>> i think we have to turn yours off. thank you so much. i really appreciate the plug on that particular topic. >> i will do it again. >> you can all do it in great harmony. mr. olsen, we are delighted from the perspective of agreement and certainly on the energy issue. we have offshore exploration and certainly that's an interesting prospect for greenland politics so we welcome your comments. >> thank you for inviting me to this, and very much welcome on the opportunity to address some of the issues and allow me to take a more elaborate to the approach to some of the issues since i came this long way, all the way yesterday. it's a bit of a temperature

shock to come to these latitudes. but i know how conditions can be like. at least it's not august. i'm glad with that. there are substantial changes taking place, and science cannot even keep up with the predictions of the rate of the sea ice, for example. this opens up new possibilities for new shipping routes. more accessible to the natural resources as well as changes in the ocean, which present challenges especially for the group that depends on harvesting the resources of the ocean, the hunters and fishermen. it is very much about adaptation for us to the new conditions as well as utilizing opportunities, which in a broader context is about addressing our political and economic goals. independent of whether or not, change is taking place.

for us, the arctic is about people and the conditions in which we live under, about addressing the opportunities and challenges it will face. the humans i mention will be the focus of our efforts in the years ahead. with regard to greenland, we took a major step in 2000 with a new relationship with denmark where we will continue to take over responsibilities from denmark in our long-term process. i'm here stressing over the long-term, building up green and economically as well as politically. this is all done in mutual understanding and agreement with denmark. in this process reaching financially independent from denmark and going beyond that is the key issue in development of our natural resources, critical in reaching that goal. that is why we are very focused

on developing and benefiting from our natural resources, oil and gas, minerals sector, when it comes to hydropower. for us it is simple economics. if we do not develop the economic advantages in our position we will not reach our political goals. we are well aware there are risks, and risks involved and we need to address those risks. we are not here to destroy the environment we live off, we have to be responsible guardians of the environment. we do not see development and environmental protection as two opposite goals. the challenge is to combine what could be interpreted as opposing goes into complementary solutions. we have to do we do in greenland employ some of the toughest environmental standards when it comes to offshore gas exploration. we have been looking at the norwegian standards for inspiration on oil and gas as well as the others would've

adopted in greenland. we have agreements with norway, just knowing is several decades experience what it comes to oil and gas extraction. which we are benefiting from, just like we work closely with canada as well, energy board of canada. we welcome very much focus and attention to environmental issues, and with a continued focus on improving practices and standards instead of knowledge and new technology becomes available. environmental leadership is paramount in the arctic, but as i said earlier, going together with resource development. we welcome the u.s. initiate project in the arctic council to develop an international instrument on oil spill preparedness and response. which we hope will be a first step in establishing, high standards to be employed all of the arctic on oil spill

preparedness and response. would also like to see additional measures taken in the form of international mechanism for our pollution damage resulting from offshore oil exploration. on top of the obligations already in place. the kingdom of denmark have -- we had a very successful ministerial a few weeks ago where we reach promising results when it comes to the future work of the arctic council. we signed the first ever legally binding agreement between arctic states and search and rescue. in such a sparsely populated area, increase coordination, communication and cooperation which the agreement will result in, is necessary as we are speaking about such tremendous part of the globe. 16 to be more exact, as you

said. we agree upon as such a permit secretary and reach agree on how to deal with the role of the service which has been an issue, especially between arctic and some non-arctic states. in the work of the council. we welcome those with a genuine interest in the council and who can be part of the solution, not part of the problem. addressing issues of relevance to the arctic peoples. yes, we are open to dialogue and cooperation with other non-arctic states and entities, but there's also a limit which is not set in stone, which will always be somewhat seen as outlooks continue to change. but the arctic should not be seen as being in a vacuum. isolated from the world. the arctic is well regulated and managed. yes, there are areas in different biological systems not well-known in which needs to be research and further explored.

but with the changes taking place both in the arctic but also around the globe, we have witnessed an arctic increasingly directly connected to events and developments elsewhere around the globe, compared just like 10 years ago. because we're dealing with an area that largely has been left alone, so to speak, and ever increasing need for resources around the world in opening of new shipping routes have begun to attract impact on the arctic. events in the middle east that the price of oil has an interest on the arctic, as well as china's national policy when it comes to rare earth minerals, also have an influence on us. just to mention some examples. the arctic could potentially become maybe not exactly the breadbasket, by substantial supply of energy and minerals to the rest of the world. there will always be limitations due to the harsh environment and

high cost associate with resources in the arctic but there are also significant reserves that we discovered continually. what is important and critical though is the arctic states take responsibility and leadership and have the issues in a responsible manner to the benefit of the people. i do believe we're doing that the arctic council, as well as through the declaration from 2008. does the arctic state in peoples set the agenda as to what should take place and how opportunities and geology should be addressed. in kind of development, not sustainable without the involvement and participation of the people, and i think i will leave it with that, and thank you for the opportunity. [applause] >> thank you, minister olsen,

for those, that and i'm sure there will be lots a good follow. last but not least, ambassador hafstrom, who is the swedish government now assumes a very important responsibility for the next two years is steering the arctic council ship for the next two years through a very challenging agenda. >> thank you. thank you so much. last but not least, i will be a bit informal, a bit neutral if you don't mind. but to gary, i must correct you. we went to the finals but we lost. we lost to the fins. but we beat them yesterday and soccer. i hope for vancouver with quite a few swedes will do it. [laughter] >> that's the way it is in life. defense deputy prime minister, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, great to be here. the arctic is currently as allow

sticker sets stressed before in a period of rapid rapid change, environmentally, politically, socially and economically. this might be a state that is obvious to many of us, but what we have to offer ourselves is whether we are adopting our working methods to face the challenges of the changing arctic. this is not only an academic question, but highly relevant for us since we assumed the chairmanship of the arctic council for the coming two years. might the immediate author would be yes. the arctic council is adapting its ways of cooperation. it is on the right track. at the ministerial meeting as a foreign deputy minister said, we made decisions to adapt the reform package which include review of the role of service,

possibility of stronger decision-making, establishment of permanent secretary in norway, as well as -- and, of course, sweden is pleased to know that the number of countries have applied for our server stages in the arctic council. and we also welcome additional observers. and we're happy that the criteria and the role of observers has been decided in nuke. these criteria should allow for efficient review of applications for those. also, we immensely appreciate the increasing interest of the european commission on all issues. representing member states i would like to underline that this is welcome, and many other policies impact of the arctic.

two examples. your policy on climate change and its policies on chemicals, just to name a few. understanding of arctic conditions and concerns is requisite for informed decision-making on arctic issues. we would contribute to substantially improvements in this respect. during our chairmanship, sweden wants to give priority to issues that will promote environmentally and socially sustainable development on the arctic. gary underline that also. the agreement on search and rescue that was signed at the arctic council meeting was an important reminder. the agreement means that the council considerably will strengthen the cooperation and coordination in the region. the sustainability of oil and natural gas asked mortician is key in the development of the

arctic. it's high on the agenda and the member states and the social worker on this issue has been done in arctic council. it is important to continue this work. we focus our work on preparedness and prevention on oil emissions. as a follow up to the agreement on search and rescue, sweden will also as a priority, work on developing on instrument to coordinate the arctic states response to possible oil spills from exportation and transportation to the temperature my friends in the arctic has increased at twice the rate of the global average of the past 100 years. and the best protection for the arctic climate is of course ambitious global climate agreement. that is global warming below two degrees. and sweden as the chair will continue to raise his profile of arctic issues on international

forums, with a view to achieve a more ambitious global a mission reduction in addition, to action on gases such as carbon dioxide, we need to continue to address lack carbon and other short-lived climate forces. since they have a more local impact and it is an area where we, the arctic countries, can take measures that will directly benefit the arctic region. the arctic is first and foremost the home to the people who live there. many of them are from indigenous groups. the arctic council is fairly unique, since representatives of indigenous groups are participating in all the work of the organization, something that the swedish chairmanship will continue and is crucial to make the right decisions for the region. the swedish chairmanship will strengthen and focus of the arctic council work on the

economic and social issues, hostage of economic development, it's a core issue for people living in that part of the world. our chairmanship will also take the discussion and cooperation with the business community on how the private sector can contribute to sustainable economic develop and the arctic region. for example, take into account the sensitivity of the environment and, of course, the indigenous people special needs. closely linked to climate change and other environmental disturbances is the issue of food security and safety. the arctic council should contribute to development of strategic and capacity building to make sure the people in the arctic have a secure supply of safe food and drinking water. the search and sharing of traditional knowledge are a key element in this context.

