. >> thank you, mr. clement. mr. mcallister, this court appointed you to argue the case in front of the judge below. the case is submitted. >> in geneva, switzerland, secretary of state clinton said the international community should be speaking with one voice in opposition to living dictator moammar gadhafi.

next a discussion on the future of sudan following the independence referendum. official results of southern sudan's january referendum vote show that 99% were in favor of independence.

the world's newest country has officially decided on the name republic of south sudan. a formal declaration of independence will be made on july 9, 2011. the heritage foundation hosts this one hour and 20 minute event. >> i'm director of lectures and seminars and it's my privilege to welcome everyone to our new auditory. we welcome those who joins our heritage.org website on each occasion and would ask everyone in house to check that last time that cell phones have been turned off as a courtesy both to our presenters and those recording our events. we will post the program within 24 hours on our website for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion this afternoon is dr. roy walser. pso senior policy analyst for latin america. prior to joining heritage he was a career foreign service officer with u.s. department of state. is also been a teacher of history, international relations

and aerial studies at bluefield college, the nazis military academy and the foreign service institute. he holds a doctorate from university of north carolina at chapel hill. i'm pleased him in welcoming my colleague, roy walser. ray? >> thank you very much, john. he quickly dashed out the door but, i also head up are sort of modest segment that deals with african affairs. i also did service at the department of state in african bureau and served in that most difficult of assignments in africa, cape town, south africa, for a couple of years so it makes me obviously quite well-versed in issues, all african issues. but it's a great pleasure to bring some important experts to you today for this event.

i welcome our distinguished panel who i will introduce to you in a second. i welcome our audience. thank you all very much for coming today. and i also welcome our viewers on c-span. if you offer paying attention to what is a very timely and very important issue. we meet today at a time when this there was a great interest, obviously in events that are sweeping across northern africa. the winds of change are certainly blowing very strong at this moment. we have seen them as they have swept over tunisia, over egypt, and now obviously immediately in our minds, a struggle that is going on in libya. but let us not lose sight of the winds of change that are sweeping a little further to the south. in fact, in one of the nations that borders upon libya. those winds of change are blowing also fiercely in the great state of sudan.

on february 7, 2011, following a process that ran for multiple days in the previous month of january, the results of the referendum were released. in that referendum, roughly 90.83% of the voters who participated in the voting in southern sudan favorite independent. as a remarkable unanimity of voting here and it's in southern sudan on a course to become the republic of south sudan, the world 193rd state, and the 54th state that is a member of the african union. the established date for independence is just around the corner. that date is the ninth of july, 2011. many things have to be done to be accomplished before that

date. i post basically sort of to the panel that we have with us today sort of three fundamental questions. can southern sudan create a viable state? will the government of northern sudan headed by president al bashir played by the rules and allow a peaceful separation? and the third question i would like to pose, will the united states, europe, united nations, the african union, will they play a responsible and active role in assisting southern sudan or the republic of south sudan to make this transition in a peaceful and productive fashion. what will do today is have a panel presentation by three very distinguished members. our three, the three distinguished panel members. i will begin by introducing ambassador richard williamson.

is a senior fellow at the chicago council for global affairs and a non-resident scholar at the brookings institution. ambassador williamson was from 2007-2009 a special envoy for sudan under president bush's administration. he also has had assignments previously as ambassador to both i think a special political affairs and also to the human rights commission in the united nations, and in the previous or george h. w. bush administration, he was assistant secretary of international organizations. he is an undergraduate, he holds an undergraduate degree from princeton university and a law degree from the university of virginia. i was also learned today that his association with the heritage foundation goes back to the infant days of this

institution. so welcome back, ambassador williamson. to the far left is ezekiel lol gatkuoth. who is the head of mission for the government of southern sudan to the united states. he has long been a member of the sudanese people's liberation movement, which he joined in 1984. he served in the armed forces this of the spla -- splm as an active participant in the civil war. he moved to the united states in the early '90s, i believe it is, to earn a degree from the university of maryland, college park. and his work for over a decade to promote democratic change and sudanese independence.

since 2005, since the signing of the copper it's a peace agreement, you have represented your government here in washington if i'm not mistaken. the final member of our distinct panel is jon temin, the director of the sudan program at the united states institute of peace. is a frequent traveler to sudan, and specializes in such issues as development in peacekeeping conflict resolution. he holds degrees from swarthmore college, and johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. i've invited each of them to make presentations about, roughly about 10 minutes or so to leave ample time for your question and answer. thank you very much. >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be back at heritage. and have an opportunity to share some views of the evolving situation in sudan. and nice to be with ezekiel and john. first, any discussion of the

current situation in sudan has to note the invite and which is taking place, your 200 years where there's been favoritism to a small arab muslim minority in the northern nile. and marginalization of all other segments of sudan society. the society that is enormously divided. one anthropologist has said that there are close to 600 different ethnic groups and tribes, and more than 501 which is spoken in sudan. and throughout the ottoman empire under british colonial rule, and now since independence in 1956, there's been no united sudan politically. there's been no vision of a united sudan, and has continued to be marginalization where people, not from the center,

have suffered discrimination economic, health care, education and politically. and this has been the cause of the constant conflicts that have existed within sudan there in this dynamic will not magically end if there's a peaceful separation between the north and the south. second, many people would not have expected the referendum to have gone forward in the generally peaceful environment in which it did. i think that while personally i have criticisms for some of the u.s. policy in 2009-2010, i think we deserve to give note and corner two president obama for his participation in the meeting convened by u.n. secretary-general by ki-moon in september, with the stakeholders made a united statement about the importance for the referent

to go forward peacefully. and by efforts in december by president obama and vice president bush to contact the regional leaders to emphasize the importance of that going forward. i think this did contribute to the successful referendum vote that had been prescribed drug a comprehensive peace agreement signed on january 9, 2005. however the issues that were identifiable under the comprehensive peace agreement have not been resolved. the important political issues and economic issues. principally, the future of obviate, region that is fraught with both political and economic significance, a region for which they come from, which are some of the leading personalities in the south, a region where the

areola arab nomads travel across during the rainy season get grazing land for their herds. 's second, there are five contested border areas that were identified in 2005, and remain unresolved. and third, the underlying issue for all of these oil revenues sharing in 1989, when the regime, the ncp came to power through a coup d'état. they had exports from sudan other proxy one half million dollars or a rose up to $9.5 million, aost that increase came from oil that was discovered and is now sold on the world market. the bulk of that oil, close to 70%, is in the south. the north has become dependent on that oil for stability and prosperity.

and to some extent the south has to an oil revenue-sharing deal that allowed them to keep approximately $2 billion per year since the cpa website and 2005. there are many other issues. citizenship, debt relief, et cetera, but it's my opinion that the oil revenue-sharing, which guys go the contested border in abyei come is the underlying dynamic and the most dangerous matter that may imperil a peaceful separation. furthermore, it's my view that the government of khartoum has engaged in this strategy similar to that which it has used otherwise over the past 15 years, which is to set elaborate negotiating process is deliberate, delay, discuss, delay, and eventually deny. and all the time getting

increased leverage. and that's what they are engaged in now. and my view is that expectation is the united states and others that principally the united states will put pressure on them as we approach the july 9 date to make unrealistic concessions to the north and do their dirty work for them. and, unfortunately, there's nothing over the last two years that disney reason to have confidence that we won't be exploited in this manner. at the same time, i think it's noteworthy that the developments in the middle east have bled down to sudan. there have been demonstrations in khartoum. and president al-bashir announced he does not plan to run again. i would only hasten to add, plan to change. i wouldn't go to the bank on that but i think it is a direct response to the developments in the broader middle east.

