would you stand up and introduce them quickly? >> [inaudible] we have in the audience some of true experts in the middle east for decades to participate actively in the discussion later on. before we introduce the distinguished panel, i would like to make two quick remarks.

one on the personal level i but like to confess i was at one time a palestinian, a jewish palestinian during a the british mandate, so certainly i have some interest in this issue and subsequently establishment of the state of israel as a participant observer would try to follow both from the academic point of view with the situation on the ground and actually some 64 years although the so-called palestinian question is 100-years-old going back to the first world war. now what i tried to do is to prepare a wanted to reject but

with some technical problem it was distributed because there is a great deal of confusion what we are talking about on the palestinian question. so one deals with the least in other words of the concept that they originated in europe from the european point of view and so on and so it is almost a difficult to find someone who doesn't include all the countries in the region the arab and non-arab countries dimension of course egypt and jordan and turkey and israel and its 25 countries in the region and we have to also include north africa and the moderate and some

of these so forth, so in other words, we are living with a vast area with great concern with what's happening in the region and the palestinian question. now, another comment, you have one which relates to 1947 for the resolution, and you will have one of the current situation of israel and of the palestinian authority today. so when you have a chance, i suggest that you look at that. the second aspect that i would like to mention that the focus today is on the palestinian and israeli question.

let me remind all of us to greater context that there are many security challenges in the middle east. we have a laundry list i'm not going to go through all of them but just to remind us that you cannot just resolve the so-called arab-israeli situation in particular the palestinians without looking at the challenges when we have the ongoing effort to restrain such as a theological and political psychological warfare and human rights and the internal political and economic dislocations organized criminal activity, state-sponsored terrorism c'mon state terrorism, piracy and maritime threats, development of weapons of mass

destruction, and land of the energy and water weapons and finally original position. now we can learn a great deal this is of chinese try to teach us and a philosopher reminded us we learn from history that we don't learn from history. in fact, in this month of september, marks the 1972 munich incident when the palestinian issue was placed on the world stage, and of course we are dealing with the palestinian state in the united nations and honestly we just marked the 9/11 anniversary and the key question

obviously four 9/11 is as all of us know whether the worst is yet to come and whether the civilization will survive. now when we come to the issue of the current issue of the united nations palestinian statehood i think number one as i mentioned before it does mark the 63rd anniversary of the 64th if you take it to 1947 for the united nations resolution 181 which calls for the establishment of an arab state palestine for israel, so the key question that i think the panel would consider is whether the expectation for the implementation of the 1940 resolution is realistic and

second, can we really expected the establishment of a palestinian state side by side with israel within a year or within five years or ten years for us we have to be decades before this plan is going to be realized. so, the bottom line is this, is the conflict between the so-called enemies determinant or we have to look at the strategic and interest of the parties, namely that there are no permanent enemies no permanent friends, but permanent interests. so we have a very distinguished panel today, and what i would like to do is first introduced our first speaker mahmoud from

jordan and mentioned that i was honored to have the opportunity to attend the signing of peace between jordan and israel in 1994, and following what the king said of the united nations you mentioned three main points which i would like to repeat. one, talking about the global justice by the process of the law, in other words this can be achievable. i tried to stress that. the second point you mentioned the central crisis is the question of the palestinian israeli conflict, and the third point mentioned of the united

nations is the two state solution with end that challenge. so, with that i would like to invite the honorable mahmoud hmoud who is the deputy chief of mission at the embassy of jordan and we distribute to you the biographies of the speakers are not going to go into the greater detail except to mention it deals specifically with legal as the embassy is also the director of the legal department and the adviser to the ministry of foreign affairs. he served at the united nations and elsewhere and received his bachelor's degree from george washington university law school

and another bachelor's degree from the university and a graduate from the university of jordan all school and was extensively on these issues. [applause] >> i would like to thank professor alexander and the potomac institute for their kind invitation and the kind introduction and also i would like to thank professor don wallace for introducing this important topic which of course now everybody who is involved in global efforts and international affairs is following what is happening in the u.n. and within

the next few weeks of course we will have a very important implications not only regionally on the middle east, but also on several aspects of the world affairs. thank you. >> i'd like to say to professor alexander on the peace treaty i was one of those who negotiated the peace treaty in 1994 and drafted the peace treaty. it was a very monumental event. it makes such a difference now that we see the developments in the middle east has led to the prospects of peace at that time were so high that everybody was thinking within a few years actually from people who have the two states, the state of palestine and the state of israel both secure living in peace side by side it would be

one piece between not only the states in government but between people. unfortunately the development in the middle east hasn't put forth for this goal of the peace process into effect. people will say who is to blame in this regard on the stalemate? i think this is not the right question. i think what we should strive for is to restore the region and the hope of peace that one day and hopefully soon we will have to states. one day hopefully soon we will have comprehensive peace in the middle east that achieves the security and peace for both israel, the palestinians and the rest of the countries in the

middle east. now the question comes on why the palestinians want the united nations and what would this achieve? 1988, the plo has already declared the creation of the palestinian state and i think within a couple of years of time they have 110 or 120 missions and now i think they give more like 140 but that is a political declaration and that is a different matter and they know that for a state to be established you need a territory, you need people and an effective government on the rest of the state. now, what happened in the last couple of years i think it wasn't productive in pushing the

vision for word and in the negotiated solution based on the other accord and the military process. and i think what happened is that palestinians generally felt that there is not much within the negotiation process they can depend upon to achieve determination and this was not only by the united nations but also even israel has the right of the self-determination to the palestinians. now the issue of what do you achieve from going to that, i think the question should be that what what israel lose by having the state declared? the issue as the president said a couple of days ago, a few days ago when he submitted it isn't about israel is about the palestinians and for them to

have a state and it achieves some moral and value they are being organized by the international community through the united nations as a state as the determination has been fulfilled. now what this create the state on the ground? it would not. it would be -- it would remain in occupied state, and for the occupation to end, everybody agrees all of those who have stakeholders including jordan, the united states, the europeans, the quartet it has to be an organized solution. the negotiated solution with a basis which is the 1967 voters. when there was the controversy of the mutual exchange, people sort of, you know, the basis of

the 1967 border and what does that mean, the resolution was accepted by everybody including israel and the talks about peace on the basis of exchange mutual exchange of territory so this is it, you of the 1967 and then you have the exchange of territory on the basis what makes what, the palestinians and israel it makes israel secure so what is happening is that there is political issues that have to be resolved in these issues again by negotiations can resolve them and the key issue is basically wasn't mentioned in the quartet the other day settlements and this is what led to the palestinians to mainly go to the united nations. the settlement which is effectively destroy any chances

of the two state solution. these are facts since the oslo until now the number of similar sentiments have not only doubled but tripled and quadrupled and the piece on the land that the palestinians have a state on effectively is diminishing day-by-day. this is the key problem. and if that is a genuine intention to have peace, that has to be a resolution of this courageous resolution on the part of israel with regard to the settlements and to deal with the sellers and the settlement. then there is the issue of course of the refugees and he made it clear the other day the general assembly that there is a