another way of strengthening the council is for it to be better react to current developments in the arctic. the arctic council has the capacity to present fact-based analysis, and a coordinated approach, for such an approach, do they have. but it's not enough to establish tax. the arctic council needs to increase its efforts to communicate these findings as well as the recommendations and commitments. by doing so we can create a factual based perception of the arctic, and both among the general public and decision-makers. so the chairmanship wants to -- we will develop and arctic council first communication strategy. swedish is proud to assume the chairmanship of the arctic council. thanks to previous chairmanshi chairmanships, the arctic council has developed into this established forum for confidence building and regional

cooperation. the challenge in arctic will increasingly be the focus, and when arctic council two years from now meet someone in sweden, i'm convinced that will be the case even more. thank you. [applause] >> i think will have a detailed hockey conversation following the panel discussion. gentlemen, thank you again. i think i'm going to ask all of you to turn on your microphones. and i would love to sort of throughout a baseball analogy. and then welcome all of you to throw some curveballs, fastballs, maybe a couple of softballs to this very distinguished panel of arctic experts. to our presentation at the beginning, that lovely picture of u.s. coast guard cutter, we

are growing increasingly concerned that while search and rescue has to import feature of the arctic council for the last few years we now have an agreement. do we have sufficient capabilities in the arctic to keep up with the daunting challenge of increased human activity? lasser went to canadian cruise ships that were stuck. we had large russian fishing vessels stuck in water and they were rescued, it took a little while but were rescued. my concern here is that while we have an agreement, we don't have sufficient capability, and to ambassador hafstrom spawn, relying on the private sector because governments may not have sufficient infrastructure. are we looking to on the gas companies to provide oil and still regards -- oil response agreement? a very large icebreaker fleet that is in private hands.

how to address that will? so i would love your reflections on really security in the arctic. we don't talk about that any arctic council because it's forbidden by the charter. we don't talk about it in nato. four of the five arctic coast are nato members but i just want to pose the question of are we ready for the security challenges in the arctic? and can i ask you to bring begin that conversation and then we will open the floor to some comments. please raise your hand and we will begin that discussion. >> well, first of all the canadians do have some practice being stuck in the ice. we have a little bit of a winter. we work through it. i think you mentioned the other international forums, arctic council and the nato. we certainly have a cooperative

defense relationship on the security side with norad running out of colorado springs with joint command and joint agreement and cooperative agreements with norway, the navy and the united states and their navy. obviously, know that include shipping and air protection so it's not just on the water. we also think, yes, we've got to continue to increase the capacity. it's not a status quo situation on the change in geography and it's not a status quo situation on the assets that had to be brought to bear to be more responsive on their search and rescue site, and more effective on the security side. some of the things we're investing in now include investments in satellite, much more sophisticated satellites will be up and running and i

believe 2014, do not only to be able to track more effectively the ice, perhaps we won't get as many stalls in the ice, and also track the impact of climate change more precisely based on the arctic council's desire to work on a fact-based approach going forward, and also by the capacity to have a search and rescue site to improve situations. so, the question is, it's not an either or. do we need to continue to build capacity? yes. do we need to continue to invest? yes. continue to do that, the answer is yes. >> thank you. >> i would agree with that. i think it's pretty clear we don't have the platform for the assets that we need if we're going to be efficient and do a search and rescue in these areas. these are some of the most difficult waters in the world. i mean, and they aren't not new

to us. we build up our navy and the coast guard over the last year with a clear eyed trying to monitor and to be able to at least look after our own air which is quite large. to point something million square of just water. and agreement of search and rescue, agreement about -- i spoke to the apple the other day of u.s. coast guard. he was pretty optimistic. and agreement is not a bad way to start. you can also build on a number of good bilateral arrangements. and again, i think the russians are not here and i'm not representing them, but we have some, particularly on the fisheries side, but also in search and rescue in general. you could build on fat. slowly, but we need more icebreaking capacity, that we

need more assets. we're also looking at renewing our aircraft in these areas. this is difficult fix some of those difficult areas of the world, i think will never be patrolled or like the gulf of mexico. we shouldn't kid ourselves. there's darkness, there is ice, there is very rough weather which we have to take into consideration. as i said it's going to be hard, it's not a bad start. now, one worry is of course we live in times of budget, don't we? and many of these assets are going to have to come out of budget, whether it's the military. on the other hand, i'm would be so worried whether these assets are military, civilian and private assets. at least as far as we are concerned i'm not sure that is a big worry. at least our own waters.

bordering on our neighbors, that is not such a big worry on our part. i don't know enough about the other places, but if you first allow someone to operate in these areas privately, you know, you are putting in some requirements or you make some arrangements. that's also if things go wrong that things they are author are available. but these are the most challenging areas of the world. they will remain so. this is not for amateurs and it's going to take a lot of investment, hard work to get there. and my fear is that budget is where the problem is. >> i think you have to realize one of the biggest challenge is coming from, for us in greenland is especially from cruise ships.

the number has just exploded of ships going up along our shores and they're going further and further up north as the ice recedes. i mean, i don't think even if we're looking as the arctic as a whole that we will have sufficient capabilities ever, because it just is too much to cover, such a big part of the globe, such a sparsely populated area. but i think you have to look at solutions. what we have, for example, proposed cruise ships follow each other closely. so in case one, you know, gets into i space the other can cover that. i think increase coordination between countries as well and cooperation. i mean, the danish navy which is

responsible for the waters outside our territorial waters, cooperation, understandings with both and canadian coast guard. and we also, there was an incident i think last year, or two years ago, northeast greenland where you had to evacuate some people, and where, you know, the helicopter, the closest one, so we had people evacuated through a helicopter. so i think those kind of cooperation increasingly between, you're focusing on the problems you won't see creative solutions. >> ambassador hafstrom? >> i couldn't agree more. we have to do more.

we have icebreakers. we found a unique opportunity to map the seabed conditions and arctic, and -- [inaudible] you need in the antarctic to get to your base. last year, we were not affected by global warming in the high north, on the contrary. so there were a lot of ships were embedded in the baltic sea. and, of course, the swedish industry this is why we lending out our ships to the united states? we need tobacco. and that is a typical example, it's a scarce commodity when it comes to real, you know, to break the ice. so yes, we need to do more. >> to me is a very interesting paradigm shift for the us has the mental capability for the

region. russia certain has both i think private and most of the capability, how we work together. it's a different paradigm shift for us in fact. >> we told the state department of our problem, then they probably turn to you and to you and to russia. and no one had the capacity to lend out of additional vehicle. so it's interesting. >> something to really keep focusing on, absolutely. absolutely. well, let me invite you into the conversation, please. we do have microphones. sir, if you could please stand and there is a microphone coming. you could just identify yourself and your questions. >> spencer ackerman with wide. i was hoping you could talk about some of the prospect of conflict in this region, what's realistic, what's not particularly where sea lanes open for competition. thank you.