's one of the issues that was alluded to in the introduction and the framing of this discussion is, if separation goes forward, the condition in both the north and south, the south has a huge need to deal with development issues. and that goes from government, education, to economic, et cetera. and they are not well-equipped to do that. it is something the united states and international community will have to step up and provide critical assistance. and will have to be more intelligence in the way that we do that. nonetheless, the south benefits because they have proven to be a clever and effective leader of the south. he is the indispensable man, but i will hasten to add he will face political pressures from within southern sudan with

various fractions that have been united against the common enemy of the north will no longer have that tonight and as folks jockey for position and if the u.s. provides excessive pressure to get juba to make concessions on oil and other issues beyond that which is sustainable, and we can concur, you'll have to make a decision to stand up to that, or imperil his own political future which in turn will endanger the prosperity and future and stability of the south. the north face is the continued alienation and low intensity violence in darfur and elsewhere because the fundamental marginalization will cause a long civil war between the north and the south has not been dealt with. there will can -- philby questions and/or for of some rebel movement leaders. we will see an opportunity

exploit weakness after having to separation of the south that may make offenses on khartoum. similarly, in the mountains and elsewhere there will be stresses. and don't be a temptation by the regime in khartoum to make an islamist attack to try to unify and strengthen themselves at this time of peril. the united states faces difficult decisions as whether or not sudan should remain on the terrorist list, how to deal with the various sanctions principally economic sanctions that have been applied on sudan. and i note that most of those sanctions were placed on sudan as a result of the genocide in slow motion in darfur. and whether or not it makes sense to let those because of the north comply with their commitment and a comprehensive peace agreement without

addressing the ongoing violence in darfur is a question that is open, should trouble members of congress, and it should be a full an frank exchange between the administration and congress on these issues. finally, let me say i am optimistic that the south can be sustainable after separation. the question is to what extent do with the violence and bloodshed. two, the north will be under stress that my not have been anticipated. and this might lead to acts of violence to try to gain control over some of the land where the only have potential projection of power. and this should concern all of us who have had difficulties dd with a history of violence --

dealing with a history of violence, atrocity, murder, mayhem and misery in darfur. it's not limited to darfur, in these atrocities must end. the violence in darfur and in southern sudan in 2009 was greater than it was in 2008. and the violence and victims in 2010 were greater than they had been in 2009. i would suggest to you the reason there are fewer victims in 2011 in darfur and/or in 2004 and 2005 is that most of the targets have already been destroyed. not because of a change of heart. not because of a change of tactic. and we shouldn't be so focused on full implementation and peaceful separation of north and south that we forget to hear the

echoes of the screens of suffering men and women and children in darfur. thank you. >> ezequiel? >> thank you very much. for having me here. let me have my voice also to my good friend, ambassador williamson here. but what is happening in sudan, and also what is happening in the middle east, i would say it started from southern sudan. it started on the night of january, 2011, they decided their future to be freed at last. and they have been yearning for this for years but last we are free and we decided our own political future.

the referendum, many people were expecting it to be a nightmare. for many people. they were saying it is not going to happen. the south -- the north will not allow this to happen. and the people that were talked about going back to work. even myself, i was preparing for war, to go back home and continue with the struggle because i didn't know come even though i would say yes, it has to happen on-time, on january 9, 2011. but in the back of my mind i was saying made it will not happen. maybe it's impossible of going back to work, position myself to get ready for that, but thank god for the involvement of the community, especially here in the u.s. ..

so we need to really give credit to southern sudanese and national congress and because they allow their referendum to take place in the international community or their support or technical support and support and moral support to have these

contacts. so now we have the referendum. but the outcome has been accepted. the two parties and president bashir openly recognize and accept the outcome of the referendum. so we have the certificate for the referendum. definitely a new nation will be borne. july 9th, 2011. 1 forty-third in the world. there are a lot of responsibilities we would be facing with governments of the sudan with -- is under way for us to govern the government of southern sudan which stop being the task force established --

chaired by the vice-president. and different -- working and that on the minutes of these and continuing. cote mentioning of legal affairs, the legal constitutional parliament, and the minister of cabinet affairs on ebay. so the responsibilities refuge. but we are ready as the government to meet them. there are other issues we need to tackle. they issues citizenship and what is going to happen to everyone in the south is an issue and there are those working in the civil service of the north and those who are in the armed forces. how are you going to bring them

back? there are some who want to continue working so that has to be an agreement. the issue of security and sensitivity in the north and opportunities with the sudan operation the day. taking them back to the north tower you going to deal with them? close to 40,000 or 30,000 yearly. the responsibility needs to be tackled with debts and assets and water and non water and many others that need to be dealt with. so generally the issues need to be tackled and we have the property working on those headed by banana -- from the ndp side

working to reach an agreement before the ninth of july, two thousand eleven. but the two important issues that need to be highlighted the ability was conferred to the north, particularly to get far from the demonstration -- the land was not transparent and the word of it the rights are no match to pass through. if you give it to the north, this is not a solution to the nomads because they go beyond sudan.

it is important to have an agreement before the ninth of july of 2011. otherwise you will have the problem -- and there will be a civil war. it is important for us to reach an agreement. the things we're disagreeing on, at the united kingdom and help us maintain the board and be ready to sort those out. generally these two weeks of very important because it can lead us into fighting one another. but i am sure the rest of the issues are guaranteed as citizenship. the oil and referendum issues, those areas of am sure we will have an agreement. we have an agreement and all those to have an agreement.

southern sudan, as i said before, on the ninth of july, we need to get some support and help in many areas but four of those areas of, i can highlight them. we have good governance. to make sure we can effectively govern a nation and the issue of security. they provide secure job to people and there are no roads in southern sudan. nothing has been done by the north and resources, 80% from

the south. many of the things you are seeing not being built from the self, the issue of government is very important for the u.s. to have a marshall plan for southern sudan so we can catch up with the rest of it. a am sure a lot of them is the issue of security. a hungry man is a hanging man because -- if it was because of that, there is no need for me to attack the house in chicago. hawks takes a lot of time.