palestinian state. when there is a palestinian state the issue will be solved. this gives a very strong signal on how the resolution of the matter would be. professor of alexandre talked about on the creation of the two states, and eda a state and a palestinian state and there is of course another resolution with regard to the refugees which calls for a just settlement for the palestinian refugees problem and this is the basis, one of the basis of the initiatives that were presented for so that this another parameter that we can deal with and can be a basis for a

solution. that is the great solution for the refugee resolution of the issue of the settlements and that is the mechanisms for this and including to agree on borders and security. again, it is a negotiated settlement. what palestinian will do it will not undermine the prospect of the negotiated settlements. there is nothing that israel will lose from the declaration of the palestinian state as such. it will actually be an incentive for all parties to go forward and to negotiate on the hard issues that i talked about. this is again if you're talking about security, security can be achieved through peace, and the argument basically that it is

only one side deserves security and the other deserves peace doesn't work. has to be peace and security for both sides and this is where the two sides can agree and the united states and other stakeholder input in jordan, including egypt and the united nations have to support any future solution and in this regard. i don't know if i want to u.s.-china want me to add anything and i'm happy to answer a few questions later about this. thank you for listening. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> don't worry taking questions that time the the purpose is to develop a dialogue within a very short period of time we will

provide a very broad perspective and obviously there were hundreds of resolutions in the united nations and the different aspect we can go through all of them, of but the one resolution of 1947 is critical in the sense that this was the vision of the international community and the two states living in peace side-by-side and the question is how can we realize that? to bring quote on quote and is really a view on this issue we are delighted to have with us the professor -- i'm not going to go into details.

obviously currently is the educator in is really studies and educator of the joseph gildenhorn institute for studies. i was able to follow his work as an academic and political what advisor to the prime minister and set up some very important institutes such as the media politics and society was a professor of sociology and communications at tel aviv university and in jerusalem and was the editor-in-chief of the israeli daily. i can go on and on. he was educated at the

university and received his ph.d. at the economic school of economics. in addition to the economic course we also heard from the journalist and political commentator, and in fact during boulder mer's term she was the spokesman of the labor party but at any rate he published extensively many of the issues that we were going to deal with. so it is all yours. >> thank you thank you for inviting me to take part in this interesting meeting. the first time that i am participating in this institute and it looks very impressive. i am sure i will have more time to learn more about that.

like my two predecessors i've participated as well at the peace treaty, the signing of the peace treaty between israel and jordan, but i was also in washington when the recognition of israel and the plo were done and during these years i was much more optimistic so to answer the first question on the bottom line is the conflict permanent using your term or not, during that time i was sure that it would be over within ten years. today i'm not so sure that it will be with ten years. i didn't lose my optimism but i'm afraid it will take more time, and unfortunately i'm afraid it would mean fewer rounds of violence before we reach an agreement. but let me start more systematically by answering three questions. one, i have to palestinians decided to go to the u.n.?

and why israel was against it? be, what happened last week the u.n., that's the second question and the third question, what will happen in the future, in the next year or so? the advantage that i have over you is i'm not representing the official position so i can be critical from all sides, not only on the other side but also on the israeli position. so why did the palestinians decide to go to the u.n.? according to the palestinian leader it was very simple. to continue the negotiation on the diplomatic domain, the direct negotiations didn't reach any thing and therefore we are changing our strategy, we are moving at into the diplomatic arena to continue the negotiation. this is what he wrote that the u.n. political at "the new york times" article some time ago. others would say and this is the is really, most of the israelis position, well, it's not

continued negotiation, it is instead of negotiations. it's to use advantages which would be given to the palestinians if they move to the u.n. but they don't have today and there is a fair school of thought and israel that would say no is not in negotiation at all. it is instead of negotiations. they have decided not to negotiate because of the changes in the middle east, because time works for us, the palestinians. why should we negotiate? we get what we want without negotiation. so these are the three alternative answers. i would guess that most of these are the official position of the israeli government is the second one, the u.n. enterprise has to replace and has gone to replace negotiations. so why did israel, the israeli

government of the strong position against it? the first answer which ensured you all know because that was from any platform was peace can be achieved only through negotiations between the two sides without preconditions and the palestinians are presenting the conditions and they want to conclude an agreement without negotiations and therefore it cannot be done. there's a more sophisticated answer to that which some people mentioned but not all of them, not in all debates which i did or participate in washington at least and that is if you decide to move to the u.n. and establish a palestinian state through the u.n. process, you will decide to not only ignored but to abandon the peace solution.

after all, the basis of the relation between israel and the palestinians was the idea of peace. if the palestinians are getting -- even symbolically getting the state namely the land without negotiating, then why should there be negotiations any more? so, what you are left with the solution would be a mine or yours. the idea of the peace cannot be any more and without that, you lose really the basis for the negotiation and for conclusion. then you can say -- there's another reason why they decided to go and that is of course because the situation in the middle east has changed and israel has become weak and we need the strategic conditions and the israelis feel that to negotiate today might put them under much more pressure than they were in the past we then you have the fourth position that some accept that is primm

and mr. netanyahu does not want to negotiate and there was a demonstration a week ago of those who argued he is using different reasons for the negotiations because really deep in his heart he doesn't want to negotiate and they should accept the plo initiatives and support the creation for state. again, very small. the majority of the israelis believe that the position that the state, the government says manly that you cannot reach an agreement without negotiations particularly not without -- particularly now that you have the conditions. and the whole issue of the settlement suddenly become a precondition. for 20 years we did negotiate to reach agreement without preconditions. why is it now on the table? so, it shows that the palestinians have changed position and why using the settlement today which they did

not for the last 20 years. so what happened last week in the u.n.? while it is clear that both the prime minister netanyahu spoke mainly to the domestic audiences this was the first target to talk to the domestic audience. indeed they were very successful both changed their position dramatically. netanyahu can become and they're more supportive of him than they were two weeks ago and he is now recognized as a leader on like the image that he had before. so they were successful in doing that. would that bring us closer to peace? i'm not sure because the second outcome of the last week talks in new york were why didn't he get between the two positions? each one of the two added more

elements, more ingredients to the position and that was a month ago, on the earlier. they were furious with of the speech who spoke about christianity and islam world or it was christian and muslim to the holy land and they didn't mention the issue and he spoke about the entire state of israel not only those occupied and 67. if you compare this speech to the speeches earlier, he moved far away from the israelis and i am sure that some pro palestinian supporters would say the same so both sides moved into positions were added more elements that were not there earlier. so, definitely we did not come closer. the good story, the good news is that the consultation was