>> would anyone like to take that went? >> again, one of the reasons for the u.s. convention -- [inaudible] >> less arbitrary decision-making on some of these contentious items. so again, we think the kind of treaty is a better way to go than the conflict model. for us specifically, obviously we are working on, all the countries in the arctic council, the mapping of the continental shelf and how far it extends. i think that is working in a cooperative way until we get it all mapped and then start disagreeing. but at this point we're doing the fact-based work, and for is also the northwest passage is an internal waterway through canada in our view and we retain our sovereignty in that regard. the narrow issue, lasher secretary clinton and foreign

minister, agreed to have again experts provide the research, the quicker we can do it the better because it's not a question of winning and losing a potential resources but rather just an adjudication of disagreement between the areas between alaska and northern canada. of course, we can see a laughter from our porch so we are very close and it's very relevant. [laughter] >> i would have been disappointed if that would not have come into -- thank you, ambassador. >> yeah, i would strike a different tune. i would say we think we handle these areas for decades during the cold war rather well. it was not easy. now the cold war is over. and we can build different

relationships. so i'm not sure that -- you can always draw sinners what it would be huge conflicts in the arctic. but as i said in my first, i think many of these things, it's not theoretical or wait individual it comes to resources. and i think we are in better shape than many will give both the coastal states and everyone else activity there, credit for. of course, there is potential, and i would find out, you know, we all signed up for that, not that the united states doesn't follow international law and the law of the sea. but very serious. u.s. navy and coast guard, nobody knows the law of the sea better, but it is just that it would be so helpful if we were all on the same page. it would make sense for national interest of the united states, not the least of what's going on north of alaska, that that would

be hugely beneficial that we once and for all solve this and we're all aware, on the same page. we actually take and believe in the long run like the agreement we now have, that having, you know, work through this for 30 odd years was a good investment, and that such an agreement actually, you know, they say, well, don't disagree. but that builds a lot of confidence in itself. so, i would probably strike fairly optimistic note on the conflict. >> i think you have to understand what you mean by conflict. there are different kinds of conflict, and you know, as the ambassador, i think, i don't

think we will see traditional types of conflict in the arctic. because i think it was a strong-willed among the arctic countries to solve the issues, sal the disagreements, following international recognized conventions and procedures when it comes to, for example, the continent shelf. i mean, conflict, and i wouldn't, i mean, maybe it's -- it's also as i said a question of destination of what it is what you by conflict. that's arctic and non-arctic states as to what kind of course they should take, and also within arctic countries as well. coming, there'll always be disagreements, but it don't think we will see escalation of these conflicts. >> thank you.

ambassador hafstrom? >> to point. first of all, there's the border agreement between norway and russia. that was a clear sign we are not going to go for more conflict, but less conflict. then you can always ask yourself while the russians all of a sudden decided to sign. been a region ambassador is in a better position that i to tell you about that a the second thing which i think is interesting is how high on the political agenda, how high it is. there was a miniature meeting in 2006 in siberia. there was no secretary of state from the united states. not even of the nordic foreign ministers were there. the representative from the nordic council cabinets with people, experts on the economy. that was in 2006. now 2011 there are secretary clinton, we have all the coastal foreign ministers, and i think

that will stay on that high note. that is of course a good sign, it's very informal, and conversations. less of a conflict area, absolutely. and also the observer status. for us, my council members unique unit have the policies as part of observers, a good sign. >> actually, i probably disappointed many journalists who within a very exciting headline about the rates for resources and the potential. welcome to imagine as a potential for conflict. and i have to say don't think i can think of, and it goes back to ambassador strommen's comment beneficiary. fisheries stocks i like the oil and gas deposits don't stay steady. they move. they don't respond to order and border demarcation and made a couple just s.t.a.r.t. ii fishing boat to decide have a

contest, so fisheries is something i think we just need to watch because the fishing stocks will be moving to cooler waters. there's going to be a switch in that situation that we don't let to test the fish both to cause of drug concerned about ensuring that there is safe and adequate protection in the marine environment, for sure. thank you. kaitlyn, please. >> kaitlyn, committee for the oceans. we have the one point mark on the map. from the north pole, sitting along the ridge. and in 2013 or 2014, we rather expect that canada, denmark will both have their potential claims ready to go to the commission. and russia may be about ready to send their center and that leaves the one last border issue, providing the ridge is

found to be coastal maternal. how to divide it? >> what i would like to know is whether those discussions going on among those three countries, to how he going to rationalize the claims if it is a claim of all area? to make this a peaceful division of what is probably the least viable real estate in the entire arctic, but conflict often revolves around things that are not necessary valuable monetarily, but they have to be resolved. so i've been some discussions going on quietly, or can you talk about? to resolve this problem before it really becomes an issue. >> thank you. would anyone like to take a whack at that? >> you know, as i said we were trying to do some work now, all because you are trying to do some work on the continent shelf. i think that's important and

secondly, come back to the fundamental issue, it's there to have an agreement with people as you have with the recent example signed yesterday, but it's also useful to have a body to resolve complex and come back to the u.n. conventions. i think i'm repeating myself, but i do believe that that is a way for you in a rule of law to have an enforcement mechanism, cooperative -- if cooperative discussions fail. >> i think we should take it step-by-step. we still need to do some scientific data gathered when it comes, for example, and i work on the continental shelf agreement, and we are doing, we are having data sharing, for example, from canada.

and also with russia in this process, but we should also keep in mind that it is a long-term process. i mean, the continental shelf commission is very much stuck up with very high pile of submissions that they have to, you know, process. and you know, there's some predictions that if the commission is not builds up in terms of capacity that it will take maybe 20 or 30 years after you submit, you will have your place before the commission. so, i mean, that's first hours data-gathering, we will continue to cooperate with both, i mean,

both russia, canada and the united states, and norway on the whole continental shelf around the arctic ocean. so, and you know, i mean, i think these gathering of data and processing will show, you know, who will claim what. and we are not, you know, make some kind of announcement as to what, who will claim what, i think. >> anyone else would like to offer an opinion? yes, ma'am. >> hello. i am from australia. and i had just interested to

hear -- [inaudible] it's a big deal. some interested to hear about that. >> we have direct experience, and it is, there is issues in canada on koala bears and recognition of their vulnerability. there also is aboriginal rights in canada to sustain yourself with hunting and fishing in areas that are important. so we are trying to deal with those challenges and opportunities. in my neck of the woods, which is cape churchill when i was a premiere, it was one of the best places in the world to view a polar bear. and they went from the old days to shoot at them because they

were dangerous because they go right through the town of churchill and did you eat you if you're not careful. that not drinking coca-cola in a cowardly way. [laughter] although we did have a ceo of the coca-cola for the olympics. we told him not to drink coca-cola with a polar bear. wouldn't be a good idea. and we're find it's much more valuable in an economic opportunity to have people should polar bears with cameras, a huge tourism industry. now, people further north in the territories of canada, but the northwest territories of the yukon are also growing their tourism business dramatically, and how that will impact on the issue of people that sustain themselves through hunting as indigenous to the area for thousands of years. but we feel that the ice melting

earlier does have an impact on the weight of polar bears and sustainability of their population. although there is a disagreement on that, on terms of population numbers, et cetera. but i just found it very, very lucrative to people with cameras in churchill rather than people with guns. but there's disagreement, and that's fair enough. >> i'm not a great expert, but we don't have any polar bears, a very small number are shot every year in self-defense by our people and by the russians. not a high number. a polar bear runs 100 meters in five seconds. so you probably only have one shot. we have had some accidents in the past. mostly due to the fact you get

people, taurus, that are not familiar with how dangerous these areas are. very few. i would agree completely, tourism is a challenge because to see a polar bear is a huge thing. people are willing to put up a lot of money to sea life polar bear running around the wild. but again, the numbers are going down. we held a meeting sometime back where we were very worried that they would go away as the ice retreats eric and there's more difficult spot. so, again, one of the big, big worries about climate change, what will be their ultimate refuge? will we lose them from our territories?

