half hours, so we were thrilled and essentially a lot of interest in it because of the renewed interest in president reagan. >> what comes next for you? >> we will have a book out this summer on american exceptionalism from regnery. we don't have a title for yet. the civil war novel out in the fall called the creator and we are looking forward to both of those. ..

>> it really took a while for a host of books to come out where no way have

started to except these things but whisper -- leader leon and you're there for me. i appreciate it. you can only write a book titled "how to run the world" if you are crazy for poor writing about exactly one thing and one word. of that word is diplomacy. you're not allowed to write a book called "how to run the world" if you write about war and conquest that is how to rule the world and a lot of people to infuse the two titles buy specifically colleges for a reason because diplomacy is the one lowered to answer to how to run the world. lending is the operative word it is about management. water and conquest is ruling the world. but what we do today fall

short and called a crisis management with it the not too big to fail with the price by 6:00 a.m. the competition's we did not have a system or a process to manage this situation. diplomacy is the system and the process and how we run the world. if you do not have diplomacy write you about run it right. that is exactly what we see around the world today. is to take to promise the very seriously not this of stuff but not go to war but diplomacy is three things and part of everything we do.

the second oldest profession, you know, the first. [laughter] if it takes diplomacy seriously in the largest possible historical park and then bring as to the diplomacy of today because it does predate the nation system and long outlast. it will also out last wikileaks. would think that is commonly heard is that this is the end of diplomacy. it fit into this book because also famous statesman has said it is the end of diplomacy. receiving the first telegraph cable from london they declared this is the end of diplomacy. why a delay need anything more than a subscription to

the near times? now wikileaks say it do now you find diplomacy is adapting about dialogue and communication and all of those things that we would not have relations or international community. but the who what would where why and how is always changing. diplomacy does not go away but we have to move away from the concept of diplomacy. that represents now or never life of diplomacy but the best analogy in my mind of what it has become is the term from the internet and the world of gaming that is a massive multiplier on-line game like world of warcraft

or farmville. john kerry suggested be a point* an ambassador for cyberspace. there were some second life in that the main so cyber diplomacy was under way before wikileaks. the subtitle of the book is charting a course that is renaissance that implies something and implies we live in a world that is the middle ages but to me that is a very useful analogy to understanding the 21st century so we don't pretend everything we experience today is unique. and there are presidents and lessons looking back 1,000 years. and there are two parallels that i want to flesh out without taking either too far but the first and most important is that was a multi polar world. the dynasty in china was the

most advanced civilization of its time with money, a gunpowder, largest cities of the world. india was also ruled by dynasties as in china thinks of being a naval power, the arab islamic world, think of those of stretched from north africa to asia and the expansion of the islamic influence is a parallel from 1,000 years ago and the west was divided and weak and embattled with the division between the holy roman empire, the byzantine empire to characterize western civilization at the time. for the rest of the world they look back and that was the golden age. it is important to remember if you look at the rise today and the growing power of the middle east we

realize it is not the first time. the second reason why it is because of the notion of a massive oak the player game because that was a time of history and in europe and at the time this city-state's for the dominant factors merchant families are very important to finance the extension of global trade that connected east and west did religious groups the church, the pope was very important mercenaries and nights roamed around serving whatever keying or prince would pay the right price it should sound familiar because again it is a lot like the world of today. humanitarian groups and so forth the great universities paris and london and oxford refunded during this period and were during this period.

the principle of recognition among actors. is what was constituted by mutual recognition and that is what is happening today in the 21st century. we live in a globalized middle ages on steroids. it resettle easy to stand here having written a book called "how to run the world." the bid teetwenty we have the solution just expand the un security council or let's recapitalize the imf or have another climate some audacious mehmet copenhagen keogh lowered cancun. there are so many silver bullets out there that pretend to tell you how we can fix the world and get things right. all of these together are

hypothetical to the notion of diplomacy as the ongoing process in which you always negotiate and adapt to the of circumstances. we have had in our history institutional organizations that try to lock in the world order to establish the process, a vienna and 3,019th century was one of the first that had worldwide impact because of the region of the european empire. then came the league of nations and that was a short lived then the united nations after world war ii. i think everybody agrees that the international architecture is in need and what we need to reform it

and taking into account a globalized middle ages a enormously powerful empire is president of making the new rules with nine stage actors like ngos there is nothing un the deck of the secretary general today that indicates the powers that be at that level our taking seriously the idea they need entirely new structures in order to harness the potential of all of the authorities and factors that are active and influential in a row politics medicis

spoke to policies staff about this that shows they have a systemic approach to leverage their resources of the american private sector there is a need to rethink our diplomatic system. of me emphasize with the explosion of activity it is not a flash in the pan it is part and parcel of what globalization has done with the rise of multinational corporations that began with liberalization trade and commerce bringing down economic barriers after world war ii release the power and at the end of the cold war held to accelerate their rise and prominence. but is not something or sg need to be put back into the

bottle. also technology with communications and so forth that have empowered non state actors and ngos that is not something that can be undone. it is intrinsic to globalization. the growing strength of the power of the united states, china, india, it just means that the world is populated it does not rule up the power of the other actors nor should it. i wouldn't submit to you a perfect storm i was talking about in the beginning, the leading states of the world they have had decades and to address these problems we feel anxious and nervous and a sense of hopelessness it is time to think about

harnessing non state powers to bring them to the table to address the situation. and also it cannot be undone is the actors better leveraging globalization are conducting their own foreign policy corporations move and relocate their headquarters and by an to supply chains and basically network through mergers and acquisitions throughout the world and google has his own foreign policy and bloomberg was i described in this book not just as a news organization but the private intelligence service you pay for proprietary data collected for every government in the world now "the financial times" god in with the act with a private site they have for the right price you'll get intelligence as well. everybody has their own strategy.