prevented. the defense minister spoke about the tsunami in the u.n., and the security council started yesterday discussing in the subcommittee the position put forward by the palestinians it might take weeks or months, so it will easily through the tension and there was the quartet proposition put on the table that can be discussed in the future which i guess you all know. so, the buildup to the drama seemed to be not as big as it is things went down so what what happened in the future i don't think that much can happen in the near future. i don't believe that -- yonah coming to asked where the palestinian state would be in

the near future, not in the next year. i don't think that the time table the quartet put to decide what -- no one would be able to fulfil that. i believe that the cause for the negotiation would be difficult to do that and if it could be done it would be done just for public opinion or public diplomacy and not seriously, and so the palestinians would bring their call to the u.n. general assembly and probably would get the majority there but it would only be symbolic achievements, so i think that in the next year things will continue as they are the year 2012 will be a transition period, don't forget that you're getting closer and closer to the elections in the united states which would play

the role and i do not see much change in the near future. in the middle east that can happen within minutes. if violence starts, the peaceful palestinian demonstrations could very easily turn into a violent demonstration and the genie will come out of the bottle or the petition by the israelis extreme settlers, the transformation from the violent low-key could be easy. if that doesn't happen, i believe that the next year there will be more talks and we would be able to meet here again after the election in the united states to ask in what way did the new american president or both american presidents support

the process forward. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for the israeli view, not official, and as i said, our mission is to learn the lessons of history and to try to anticipate future so after the elections we will meet again and see what can be done. our next speaker dr. zakheim i'm sure is familiar figure if i may use this term to he currently is an advisor to csis and a senior

fellow at the corporation and he served as the senior vice president of hamilton and i think is very well known for many of his contributions one of them the undersecretary of defense and chief of the financial officers of the department of defense. now obviously as a very long list of accomplishments and as i mentioned you can relate but what is really important is some of the key challenges to the united states, afghanistan, and iraq dealing with some of these issues. i met him i think in the late

80's at csis and graduated from columbia university initially and studied in london the school with economics and received a ph.d. actually at oxford university and served academically also as a professor at the number of institutions including the national war college issued in colombia, trinity college and so on. i would like to mention the one book i got, how the bush administration -- it was just published several months ago, and obviously there was a

frequent commentator on the radio and media in general. >> thank you very much, yonah and it's good to be here. i want to acknowledge my good friend, the general sitting in the front row who was one of the most dynamic, once the marine corps has ever had. we go back longer than i or any of us would ever admit but i certainly am not proud that i can call him a friend. like yonah, i'm not going to speak to this administration. anybody that knows me would understand why i wouldn't, but i do want to get a sense of at least where the national security community in this town stands and is looking at things, and i want to start with of the largest possible context and work my way down to the subject

of the u.n. and the palestinian implication. the largest context frankly is that we would like to somewhere other than the middle east. we have been swamped by the middle east for a decade. we are getting out of iraq. you can do that whether we should have gone in or not. that is irrelevant. we have been there and the question is when we get out what will iraq look like. will that be a wilsonian democracy? nobody says that. let absorber american resources? it might. it already has to make huge extent. the relationship to sell the f-16 so there is a change their but there are other parts of the world have been literally demanding our attention for quite some time. just think about it. for start there's europe. nobody pays much attention to europe until there's a huge

crisis and all of a sudden on top of our economic crisis this could be a massive disaster. so you have your treasury secretary going out and meeting with the year autozone people trying to give them advice at the same time as he is trying to deal with the big economic problem back home so europa's on our agenda. east asia is on our agenda. we talk about china and think about china and i'm not sure how to relate to china. latin america is increasingly in our agenda primarily because of brazil but not only because of brazil. when you add that to the domestic concerns and to recognize as anybody that has been in government recognizes we have a hard time walking and chewing gum at the same time, you begin to realize why the middle east is not a place that we would like to continue to focus on endlessly say for the next decade as we have for the past decade. then there's the context of the middle east itself i already mentioned iraq but there's so

much more. where is the arab spring had? i was talking to an arab foreign minister just on sunday was as we are in autumn and now. it's still going on. not many things have been resolved. even indonesia which in many ways is the easiest to result. still fighting in libya. we don't know whether libya will turn into a kind of iraq vintage 2005, 2006. we just don't know. yemen, the president, how does that play all? who knows. syria, everybody knows about it and worries about it but not much talk about it. meanwhile the president keeps on telling his own people. how will that play out? who knows. then there's the gcc states. terrified of any kind of a people and bahrain those troops have not left yet, the saudi and mrf police as they are called. to get rid of iran, saudi

arabia, tiberi of yemen. lots of turkoman notte tiergarten your classic sense, yonah, but just in terms of pure fear in the region and then israel and egypt, talking about israel and palestine but what about a situation where after so many years of peace and quiet the embassy is practically over run in cairo and who knows when the ambassador will ever come back to egypt and you can worse case that even though there have been reassurances coming out of cairo to jerusalem and then of course turkey and you have seen the latest round the prime minister netanyahu is now shot back the president, the prime minister. that isn't a recipe for happiness, let's put it that we see you have got complications there. even within the middle east, the peace process is just the part of a huge hole. well then, you might say in that

case may be the peace process isn't that important to the united states, and i've said this before in other locations there certainly are is really policymakers who think that if you weaken american policymaker but to put in the morning they will lead to the peace process is not that important and they are dead wrong because whatever you might think of the merits of the peace process, it is probably the single highest priority we have in the middle east whether it should be or not again is immaterial. i believe that is what it is. and that is the general petraeus has said what he has said and that's why the former secretary of defense gates said what he said because that is the national security committee view. why is it its view? not because they think that it is a deal between israel which is relatively small and palestine which is even smaller is going to solve the troubles of the region as yonah pointed out as huge for.

anything that is easing the difficulties particularly if our allies and those in the gcc of the to to what might have on the street and with eda spurring and finally, it might become weaker

simply because our interests in this country are less with israel's interest than they were 20 years ago than they were say when the oslo treaty was signed. it's not that they are totally divergent but they are less conference and that's important as well. now turning to the palestinian application, of course we are going to veto. the palestinians know it, it really knows we've said there's no way we can back off in fact if we did that off and it didn't veto we would destroy credibility not only with israel but with the arabs as it is our credibility in the arab world was pretty crummy because they see that we cut a deal with khaddafi, threw them under the less and we allow mubarak to be run under the bus whether that is true or not i don't care that is the perception in the region and of course we allow them to be thrown under the bus and people in that part of the world, correct me if i'm wrong,

sir, have very long memories. and so they remember. people are saying there is a pattern here. and if we threw the israelis under the boss, no one will believe us about anything so we are going to have to veto. but having said that, what does the palestinian objective, what else the palestinian objective by going through the motions for a veto? i'm not sure. other than prompting the negotiations maybe not the way it's been described but simply giving people moving off the dime. there is a perception in the region in the town that the administration could have been more forceful and it expresses itself in a variety of ways. it's interesting mr. obama has yet to visit israel. it is such a high priority for him why hasn't he gone there yet? has he done anything like mr. clinton did in terms of seóul diplomacy or kim david