the issue of food security is important so we can use our oil money. we need to have investors come in so that we can bail out our country. so sudan is a viable. what we have done in the last five years has not been done for the last 60 years. if we can do it with a support of the international community, we are also committed to making sure the northeast viable state, to second spill to the south and our problems in the south to the north. our commitment to make sure we are viable to make another one important, this is what we're telling the national congress

about in the north to make sure we have several ones. we will not be interested in -- destabilizing the north because it is going all the way. 90% of the budget -- that is a saying that only a fool will laugh when the house is on fire. if the north is on fire and actually enjoying it, to make sure the northeast interest of the north, the international community needs to come up with these two states. we are open and ready. the issue has to be the best because we want to make sure we are not demonizing in the south and marginalized and don't want to really assume that we want to

feel free nation to start paying somebody else. we just want to make sure we start from good ground so we can heal our nation. the issues that are related to the south, because we don't want to be restricted. we just want to make sure nobody is actually having some sanctions on us. it is a concern to all of us. we need to bring this to an end. the government of sudan, we are there to help because we have regions so it is important for us first to unit because if you use this as a strategy of

bringing -- in pieces, you will not actually have the capacity of a solution. we need to unite first and then have a strategy to engage where the government is and then you can have development and then you can actually help to develop just like us. so it is important to end the war in darfur. they're enjoying this in the house and we unite them first. from their, that is about it. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for having me. i will be brief and i'm sure we will have time for a question and answer. four main points i want to make. it is important just to pause where we are right now and

recognize the process we have been through the referendum largely successful and if you go back six months or so there were a lot of predictions of gloom and doom and return to a civil war and we are not out of the woods yet and my fellow panelists talked about many complicated issues that need to be sorted through. clearly this is a sticky issue but it is worth noting that this has been a largely peaceful, successful process. credit for that goes largely to the sudanese and some secure decision asmaking in north and south. the international community has done well including the u.s. government and the u.s. has gotten its act together and done a good job speaking with one voice and starting with that by president obama to the u. n in september. what is important is that we learn from this experience. there are not that many instances of successful conflict prevention we can look at.

this might be one of them so we need to think now end in the months and years to come about what it was that change some people's decisionmaking and what led to this process. we need to apply those lessons in sudan and to other conflict ridden places. speaking about the south going forward the biggest question for me is how long those honeymoon last? obviously there is jubilation among a lot of the south that is well deserved. there are also very high expectations for route the south. the dividends people are going to gain by becoming independent. the south is one of the poorest places on earth and people have high expectations about improved food access, health clinics and education and so the question becomes the capacity of the

government of southern sudan bleak as the republic of south sudan, its capacity to deliver these tangible things and how long people in the south are going to wait to enjoy these benefits. the government has struggled to develop these benefits. that is understandable. it is still young government. the people in charge, what are for military backgrounds. not government red ministry of backgrounds. so i don't think they will have that long to show that they -- a lot of the services are delivered by the international community. that will continue for some time but budgets are tight and the internationals won't deliver these forever and before long the government will have to deliver these themselves. that is something to watch. i also think it will be important that the new government is held to the highest standards in terms of democratization and human rights and transparency and these

things we strive for. record of rebellion, rebel movements coming in to power in this part of the world is not a great one. look at ethiopia or other places. a lot of these movements as spouse the right things but when they come to government they are less than democratic in their behavior. history is not destiny and doesn't mean the government of southern sudan will go in that direction but it is important that the u.s. and others are sending a message that we are watching these things and clearly the u.s. is a friend of southern sudan and that should continue but that should not mean a free pass for southern sudan either. we are honest with them and expectation that we have on holiday behavior and govern when there and independent country come july. the last point i want to make and this has been made by my fellow panelists is the importance of focusing on the

future of northern sudan as well. we spend a lot of time thinking about the south. it is exciting. george clooney is going to the south. we need to pay attention to the rest of the country. we have roughly 75% of the population left in the north that didn't have the option to succeed and we have to look after their well-being as well and we need to continue to engage the government in cartoons. that government has some basic questions need to answer in the near future about what kind of government is going to be. there have been suggestions about a more sharia based organization in the north. on the flip side they talk about more inclusive government and to be determined which direction they go but that deserves a lot of watching and deserves some coaxing by the international community in the right

direction. the process in the north that will be particularly important is the process of developing a new constitution. the north and south are going to have to develop new constitutions in the coming months. in the south things are well under way and there's a fairly clear process to doing that. that is not the case in the north. the new constitution will be a foundational document for the new northern state. that is something the international community should be engaging in and helping shape that documents so that it is a more favorable one for the people of northern sudan. let

us begin with individual if you will see who is directly to that will assist me. okay. >> i have this giant column in front of me. you all touched on the nation-building and transition period of that southern sudan will face in june or july. can you talk a little bit about more ground level or international profits and american-owned profits in smaller villages, with oil drilling or school construction. >> maybe you could -- you have a

feel for the grass roots and where you most need non-profit assistance. maybe you could -- >> many of them have been helping us providing education, children also. it is very important to continue in that direction. the government of sudan meant to have resources to reach out to everybody. providing basic services like drinking water, services in the villages is important because expectations are high. they have voted for this independence and they are expecting to change in no time so their yields will reach out

to the communities so that they provide basic services. >> do you have a question? >> in an area where contributions can be made at the local level and the macro level it will be most important for sudan, southern sudan, development of the agricultural sector. this is something that has been long ignored during the conflict and has not adequately been addressed during the implementation phase of the comprehensive peace agreement. southern sudan is still the international donor community for its food. it has the richest farmland in the world with over 50 inches of rain a year. not only southern sudan has a

food security issues but so do all the favors. we are all familiar with the difficulties in ethiopia. working at the local level as well as the donor community working on building the infrastructure of roads and bridges and other things to take his food to market is important for the success and liability and buying time for the infrastructure of democratic institutions for quick governance, to be realized. >> there's a great need for local level conflict management effort and prevention effort in southern sudan. there are some significant ethnic divides with in southern sudan and we have seen in the last couple years not insignificant numbers of people being killed in ethnic clashes in the south.

there are accusations that khartoum is fanning the flames of violence in the south and there may be true to that but there are fundamentally southern issues as well that need to be addressed. what was alluded to earlier, a couple things kept the south relatively unified over the past couple years. one is in getting to the referendum and another is the common enemy that a lot of people perceive in the north. those two things are going to be diminished. you need to find other ways to address local violence that may occur and occurs to some extent. one thing that is important in that process is trying to developed a greater stronger sense of what it means to be southern sudanese as well as in other parts of africa where people identify most strongly with their ethnic groups. there is less of a sense of

nationhood. there are in some parts but not in others. developing that sense of nationhood and the symbol of a windbag, they seem sort of silly on one hand but on the other hand they are important. that is something the sudanese need to drive the internationals can contribute to developing a stronger sense of nation. >> in the west and in the united states, there is a hubris about ethnic division. i am from chicago. we went through a debt collection. supporters of a victor tried to make sure there were multiple african-american candidates and multiple hispanic candidates for the vote. so ethnic divisions are a reality. we need to try to help move those divisions to a place where

guns are not a viable alternative to deal with these issues and negotiation of the political process is. that is just one marker. it is important for us to keep in mind. the second one i have to make one observation. there is a clemency evolve to talk about local sources of violence but let me talk about one example. recently. and tiexiera 518 bombs were dropped from sudan armed force aircraft, these are not local actors and notably the united states government has been sacked. >> want to say something? >> and over there.