says ceos that we seem to acquire the most lowered buffett lowered george soros, a look at how they so effortlessly move across the public and private divide whether pursuing their own agenda public health issues around the world they don't think of themselves be a statesman later the lines are being blurred very much. the same thing goes mentioning bill gates and negates foundation even celebrities as george clooney hiring satellites to monitor the sudanese border these are examples of everyone trying to run their own foreign policy. religious groups and the return of the catholic church in hezbollah of the islamic factions the way they have their own foreign policy is calling its own

shots and the mentioned cities. places like new york singapore is a city stay summer conducting their own economic strategies with mayors and ministers the provinces of european countries who travel on their own diplomatic mission to raise money from there of sovereign wealth funds to gain investment into their city. not on behalf of the country or berlin or paris but on behalf of their region. every single chinese province and indian state has its own trade promotion offices to build up their state and city. the impact that will have and the trend but everyone having their own foreign policy will have a very, very significant impact on what constitutes

authority, who can negotiate and who was at the table and part of the decision making and the solution. the only way to rightly understand who has power is in the geographic specific sense, the united states is the largest military in the world and outspend anybody else. we could say by any allocation we will not be unrivaled until the year xyz they will not match us until 20 years from now. how useful is that? to tell you anything about influence in the real world in africa or latin america or the middle east? the military power alone is what constituted arguments about the persistence of american hegemony then why would we have the catastrophe of iraq and afghanistan today. we need to take into account

how many factors and of course, geography. why is it that we focus on know whether or not we have global military reach one half of the world's population is within the asian space of japan india triangle? doesn't have to have warships reaching the coast of africa to be the dominant power? we have to call into question the traditional assumptions about how we define power and where it matters to move away from simple hierarchies about military power being more influential and so forth. i want to get back to diplomacy and official interstate diplomacy represents an ever smaller slice. if we look at the world to the functional lens is a stabilizing iraq? combating climate change in

alleviating poverty? you come up with a whole different lens or view of our picture of the real diplomatic landscape and what it looks like. just beyond intergovernmental relations relations, public-private relations there are so many good examples of diplomacy taking place and i will give you a couple. the gates foundation is active across africa in countries like botswana a partner with the government to take the lead with the aids infection rate that was the public/private partnership and a corporate actor. the same thing has happened in the case in the management of diamonds out of botswana where to beers and other companies have been crucial to turn the whole vocabulary around what we call blood diamonds now

they call development diamonds because of the partnership that has emerged in a stable way to track them from that part of the world. that public private democracy there is some instances now you can barely help or tell them anymore. the third type of diplomacy that is often overlooked is private private diplomacy. for that you look at the world economic forum or clinton global initiative. those that used to lobby at usaid to raise funds from official sources now to the clinton initiative to as they can get a company to underwrite the programs in the self-interest way companies will support them and go be a benefit with markets and access to those populations for another

great example is between wal-mart and the environmental defense fund that has said of a large office to glean the supply chain and reduce emissions and improve labor conditions i cannot think of any other move where the u.n. summit on climate that will do as much they and embedding oneself in the world's largest company in order to reduce emissions with the supply chain. that is private private diplomacy. to take a big step back, a big dichotomy emerging that says let's expand the security council and put more issues on the g20 agenda and the government says says what coalition will be put together among

actors wherever or whoever they may be who has the resources to the table to agree how to tackle problems as close to the source as possible? that is a global governance that i strongly represent. there is a lot of innovation happening with this may give diplomacy to bring together the world of dog of an.com and .god do not forget about the religious groups i have principles that make them successful but the first is inclusion. that is correcting the diplomacy deficit. vent democracy directors staged deficit those of people talk about how to make them more democratic internally and streamline

procedures? go ahead and do that i do not see the connection immediately. you can expand the u.s. security council at ozzy have a larger security council as much as if they are made not want one will bring peace to a greater concern should be the diplomacy deficit it is a representation of zero coelho seven 1/3-- in the prophecies because they have resources to contribute. a collaboration among them is absolutely vital. the second principle that i find to successful may give diplomacy you could also call it wiki diplomacy which it is a hot prefix of our time.