diplomacy? the answer is no. mrs. clinton is now heavily engaged, but for a long time she wasn't. there was a series of people but basically had the mandate to negotiate on behalf of the united states but they were not senior e enough or as in the case of dennis, they knew him. so the same old, same old. was he trying to get a deal going same mold doesn't necessarily work and dennis is a talented fellow but he has been there and he's done that over and over and over again. so if this prompt a really intensive effort on the part of the united states and the quartet and all of a sudden you're talking about the new opportunity. so, at the same time the palestinians have to make sure that they don't make life so complicated that the opportunity is blown. flexible, the settlement issue i've heard him personally say well what do you expect from us? it's the american administration

the start of the settlement and that boxed me into a corner. perhaps. but at the same time if you focus on settlements to the point somebody just had a baby and wants to build an extra better and that's going to hold up peace in the least that's nuts. it's just stupid. if you want as they don't build major settlements, don't start any more of outposts there would be huge sympathy in this country for that. but don't build another bedroom? is that going to turn the tide in the middle east? give me a break. another complication, you can't go and say once we have an independent palestine, jews won't be able to live there because that sets off all kind of emotions. the last people who said that for the nazis. if you want to get american support to push the peace deal, and to put some pressure on the israelis you don't say stuff like that. but palestinian officials have. not very smart. what to do about hamas?

as long as they say they don't want to recognize israel you were giving them an excuse not to cut a deal. palestinians have to come up with a formula how they're going to deal with hamas in a way it doesn't railroad the deal they want and so obviously it is a p.a. challenge. and finally, assuming the same assumption which is that things don't get past the security council so they go to the general assembly and if they want to get in negotiation based on having some kind of status granted to them by the general assembly and it's difficult to argue against that will that include being able to sue the israelis and the international criminal court and the international court of justice because you can't expect people to negotiate with you for bringing them criminals. that's not quite work. it didn't work to the israelis when they rented the criminals and it's not going to work the other we either so there are certain challenges for the palestinians just like there are for the israelis. now as for the timing of the quartet, you could argue that this would never happen that it is fanciful and you could argue

if you have got the quartet on the same page, remember that e.u., to get them on the same pages pretty phenomenal, and i think that if you speak to the foreign minister as i have they are proud of the fact that they've pulled that one off. you now have an awful lot of varied how were full economically powerful countries pulling in the same direction plus the russians may not be as economically powerful but still influential and trying to get something to go in and hear. what happened in the year? i think mr. obama has a tremendous incentive to make it happen in a year. he's clearly appealing to his own base. he considers the jewish community in the community part of his face and the latest polls that have been taken show that by 48 to 45% of american jews think obama is not doing a good job. when is the last time you saw a poll like that? it was in the white house advising the president i would be nervous. so, he has an incentive back shortly to get the quartet work

and it might. i don't know. but if it does. he is to deal with the other side which is the congress and for the talks as if we dominate both houses we actually don't. we only have one house right now. the house of representatives but it is clear that the sympathy for mr. netanyahu and the support for israel in the converse is exceedingly strong. so the deal would have to be one that israel can live with other wise up with not only the divided government with mixed signals to the region and his starkly when the united states sends mixed signals to the region, it doesn't work out well. so there are quite a few challenges here. i'm not going to do it with what professor perry did or yonah and make predictions as to what will happen. can better things happen? i think they can. there are lots of pressures in the direction. can people make mistakes along the way? absolutely. [applause]

>> all of the speakers provoke a lot of issues and questions will come back to it, but before we would like to invite the ambassador to expand a little bit on the concerns, the interest of the international community. it was already referred to whether it's the e.u. or the u.n. and nato and some of the organizations and fundamentally, is there room for diplomacy on this particular issue and how do you see the steps in the coming months and years?

>> one more word. it's a pleasure and honor and i think in terms of the regions the government goes all the way back and we were able to mobilize you to participate and many of the activities over the years, and particularly when you were the deputy ambassador at large that the government of the state of counterterrorism issues and since you retired we try to bring you that. >> thank you, yonah, as always, very generous to i would first like to note for those of you that have managed to look at the

bios it's extremely short compared to the colleagues. there's two reasons for that. one, i've been traveling and i forgot to send even my puffed up biography and the other reason is the obvious one my colleagues are much richer and distinguished background than i do, but i want to know i don't want anybody to jump to the conclusion which is common in this town that actually i was with the cia, not the foreign service. not true. last week palestinian president asked the united nations to accept the palestine member state and in doing so he sort of returned to the scene of the crime as 1947 when britain was the dominant power in palestine both arabs and jews contested were opposed to the british rule

in a struggle for dominance in the region in the country. the u.n. resolution of november 291847 was intended to provide a peaceful change to the situation with the redistribution of power by terminating the british control in the one hand and partitioning the territory between the arabs and jews on the other. that event was clearly in the historic cents a combination of changes going on in the world ever since the treaties. particularly the spread of the nationalism, the concept of nationalism which is grown well beyond the original participants in the treaties. in the 19th century, the national major cause of conflict in the international world caused numerous conflicts between self identify the groups, nationalities, and foreign powers. by the end of world war won the national principal was pretty much accepted by everybody and

was surely enshrined in the league of nations and with that of the disillusioned colonial powers began although it took another generation or two. but the zionism and palestinian nationalism therefore is rather old fashioned traditional nationalism casting themselves and the 19th century mode of opposing trying to achieve national independence on the one hand and opposing foreign domination on the other. in passing the 1947 resolution, the general assembly assumed the mission contained an article 19 to the league of nations and the response of the and the task of providing legal revenue for the resolution of conflict and peaceful change in the nation's system however if ran across problems. any recommendation for change acceptable to all parties is essentially superfluous. it will happen.

however recommendation opposed by one of the parties concerned means enforcement enforcement in the u.n. means action by the security council if it is willing and if it is able. it's actually described in 1945 right after the creation of the u.n. by no other than john foster dulles who noted the two characteristics, quote, the general assembly's charge among other things to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation likely to in part -- to impact the general welfare or the relations among nations. he then added the role of the security council this predominantly negative to stop from public brawling. however the 47 gao recommendation not to being acceptable to one of the parties and security council urging the

naval are unwilling to enforce the recommendations in other words to stop we have had decades of conflict ever since. all during this program many outsiders, many countries have attempted to finding the solution to the conflict most notably the united states but without much success as has been complemented on and the palestinians have now decided to seek the new intermediary and have gone back to the united nations. and in doing so they clearly decided that at this point in time the israeli-palestinian conflict cannot be resolved except directly by the protagonists of, excuse me, cannot be resolved directly by the protagonists. this despite the fact that for some time now but to state solution has come to the solution in principle emphasizing the principle by the two primary parties.