>> thank you very much. a little bit about the status of oil sharing negotiations. maybe you could characterize them a little bit. we are not willing to comment on this but to preempt negotiators on the ground. would you foresee being an acceptable arrangement in terms of who gets what. it is a separate question. sorry for asking two but what is the likelihood of another political party emerging from the south? as we have seen it is quite dominant. >> if others have comment on it please join in. >> maybe i can comment on the ethnic politics before i answer. most of the fighting in africa,

basically on resource, when you control the resources of a country, that is one thing that is communicated in africa. the second one is ethnic group getting in power and marginalizing others. these are conditions in rwanda. they have been marginalized for years. and the vice-president, from the two largest communities. they have been saying this, they were seeing themselves, and i can see myself there and there's no reason for them to fight.

if you exclude them, and you think i am mentor or the majority, we can rule the country, that is where you're identifying problems. but you can avoid that. the other one, going through all the communities, because if you underdevelop one community and develop others you are also inviting problems because this is the only way. you would not be able to erase being so and so in the community here or there but what you want to is make sure you use your community to a press or kill other communities. politics is always there.

association of that community. oil negotiations. definitely we are willing to discuss with the north and i think we will be able to pay a fee to transport and not to be able to share our resources or share resources with canada. but you can pay good and services and support goods and the same thing with the canadiens have long as you -- the issue of another party emerging, the party in southern sudan, not the district of columbia, it is more than 28 political parties. what they can do to have limits

to provide ideas to the community so they can be -- for the war for everybody. we have no say that we fought the war or politics at all. that is why you have been hearing this political dialogue bringing the political parties together. 24 political parties came together in october. what do you want us to do now? all of them were united to making sure what was happening on time in july and the outcome of this and all of us in the campaign for that. so the general unity of all political parties were there. we have different views and never advocate a multi-party system, not one system. >> i have a question here in the

center. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. i am poindexter and spent the last four years living and working in west africa, so the issue of aid always comes up and you mention the marshall plan so i wanted to get a sense of your ambassador ezekiel lol gatkuoth the anti a argument. there are arguments to create a cycle of dependency that kills entrepreneurship if you have a great phone lines that you do that entrepreneurs won't be able to work there and the marshall plan only works in countries where there are well-established institutions and that has been the case history. comment on those criticisms. ..

>> i think the vision we are having is help us that we can help ourselves. that is exactly what we are rying to do. because we have -- trying to do. we have been at these camps for years waiting for the united nations to give us food. and i'm sure some of us are sick and tired of that. we wanted to do it by ourselves so we can be just like anybody. so we will definitely not depend on aid assistance all the time. so this marshall plan that we are actually with envisioning is trying to help us so that we help ourselves. i understand that where the

applied in europe maybe they had the capacity, institutions were there, but i think you can have an african plan so that you help different areas. by building institutions so that they can build this country when the capacity's there. this is what we are actually, basically, asking for, you know? organize, have a plan for us to be developed starting from our capacity. we have to have the capacity to govern so that we can, we can deliver to our communities. >> i would just add to that there is a real debate within the ngo community in southern sudan on the humanitarian to development transition. and it's been such substantial humanitarian assistance going to southern sudan for a long time,

during the war and even before that, and, you know, people are talking a lot now about trying to transition that more towards development assistance and capacity efforts with the government of sudan. all of this is important, but there's a real question about how quickly you make this transition because southern sudan is one of the poorest places anywhere, and a lot of people are dependent day-to-day on the food that they get from the international community, from international assistance and so forth. and so, you know, sort of the idea of capacity building and of helping the government do these things themselves, of course, makes a lot of sense. but the reality of it is when you're shifting money to the capacity building, you are going to have to cut back on the humanitarian assistance, and that has costs. and this is just a constant debate going on in juba and darfur. >> if i could just make a brief intervention, i think we've been

too gentle in that transition. i've been to idp and refugee camps throughout asia, africa, latin america. it's the only place where i've seen -- heard senior u.n. officials, humanitarian officials castigate me as a u.s. representative for not helping transfer from humanitarian aid to real development aid. we've been too gingerly, too -- they have the land to grow their crops. i think ezekiel's exactly right. and the amount of money we spend is quite consequential. over a billion dollars a year for humanitarian assistance in darfur from the u.s. taxpayers. close to $400 million a year for

humanitarian assistance in southern sudan from u.s. taxpayers. year after year after year. there is an opportunity o turn the page -- to turn the page, to respond to the request of the southern sudanese and move to development. and let me add the type of donor assistance, for example, in agriculture means big projects such as roads and bridges to get to markets. but the bulk of it is local community assistance. one thing for which president obama deserves credit is the attention he's given personally and usaid to look at sustainable agricultural development. we know a fair amount about

this. we should probably get to the work of it. >> hi there. thank you so much for everything that each of you have said. you gave us quite an insight in a very short period of time to a very complex situation. my question kind of builds on what everybody has said. from the international standpoint, ambassador, if you could speak to what countries -- well, first you mentioned that you have asked the united kingdom for help in the demarcation of the borders, but you haven't indicated if they've responded and what's going on there. so if you could follow that up, that would be very helpful. and, also, give us some idea of what other countries are coming forward to help in different ways. and international organizations as well. i know that china's very engaged already, so i would appreciate if all of you could speak to

that. thank you. >> ezekiel? >> okay. we are actually looking in different areas where countries can participate. norway is one of the countries that can help us with economic development, different areas that express interest. the u.s. is engaged in helping us with governance and building our capacity to govern, and different countries are also contributing in different areas. but that's why i was saying it's very important to have a marshall plan so that everybody can -- [inaudible] so and so, why don't you do this, and we are going to do this so that a strategy can be organized and unified so that we move together in different sectors. people who are interested in

building roads, usaid is building the only paved road from juba connecting us with uganda. so it is being implemented by different companies, louis berger is one of them, the main company that is actually constructing this, but it is financed by usaid and many areas they're helping us. so i think united strategy and a plan is important. china is helping, and we are happy with their role especially. since last year they have been playing a constructive role in the making sure -- [inaudible] and there's no violence because they have a lot of investment in southern sudan, billions of dollars in southern sudan. and if we go back to war, the investment is at risk. so they have been actually

playing -- [inaudible] and they are helping in many areas, even training our diplomats, providing, you know, services to our communities. and we are engaging them. a lot of southern sudanese leaders have been going to china to explore different areas of where chinese can help us. so we are, many countries are coming in to help us. but i think the role of the u.s. government should be on top of the list, and the people of the united states of america because, personally, i've been here in the u.s. and many of my colleagues, the role that has been played by the churches, the civil society organizations, the normal citizens, sorry, school children and the u.s. government together is what made us to have an agreement in 2005. and this is what made us, also, to have a free and fair referendum. if u.s. government was not