it's almost like an identity issue for people. you like the thought you have polar bears running around, but all of a sudden in your territory, that they should be there. if the ice goes the way they will go away. so we will see. we will see. if you leave a card afterwards i would be happy to direct you to the people who know a lot about the polar bears. >> i believe there are 19 different populations around the arctic of polar bears, and some of them are in decline, some of them are increasing in numbers. we don't know the status of some, but i will defend the right to hunt. it's a fundamental of our survival throughout centuries. we have always hundred polar bear and we will always have polar bears. having said that, it's a very

well regulated species. i cannot hunt, for example. i'm not allowed to, you know. it's not just polar bears but also other kind of animals, because i'm not a full-time hundred. you have to have that status. you have to have that license before you are allowed to even not. and as i said, there are strict orders that says taking into consideration, from our scientists what number of polar bears that can be hunted. and but i think polar bears are threatened as such. the polar bear has been, you know, in the arctic, i don't know, 100,000 years or something, and have adapted throughout different changes. so, i'm not that, as i said,

there aren't that many different populations around the arctic that have different conditions. of course, you know, we are not interested in any extension of any species, but i think we should not make it just simple because people, you know, polar bears. >> yes, sir. >> i am from japanese company. a very simple question. the role and expectation is given to a server pollution. i don't even know if japan has that in future. thank you. >> great question. competition of the observer

status. >> the most important thing at the summit was we saw the question. that has been on the agenda for many, many years. and now finally we managed to solve it and, because the criteria, the process and as i said, i am looking forward to the commission can be of service. there are other countries who are knocking on the door, and there is no process in japan. and, of course, your question is, is the high north come is the arctic him is that global or local question? well, this is part of it. >> absolutely. absolutely. anybody else want to comment on that? >> i think, briefly, as the ambassador said, decisions in nuke were made, and the

ministers also adopted a role-playing in which to accept new application. in two years time activex ministerial to be held in sweden. >> right here. >> i am john michael, formerly affiliated with the united nations. a couple of years ago we had a very useful discussion, also courtesy of the csis. and one of the sciences brought our attention to the fact that a lot of chemicals -- [inaudible] then we had indigenous populations. they are inalienable rights for quality of life for people who

live in arctic regions. and the question is, do we have a closer cooperation between the national health administrations of the coastal areas, and what do philosophically -- [inaudible] and the second part of the question is, we also remember our special counterparts, arctic cooperation, a lot of atmospheric nuclear tests. has anybody measured the background, we're probably talking about 50 years, to see, to just start the measurements for the environment? >> thank you. the last five as we have i would welcome that each panelist, who want to address the question, and then give us any closing thoughts as we leave the arctic here in the next five minutes.

>> i think we personally, in canada, feel the signature we submitted to the united nations on 17% reduction by 2020, following president obama's efforts in copenhagen. and i think we had a good meeting on developing countries, particularly in forestry in cancun. we think that's a farther step forward in overall climate change. i also think there's other agreements that have been achieved for community. i mentioned the montréal the culprit again, ridgely 16 countries i don't have an agreement to start banning ozone depleting the trees. and that we have 165 countries. we have seen more reduction through that agreement even though that was, you know, and so we think that is positive. and can we look at amending that black carbon and other issues that are specific to

vulnerability in the arctic. and you know, i think we should look at that in a very positive way. and i think that we're moving towards durban. i've noticed even with the sometimes discussions on clean air and clean water in every country, i noticed that president obama when he spoke to the house of lords, the parliament in london just two weeks ago, he again mentioned the copenhagen agreement on climate change. obviously, europe has a great deal of work that has been done and conducted and a cheat, but i think we believe that international -- conducted and achieved. enrolled in accountable action and results. on the other issues of the arctic, i think, i'm sorry we didn't give you a headline, we are all kinder, gentler

ambassadors in cooperation, but i want to congratulate norway and russia on the recent agreement. and i'm very confident, you know, the fact that the two cabinet ministers from the united states and all the leaders are in agreement i think is a tremendous step forward. it means that people are walking the walk, not just talking the talk. >> i would like to pick up, again, i'm not a great expert on health issues in the arctic but i know there are some which would cause, you know, -- [inaudible] i used to be. [inaudible] i knew we touched some of these health related issues that are specific to the arctic also there. take the indigenous population,. [inaudible] it is on the mainland. then above the arctic circle, just like in sweden, for us,

same groups, but up in the eyes and which makes the coastal states, those are the arctic ocean, there are indigenous population, that's also why. so most of our population again would be nonindigenous, so i throughout the figure, say, 300,000 or something like that, much smaller number would you be indigenous. but there would be indeed related issues. what they are related to i would have to again refer to some experts, but those will increase also as the climate will warm up and probably going away, probably a number of -- particularly if you haven't institution. and also why we should include those that are interested because if there's one thing i've learned is that global related matters, you will at

some point be interested in global health issues, or in helping which take place very remote from where you are. that's only a question of time, not a question of whether it is relevant. >> thank you. specular very correct about the health issues. for example, the mercury levels among indigenous people in the arctic are quite high, and there's also some other heavy metals that is an issue, and stemming from non-arctic countries, the pollution. but the arctic council had on its agenda for many years through one of the working groups, the assessment program which has been instrumental in the creation of the stockholm convention, for example. so that's very much, you know, an issue among the arctic countries to address some of

these problems that you mentioned about heavy metals and that are built up on the ecosystem, and which ends up in people. so, i mean, we during our chairmanship have had human health as one of our priorities. i mean, environmental health is one of the aspects that has been addressed for many years in the arctic council, but we have been also interested in cooperating and addressing the common problems that we see across the arctic when it comes to health issues that people are dealing with, because they are very much the same no matter which country you are coming from. >> thank you. ambassador. >> and increased activity in the

high north. after the nuclear incident we have not, but i can tell you we should have if there was a problem. because we and the high north saw for the very first signs of the nuclear accident in chernobyl. that was close to us because we were ringing the alarm bell. we did know what it was at the time but it was after a few days we recognized that something happened and, of course, it was outside word with our society where we managed to get through. last, last remark mainly, you know, few decades ago, if you mentioned arctic, there was a place, there was exotic research in light of the cold war.

today we have arctic council. both formal and informal. so i mean we have got a lot of things under radar screen, and we'll do more things together. and i think this conversation is good. it is good. >> thank you. what a wonderful way to integrate conversation. conversation. thank you, gentlemen, for a very wonderful conversation. [applause] [applause] >> and i have to say one final thank you for your wonderful blog on u.s. -- thank you audience for your steam in conversation. i stand between you and lunch. thank you and have a great day. >> more from the center for strategic and international studies. coming up with former cia analyst bruce riedel and former pentagon intelligence assessment director anthony cordesman give their assessment of u.s.-pakistan relations for about 90 minutes.

>> good afternoon. i am vice president of the programs at cia -- csis. we're here to talk about pakistan and the u.s.-pakistan relationship. we have to of the top and was here in washington with us. it's going to be a terrific session. just human rights is bruce riedel, at the brookings institute. we don't hold that against him though. is the author of a recent terrific book on pakistan called deadly embrace. bruce is the longest in which career in government and he was famously led president obama's afpak review in 2009. bruce, thank you for being here. tone is the chair and strategy at cia -- csis. is by the most prolific and well-known scholar. tony has also a long and established career in government. in may he authored a report looking at national net assessment on pakistani entries way back from afghanistan as well. tony one the coin toss. he will speak first for 15

minutes. bruce will fall and then we will have a conversation among the three of us and open it up to questions from the audience. tony, please, the floor is you yours. >> good afternoon. if i may apologize in advance. i am going to use powerpoint occasionally. the good news is i will do this very quickly, and if you want to actually look at it, we've given you a sheet which indicates where the slides are on the web. so i'm going to tie this to what i've recently learned in pakistan, also give you a reference to a report that brings you up to date on the situation there. ..