despite this general agreement and the principle achieving the agreement has become the most prominent example today in the world of a situation where the devil is in deep in the details. the new initiatives in the sense can only return the situation to that of the immediate post 1947 era in the sense that it would require a security council resolution and it is clear that if nothing else, the united states would veto the resolution there for even a decision and the general assembly will produce a recommendation challenge by one of the parties without the possibility of enforcement by the other party buy any other party or stakeholder. the alternatives remain with the have been in other words for decades either a negotiated settlement between the two were continued conflict. i will not attempt to make any prediction of which that would be and that's already been done

better and more authoritatively by my colleagues in the panel. however i would talk about the other players in the situation because if we don't if we get in and she did settlement others will continue to assist with that is meaningful or not as an interesting question. the history of the outside involvement has not been encouraging. foremost among them at the united states and in the ambassador in 1983 made a description of that situation i think is probably still. he said, quote, there is nothing in the international system quite similar to the relationship between the united states and israel. given the enormous disparity of power and influence between the two partners to read and then when on tuesday from the moment of the entry in the domain of the middle eastern politics, the united states carried on its shoulders and consciousness of responsibility for the outcome of the zionists enterprise.

i think that description remains valid although i'm not sure that everyone here would agree. although israel's defense economic and military success over the years somewhat diminished the disparity between the two in this situation and increased to some degree this sense of independent action. at the same time there has been to developments that affect the united states and its role in this. one of the end of the cold war produced somewhat of an increased global influence in the u.s. global role. at the same time, increased partisan character of the united domestic foreign dialogue on foreign affairs has narrowed the scope of american administrations to act. public positions have been taken by of republican candidates have made it quite clear that unequivocal support for the president of the israeli government is none for in the american government. ..

peace between the israelis and palace and the ants was only possible with direct negotiations. not by any u.n. declarations. so even the u.s. officially takes a position that will make direct negotiations can result the problem and all outsiders, including the united states are essentially notetakers.

at the same time we've been involved in the quartet. in response to palestinian initiative, the quartet effort to resolve to effort which might avoid the security council by mr. abbas and which weighed whether the future of the quartet is an interesting decision with the vote coming because the vote in the security council might well break up the quartet. please excuse me if i appear unduly cynical, but most countries in the middle east with regard to the situation would really prefer that it went away. support for the palestinian varies from people to people, government to government, leader to leader, but it there are more of us limiting to a pro forma supporter. jordanian spent as far as formal peace treaties, teen seeking

unilateral advantages, the saudis preached among other things solutions and the gulf states say as little as possible as early as possible. the two possible game changers in the area of coors are the two new regional powers, tehran and turkey. it is now to know that neither our area. they are going to obvious significant implications. one of the other striking aspects of both her governments for long periods conducted very close and intimate relations with israel. iran under the shock conducted a very, very close military relations although quickly abandoned that the islamic revolution theory 30 years ago. the current iranian reach for her dominance has caused them to adapt the palestinian cause

quite openly and quite dramatically, which combined with the alleged nuclear weapons program has paid them the top of the worry list. however, the iranian interest does not appear to focus on a two state resolution and it's doubtful they would support that to any degree. the turkish policy and relations to the recent and dramatic rising from events at the turkish or can i split to train to ram the gaza blockade. i don't know, but from my point of view it's difficult to tell which was caused and which was the fact. in any case in the obvious bid for these relationships, the turkish prime minister suggested anarchy in the spirit and turkey intends to play a prominent role. this moment is difficult to tell how far turkey will go both in pursuit and relations with israel. i would say much about the air of panic, but it's not very

brilliant. being early and fervent supporters of israel did move to nuanced positions reflect team public opinion, particularly to reversal of roe if the palestinians have been seen by many as the underdog refers to the situation of the era of movie site accidents. a white great shift in public perception is certainly produced great changes in public and governmental attitudes. on the other hand,, europeans have been enthusiastic members of the so-called quartet. it will be interesting to see how that turns out. mentioning the question of the cartel brings up the subject of russia. at best minor players sitting at the former global glories. but it's difficult to see how its actions today, much more than we should be establishing with no intent or ability to put a more active or constructive role. important question has been the role of nonstate at fairs.

over the years, the question has become of increasing interest, particularly the group of humanitarian ngos. on one hand and political movements in the middle east on the other. humanitarian ngos have played a significant role in the growing change of attitude towards their relationship with israelis and palestinians, particularly in fostering the increasing view of the palestinians as the underdog. more germanic has been the rule of nonstate political organizations willing to use violence, in other words terrorist groups. here we have two distinct varieties, palestinian groups such as hamas to see the use of violence as essential to their mission, their objection -- objective, which is the elimination of israel. others such as hezbollah and al qaeda had taken on palestinian causes bilious conscious political decision to the degree that position is determined by

sympathy and real concern or by deliberate political calculation i leave to others to judge. meanwhile, domain name groups that comprise the palestinian authority now seek a tuesday political solution and largely abandoned by her tactics. however, failure to achieve has been noted to return to france even beta scripts. the rest of the world are basically onlookers. no real role like this status in articles near papers come occasional speakers in the u.n., but a sickly playing a significant role. and of course the kid to actual votes in the u.n., were votes by all these other countries, particularly if they produce a significant majority for the state measure will obviously have some effect on members of the security council with politics being what they are. but there is one other aspect of the changing attitude in the

world, which is causing serious concern and should to all of us. international pressure should end the occupation grows daily and in the minds of sun, and this is tied to questioning the very existence of israel itself. a growing concern for the strand, sometimes called the t. legitimate -- delegitimization of campaign they soured the mood of the israeli public and leading to a diminished ability of israeli governments to negotiate. while most people and governments around the world continue to make a clear distinction between support for the palestinian state and israel's right to exist, many in israel and people who have said in a different context have too much history and too much of a tragic do not see it that way. and while it is true that israel often appears to be paranoid, it is useful to remember that even paranoids can have enemies.

in conclusion, i'd like to make the unremarkable comment that while most onlookers lacked the power to determine and resolve or facilitate seriously this issue, they never researched influence to complicated for both parties. in either case, whether intended or not is the palestinian initiative at the u.n. and the result is really an american response and made it clear that the issues clearly and solely in the arms of two parties. perhaps it was always so. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. and i may note that one article that was published in the partnership in response to terrorism in other words from the original security provider

is moving as we can see to a global security provider and not only afghanistan and so forth. anyway, the speaker recent critical and important issues of both historical and contemporary and we would like to develop some sort of discussion. before we do, we asked to give the program to the general abstract to pick up this discussion. general. >> yeah, i think the audiences really had enough talk and wants to get into this. so why do i just open it up for questions. go ahead. yes. please. yeah, you.