actually leading, we wouldn't be where we are now. >> let me just add i think it will also be important that assistance comes to southern sudan from the region and from the rest of africa particularly when we're talking about capacity-building support, and there's a lot of advisers in the various ministries in juba. it's so much better if that adviser comes from kenya or you uganda or somewhere nearby as opposed to having an adviser from somewhere further afield. they know the region better, the issues better, that local transfer of knowledge and capacity is much more effective, and it's positive for the country where the assistance comes from as well. and i think some of that's happening. i hope that a lot more of it can happen. just a note on china as well to follow up on what ezekiel says. i think they really have quietly play add positive role in the overall dynamic over the past year or so, and there has been a

shift in their position towards the referendum, and i think they have signaled to khartoum over the last year that they are willing to accept southern secession, and that has had an influence on khartoum's calculus. so i think they deserve some credit for that. >> are you in agreement with that position, pastor williamson? >> i think what we've seen in the last 18 months is rational self-interest. two years ago i remember talking to the sudanese foreign minister who's from sowrp sudan, and we were speculating about the role of china which, of course, u.n. security council and elsewhere had been one of great fidelity in support of the government in khartoum. because, understandably, china was giving 6% of its imported oil -- getting 6% of its imported oil from sudan, and china had paid for the building

of the pipeline, china had paid for the construction of the tanks outside of port sudan to hold the oil. and had helped port sudan in the machinery to load it for international markets. and i asked the foreign minister what he thought china would be doing, and his reply, i think, applies not only to china, but other players. he said, there's only one thing i know for sure, china will be with the winner. not too long after that, the first beijing hotel started to rise in juba. look, there was a tipping point. there was a tipple point between 18 months and six months ago where the neighbors, many of whom for very understandable reasons were concerned about separation, and where other

international actors who understandably tilted heavily to khartoum accepted that separation was going to happen. so they tried to buttress it, but they didn't make it happen. it was other players that played the role in moving this process along with their objections so it would reach that tipping point. and since then because they benefit from stability, they have played a constructive role. i don't thank them. i say i'm glad you understand your self-interest. they're not doing it for sudan. they're doing it because of what their self-interest is. which is good. but they're not playing a constructive role because they care about the southern sudanese now any more than they did before. >> thank you very much for that

very realistic comment. i think we have time for maybe one or two more questions -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> [inaudible] i'm also from uganda. could you comment on the role that you think the regional countries could play in the future economy and security of sudan, in particular the east african community which has been growing in strength? do you see them having some role to play in the future economic development of sudan? >> well, let me just comment first. obviously, uganda's had a big interest in southern sudan because of the lra, using it as

a safe sanctuary. and khartoum has been supportive of the lra because it was disruptive in southern sudan and had a spillover to uganda. consequently, kampala has been more involved with juba for a longer period of time. and continued to be one of the earliest in support of separation. and is not looked on favorably in khartoum. some, like ethiopia, hedged their bets. they helped train fpla while at the same time keeping a constructive relationship with khartoum. chad has a plead with the rebels where they've given sanctuary for the darfur rebels' group for which khartoum in turn provided

safe sanctuary for chad rebels. egypt played a role because of a concern of refugees' flow and, principally, because the source of the nile is in southern sudan, the life blood of egypt. i can go on. the point is that all the neighbors had different interests which affected their policies. but i think going back to my earlier point having gotten to the tipping point whether they had preferred separation or not, they accepted its high probability, and they've tried to play a constructive role. i think that will be necessary going forward as well to try to stabilize the situation both for the new country of southern sudan as well as the north will face it own significant pressures.

the african union is against separation, understandably. only two sub-saharan countries have ethnic groups. most of them have multiple ethnic groups, and there's always a concern of fragmentation. but they also have gotten to the point where they accept the inevitable and want to play a constructive role. so i think there is an opportunity to reboot the relationship in the region in a constructive way. and the economic organization for eastern africa can be one of the machineries and instruments to help that. but it's in all of their interests to play a slightly different role, not to hedge their bets, and try to help the south succeed in its new independence and the north stabilize at a time of transition and instability. >> ezekiel, do you --

>> you know, southern sudan is, belongs to east africa. we have been benefiting from east africa if for a long time. our economic viability though the pipeline is going northward actually relies on east africa. simple example is in 2007 when there was election and violence in kenya, even though we are actually an oil-producing country, when there was election violence in kenya, there was no fuel in juba. because the fuel that we are getting from uganda and kenya. so i was in juba, just to be honest, you know, you cannot get fuel even if you have $100 in your pocket to try to fuel your

car. there was no fuel because of the election violence in kenya. so it is not only making sure that the neighboring countries are stable, but also even the neighboring countries it is in our interest. that is why we are actually involved in making sure the lra and the government of uganda have an agreement so that we can have peace in the whole region. not only in southern sudan, but in the whole region. and we are even helping in trying to make sure that they can solve their differences so that east africa can be a peaceful nation. because we are peaceful people. uganda they have been hosting us. we never had any problems. i've been there as a refugee, i enjoyed many of my relatives that are there in uganda and kenya, also in ethiopia.

so we have benefited a lot, and the economic viability is -- [inaudible] in east africa. we have joined east africa long time ago, but we were just waiting for us to be independent country so that we can formally join it. but most of our activityies go through east africa. i think it is very important, the role of the region to make scheuer viable is important for uganda, kenya and to help us build our capacity in different areas. and they have been doing that and very appreciative to them. l. [inaudible] >> i think we have time for one final question, so the gentleman here in the blue tie. >> thank you very much.

you mentioned about violence mostly from -- assistance mostly from the u.s., china and other neighboring countries. could you also share your -- [inaudible] regarding federal aid and assistance to south sudan from african union, arab league, european union and others, and what's your opinion regarding the level of assistance mechanism, vis-a-vis, bilateral ones. thank you. >> i think it's worth noting that the bulk of the assistance in darfur which has helped keep these people that have gone through the wretched atrocities alive has been through the world food program. which is and has long been, perhaps, the most effective multilateral vehicle for emergency humanitarian assistance. and where the u.s. is by far the

largest contributor because of it effectiveness. secondly, a high percentage of our assistance to southern sudan has gone through various u.n. agencies, and that generally they've been constructive. my criticism is only the transfer from humanitarian assistance to development assistance has been slow both by the united states' agency for international develop but, also, multilateral vehicles. so it's an area where you're going to need bilateral assistance from partners in the region, bilateral assistance that have been coordinated through the slow consortium of international donors, but also the work through a variety of multilateral vehicles. the focus should be on accepting

the offer of southern sudan to stand on their own. and i think we'll find that often it's going to be easier to do that bilaterally than through international organizations. but i certainly feel that we should continue to utilize those both to get a broader donor base, but also for them to get a reach in areas where we will be less successful. thanks. >> ezekiel? >> we have no problem with multilateral donors. the only thing that we -- i just wanted to be candid with you. the only problem that we are having is bureaucracy. you know, too much feasibility studies, you know, trying to delay and delay, and the communities are not going to wait. if you can help us 20, 30