the government is about we have a problem so let's create a new international organization as recently as two years ago you heard people say after the financial crisis you have a great many people who are plunged into poverty because of the collapse of global credit and a variety of other factors. will be managed out of washington or paris but by somehow in that money will find its way into the pockets of people who need it? i don't think so. it did not happen and would not have worked. let's have a global environment organization because that has binding organizations we tried that it does not work. i do not want there to be

more. there are more u.n. peacekeepers than ever. they are not able to convert the complex into a peaceful situation it is buy far the largest part of the budget. why do conflict situations need to wait for resolutions in new york to me properly addressed? why do not support the africans much more and the arab league peacekeeping force? that is decentralization those selling their own problems and a much more stable world in which you have to create central institutions to have debates al that level focusing on local empowerment is is that principle act locally but

governor globally. the third is mutual accountability to get back to the critique just a democracy cannot have democratic ngos or corporations in the sense of going to a ballot box. so 10 years from now we can still have a conversation to say what about the unaccountable companies or ngos? that will not get you anywhere there are many forms and that is the higher principle. democracy is one form of accountability and democracy works in many places and certain types of factors that not with other types such as corporations and ngos. even democracy is not perfect way to new-line throw our problems out we're

looking at the technologically infused and what i am hinting at now is within the coalition's having constant mutual monitoring and supervision the truth is as much as corporations they need to be watched that is why we have to demonstrate just how corrupt so many governments are. most people do not trust their government any more than they trust corporation said you be surprised to know american corporations are well done even though the government is mistrusted so there could be made in -- many side effects it is not monitoring but we

said deadlines and make a commitment and we will hold you to it. if not there are forces and shame and transparency that the media have such an important role and a lot of what has become the and it has not been enacted the power of shame or transparency that applies to government to the ngos and companies that means realtime process of monitoring such so you can have a process that does not rely on traditional models such as democracy.

make diplomacy is a new approach to global governance that i believe applies to every single one of the major problems that you can name on the agenda today with card security issues like terrorism but also the softer ones like climate change and public health. the case is too easy to make for the softer ones because the eight points foundation actually provides 30 or 40% of the diddy ratio budget every year. the ngo provides half the budget of the inter-governmental entity so this privatization is under way men do you and entities that have been created such as un aid or the fund fir aids and malaria actually

have public-private structures you have ngos with four level positions on them so the case is easy to make there but what i find interesting is to tackle the hard questions such as failed states where it is so abundantly clear the traditional approach and military intervention clearly are not providing longer-term solutions. so let's look for start with the failed states and afghanistan because 10 years into the occupation the department of defense has launched business and stabilization initiative. what they're doing their i's commanders in the field recruiting american companies to come to various provinces of afghanistan to look for places where they can invest with the supply

chain to stimulate infrastructure investment because nothing else will ever get us out of afghanistan and a satisfactory way it will not run itself under military occupation but it will run itself when it has the economy that can run itself and regionally integrated. that will only come through foreign investment building a private sector and these things that only now unfortunately so many years after being there start to get serious attention and that is too bad. afghanistan is an interesting example of the so-called failed states with the old school governance campaign would it be so nice if we have a world of

capable competent respectable nation states that respected citizens sorry don't have the responsibility to protect doctrine that says some states and governments are so evil that we have to intervene to prevent genocide and so forth? but we don't live in that world most is populated by colonial countries and many of those are failing and falling apart the splintering of cdn and the fact congo has been declared a country that doesn't exist when happens with pakistan and yemen speaks to the fragmentation of much of the postcolonial world three cannot treat all states the call or pretend anything that is going on today will contribute to building a set of strong states to be the

base line for future diplomacy instead what i see happening in afghanistan itself is a new hybrid government. a new public-private -- private those who get the lithium and the copper out to ship it in all directions so they have some revenues into their economy. it involves ngos to build the schools and hospitals and clinics. how long would it take to build a strong central afghan that is not correct to set up the number of schools and hospitals and clinics? how long does it take? a very long time if ever but if you had better coordination among all ngos that build the schools with the ministries and foreign

donors and investors and so forth i think you get to that solution a lot faster. we should reopen to that hybrid public private model for places that have never known a strong confident now corrupt state and will never know them because they start to fall apart if they have a greater role for the civil society for the private sector. this is now happening to my mind across africa with most of the world is in this situation most of the world does not have strong central government which is the united states or 20. even the g20 is not the price of 20 equally competent states to make contributions to the polls global order. very few of them are then there is terrorism which is another perfect example why

we need to think much more of mega diplomacy terms not just traditional terms because the two solutions that we now realize is the best investment against combating terrorism when is economic and job creation the crisis is the employment crisis as well as a political crisis and the other is education and. over the last 10 years throughout the bush administration were popularity was at its weakest that is an american university started to move wholesale into new doha and abu dhabi now you have more american universities than ever before they have been around to see they have an impact on global values for the empowerment of women setter being promoted and

happens not because of it is not a mandate to build these universities but because they could not get the says any more to come to the united states but so many were denied the opportunity to study in america so our universities went there and easily the smartest act of diplomacy and the important tool against terrorism that we have yet to undertake an and the fact it 7/8 from our universities sector which is one of the things that makes america a place but other societies look up to is that now we export it. it did not come from a washington directive. also where me diplomacy