[inaudible conversations] rbi mark [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i know that the dream of a lot of people on the israeli right push off the economically political decisions and keep hoping that the economics will make people fat and happy.

i didn't say what you were. i am just saying that is the dream from people on the rate in particular. look, there's certainly no doubt that the west bank is doing exceedingly well. its gross domestic product that matches anybody in the world right now. coming off a low base, but still, very, very impressive. coming you know, it's very impressive. i agree. i think in part that also may have motivated abu mohsen because i'm the one hand there is this political impulse that is divorced. if you think about hamas's behavior destroyed all sorts of economic infrastructure that would have created a much more comfortable life to their own people and they did it through political reasons.

and so, sometimes the politics and economics overlap purposely. sometimes they operate at cross purposes and it may be to some extent a willingness to take economic risks. that is to say, create discord, which will certainly harmed the economical to scores. it's just the reality is that's proved over and over again. britain and germany which had its trading before world war i. it doesn't seem to have stopped them. >> just one sentence. the idea of high god is to build a new state from the bottom. and people do not see the difference between the economic field in the political field for institutionalization of the political process and economic development to the other.

he gained a fantastic way by building institutions. so this state building process was very careful in a row and successful weight. i am not so sure about the economics, particularly that the huge economic development on the west bank is due to foreign investments, was not so much investment as foreign money that flows in two the region. so i won't build on the economic development of the west bank to become a state on the way by the political institutions are stronger and stronger. >> any other comments from the panel? >> anyone else? >> just a footnote, i think with the instability, the uncertainty about the future, i think there is a common ground in israel and

egypt and jordan and turkey. and that is to reason security. meaning this country obviously is very much interested in making sure that this particular sector of the economy is viable. and the only way to deal with that is to improve security. so i think this gives the parties the opportunity to participate in a specific area. >> as a point, i think the jordanian israeli and palestinians are so much intertwined that there is no imagining of having a solution without the three countries and of course you cannot egypt and the middle east, that eventually there has to be some kind of economic integration in the

future because there are so much close together now. you have, as i said, you know, palestinian money in israel and the israeli money and the west bank. i mean, there is a trade between of course jordan and the west bank. and so it has to be integrated at one point properly come in a proper manner. that is why the peace treaty is to have these kind of projects worthwhile that the economy can be integrated. >> thank you. yes. [inaudible] >> just use a microphone and introduced herself. >> my name is albert mckinlay. i have a question for the panel. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> how loved and increased the danger risk in israel? and his answer is the israeli intelligence and pa security has been cooperating for many years through difficult and less difficult times. i wondered if you shared his optimism. >> please. >> the cooperation between the palestinian authorities and security fields was very, very close and developed until the last week. you might continue in the near future because both regimes do not have an interest for the wave of violence. just one example, a week ago, a

week before the discussion at the u.n., the palestinian authority spot from israel a new, nonlethal weapon and these authorities gave it to them openhanded. because the interest of both sides was to present violence. both understood that violence will not work for either the interest of the authority, nor for israel. so that -- i guess i will continue and that is what general rothschild referred to. but if things deteriorate, it could have definitely a very negative impact on the relationship between israel and the palestinian authority. >> one thing that could undermine the situation -- i agree with what professor perry genocide. if congress cuts off aid, i think it would be a serious mistake. and what it will do is reverse

the kind of economic growth we've just been talking about. so instead of young men going to work, they will have other things to do, which is to cause violence, provoke reaction and nasty downward spiral. so i know how strongly people on the hill co about the linkage between eight and with the palestinians are doing in the u.n. but frankly if they were to react in a knee-jerk way, the consequences could be very secure. >> in the near situation, but important situation you cannot think of the key would be the israeli reaction. so we diplomats call the credential question. after the event, they could meet and the palestinians show up with nameplate cars that say colonel so-and-so, republic of palestine. to the israelis accept that or

reject it? so it all depends pending case it will be up to the israelis to continue to risk on the first of all by accepting credentials of people and pretend to be the established state. >> yeah, in the back. >> i'm roger danziger of aipac. for the palestinians to grow to the icj, would actually become productive because they will not negotiate with people called the criminals. and actually mahmoud abbas in the times said exceptionally the state so they can continue the legal struggle. so would like to understand your

comments on that statement as mahmoud abbas. >> well, they don't need the icj. between 2004, the general assembly sent the legality of the occupied palestinian authority and we all know what type name. 14 to one the decision was in favor of the palestinians. and that the world is in the measure, which undermines the future prospects of peace in the middle east. so they don't really need that. with regard to the icc,, this is a complicated matter and it's not straightforward issue. from a particular day is, they

have to decide on this matter in how to proceed forward. one i've worked on the icc matters before. the icc is intended to protect the rights of people. if you're a human being and the right has been violated, and this is one of the purposes to protect u.s. and individuals from many person who violates your rights and his or her state because that person goes unpunished. so i cannot speak on behalf of the palestinians with regard to the icc, that it is a matter for them to decide taking everything into account. basically, thank you. >> those are very many opinions on every issue in israel tear down some issues, they're almost

unanimity. and one of them is the anti-israel bias at the u.n. general assembly for institutions like the icc. they mentioned even before a noun that now who repeats that if they were to be a motion to the u.n., it should not equate. he 90 votes for that resolution if it comes from many of the arab states. in the same applies to the icc. the israelis do not see the icc is in the mutual institution, but as a playground for political entries. and they were very many cases where the israelis felt that they are -- that it was proven so. and therefore, the near decision within your pronunciation of mahmoud abbas that they would use these means is being seen by the israelis as they hint that

we are now going to negotiate a serious partner, but we are going to win two in fields where you are very weak. >> yes, right here. >> repeatedly you hear this statement, this is the last chance for a two state solution. what does that mean in the 52 state solution the only alternative in a five-run? what does that mean? >> is a wonderful question. both politically and theoretically. and the road to the book 15 years ago into which they looked into the question of when does -- when does the state withdraws from another treasury that's occupied and when does he not do it anymore?

and in some cases, the french in algeria, the british in ireland and israel in the west bank. he is a very interesting theoretical model t. say when you reach a stage where you cannot we trot anymore. and the new territories being really squeeze in an integrated part of the metropolitans. when he wrote the book then, he was sure that israel would be able to with job in the territory. after 17 years since he wrote his book, he believes will be much more difficult to do so, namely that israel has reached a stage of no return. very difficult according to him to withdraw. i beg to differ. i believe that if there is the political will by the partners, a two state solution can be achieved. after all, we know the parameters that were put on the table by president clinton and

were reiterated by different negotiators. the last one was prime minister of mad and president of the monsoon. they agreed about the territorial issue. the question was whether it would be 2% more here or there. so i believe the major issue is not the territories. it's the political well. >> despite my prepared remarks about the central irrelevance of outsiders, i'd like to suggest giving the question that the situation offered an opportunity for an outsider. that was the united states. there's a phrase in this town, but never predicted crisis go two ways. we have missed a chance here. what is shortly after the palestinians announce that decision going to the u.n. to united states tabled a resolution in the vote, calling

for palestinian statehood on the basis that the details of their last accord those ominous sign that matter? what if we put that resolution on the table in the security council? >> well, i also see it as an opportunity and i agree with professor perry. until the security council has to go, the opportunity is still there. some wag said that they will mistake the israelis made was when abu mohsen put this proposal forward. they fit great we support you and then he would switch on it. but seriously, the opportunity exists and in terms of the settlers, i need, obviously the more settlements, the more settlements.