millions of you, we have no problem, but deliver and deliver soon. [laughter] don't, you know, do too much studies. you know? there is a saying that the reason why they argue and trying to define, you know, ways of understanding things because they have too much, too much understanding of a small thing. you know? something that you can say, yeah, this is -- but they want to study it and try to do a research for something that is always more. if you wanted to help us, please, don't do a lot of studies for something that is small which we can actually address as soon as possible. thank you. [laughter] >> let me just make one practical point on the multilateral institutions. ezekiel mentioned the ongoing

negotiations about debt, sudan is about $38 billion in debt, and one of the questions is how that debt is divided between north and south, and almost all opinions, the vast majority of it should go to the north. but depending on how it's divided, that will effect the ability of both new states to access loans from world bank and imf which is one reason that's a high of stakes association -- high-stakes negotiation. i just wanted to make one point on the regional investment. on one of my recent trips to juba, i stayed in a south african-owned hotel, i had a ugandan driver and i ate in an ethiopian restaurant. there is a time for the investment coming into juba, the problem is that so many of the profits are then taken out of the country and not reinvested into the southern economy. people are making a lot of money in juba, a lot from people like me coming in and out, but how that is contributing to the overall southern economy remains a question.

>> let me thank all of you on behalf of the heritage foundation, thank all of you in the audience for coming out for this very timely event. let me thank the viewers on c-span for joining us, and i would like for you to thank our distinguished panel members for an excellent presentation. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> up next, a look at the anniversary of the dayton peace accords and the future of the balkans.

and the senate gavels back in this morning and will continue work on changes to the nation's patent laws and intellectual property rights. live coverage at 10 eastern here on c-span2. >> this week the u.s. dollar fell to its lowest point since november against other major currencies. today fed chairman ben bernanke will testify on capitol hill about the state of the economy, and he'll take questions on the u.s. money supply, economic growth and interest rates. live coverage from the senate banking committee at 10 a.m. ian on c-span -- 10 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the c-span networks, we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. and find our content anytime through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local

content vehicle bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> former president clinton recently hosted a forum marking the 15th anniversary of the signing of dayton peace accords that ended the war in bosnia. speakers include the presidents of bosnia and croatia, the european union foreign affairs representative and deputy secretary of state james steinberg. this 90-minute discussion was hosted by the william jefferson clinton association at new york university. >> ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased to introduce president bill clinton, founder of the william j. clinton foundation and 42nd president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you very much. first, let me say i want to personally thank secretary

albright, ambassador galbraith and general wes clark and ron brownstein for a great panel this morning. i thought they did a terrific job, and i hope you did as well. we're going to talk now about the dayton peace accords, what's happened 15 years later and where bosnia and the region go now. something dick holbrooke used to say all the time was dayton was far from a perfect peace, but the choice in november of 1995 was between an imperfect peace and continued slaughter. and we did everything we could to convince the parties to choose peace. we knew at the time that it was just a beginning.

and i want to say a few words about what we did, but i'd like to begin by placing -- the last question ron asked is relevant to what this panel's going to discuss. the last question that they were asked to deal with is, was the model used to bring about the peace agreement, the work that the united states did, is it a good model for the challenges we face today since, relatively speaking, there are -- it's a more multipolar world? and so, again, to go back to what i said in the beginning a little bit, i was quite well aware that from the moment the berlin wall fell and the soviet

union began to break up and russia was then quite weak economically, as i said, my very first international effort was to organize a $24 billion aid package for russia. china was rising, but nowhere near the level of economic or military capacity it has today. the same with india. it had begun its economic reform very recently, only in 1991, and ron brown had identified as commerce secretary other rising countries that he believed would shape the 21st century, would create this multipolar world in ways we hadn't imagined. and we decided we had to focus on them both to try to build good relationships with them, to keep bad things from happening, to help good things happen.

he identified mexico and brazil and the united states, we had a major economic crisis in mexico, and twice i moved to put together major aid packages to help brazil. that's almost inconceivable now, the brazilian economy's so strong. but they were at serious risk there. he identified, you won't be surprised, nigeria and south africa and africa, and south africa seems to be on a better path now, but a lot of their economic and political resurgence was derailed by the aids crisis. and nigeria has special challenges, as we all know. both of them occupied a lot of my time when i was with president. he identified poland and ukraine and europe, and poland's done pretty well, but we all know that the ukrainians have claimed

their democracy and then had a terrible economic trauma and are now in the process of redefining themselves. he identified indonesia and korea and asia, and we had a big change away from dictatorship in indonesia and then ended their ethnic and religious conflict manifest in if east timor becoming the first new nation of the 21st century. and bridging it all, turkey. so i guess what i want to say is i thought this was a good model because i was perfectly well aware that it was a fleeting moment many history -- in history when america would be the only military, political and economic superpower. and i used to say to our security team all the time, you know, if china and india have more people than we do, so it's

just a matter of time until they generate more wealth. and if europeans keep coming together politically and economically, they will have more people than we do, and many of them already have a higher average income than the united states. once someone has as much money as you do, then whether you're the only economic -- political or, excuse me, political or economic superpower is more up to them than to you. that when the chinese decided to build a new submarine fleet of diesel-powered submarines and they go faster, deeper, quieter than our nuclear fleet. so, to me, in addition to the humanitarian and regional and european implications of bosnia, this was about trying to find a way to put a decision-making process in place that would create a more unified world, that would have the forces of

integration overcome the forces of disintegration. in a world when the united states was no longer the biggest dog on the block or the only big dog on the block. i wanted to create a world that i'd like for my generation's children and grandchildren to live in when we could no longer dominate, but had to lead. and what has really changed is two things. one is there's more competition for influence and power and the wealth and capacity are more widely dispersed. also, frankly, our economic weakness made it more difficult for us to be taken as seriously as we other side would be over the long term. and one of the things that distressed me most about the last election was the framework in which it unfolded. that is, we once again got stuck

in a time warp of saying this election is about who wants more government and who wants more -- less, who wants more government spending and who wants more tax cuts. that's a silly thing. there's not a single successful country on the planet earth that does not have both a vigorous and successful private sector and an effective government. the real choice is what do we have to do to create the future, and are we more committed to making the changes that will create a future that gives us the economic strength to exercise political and military strength, or are we so caught up in what we have now whether it's we, somebody at my income group who wants to hold on to my tax cuts, or we, somebody in the public or private sector group that wants to hold on to some other benefit, the cost of which is outweighed by the future diminishment for our o children and grandchildren. so i set that up to say what we

tried to do after dayton was with to recognize its limitations. the most important thing with the most tragic results, of course, was the great trade mission that ron brown and chuck and doris -- thank you for being here today -- and all the others from the commerce department and business community took because we knew we had to create a new economy for the balkans. so that is the background. what is the balkan equivalent of what we did with the asia-pacific economic group which has been expanded with the -- what's the equivalent of the expansion of nato? what is the equivalent of the summit of americas which we rekindled for the first time in a quarter century and now meets every fore four years? is there a unifying, systematic contribution the united states can make, and what do they have to do on their own to make all the sacrifices of the people who