>> with the remnants of al-qaeda. but much as i would like to see that happen from an american viewpoint, quite frankly, i do not believes it is likely. i think it is far more likely that pakistan will continue to pursue a strategy which in many ways is different from ours with different priorities and to focus on its own internal security dynamics. and as for the phrase "regional solutions," after 50 year of hearing about them -- after 50 years of hearing about them, my instinctive reaction is to leave the room the moment anybody mentions the phrase. frankly, i think a regional solution is about as likely as

an early arab-israeli peace settlement. i think the real issue for us, the issue that dominates relations, is the role of pakistan in the gavin conflict. in the afghan conflict. and at a point where we are headed towards an undefined but almost certain real transition in 2014. i think that not only is going to shape our near-term relations, but really confront both countries with the question of what is the enduring u.s. role in central and south asia, and how does pakistan fit into that process. so let me begin with the issue of how pakistan fits into the

afghan war. and let me note this particular slide is drawn from the time i spent working with general mcchrystal and the team that was developing the strategy that was recommended to bruce and others in washington. pakistan fits into a set of problems that are ones we will or will not solve in the course of the afghan war. one is whether we can defeat the insurgents tactically, and there we are making, i think, very significant progress. another is whether we can eliminate their control and influence over the population which is more problematic. at this point in time, the idea of creating an effective nato approach with integrated isaf approach is moot. it isn't going to happen,

departing caveats are not being reduced. we are seeking to build up an effective afghan national security force. those of you who have seen the papers over the last few days probably realize that there is a major gap between 2014 as a date and the fact that that particular build-up can't occur before 2016 to 2018. we have the way of finding a legitimate afghan government. it is, perhaps, a warning to all of us that karzai is supposed to leaf office -- leave office in 2014, the transition year. we have the search for integrated civil-military effort which we had optimism about in 2009 and would not have optimism about today.

as those of you who have seen "the washington post" may realize. it is something that we cannot achieve at this point in time. and then finally, we come down to the reality that winning in afghanistan until it means some kind of more stable pakistan and far better relations with pakistan will almost certainly not achieve a stable strategic transition or outcome. we may win the war, but we cannot control the future of the region. and it's important to note that was recognized in the new strategy. i won't read you the slide. but it's sometimes forgotten that all of these warnings were given very clearly to the white house and to the congress, in particular the warning about the challenge of pakistan. now, i mentioned different

strategic goals, and i think this is something we cannot alter through dialogue or aid or good intentions. pakistan can see that we are going to leave. the question is when and in what way. but even under the most optimistic conditions 2014 is not far enough in the future for pakistan to see the u.s. has committed indefinitely to high levels in afghanistan. its goals in afghanistan are to achieve and expand its own influence, particularly in the pashtun areas, to block india from having any ability, in their phrase, to encircle pakistan through influence in afghanistan, to weaken some areas and strengthen others. and this geography explains, in many ways, why pakistan is not

going to willingly confront al-qaeda or the afghan taliban either in the fatah area or belike stand. we can succeed on limited occasion with pressure. the way that we are giving aid is normally spelled bribe, but in general what it may or may not achieve is the ability to lend some degree of limited support and compliance as long as it's sustained. india will continue to play the game as a third player, and in fairness to pakistan india's role may be more moderate because its needs are more moderate, but it is a player in this equation. when we look at the challenge of relations, these slides are not mine. they come from experts in the area.

we are, basically, dealing with a pakistan which is pursuing its goals as well as the search for stability on a much broader level and as well as a much higher priority confrontation with india. nothing we do is going to change that equation in the near term. it drives what happens within the pakistani military, within the pakistani intelligence structure and, basically, this is the group that dominates the pakistan government's behavior in practical terms and will continue to during the length of this war. we have contributed to the problems, but let me just note for any of you who wonder about what i'm saying, many people never saw the report the president sent to congress several months ago. it's a very good idea to read it because in it is a very clear

warning that what i've just outlined to you is not a personal view, but a view and a set of concerns which represents u.s. policy as presented to the congress. and it is not a casual set of judgments. it came hard, and this document was debated with a great deal of interest and concern. now, let me just note, what does that lead us to? it leads us where we are. last week we heard u.s. experts in pakistan describe u.s. and pakistani relations as being at their worst since 2001. i think that's a fair judgment. pakistan cannot easily separate itself from us, not given the aid, not given the value in some ways of our presence.

to the extent it actually serves pakistani interest, we cannot separate ourselves from pakistan. but public opinion, tensions with the pakistani intelligence community, tensions with the pakistani military have grown steadily for the last six months, and it is very unlikely they will diminish, particularly if we announce that we are making major troop cuts, and we put ourselves on a vector where pakistan can see we are leaving quickly. but whether that would be any different if we were leaving slowly and had less serious troop cuts is somewhat uncertain. when you look at this, the supply line is critical. you can talk about pakistan as being of great strategic interest, but it isn't. pakistan is a tactical interest during this war because we need

the supply lines. it is a tactical interest because we need its support in the fatah area and the baa like key area to the extent we can get it. aside from that on a global basis, this is not a critical or, in many ways, important american strategic interest. as for operations, pakistan has acted to some extent in areas that help us, but these are primarily the areas which also affect its own security. not the afghan taliban, not the haqqani network, not the operations of al-qaeda or sheikh omar, mullah omar, but the direct areas of interest to pakistan. and the areas where al-qaeda have been most active there have been pakistani forces, and there has been no pakistani action.

this is an order of battle people like to ignore, but it is a fact that pakistan has had troops and capabilities in the area. now, very quickly going through the numbers, they have built up capabilities, they have taken casualties. unfortunately, in the way they've fought they've also, in many areas, simply ended up compounding the alienation of people by displacing. that's not been true everywhere. there has been some corrective action. but in general one of the great problems pakistan faces is each when the military -- even when the military acts, the government cannot. the civil side remains inept whether it is a flood, or it is dealing with displaced people in combat. public opinion, you obviously cannot see the details here, but

it's very mixed for operations in the fatah area. that's different from swat, it's different from the areas that are close to the immediate interests of pakistanis outside the areas of interest to us. and when it comes down to the attitudes in popular terms that pakistanis have toward the united states, we are by far the most unpopular single factor aside from india in pakistani public opinion. and that was true when a survey was taken some six months ago looking at the indicators, the situation has deteriorated steadily since that time. a lot of the reason for this is obvious: pakistan has not developed the fatah areas, it's not put resources into it, it has exploited baluchistan, it

has relied on repression, not on reform. and when it is talked about reform, it has not executed it. the data that you find from pakistani sources makes this all too clear. and the violence level in baluchistan is raising as development -- as you can see from those pale blue bars -- falls far short of the average level of development in pakistan which is the darker blue. we have the fact that this is only one of a series of areas of violence. we focus on this because it affects our strategic interests. in fairness to the pakistanis, the majority of threats to pakistan's stability are not in this area, they are in the other parts of pakistan. and one of the keys is the broadly permeating nature of violence and the wide variety of groups that exist throughout the

country. this is a country like much of the region which, also, is failing to come to grips with a massive population rise. the population is four times what it was in 1950. under current demographics it will be eight times what it was in 1950 by 2050. and in general, the pakistani government has failed in every civil area to come to grips with the impact of these demographics and population growth. reading budgets is not one of the favorite activities of people in the policy community. it should be. because when you see where the money should have gone, which is not where it has on occasion, you get an idea of how indemick the problems are and how much they're driven by failures in everything from education to