formation should be the easiest to do. we have the wealthiest private sector the deepest plunged of ngos and the most charitable populations in the entire world are all right here. so to point* this out to audiences overseas that are myopic and detached and a small percentage of the population we're on the other side of the road from these troublespots and home to the universities and charities and foundations and the companies that do so much of the work of foreign investment in building institutions of education is to provide public health whether our pharmaceutical companies or infrastructure firms so it should be a no-brainer and what we don't have is the right process we

are a failure of imagination enough from reconstructing reconstructing-- reconstruct ing foreign policy to take into account these changes globalization has unleashed and i advocate a three step process for those involved in farm policy today the first is what is called the whole of government approach the term you lowered to be sick of hearing the interagency process that means what does the department of energy and the cia and agriculture and state department all doing around a given issue and how to get around to combine our resources? it is the outgoing policy group called the multi partner approach to

recognize your not the only ones to impact with their european allies china has a global presence and you have to take stock of what others are doing to leverage or maybe combat over undermining to understand our impact on a given situation and we make that mistake often but today given the news coverage like china and africa is hard to deny we're only one but the multi partner approach combining resources as much as possible but the third is the public-private that is fully absent and there are a couple of people in the state department whose full-time job it is that the

landscape of the u.s. government is behind the curve to be a driving facilitator so to their credit they have delegations going to the middle east and elsewhere saying our biggest contribution is to create jobs -- it is a waste of their time. and i say that but actually what they will tell you when the cameras are off.

but we should follow the three step process and the ngo should think about it then have a much more efficient kind of diplomacy. on the optimistic know i want to focus on the cohorts of people that this is so completely intuitive generation wide the students here at this university and young people all over the world to for whom working for a company that makes investments overseas with corporate citizenship programs and working for the ngo over the government are all equally diplomatic in nature you contribute to a global problem in some way and it is filling not necessarily public service

as a foreign service officer but a greater sense it is a part of the global dialogue, that contributes to changing how our world is structured and i think it is so intuitive that you see it happening all over the world that the realization and do see it on the streets of egypt today. there is a section of the but called generation y geopolitics because there have 40 been numerous examples like the two yen madagascar that took place a couple of years ago that somebody was too young to be made presidents of they had to change the constitution because clearly he was the right president -- person to become presidents of it is

the group of people around the world who are very much going to negative thomas c. to start the new process to get us out of the perfect storm out of the middle ages and into the next renaissance. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think what we will do is lined up for questions. >> thanks a lot it is in a lightning talk. i appreciate your thoughts in terms of the effectiveness of microfinance of organizations like that

throughout the world and never be interested in your thoughts of the role of religion with making diplomacy. >> i have a substantial section of microfinance and a couple of things i want to point* out is the way in which microfinance is a tool of economic empowerment and social justice the way it has prompted the agenda is nothing to do with the existing diplomatic architecture there is a new edict this is the way to do it. we know about the innovations in bangladesh and the ways in which that spread and has taken ahold all over the world and because of the ways in which it is so efficient to transfer resources was

almost zero overhead that is not you can say traditionally with aid organization of the person to person around the world i think a great deal of it has come under attack because of a couple of scandals happening in india and elsewhere but there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater this is absolutely a revolution on a global scale and the mechanisms by which economic transactions and now combine that with technologies that did not even exist with microfinance -- microfinance you will see it continue to deepen and spread a lot of steady say only 10 or 15% of the market finance customers are presently being served despite the fact of

institutions and within five or 10 years come every single person in the world will have a mobile phone or within the family unit or the village level we just see the beginning of it and i think it is a great thing and the repayment rates are still higher than places of the united states. [laughter] that needs to be taken very seriously and the role of religion absolutely. first of all, about identity the notion here national identity technology reminds us there are many forms of identity and one can have multiple identities we should prepare to live in the world where people identify themselves as the appearance of the state to have a corporate loyalty to their employer for professional purposes and part of cloud communities as

well like the facebook group's so there is a lot of identity out there and no one is to say which it is stronger or weaker that depends on the individual. the second is the connection to politics. and the notion of islamic radicalism as a geopolitical forces it is nonsense and i have been arguing about this since 9/11 when everybody started to create programs about how to engage with the muslim world as if there is one day and i found those to be propped -- preposterous but there is no way to reach even the organization does not dictate to its own members anyone policy and

any day morocco and saudi arabia do not coordinate for policy is rarely have a common statement on anything with those towards israel reveals tremendous variations of there is no such thing has a global religious view lowered geopolitical coherence to religion and that is a good thing. instead we should take at the micro level because rather than emphasize the islamic contours' of global terrorism we should remember that almost all terrorism by which we mean so much the 9/11 terrorism is a very minuscule share, almost all terrorism is local. afghanistan, kashmir, somalia and the local politics

local marginal was a shin and reconciling local freedom and the sooner we abandon the idea that there is a global force driving and motivating these things the sooner we get to a solution. >> [laughter] >> i am a student at the lbj and i m generation x. [laughter] forgive me for not being generation y but it seems to me you are being dismissive of old school and do not parse out the priorities of the new decentralize cooperative model. corporations have an allegiance to their shareholders nations are the