actually gave their lives to this endeavor and the efforts that the united states and the europeans have made worth it? this is going to be a very good panel, and so i want to bring them out. the first is we are deeply honored to have baroness katherine ashton who is the european uni's minister of -- union's minister of foreign affairs. that's a fancy way of saying she's the secretary of state of europe. i thanker her for coming. i thank jim steinberg for coming and given all the challenges that they're facing at the state department today, he's probably glad to have an excused absence. but i want -- i have already personally thanks the secretary of state for allowing him to

come. [laughter] i want to acknowledge the presence, even though she claimed to be absence of christiane amanpour, and i wanted to say one thing about -- i admire her very much, but the uncharted hell she gave me in the first two years i was president about not marching the entire american army into sarajevo, and i'm only slightly overstating it -- [laughter] was a gift. it was a gift. i -- there are some times, relatively few, when you can say a single journalist had a decisive impact on the lives of people and a set of political decisions that followed. but i've already explained to you, you saw where popular

opinion was, you saw where the congress was. the europeans were reluctant to get into this bosnian 'em broguely owe because they were not sure they could fix it and, believe it or not, there were all sorts of excuses including the fact that the then-french president, mr. mitterand, who i admire and liked very much really had a soft spot for the serbians going back to world war ii and their fierce opposition to the nazis, and he just couldn't believe that they were as bad as we were saying. until they were. until the french were double-crossed. and i think, i think going back to what the previous panel said, i don't think there's any question that the slaughter and the changing security situation on the ground brought the

europeans to the position that we had been advocating and that dick holbrooke had been trying to implement with others. but i do think that in creating that climate, christiane amanpour had a lot to do with it, and i thank her for that. of -- then most important of all we are joined today by the president of the republic of croatia, ivo josipovic, who is a lawyer -- and this is very important to me -- a composer. and it's important because he has to, now, compose a future for his country and for the region. and, finally, the president of the nation at the center of all of this, president izetbegovic who is an architect, and he has to build his way out of where we

are. president izetbegovic, obviously, was proceeded in the leadership by his father, now deceased, who was a person with whom i had the honor to work and whom i had the honor to visit in the hospital not long before he passed away. he was a magnificent person. this family has played a great price -- has paid a great price to serve and struggled for the integrity of its country and for its future. so i thank president izetbegovic, i thank president josipovic and jim steinberg, and i'd like for them all to come out now for the second panel. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much, indeed, and, mr. president, thank you for those wonderful introductions and for the very generous words you just spoke. it was, as you all know, an era-defining war and an era-defining peace, and for those of us who covered it, it was a professional and personal defining moment. so i'm delighted to be invited to come back here and talk about the future after having witnessed the present at ha time. at that time. can i start, actually, with i just wanted to start with james steinberg who was deputy national security adviser at the time and in the state department at the time, exactly. i'd like to just pay tribute to richard holbrooke because dayton has his name 'em blaze softened on it. just to go back briefly, if we could, the negotiations that president clinton brought

everybody to having led the bombing of the targets and having brought it to a point where it could actually have a negotiated peace, it wasn't inevitable, though, when the three leaders went to dayton and holed themselves up for that many days. it wasn't bound to happen, was it? this. >> thanks. i think that's right. and it was for anybody who had the, i guess, privilege of actually being there and holed up in dayton for those weeks, quite an extraordinary moment because on the one hand you had going on on the outside this horrible, terrible human tragedy, and in the room people who were responsible for them. and trying to find a way to, on the one hand, not lose sight of the enormity of the crimes that were being committed on the outside, and yet the need to deal with these individuals and try to find a way to reach an agreement. and i think there are many kudos that can given to richard, but

perhaps the most important was, one, he understood the history of the region and didn't see it just as something that happened today or yesterday or even with the fall of communism, but understood its rich history. he also understood the individuals. he knew them, and he knew that they knew each other, and that was one of the extraordinary things about that. on the one hand, you had this slaughter going on on the outside, on the other hand, you had three men who had been part of the political establishment, and he used that and played that dynamic to make a difference. and just the to pivot to the future, what was so extraordinary was that when richard came back in to serve president obama as the special representative for afghanistan/pakistan, he couldn't let go of the balkans. and he saw on my schedule one day that i was going to be meeting with the man who was under consideration to be the new high rep, the descendant of everything he had done in dayton. and he called me up and said,

i'm coming to the meeting, i want to make sure he's good enough to make sure that the work is carried on. and sure enough he came down, he asked the questions, and he stayed with it. and it was his passion and his achievement. that we all ought to pay tribute to. >> that's a wonderful anecdote and, of course, none of us can let go of the balkans and what happened there. i want to start by asking you because james steinberg just talked about the slaughter that was going on, and you, president josipovic, have made reconciliation a hallmark of your time in office -- more than a year now. why is that, and do you think that's a precondition for still solidifying the peace? >> there are three departments decided for future of the area of our neighborhood of croatia itself. it's confidence and trust versus fear, it's sol solidarity versus selfishness, and it's

partnership versus selfishness and also it's very important to build common work and confidence between leaders and countries. but basis for all this is reconciliation. i think it's very basic process to build all the other requirements, and from the very beginning of my mandate of my office term i started to build contacts with our neighbors, with serbia, with bosnia herz governor any ya and others, and it was not always easy task because there were opponents to it because the war was really -- [inaudible] and i have to stress here and to pay tribute to president clinton and dayton process because they really stopped the war. and it was the most important thing at the time. and the president clinton clearly showed the difference between office holder and leader, and he was really a leader.

and i think the region now needs leaders, not office holders. that means we have to have capacity to see the future, and if i may say, our future is european future. all countries who would like to be members of e.u. and crow whey shah is going to be, i hope, very soon. and one of very important, strategic things we are considering is how to help our neighbors, especially serbia, montenegro to join e.u. as well because this make guarantees for all the regions and for croatia, for security and economy as well. but -- [inaudible] >> let me ask you, president izetbegovic, you know, 15 years later to be still talking about reconciliation may sound, you know, a little strange. do you think reconciliation has happened in bosnia? is it solid? >> you know, at least feeting

stops 15 -- fighting stopped 15 years ago, and almost nobody lost life in this 15 years. but it takes time for proper reconciliation. you cannot expect -- you know bosnia. half of population sent from their homes, hundreds of thousands of deaths, horrible things happened. it's not easy to solve those problems in 15 years. some people, especially in bosnia, expected too much from todayton. you cannot -- dayton. you cannot make perfect institution if are from are that situation, from that material you had at that moment in bosnia. horrible war and then we expect perfect state. but the core, the main and fundamental peace is done by dayton. it is, as i said, fundamental. it is basis for the future, for

better future for building institution, for reform and for reconciliation. the main thing is, of course, the reconciliation. that fear of the other, that, you know, balkan fear from future with different ethnic group, it is the main problem. of course, of course. but it's absolutely much, much better in bosnia. for an optimist, as i am an optimist, it is absolutely clear that glass is more than full and that we pass more than half of our journey towards the normal state. >> well, that's really encouraging to hear. lady ashton, you heard the president talking about e.u. accession. give this audience an idea of the difficulties of actually getting into the e.u. and why