infrastructure. again, the anger at us, the lack of support for this war of ours, the extent to which that people see us as a group you can have no confidence in, the confidence in president obama before the current relations began to deteriorate was 8%, although 64% wanted relations to improve. let me just close. we do have a strange quid pro quo. all of you know we have drone and new cav strikes in pakistan. when you look at the allocation of them by target, about 40% of them have nothing to do with our goals in the terms of al-qaeda or the threat to us. they are a way of directly supporting the pakistani government because that's the target base. it's outside the areas of our

strategic interests and concerns. our assistance has been massive. let me go back to the word "bypass." when you -- "bribe." when you can't figure out where the money goes, when there is no public accountability, when you are not managing your funding streams, this is not in the conventional sense aid. in the military side, at least you can see a lot of the hardware and a lot of the equipment, and you have some idea where some of the training and other funds went. in the case of u.s. civilian aid, we have zero accountability. you look through the publications from the state department and aid, and you have a broad area of where the money went by category in the u.s. budget. but you have absolutely no idea of what we're buying, where it's

going and how it is being accounted for, and any of you who have seen "the washington post" today have probably realized this is not one of our current strengths. this is a grim picture. it was a grim picture when we developed the new strategy. it has grown grimmer with time. and unless something radical happens to change pakistani behavior between now and 2014, relations will probably be at best as strained as they are now or see pakistan move more and more towards trying to position itself to somehow win this transition in terms of pakistan's strategic goals. thank you. >> thanks, tony. bruce? >> thank you very much, craig.

for that kind introduction. thank all of you for coming today. it's always a bit of a daunting task to follow tony on a podium like this. usually he covers the issues so well, and usually we are in such violent agreement with each other, i find myself in a position of what am i going to talk about, or should i just sit down and let questions begin? but i'm not. what i would like to focus on to follow up -- what i would like to focus on with a little bit more detail is the u.s.-pakistan bilateral relationship, where that is going and then offer maybe a few thoughts on how to recalibrate the u.s.-pakistan relationship. let me begin, though, by saying i'm in complete agreement: pakistan is a country that has so many problems facing it one wonders why anyone would want to

be prime minister or president of this country. its daunting challenges from the terrorist syndicate which now has the nation literally under siege to its growing population demands and to the fact that it's literally running out of water. i know that doesn't sound right, last year they had the worst floods in their history. that was a one-off. the bottom line for pakistan is it may follow yemen as the second country in the world where it major cities, literally, do not have enough water to go on. u.s.-pakistani relations have a very cyclical quality to them. for 60 years the u.s.-pakistani relationship has been like a roller coaster. we've gone up through periods of great love affair with each other followed by bitter and ugly divorces. during the periods of great love

affair, united states throws money at pakistan like it was a drunken sailor and asks for no accountability whatsoever, and we turned a blind eye to everything they do that we might not like. during the periods of divorce, we are angry with each other, frustrated, we call each other names, we sanction them enormously, and we achieve absolutely nothing by doing so. the consequence of this roller coaster is that pakistanis have come to a conclusion, it's evident in the polling data you saw, the united states is not a reliable ally. nobody in their right mind living in pakistan would come to any other conclusion than that based on the last 60 years of american-pakistani relations. the highs in american-pakistani relationship have all been based around secret projects. in the 1950s and '60s, it

was the u2 base, in the late '60s and '70s it was the opening to china, then it was the war against the soviet union in afghanistan, and in the last decade it was the war against al-qaeda. the pakistanis actually do have nostalgia for one period in all of this, and that was the war against the soviet union in afghanistan. because for them that was the perfect relationship, what they call reagan rules. we give them money, actually a check literally, and make no attempt to supervise what they do with the money. they could hand it out to whatever group they wanted, they could buy whatever they wanted with it, and they could divert as much as they want today the nuclear weapons program and the united states said nothing. and in addition the united states had almost no footprint in the country. but we're not going back there. in fact, the latest high in

u.s.-pakistani relations which began shortly after september 11th was already beginning to erode by the end of the bush administration. by the end of 2007 and early 2008, the high had gotten lost, and we were in decline. three reasons for this. first, the collapse of the musharraf government. our man, literally, fell apart. we tried to stand by him until the bitter end. that just alienated the pakistanis more. secondly, our growing doubts about whether they were really on our side in the war against al-qaeda. these doubts were personified in 2008 in one man: then-director general of the isi. it's worth noting that his previous appointment before he was given director generalship of the isi in september of 2007 was commandant of the kabul

military academy in pakistan. curious coincidence we can talk about more in questions and answers. but during his short 11-month ten your as director general of the isi, the united states found him doing two things. one, blowing up the indian embassy in kabul, and we had their hands all over it, and, two, telling every target of our drone strikes in 2007 and '8, in 2007 and 2008, that the americans are coming, you'd better get out of the way. talk about duplicity being caught, we caught this one. he was promoted to be a corps commander in the pakistani military. and, of course, the third event that led to the downturn in u.s. relations in the 2008 was the mumbai terrorist operation. i think the obama administration deserves credit for coming in with it eyes wide open. i think it deserves credit for trying to reset u.s.-pakistani relations, but i think the task

from the beginning was daunting, indeed. for the reason that tony has laid out quite well. fundamental differences in national security outlook, fundamental differences in world outlook, fundamental doubts about each other and fundamentally different interests in many ways. those things are not easily changed even by large aid budgets like kerry-lugar and impressive dialogues like the strategic dialogue we had with pakistan for the last two years. we are now at a new turning point, the culmination of a number of events this year have put us at a new turning point. secretary clinton said that very clearly during her six-hour visit to islamabad last month. either we see some dramatic

change in pakistani behavior -- and that change would be manifested in the demise of a certain known number of senior terrorist officials harbored in pakistan today -- or we're going to see this decline continue. i told tony before the event i am -- [inaudible] about pakistan because pessimism does nothing for you. but even i am pretty skeptical that we're going to see them take care of the hit list that mrs. clinton gave to the pakistanis last month. much more likely will be a continued deterioration and decline in the u.s.-pakistani relationship. it could be i can't gradual, ite as we've seen this year punctuated by events like the raymond davis event, or it could be much, much quicker. there are at least four

scenarios which are entirely plausible which could lead to a further and dramatic and stark reduction in u.s.-pakistani bilateral relations. first is at abutte bad. there is every reason to believe that in that mountain of data we took out of that villa, we will find other information, other telephone numbers that will lead us to other targets. second is another mumbai. india and pakistan are engaged in the world's most dangerous game of russian roulette, and it's mostly played by the pakistanis. we are very lucky that we've not had a mass casualty terrorist attack in india in the last two-and-a-half years, and it is almost entirely due to luck. third, we could have another 9/11. and let me be clear what i mean

by that; a mass casualty terrorist attack in the united states post-mart pakistan. we narrowly averted one only a year and a few weeks ago in new york city. had faisal shahzad been better at building a bomb, had he listened to the instructions he'd been given by the pakistani taliban in al-qaeda about how to build a bomb, he would have created a fireball in the middle of new york city, in manhattan that would have reached in five blocks in each direction. it might not have killed as many people as september 11th, but it certainly would have led to a crisis in u.s.-pakistani relations, and the fact that his father is an arab vice marshal in the pakistani government would not have been overlooked by most americans. and the fourth is a coup d'etat. pakistan is rapidly reaching the point where it's overdue for its

next military dictator to arrive. it's a depressing cycle of pakistani politics, but certainly nothing in the history of the zardari government would lead anyone to believe that civilian government in pakistan today has turned a corner and that, therefore, we should expect we won't return to a military government at some point. how do we reverse this? what do we do now to try to prevent these things from happening? i think the first place to start is with humility. there's not a whole lot we can do. pakistan is a very, very, very, very difficult, and that's a fact. people say afghanistan is hard. to me, afghanistan looks surprisingly facile and easy compared to pakistan. humility is in order. pakistanis will determine the future of pakistan, not americans. but i think that there are a couple of recalibrations or mid-course corrections that

might help. one is what i call accountability. for the last decade, actually almost for the last two decades, we have been telling pakistan to stop playing both sides of the game in the war against al-qaeda and related terrorist groups. we have yelled at them, we have reasoned with them, we have argued with them, we have cajoled them, we have tried to bribe them, we have tried to isolate them. it hasn't worked. so reluctantly, i come to the conclusion we have to make it personal. with we have to tell pakistan -- we have to tell pakistan that if we identify who the highest isi officer is who worked with david headley to set up the attack on mumbai, we're coming after him. we're coming after him either by grabbing his assets, arresting him when he travels, or, if necessary, we'll come after him

with extreme measures. .. >> to pay the victims of mumbai and mr. tosh and mr. poshard will be arrested the next time they turn up in this country.