they are his biggest american small towns and sometimes even bigger. the longer that goes on, the more difficult it gets. but the parameters of the last camp david tried still pretty much hold. that's why i see in my remarks at the podium to palestinians are focusing on the wrong thing. by focusing on all settlements, and every bit of construction, which frankly the administration opened the door for them to do, they've rendered it impossible for netanyahu to follow up that way because they can do somebody has a baby they want to put the bedroom, all of a sudden they create these settlements. on the other hand, if they say we want a commitment, no outpost about coming to a new outposts, expansion territorially, that's a very different story. and if that were to have been saved today, i think a deal would still be possible entrance of land exchanges. >> yes, please.

>> i think it's an important question. the more settlements that are being built and since the oslo accords, this number has tripled and quadrupled, the number of settlements and settlers. they wouldn't be a chance to have a palestinian authority. it would be pockets of concentration, palestinians here and there in the west bank without territorial of continuity to build a state. that grace appear just above elements for it to be a state. if you don't have that, there will be no state. there is a one state solution and it is israel. so for those who will think, you know, it is one state, then israel has to decide what kind of state we have? would not take more refugees in children. then jordan destroyed in. but what have you is you have

within the next few years with the historic palestine. so what are we going to do? are we going to be jewish state or a democratic state? these are the questions and time is not from israel site. thank you. >> yes, please. >> my name is george feith. >> the israeli united nations -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> he said he needs to hear just

a number from the israelis before they sit down. 1967. these areas -- ashes onto your one sentence, which is two states for two people. and he would sit down. is this just the block or is this real or is this just a show? and my question is, the palestinians want to stay. a state is usually the territory, so they have to have some sort of ensure to the international community. >> i'm not sure about this. i haven't had this issue before, but the settlement are well

known and are very similar to that that is proposed by president clinton. and in 2008 don't think it will change much from that. everybody now has the solution's going to be. but people should not say well, all delayed for a day or two or attend the negotiations that will gain more. it won't happen. sorry to say that, but think of yourself the same as before. >> anyone else? >> yeah, please. >> i wanted to ask the general -- [inaudible] >> -- settlements in the eastern part of the city. you were talking earlier about how this state environment territory of people.

will the general understanding i have is guys that would also be rooted in the potential palestinian fee, but yet there's two separate governments right now. so how would that work, especially in the current situation? there were two governments were two palestinian state with divided government and no one really knows -- there is no true sovereignty by the authority under a bias or hamas government. how does that work? >> that's another thing, which is in lateral masher taken to withdraw without an agreement and that was the consequence of it. no agreement and that's it. that's right there's a

negotiated solution. but you're absolutely right. and since hamas took over gaza, this is probably, in my opinion, the issue with regard to finding a solution come a comprehensive solution to the conflict. now that doesn't mean you can't negotiate. you have to find a basis for a solution and the basis srd been created. you're going to start now. and then, you worry about gaza. and let's see first if we can have some framework for an agreement that we can work on and then without giving too much details on this issue, gaza will eventually be resolved. it would not be a problem. if we have the framework. >> one has to look at the negotiations that took place

already in 1980. we are not starting to negotiate. we asked both sides to put forward their positions within the next three months. they are negotiated. they were very close to an agreement several times. so some of the questions are really irrelevant. the question of the borders i would daresay a resident. we know that israel is going to give back if there is an agreement between 95 to 98 percentage of the territories. and we know most of the settlements, most of the settlers will remain by 2% or 3% next to israel. submitted the issue of the borders, nor the settlements for the israeli settlers is really the problem. without that, there would be no agreement. there are some issues that were left out then. here at kamuela sure, but i believe that in intelligent

diplomats is no answer as well. that includes both issues, jerusalem and the refugees. israel will have to give up its demands that there'll be no palestinian capital in jerusalem. the palestinians will have to give up to demand that refugees spoke about to israel. this will be the historical compromise. without that there will be no solution. what is left are new issues that have been raised lately. and they have to be solved. for example, the security issue. and indeed the israelis were asked to present the security demands because of changes in the middle east, what will the future of the jordan beat? in the past, the israelis were more lenient on that. today rightly so because if there will be changing jourdan, if there's american influence in iraq will diminish, the probability is much more likely today than it was 10 years ago. but the israelis demand a

permanent position at the israeli military of john berger, some of which the palestinians will not agree. there's other new elements which will be discussed. the basic parameters arena. released in our time talking about this. >> anybody else? >> yeah, please. >> don wallace. i've got a question for professor perry and one for ambassador marx. first is to you, professor. the issue is political will. the political will of the net and yahoo! administration, i'd be curious what are your true observations. and the question ambassador marx's face. others have said that the united states should have come in a sense, welcome this opportunity to go to the security council and in a sense not be automatically make it into the palestinian initiative. do you think that's realistic given the issue of political

will in the net and yahoo! administration in a relationship with? >> i'm proposing we should use the opportunity, but under specific resolutions, it's palestinian state had put me forward one which encapsulates the last negotiated agreements in the details before it was. now they were still a couple points that were accepted on that. so what. put it in the u.n. security council and then let's negotiate in the security council with the united states are still holding the veto if it all goes really right, if it gets really out of hand. and then you force the two parties in the security council to negotiate that little bit of difference, which is

significant, but still there. if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, which completely preempt the palestinian request for a statehood without these defined questions, which seems to buy their everybody. you put on the question stated under these conditions. you guys wanted? negotiated. >> this is one of the most difficult questions for any israeli analysts. what does netanyahu -- what is very deeply in his heart or in his head? and that is because netanyahu's political makeup is complicated. on one hand, he's the son of his father. and he's the husband of his wife. and he is the father of his son. he will never give back the west bank to the palestinians to make peace. on the other hand is a very clear, shrewd politician who understands both the reality and constraints on israel and he

understands there is a gap between the police and dreams and reality and is very pragmatic. so which part of his personality would be stronger depends on the political game. this is the reason why president peres, for example, changed his position the last two years career for transputer. whenever netanyahu backed companies automatically to make peace and you'll be surprised how much and when to compromise. in other times, it doesn't seem that it's going to do so. i believe at the end of the day it will not be what is in his heart, but what will be in his mind. in the way he reads the international situation, the forces outside israel, forces within israel, i'll give you just one example. the labour party -- another great fan of the labour party anymore, but the labour party wanted to taste victory last week when he left a new leader.