somebody like croatia is still struggling to get in and what happens to bosnia and serbia. >> i think the first thing i want to say is that i agree that the future for the countries of this part of our world belongs with the european union. we are currently 27 countries born of the fire of war and the long shadow of the anchor. we know about conflict, we know about dispute, we know there is a better opportunity in having people collaborating, working together politically and economically. and i believe whether europe is successful or not depends on how effective we are in the neighborhood around us. and that's a big, big challenge for all of the 27 countries and, i guess, especially for me. so against that backdrop, it's important that countries come in able to really take their part and take their place in europe. so there's a whole load of

things that have to happen. getting the constitution in the right shape, sorting out the legal situation, making sure there is a single market economically. some of these things are quite painful for business, for countries to go through to be ready, and they take time. and the journey that croatia's been on has been a long journey. it feels very long. but you're towards the end of that journey. and the effectiveness of europe is how well we're able to support those countries, to be ready so when they do join, they can be fully participating 28, 29, 30 countries sitting around the table able to act as equals, able to act as partners. >> jim, do you think the bar is too high? i mean, is a country like croatia, bosnia and serbia, i mean, 15 years now since dayton. how long is a reasonable amount of time before being able to get

into europe? >> i think we've learned over the years for the united states we're not going to judge for the european union what its standards ought to be. we, of obviously, want to see te balkans joined. i think we all share the view that the future for the western balkans is in these transatlantic structures, and we will work hard and keep that door open for the countries to participate. but it's also true, and it's something that president obama has stressed and secretary clinton, is that this is not a club. this is an alliance which is fighting a war in afghanistan that has serious security challenges and that we expect just as we can help provide security by their membership in nato, they also have to be in a position to contribute. and so the bar is only the bar of making sure that as they come into these institutions, that they can contribute. and that it's not just being done to help them along their course. and i do think this is one of the fundamental challenges that

we face because the international community had a great deal of responsibility, and the united states took responsibility to help bring an end to the conflict in bosnia and in the balkans, and we share a strong commitment to that future and helping to support that future. but at the end of the today, it is the people of bosnia and the people of the other balkan states that have to make the decisions that say that they're ready to do it. and what we've seen, unfortunately in bosnia, is even relatively simple decisions like how to dispose of the state property from the former yugoslavia so we can get the military property has 3r50u6ed a bridge -- proved a bridge too far. we made an important decision last year to open the door to bosnia's membership action plans, it's an important step into nato. we will keep that door open for bosnia to walk through, but it does require the kind of leadership the president is offering to make sure that happens. >> so, president izetbegovic,

what can you do to make that faster? >> >> you mean nato? >> yeah. >> we have some clear things like solving problems of military camps. we need to give it to our armed forces, and i think we will make it before september because september is deadline. nato expect us to solve the problem before september, i'm sure we we will make it. >> um, what, lady ashton, do the bih leadership need to do to get not just nato, but into the e.u.? >> well, there are a number of very practical things we're working with them on. for example, you know, when i was saying earlier about the need to be sure that you're able to participate, it's also that your citizens get treated equally across the european union so that you know the court system works, you know that the way that you're treated is the same. so, for example, there is some very practical things that need to be done in terms of the constitutional court rulings, we've had the european court of human rights that's made rulings

about the ability of anybody to be able to stand for election, that's really significant and absolutely a core value. there are lots of issues around building the economies that need to be dealt with, all of which europe can help with. but as jim says, it has to come from the people themselves. we don't impose the european union. we want to work with countries. they have to want it because it's a long journey, and it's tough. but if they want it, we'll work together. >>, president josipovic, if you want it enough, you can work with the government to get there. i think you hope that by january 2013 you'll be positively responded to and welcomed with open arms? >> sorry. realistic to finish our negotiations -- >> what's outstanding for you? >> it's very important to resolve some additional problems we have, especially in judiciary

and in economy. our government is doing the best to resolve those problems and also we had and we are leading, now, very important fight against corruption. that's very important, and it's one of key issues for croatia. and i think our results are pretty good. and we have to have continues in our policy and our practice, and for e.u. it is very important not only to have good legislation, but to have good practice as well, and we are trying to do our best. so just few chapters are now left open, and we have to close them very soon. i hope this year. and then we are very, very near to -- >> i mean, just -- this audience may know a lot more about the details than i do. you say judiciary, for instance. what do you have to do to make sure judicial system acceptable to -- >> so we have to shorten duration of our processes, that means we have to adapt our

procedural rules. even a few years ago we had about two million of unresolved cases. >> two million? >> two million, yes. and now we have annual capacity to deal with all cases because we have about 700 cases living before the courts. then we have to improve our legislation on election of judges to have impartial and very educated judges and public prosecutors as well. and, of course, we have to exclude any possibility of political influence to our judiciary. i think this part of our task is now more or less donement -- done. >> jim, notable by his absence is the leader of the bosnian-serb republic. what do they need to do, do you think? i mean, i know it's a different level of presidency, but what did they need to do, if anything, to make this process

solidarity and better integration? >> as the president, i think, nicely said, the challenge here is to turn the focus away from a focus on fear and worrying about what you might lose to what you can gain by moving forward. and because of the history, because of all the difficulties that he talked about, many of the leaders are, unfortunately, focused on protecting what they have, of worrying that they'll be taken advantage of if things are changed, and they fail to focus on the benefits that will come not just to them, but more importantly, to the people that they represent from moving forward. so the focus of our efforts and it's been a partnership with the e.u. and i'm really grateful, the united states and the e.u. working hand in hand is to try to turn their attention. instead of looking backwards, instead of looking at what you might lose.

and i think especially for some of the serb leaders there is this sense that we've got to hold on to all this sense. this is ours, and if there's any change, we might lose something. and what we've tried to emphasize is that you won't be at risk going forward, but there's a bigger pie, there are big dividends to be had from this integration, from moving forward that nobody is trying to fundamentally undo the dayton compromise. but there are things that can be done which will benefit all of the peoples of bosnia, and if we can motivate leaders and, more importantly, motivate the people as well as the federation to see that future and to take the chance to move it forward. ..

which there is the huge public demand for. bonnie madeleine albright, serbs all want to travel in europe. they pass necessary reforms to prevent them from meeting of these. they knew this was something to deal with easing but there is a concrete benefit so that is the challenge. to make sure concrete benefits are there and there is enough pressure from the ground up, even if they are reluctant to do it you can't -- right now in

part because the dialogue is not very positive, the press is an important factor that tends to focus not on the benefits of looking forward, that is why the challenge is to keep the spotlight on what you need and what both of us try to is when we go, five times in the last few years i will be there and a couple weeks is talk to the people and to keep that front and center so leaders understand there are people watching what they do. >> what pressure can you bring to the high representative? the press issue which we saw as well 15 years ago, the local press was very antagonistic. >> probably -- what i already called it. cocktail with it. one of the challenges to europe