department of state has the legions to the citizenry of united states and iran not separating whose policies take precedence who is the decision maker when all parties don't agree? put that out more i would appreciate it what does anyone actors year get precedence over another? what is the americans solution to do with the situation? to be prioritized over another actor's you? take the millennium development goals as a good example ratified by all member states by 2015 we should achieve xyz targets to curb incidence of hunger and poverty by half. goals that we are nowhere

near etchy being to the extent that we are it has to do with economic growth in india and china but nothing to do with the prior day's that may or may not have been set through the world bank meeting or the general assembly. those who were the main advisor on the millennium declaration for a decade at the time over 10 years ago said now that we have a dead -- deadline for the world, it doesn't matter who you are any more. if you are a government contributing with mortality or infectious of disease or company or ngo it does not matter goals are for everyone. our accountability is to the poll. not to whether or not the prior was set by the state department but the

priorities to the objective and it is a free-for-all whoever can do it should do it so i am being value neutral discounting the priorities that may or may not be set by government but speaking of microcredit earlier it seems the way by climate changes of the agenda for the lobbying of scientists and ngos and other actors it seems there is a strong case the things we are focusing on the do not allow themselves to the priorities in decisions made by states but what is important is we don throughout the international system. i defend the united nations very strongly but i do it carefully but for a lot of

people the u.n. is also nothing proposition they are not with us they are against us. the security council has invalidated, to hell with them. what i try to do is distinguish between the body such as the security council general assembly are secretariat those like unicef for the world food program or the commissioner for refugees say that you go out to help people they cost very low and extremely efficient and operate in places but to be we should keep the functional agencies. they do tremendous good with nobel prizes every couple of years but i am not so sure about the core bodies that focus on perfunctory statements. a couple of years ago all

heads of state coming to new york for the general assembly rather than have five straight days featured back to back-to-back they would free record a speech each president could do it in his or her office to put on the dvd to put them on the web than people could watch them and every single country said no. they all needed to go there to give their speech to hold up traffic in my home town of new york for an entire week. are not have a lot of loyalty to priorities and i am not apologetic but on the accountability issue with corporations our responsibility to shareholders, led those that are supposed to be responsible it is where these are set rather than on a grounder company is going to invest in one area

government financing and another when the taliban overruns everything. so priorities are set in a collective voice on a local level and when they are not coming things tend to not go right so it is very situational but i don't think any one player has priority over the other. >> i am part of the generation that develop the systems that don't work too well. [laughter] any longer and curious about world population growth and the allocation of world. >> world population i like to say there are two causes

of overpopulation and corruption those two in combination alone account for a lot of the problems that we face today and overpopulation relates to many resource concerns but not all of them. even a world with a slightly smaller population getting richer might create a crisis that we have with respect to fossil fuel consumption so i don't think is a one-to-one relationship they are important geographically where do find overpopulation leading to serious political issues like over harvesting of land, not enough land and not enough production so it creates migrants with kenya and other parts of africa as well. talk about competition for resources does not get

specific enough. it is a regional question and the transition toward alternative energy sang clean energy happens very differential with europe they use this natural gas that is and but at the same time because of the resources that we get from canada and mexico and venezuela and west africa as united states doesn't necessarily have the strategic imperative to move in that transition and the way other countries do. there is little global motivation to change policy and that is why he liked the deadlock and failure with a local circumstances compel policy and other actors to clean up their act you see a

lot more change so there isn't a global answer of population but the question for china and india and africa then it becomes something that spills over and there isn't a global answer it is a regional type of approach. >> i have a couple of questions. it seems to me that your efforts from what you talk about four non-governmental diplomacy indicates a failure of governments in general to perform their traditional task and is that the case and what you propose to fix the problems of government? and the second question is

tv seems to be a test case of the world coming together with various nine ngo to do reconstruction following the earthquake that the only problem is the haitian provide the test the efficiency and failure of all the organizations to deliver the products and goods that the haitian people need and in fact, there seems to be a story going around that they brought in the cholera epidemic so is that a poster child for your process? >> too great questions. the first about the bill years of government, i don't say it states. we have many fail governments around the world i do not have one proposal

to make them all upright and i spend quite a bit of time lecturing why i do not think that is even a worthy objective because building a bureaucracies for that sake get you to wear the arab world is today which is crumbling those governments and falling apart. looking at looking at good governance mechanisms the combined resources is much more promising. look at india that people observer as the emerging superpower, what is changed what is it today that fuels growth and the internal development? the governments of india have a very small budget and it is embarrassingly small but what is happening is the confederation of industry and private sector:shin come together to do joint

investments in infrastructure, to except guarantees of modest returns on the corporate investments and because foreign investors don't trust the indian government because of horrific levels of red tape and only empowers them to invest in the projects if the leading face it is corporate or through public private mechanism. it is an example how you build a different kind of governance and the important issue it is life or death and about making hover country whole which india is not so that is a good example of how you think beyond a government to take the functional responsibility that a government has to figure out how you augment them sell things get done and there

are many ways to go about it in india's starts to experiment with at and anybody can say look at the china model. . .