i would rather get that business out of the court systems been used effectively by the executive branch. secondly, we completely agree with tony about fata. i think kerry-lugar was a very smart idea whose time has already passed. i don't see how this administration or any administration can convince this congress to continue to provide $1.5 billion economic assistance to pakistan. i sure wouldn't want to be the administration who goes up there and explains to this congress with its views about cutting spending why we are getting our money's worth out of pakistan. and that is not negative comment about those people involved in running this program. i think they are trying to do a tremendous job. it's not working. it's not sustainable. so we need to switch. we need to decide to allow

pakistani imports into this country to pay for the same tariff levels as indian imports of chinese imports. right now they are tariff at a much, much higher rate. and consequently you will not find pakistani products in the united states of america. every pakistani leader asked us to do this. prime minister asked the congress visiting congressional delegation yesterday to do this. it's time to listen to. trade not aid by every economic is a more effective way of building the pakistan economy, requires no american bureaucracy and no american footprint. trade not aid is the second revolution take. third, it's focused on the nature that drives the pakistani. india. india pakistani dynamics. what i don't mean here, and i want to be very clear is that

america mediator between new delhi and islamabad, that will not work. a guaranteed recipe for failure. we need to be doing something more subtle and sophisticated. we need to use our indian relationships to send a message to the pakistanis that yes, indeed, we're going out with the other date, and if you don't like that, then if you don't want to attach on, we are prepared to go with that other date. we've got to play hardball on that with the pakistanis. but in addition to that we should also encourage the process which i mr. singh and prime minister decide to start this year. the one little bit of good news in this part of the world in the last year was that cricket match which they decided to resume talks. don't get it wrong, i don't have a lot of illusions that these talks are going to go very far.

needed the indians or pakistanis, but i do understand that they are important, they are critical, and any bright ideas we have that we can get them to help assist them in moving along, we should do so. because at the end of the day, some kind of change to the india-pakistani relationships and the dynamic of that bilateral relationship is the only thing that is fundamentally going to change pakistan's national security calculations, and its strategic movement. which gets to my final approach, which is it is time -- i hated it the day that richard holbrooke told me that phrase, time to put afghanistan and pakistan and india, bangladesh, sri lanka back into south asia bureau. it is time to break them out a sitcom and pacific command and deal with this part of the world

holistically come and think about it as integrated part and only when you start thinking about it as an integrated part are you likely to develop policies that will work in dealing with it. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you bruce antoni for that rosy assessment. bruce, i want to start with you. is there any way that folks involved in india and islamabad could have not known that bin laden was there? >> that is in my view the 64 million-dollar question of this year. there are only two possibilities. and just to make sure we have a strategic things here, the villa that mr. bin laden was living in since probably 2006 is less than a mile from their military academy. at the end of, the beginning of

april this year, chief of army staff ion he gave a speech at the kabul military academy in which he said that has been broken. i have this vision in my head of osama bin laden standing on the roof listening as he was saying that. they were that close. in that if i were there's only two possibilities. pakistanis were clueless about what's going on, or complicit. clueless means they really are clueless about the jihadists frankenstein inside the country that raises all kinds of disturbing questions about the future of the militancy, security of pakistan's nuclear security or nuclear security, its weapons, arsenal. it raises questions about safety of americans living in this country. that's bad enough.

complicit, i think race is even more profound questions. when i think implicit, let me be careful what i mean. i don't mean that general pasha visited the villa once a month to have tea with osama bin laden and plot worldwide care. something more subtle than that. complicit would be knowing he was there and deciding that that offer them some degree of control and influence over al qaeda which was in their national interest. on the assumption that the americans would never ever, ever figure out what was going on. we have no proof of that. from what we hear from every person from the senior ranks to the government. but on the other hand, we continued to have the question, clueless or complicit? that question i suspect will

haunt u.s.-pakistani relations until we come to find out what the answer. tony, do you think pakistan will change its course fundamentally in its fight against militancy as result of the bin laden killing? >> the simple answer is, why? because as bruce outlined, their interest has never been in bin laden. or in the afghan taliban as targets. those are to some extent they've always been been able to use. are we in a position to put enough pressure on them to actually have them change their hit list? who knows? it's possible, but it seems much more likely that we will see of you scapegoats and more tolerance of one man combat aerial vehicle strikes, at the

same time probably a reduction in special forces presents in pakistan. and there will be more maneuvering, because as they can see, if we have the july announcement of u.s. haircuts, that we are going to be leaving in 2014, at least that's a major military presence. and at that point, they have every reason to negotiate between the karzai government, the taliban, and try to me like the situation to their advantage. so this was an important event or simple for us. it was an intense embarrassment for them, just as was explained. but will it change their

behavior? i think we already have problems in persuading the congress to provide any more carrots, even less sustain the cares we're giving them. it's just not clear what our sticks or when they know what lies in 2014. >> tony argued that our interest in pakistan were limited to operations in afghanistan. do you agree with that quick do you think we have poor interest in pakistan? >> i guess i would differentiate a little bit between interests, whether their tactical or strategic, and choose the intrinsic importance of pakistan. pakistanis on the far side of this planet. we spent the first 200 years as republicans largely ignoring what happened over there, and they seem to have gotten by okay. so i don't see this as a strategic interest from the

course of western europe or japan, or something like that. at the same time we shouldn't ignore pakistan's weight in and of itself, its the sixth largest country in terms of population of the world, and will very rapidly be the fifth largest country in the world. is the second largest muslim country in the world. it will be the largest muslim country in the world. it has the fastest arsenal in the world. as we both laid out, it's probably gotten more terrorist per square kilometer than any other country in the world, and many of them are focus on the united states. so i don't know whether, we defined a strategic interest. i would define as this is an important country and we ignore it i think they'll. does that mean with overlapping strategic interest with the? no, i don't think we have very many overlapping strategic interests.