>> only now are we starting to see at the organic level a little bit of a kind of cooperation and a division of labor that we should be seeing, and a lot of this is ji8hnology driven so technology providers whether it's microsoft or others started to create these platforms that are allowing this realtime geolocation of who is delivering what resources where, what neighborhood are they responsible for, and trying to figure out what gaps exist in those areas, and who can bring them in so a lot of transparency is needed on that, and you see coalitions developing on the microlevel. there's ngo's flooding into the scene, and a lot of duplication of activity, but there'sonoç alo some interesting stories emerging. there's a group called architecture for humanity that said we're not just going to go in and fill up the tents as mucp as important as it is for people

to have shelter, but it's how do you build back better? they are taking it seriously since they work or housing, so building is an appropriate metaphor. they hire locals, just build the kind of simple structures that people need. we want them to be strong and resill yept, but make sure there's local ownership over the project and spread from one village to the next, the bottom-up model i've been trying to advocate. a little bit of that is happening over in haiti, but from the tsunami in indonesia to haiti today, there still hasn't be a lot of progress in that regard i'm afraid, but i do think there are some best practices that emerge from each of these situations that ideally governments, companies, ngo's learn the lessons and the next time around hopefully things work more efficiently. >> excuse me. i can't let you say this. i've been using microsoft

products for 15 years now. i don't believe they can deliver a useful product that's going to work. >> i can't disagree with you on windows. this is a different set of microsoft products, thanks. [laughter] >> hi, i'm a student at the lbj school. my question is in this even more thoroughly globalized world that you're predicting and envisioning and especially talking about this public-private dynamic that you're saying is so important, i'm just wondering, what is conflict resolution look like in that world when you have clashes between states, real problem children. how does that -- how do the states work together to resolve those issues and what is the --

what are those private entities say about how that goes? >> that's a great question. i devote a whole chapter in the book actually at looking at peacemaking and the diplomacy around peacemaking and the extent to which in a way you were removing towards a crowd source conflict resolution, but it's not necessarily, you know, hasn't made major breakthroughs, but i profiled organizations like independent diplomat which represents nonstate parties to disputed and various other ngo's like the international center for transactional justice and what jimmy carter is doing with his geneva process, this intercommunity type of diplomacy meant to bridge the divides across the israeli palestinian communities. i view these as existing, and i don't view any one instrument or

mechanism as necessarily being more effective than others right now especially if you look at the fact that, you know, in the history of the middle east peace process, there's been decades of rose garden ceremonies and each in some way brought us to the point where we can say there is a road map, an arab peace plan, whatever the case may be, we need a two-state solution. of course, the diplomacy led by the united states, europe, u.n. is instrumental to getting us to that point, but getting us to the finish line requires a lot more obviously so if you take the example of the israeli-palestinian situation, if we are going to have a viable two-state solution, it's going to require this linking of the west bank and gaza through an infrastructure corridor, the iran flushed out the arc, and it's going to require what is called the arc investment bank or infrastructure bank taking money from private resources and

investors to build that and construct it. there's going to be a lot of companies involved. then you have to have your interpersonal reconciliation processes whether it's the geneva process or one voice or seeds of peace or whatever the case may be, all of these things, so i feel like there's a role for everyone in different aspects of this. one thing is for sure, you don't just declare peace or settle a border and have love and harmony across it. there's many players involved. i try to profile different conflicts across the constellations, but i think all of them are important in their own way. >> i think we have time for two more questions. why don't we take them both at the same time. it really should be one of the students.

>> hi, i'm at school. from what i understand, you're saying is governments, ngo's corporations, that interest, from all over, and if you can sort of sinner jiz them, you can correspond. after lapping all the interests, let's talk. let's take, for example, india as the case, and there's districts where the government is not functioning. people have arms against government and insurgency and the corporations are there, but exploit people. it is actually a preview which can only be directed to democratic political solutions which are very old school, but i don't see how decentralization

would give voice to those modernized people. also, for example, corruption. you can't really decentralize corruption. it works really well. [laughter] it reiterates the same power structures, so i wanted to sort of wanted you to e elaborate on that. how do you see that playing out? >> uh-huh, great. one more? yeah. >> okay. >> i'm chris johnson, with college of communications here, and my question to try to link that a little bit since we're going to answer too here is as we move into an era where collaboration is more effective than organization in solving problems because it's technology driven, are we going to see a deterioration of western style democratic government and i say this because it seems like every four years, four to eight years the world is looking at us going

what's the foreign policy going to be like, and so it seems like democratic nations are going to face a credibility problem. >> people are wondering -- [laughter] >> great question. let me take the first one about corruption and areas of weak government or nonexisting governments such as the parts of india. a substantial portion of india territory is in fact that is under threat from insurgents, and, yes, the only player there that seems to be doing anything are the mining companies, and in a way, their resources are perversely used to fuel the insurgency, so how do you get out of that? well, you know, india redeployed a lot of its military internally to combat the threat. it has not been effective. it further alienated the people.

what i have been seeing is that it's actually the mining companies themselves saying if we actually wind up getting forced out of here at gunpoint or knife point, we don't have accesses to the resources anymore, so we have to do something different. we have to partner with local police, strengthen the local governments, set up neighborhood watch programs, set up all sorts of corporate citizen schemes, employee more locals in what we're doing, pay them more as realm. we have to do all these things. race to the bottom; right? i bet you that's going to happen way before the indian government is going to get its act to the and turn the tide. the country will fall apart before that happens, okay? but -- there's many examples -- there's a whole chapter on this looking at the industry transparency initiatives operating in angola and now in

chad. it's hit and miss. there's not a truly successful case where the eiti that was created by george and started as publish what you pay, forcing mining companies to disclose the revenues or disclose the payments they make to governments in oil rich and mineral rich countries, and the purpose of that -- again, it's perfect megadiplomacy. the oil companies are now committed to disclosing revenues because they want to have something of a level playing field because otherwise they are outdoing each other with bribes, and you don't profit anymore, so they have an interest this doing this. you have the local governments who need the revenued income and fear that being sanctioned and having laws put against investment in those countries through sanctions if they continue to be so negligent, and then you obviously got the civic groups and the eiti requires that substantial portions of mineral or oil revenue are put

into an escrow fund, the minimum which is co-determined by local ngo's, by the government, by international donors and the world banks, and the energy sector. it's pretty damn messy, but there's no hope of making any or avoiding the oil curse in countries like angola and elsewhere unless you do exactly that because the traditional approach is we struck oil, let's go and bribe the government and get whatever we can within five years because of corruption, rent seeking believer, civil war, clams of the -- collapse of the government. you can repeat history if you want a thousand times or you can do megadiplomacy that i think holds the solution, not a perfect one, but a way better one than what we've had so far. there's no point in just saying we're so bad at managing this oil, let's just keep it in the

ground. how does that help anyone? it doesn't help anyone, but for about a decade, the world bank started doing exactly that. we're just so bad at helping countries manage their natural resources, let's just not do it anymore. that's not helpful. that's a complete admission of failure. i think they are promises approaches that fit very well with the megadiplomacy sort of rubric that can work. on the government question, i think this is fascinating, and it's one that i deal with as well in different chapters because i think that we are no longer in the business of really promoting democracy as such. we are in the business of promoting good governments, and the vow cab by lair changed and it's not one that we as america believe in changing. we are reactive of this because of the rise of state capitalist, the authoritarian powers delivering economic growth and social benefits whether it's singapore originally and then china and now the persian gulf

countries that are obviously not collapsing. egypt is, but the quatar isn't. there is this rival model as it were, it's not better or worse. it's efficient in some ways, inefficient in others, doesn't respect human rights as much, of course, and so it has weaknesses, but because of that challenge in a way to the notion of the change of history and triumph of modes of poll tings that good government is about public welfare, accountability, and rule of law, and a whole host of metrics that don't have to be democracy, and so today in the middle east really what we're settling for in a way, but i think maybe it's better because it helps us get beyond the ideological con conflict, is just to promote good government wherever we can rather than

assuming any given country is ready for or can accept western style democracy, so i think the move towards talking about good government and de-emphasizing democracy is essentially a good thing. i don't think -- i think you'll get to democracy in a lot of the places, but not by hammering away. you get there by focusing on good government. thank you. [applause] >> that was paran connors preparing the nations. visit paragkhanna.com for more information. >> well, with federal judge's rejection of the 2008 google book settlement, the future of a

complete online library is in question. joining us now to discuss the issue is the news editor of marketplace. can you begin by giving us a brief overview of what the settlement was and who are the parties involved? >> guest: sure, the google book settlement arose from an nornlgal lawsuit filed by the association of american publishers and the authors guild objected to the fact that in their view google was scanning primarily out of print and or fan works, those works who copyright status was not entirely known, and they felt that this wholesale scanning was infringement, and they didn't like that so they sued. as it made its way through the courts, however, the parties all decided to create what is known as the google book settlement, and what that would entail is coming up with some means of giving copyright holders some

monetary value for their work, and what they elected to do was to create what's known as an opt out process where if authors did not want their works to be scanned by google, they could write in and opt out, and those who had their work scanned by google got about $60 per work. as it made its way through the courts, judge chin last heard about this approximately 14 months ago, and then he was confirmed to the second court of appeals after which nobody knew exactly what was going on with the settlement, and then when the news came in last week he rejected it, that sort of created a wave of surprise among many parties and especially in the publishing community. >> host: what was the judge's rationale? >> guest: he ultimately believed that the settlement was not fair, adequate, or reasonable. he felt that the numerous objections that were lodged by about 6800 authors as well as

500 other parties were substantial enough to rule that the way the settlement was created contravened current copyright law and perhaps there was a better way to do it. in his view, he thought the majority of the objections could be nullified by instead of an opt in in -- opt out process, use the opt in process saying i want to be part of the process. he didn't like that, and he felt that this was not a good way of doing it. the other portion that i addressed earlier related to orphan works and he felt the google book settlement could not adequately address this and instead this should be taken up by congress. >> host: so during this entire legal process, google has been scanning books into its system. what happens to those books?