>> tony, this is as good as it gets in the relationship between the u.s. and pakistan. our expect nations to high? >> i think bruce first outlined the cycle, the problem i think are not that our expectations are too high it you're in the united states government, or the people you're in pakistan, or the people who developed strategy in afghanistan. bruce made a good point about interest. we would like to better relations, friendly and solid relations with every country, particularly those that still have some elements of democracy. but i think the fact is that we are headed down a path where, and less we can somehow actually implement all of the suggestions bruce made and do so

successfully, and it would be unfair to ask him to a signed a quantitative probability to that, we are going to certainly not see a major shift between now and transition in afghanistan. and if the faster that transition takes place, the steeper it is and the more it basically arbitrarily or rapidly cuts support to afghanistan and pakistan, probably the more the problem. but even if we carry out the other scenarios, the situation has no reason to get immediately better. what we change it? if you actually had a pakistani government that really address the underlying causes why this rise of extremism, terrorists is taking place. if you have a military with more

vision and dealing with the causes rather than repression or military action as a solution, if you had political parties which were less family oriented, less corrupt, which actually acted on reform rather than simply talk about it, then we might at some point have a partner. but do i expect any of that to happen? i could name the person who would make the change in pakistan. maybe bruce has some ideas. >> bruce, what scenario worries you the most? do you have confidence in the orientation of the corps commanders in the pakistan military? how do you assess that? >> i will enter that but i will also answer his question. we are in violent agreement here. the only thing i would say is that there are pakistan to recognize every problem we have laid out, and you can get on

their e-mail distribution lists, and we have bombarded with quite making statements about what needs to be done in pakistan. and thanks to president obama, i want all those e-mail list. am also on a lot of other e-mail lists from other people in pakistan which are not quite -- the bottom is those people are literally being murdered in front of our eyes. they are being murdered in front of our eyes. and the pakistani government seems to be doing nothing about it. if you want a pakistani politician who would go in the right direction, probably shared who is now living, basically in her house under threat of murder every time she goes out her front door. your question, what do i worry about? the two from the military in which the 21st century

reincarnation arise. that is a pakistani general who was a committed jihadists. in 1980 such a man came to power and, therefore, choice able to point them in the direction of atheistic communism thanks, and we have highlights of u.s. pakistan relationships as the pakistani see it. the problem is, the soviet union -- no soviet union around anymore. it will be reflected at us. is a possible? well, i think i've given you the name of the corps commander i think is very realistic possible, he sure smells like a committed jihadists to me, fortunately, they just been promoted again to adjunct general of the pakistani military. so he is no longer a corps

commander of the others him? if i could give one piece of advice to leon panetta and david petraeus about what one piece of information i would most like to know in the whole world right now, it is the true core beliefs of pakistan's corps commanders. because one of them is going to be the next leader of that country and we need to know who they are. >> tony, what advice would you give general petraeus? >> i think at this point we are struggling to find exactly the issues that bruce raise. is to understand not simply the problems in fata or baluchistan. it is to understand problems in the country, and it is not simply the wide range of the

violent extremists. but the internal threats within this power structure. and that is particularly to because you have a country which most have a major increase in its ability to produce nuclear weapons. which does manufacture, and which is doing it in a climate where you're building up on both sides significant nuclear strike capabilities in an environment which is a little unique. because both india and pakistan have essentially had to lie about the nuclear testing program. they are arming nuclear weapons that they have not adequately tested who are characterized, and they are arming them on missiles which they have not tested to the point where they know exactly what will happen if

they are fired. now, they are a long way away, as bruce points out. you have interests that go beyond strategic interests, and the whole picture of any kind of nuclear confrontation at both sides rush to deploy capabilities, they don't understand that's a very dangerous issue. >> how about china? should we worry about china and pakistan? you mentioned we might sort of threat in pakistan, that we might start siding more with india. they come back to us and say fine, you go with india and we'll go with china. is that a credible threat from their standpoint? >> it's a threat that many feel. we had a remarkable scene recently where pakistan's minister of defense, most of you don't know who that is, because

the civilian minister of defense and the government, the least possible important job in the entire cabinet, but he did get the trip to beijing and he came back and said we're going to give china a naval base on the arabian sea, and there was this kind of embarrassed silence for a few hours from beijing, and then the statement came out and said, well, we really don't want a naval base on -- which may be a law. i'm not a china expert so i don't know -- i cannot tell you the chinese part of this. but from the pakistani standpoint, adc china as their all weather friend which will bail them out. the truth is in every war with india they haven't bail them out. they stood on the sidelines. they are an important partner for pakistan in terms of military equipment, in terms of the nuclear technology and capability that tony just talked

about. but i think they're more complicated allied and the pakistanis want us to believe they are. and there's also another ally they have which is the saudis and the gulf states. and they are the arab spring is moving the gulf states closer to the pakistanis as a source of reliable military manpower in the event of more our brains and more internal problems in the gulf. pakistan has alternatives to us. it likes to exaggerate the size of those alternatives that they do have alternatives. >> if i may just make a point. i think there's another side of this from a purely military one, and it is simply trade logistics arrest. there's been a lot of talk about that. at first, pakistan is not a particularly attractive economic structure for china.

it is not a particularly could root for pipelines and roads and does she believe, a, it is completely secure, and b., you're the real reason to move from the indian ocean north. and effect when you look at what china is doing, it isn't financing a major road through pakistan to its financing a major road through iran up to herat to with central asia. and that is a massive investment for china. the other problem is that for obvious economic reasons you have central asia funding east-west imitation lines, and lines north to russia. so what you have is a rather peculiar subculture of people who study south asia who are fascinated by afghanistan and pakistan. on the other hand job realities on the map and they're moving east west and north and in other

directions, and for really clear reasons, in terms of trade, economics and energy flows. >> bruce, you mentioned the arab spring your is it possible to see sort of puppet uprising in tunisia and egypt and bahrain, is it possible to see that in pakistan? you had the lawyers within a few years ago. could there be sort of a demonstration effect in pakistan? >> i mean, if there's one lesson of the arab spring, it's don't rule out possibilities of the future at the risk of looking foolish very quickly after you have ruled them out. so i wouldn't rule anything out. in many ways, pakistan had its arab spring in 2007-2008. you had aroused citizenry that pass for the rule of law, that

asked for accountability, that wanted its system to be reform reformed. and the end of the dictator. and he succeeded. now, maybe it would have all turned out a whole lot better if mrs. bhutto had been murdered. but i think that's a bit of a slim hope. the problems in the pakistani system are much more endemic than that, and to give pakistanis credit, this is their fourth time at trying to build a democratic system. i give them a lot of credit for persistence, for aspiring to be a democratic modern state. but you have to believe in the triumph of covert experience to believe that it is going to exceed -- 60. it's not going to succeed as

long as the dominant political player in the country, a state within a state, the army is so relentlessly focused on competition with india that it demands an exorbitant part of the national budget for its demands, and demands total control over national security, behold sold in the hands of the army and the civilian political leaders not have any involvement in it. it is an army, and that is a political problem which i don't think is the result passion is resolved easily to the kind of political demonstrations of some people we had, it's more likely to go back to military dictatorship that it is too ineffective functioning democracy. >> if i may, i'm always worried about the arab spring.

first, no to arab spring's are alike. so, we end up describing the french revolution and the american revolutions being identical. by using that same logic. and very recently i heard a senior arab described arab spring as what you in the west don't understand as for us the spring is an intensely hot and filled with sandstorms but i suspect it's more realistically some of the descriptions we have heard elsewhere. but what i think bruce has pointed out first, you have much more an option in some ways as you did in egypt between a civil elite and the military structure. and second, what you also have is not so much a national conscience centered around one place, but a whole group of separatists somewhat different movements which do not have reason to produce some kind of

unified process of change. so you may see a power struggle between the civil and military elite, but that's not the same thing, i think even as the egyptian case was. we really i think in general need to remember that the only thing revolutions do have in common is none of them are alike. >> is -- if the military as part of the problem, should we think about putting greater conditions on the military aid that we give to pakistan? bruce mentioned he that kerry-lugar was a great idea that was passed it today. civilian aid clerk is under greater pressure in congress. how about military assistant? >> you bribe people to freedom. i mean, let's be real. if what we want is to maintain the lines of communication through 2014 without more trouble, not have more problem

and the case ahead and do something useful, when we're pushing them hard enough, probably not a good idea to suddenly discover we need a really good military accounting process. [laughter] >> i can't top of that line. [laughter] >> bruce, you probably know the dynamics within the administration as well as anybody on the other side. i was wondering if you could characterize the state of debate on pakistan now in washington. will secretary gates' departure, with that shift the center of gravity? how do you see that? >> traditionally, pakistan's strongest promoter inside the trainee currently has been -- inside the united states government has been the cia because the cia argued relationship with the csi, although very, very difficult produce results