>> guest: that's a very good question, and, in fact, because the settlement has now been rejected, no one really knows what the next move will be. there is supposed to be a status meeting in court on april 25th at 4:30 at which time i guess the parties are going to state their claims as to why they should come up with a revised settlement, that's what the agp and ag are both on record as saying, and google has to figure out whackly what they want -- exactly what they want. there are multiple ways of looking at it. some commentators say that this actually hurts google because, you know, this puts their scanning ability in doubt. other commentators say, no, this is, in fact, a spine because in another separate program, the creation of google e-books, google's already scanning works that are in the copyright with various permissions. you can go to google's e-book site online and down load for a

price any current e-book that's available for sale. you can even go to various independent retailers affiliated with the google e-bookstore. they do it through a partner program where publishers and authors have opted in order to make the books available for sale so there's some rationale by instituting this particular program that this is perhaps a model for what the google book settlement should be. the other thing that is put in limbo is the settlement was supposed to create a google e-book's right registry. they spent between $12-50 million already in getting this up and running. how can you have a rights registry for a settlement that doesn't spirally exist? it remains to be seen. will they relaunch the lawsuit? will other parties litigate? does google want to continue the

suit? we'll know more on april 25th. >> host: now, what was google's reaction and the american association of publisher's reaction to judge chin's suggestion that they use an opt in system? >> guest: both the aap and the ag were understandably disappointed that the settlement was not approved, but both parties seemed to express some optimism that they could find a way into the settlement like for example mcmillian's ceo issued a statement saying they are prepared that as a publisher plaintiff to enter into a narrow settlement along the lines to take advantage of the opportunities and hope other parties will do so too. others said regardless of what the outcome of discussions are, readers want access to unavailable works. authors need every market they can get. there has to be a way to make

some kind of settlement happen to make these works available, and so they hope that they can, in fact, arrive at a settlement. with respect to google, they were, as i said, kind of disappointed, but they essentially said they hope to be able to continue their scanning work and make as many books available. essentially, it's disappointed, but cautious optimism seems to be ruling the day. >> host: what about google's competitors? amazon, microsoft, yahoo, ect.. what was their reaction? >> guest: to the best of my knowledge, i think the reactions were mostly lodged within court documents. from what i understand though they were certainly pleased the settlement was not approved because each of those parties or certainly the majority of the parties logged objections with the court. they said if you give google

this unfair advantage, how is this good for copyright? that was another big issue of judge chin which if -- it's a good idea to have a digital library, to have these works scanned, but should google be the arbiter and decision maker, the entity that decides how it scanned, what is scanned, which books are essentially made available, and i think in the judge's opinion, he felt very uncomfortable that one entity, one corporation could have that much power, and it's unfair advantage over any other corporate or public entity. >> host: recently in the new "new york times," director of the harvard university lie wrote, "the decision is a victory for the public good but we should not abandon google's dream of making all the books available in the world available to everyone and we should have a

digital library providing these books free of charge to reader." is there any availability to that? >> guest: it sounds like a wonderful idea. yeah, the only entity that stepped up is google, and unfortunately, it's especially with the current state of play, the priority for a digital public library not already in process i suspect is not the highest of priorities. i mean, already look at the money that's just been spent on the right's registry alone that may have to be abandoned in the worst case se their your or taken up in the best case scenario, but by who? google was the tremendous market cap they have are really one of the only corporations or entities, public or private, that have the clout and the muscle to be able to make this happen, so i think ultimately that was why a settlement was a good idea for the aap and the ag because they recognize there is value in the work that google

did, and they wanted to at least get something off the ground and that could be built on and built on. will the library system be able to come together for a nonprofit i wanty when they are facing such massive cut back as the state and federal level? i'm not entirely certain so even though there's disappointment and cautious optimism about reviving the settlement, there's also skepticism that this can happen, so some people look at a as a win-win. i'm looking at it as more of a neutral potentially great loss i suppose if something doesn't move forward. >> host: will judge chin continue to have a role in this issue? >> guest: from what i understand, he will not especially now that he has moved on to the second circuit court of appeals. this is actually one the last outstanding cases on this

docket. the 14 months that it took seemed at least in publishing circles a little long, but in light of the complexities of the issues raised, it makes sense in hindsight so then the issue becomes who takes this up? will it have to be litigated from scratch? will it be heard again? are there other court cases to factor into what kind of potential outcome is reached at a later date? will it drag on for years? we just don't know at this point. things will become clear at the status meeting on april 25th. >> host: we look forward to talking to you after the status meeting. finally, do you see congress playing a role? >> guest: that's a very, very good question, peter. certainly the judge hopes congress plays a role. i'm not entirely certain that they will play a role since from a priority standpoint looking at integrated context of budget

cuts and health care and various military activities going on whether the issue of these works or having a digital library is going to even register on the current congress. they also, i think, traditionally haven't necessarily been the most willing listeners in terms of trying to change current copyright law to make it more accessible to everybody so i think it remains to be seen what congress, in fact,ing will do. >> host: sarah weinman is the editor for publishers marketplace. we'll talk with her again after the april 25th meeting. thank you. >> guest: thank you so much for having me.