in the public opinion polls gave the party in the next election 22 c. instead of the 10 they had today. if there will be a change in the next year and half elections in israel, it won't be a major change, but you need only three or four seas to move from the right to the less. that will enable netanyahu to be reelect it, to establish a different coalition. if he has a different coalition, not the three parties on the right, the more responses on the left, it might be easier for him to move towards compromise. it's the same for pressure from the outside world. so no one can give you an answer because there's no answer. depends what would be the nature of the game in the future. [inaudible] -- another subject which i don't know much. i think about netanyahu and

witty site, but there are two things that happen in israel the last 20 years or so. he is after all an elected leader in a democracy. these developments illustrate the universe works and that's the rule of unintended consequences. the engagement in israel at the american evangelical community welcomed for lots of reasons by the israeli government and population, given the perspective of the evangelical community, apparently fairly conservative have helped pushed the politics more to the right. the arrival in israel of about a million russian citizens, allegedly jewish, who have turned out to be soviet oppression types in terms of their political views and their social attitudes has also significantly shifted the center balance that the israeli politics to the right. so these have shifted and changed the perspective is the israeli public station and not

in yahoo! is after all an elected leader. i think i better get some comment. [inaudible] >> a million young voters, the money list who gave obama the victory gave not know who the victory as well. but the reason very simple. they were socialized politically during the 10 years after the break down of the oslo agreement from the year 2000 with suicidal attacks in israel, where they cannot go to drink because they're a bunch there. when they cannot be arrested because they know that the israel withdrew from lebanon, south lebanon in kenya to is fairly. when they would stir from gaza and yet hamas continues to affect someone's in itself. so these million people live genetically to the right and it would be a miracle had they not done so.

watching what happened. >> we have time for one quick question and a quicker answer. yeah, right back here. >> i work here. my question is this. given that recently the security and israel and that the spirit of the arab spring, do you think that is a failure of the recent attempt could result in even more violence and ultimately perhaps even a third of the anti-sadr that regulators are considering i tonight is playing a role in the international discussion? >> who's got a quick answer? >> well, it's not the issue a failure because basically you're going to security council come is seeking full membership of the u.n. there are many other alternatives.

they might eventually get it in that procedure on the united for peace resolution that they can go to the general assembly on this. or they can be like the vatican member states. there's alternatives discussed at the u.n. that might have been. but i frankly think it depends on the israelis and palestinians and how much they try to cooperate and defuse any kind of tension that would ensue in this regard. for security cooperation has been going well. that is why that is not a major incidents in the past year is coming from the west bank and that is very important. basically, that's the point. >> okay, on behalf of mike schwab then, what to thank our distinguished panel for just a super, super series of

presentations and responses to the questions. i will wrap it up. i will tell you a little story that has nothing to do with israel or palestine, but has a little bit to do with negotiations. when we were discussing things with the former soviet union and the warsaw pact in our country and strategic arms reductions and what that really to the end of the so-called cold war, i remember we hosted general aftermath who is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff for the soviet union and the most influential military person in the soviet union. and when he threw his weight behind mr. gorbachev, that made the difference. so we were hosting at camp lejeune. amongst other things, he asked one of our corporals. he said, what do you think about the russians being here and what

do you think about that? what you think think we are here? and the corporal looked him in the eye and said, i don't know why you are here, marshall. but it sounds like a pretty good idea. and with the corporal meant of course is that it's far better to talk and negotiate than it is running around saying you're going to do this and do that. i'm never going to get anywhere but the latter. you may or may not be successful with the former, but it's worth a try and it's obvious to me this is a very complex issue of course as we all know. but i personally think that it has to be solved through negotiations by israelis and palestinians in order to work. i don't see any other way to do it in the worst thing about what to be a third and fourth parties representing themselves. thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] salamat the u.n. security council meets tomorrow to consider palestine's membership application.

>> in his recent visit to a

denver high school, president obama urged congress to pass this jobs bill so that we can start putting people back to work. his proposal includes $25 billion for school infrastructure spending. the president's remarks are 25 minutes. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> hello, denver. [cheers and applause] what a beautiful day. thank you so much. how is it going, lansing? i heard you had a pretty good all team. that's the story i've heard. [cheers and applause] will listen, there's a couple people here i want to acknowledge who are just outstanding public servants. first of all, a hometown hero is

now one of the best secretaries of the interior that we've ever had. ken salazar. [cheers and applause] one of the best governors in the country, john hankin looper. [cheers and applause] two outstanding senators, mark udall. [cheers and applause] and michael bennet. [cheers and applause] congresswoman diana dig at. [cheers and applause] congressmen ed perlmutter. your own hometown mayor, michael hancock. [cheers and applause] and former friend -- current friend, former mayor and one of the finest public servants in colorado history, frederico

pena. [cheers and applause] so it is good to be back in colorado, especially on a gorgeous day late is. it's always like this in late september, is an? absolutely. it's an honor to be here at lincoln high school. [cheers and applause] and i want to give a special thank you to emelia for that wonderful introduction. [cheers and applause] i was just talking to emelia. she is a senior this year. and she is planning to go to college and planning to be a doctor and i am absolutely certain she is going to succeed in everything she does. and she is an example, great example of how smart are courses in better technology help guarantee our kids the foundation they need to graduate and compete in this new global

economy. so we couldn't be prouder of emelia and we couldn't be prouder of all the students here at lincoln. [cheers and applause] now i came here today to talk about the economy. i came to talk about how we can get to a place where we are creating good middle-class jobs again. jobs that pay well and jobs that offer security. we've cut a lot to do to make sure everyone in this country gets a fair shake and a fair shot any chance to get ahead. that's number one thing i think about each and every day. your lies, your opportunities. that should be the number one thing that every public servants in washington is thinking about. there's so much that we could accomplish together if washington can finally start at being on behalf of the people. [cheers and applause]

we've got to get that city to stop worrying so much about their jobs in their careers and start worried about your jobs in your careers. [cheers and applause] en masse by press and congress the american jobs that. now i know it's kind of the, but it boils down to two things. putting people that you work in putting my money in the pockets of working americans. every single thing in the american jobs that it's the kind of proposal that has been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. everything in it will be paid for. it's been two weeks since i sent it to congress. now i want it that. i want it back so i can sign this bill and put people back to

work. [cheers and applause] antarctica depends already outlined up on my desk. everyone can send a message to congress. a simple message. pass this jobs bill. [cheers and applause] passes jobs bill and right here in colorado, thousands of construction workers will have a job again. [cheers and applause] this one is the most commonsense ideas out there. all of the country dirt roads and bridges and schools, just like lincoln, et cetera needless repair. one of the reasons we came here with this is the fastest-growing school in one of the fastest growing school districts in colorado. [cheers and applause]

so lincoln has been adding new ap courses and new language course is and the wonderful principle and administrators here have been making sure that the teachers here have been making sure the kids have upgraded computers and learning software that's necessary to prepare all of these students for the jobs and the economy of the future. but things like science labs take money to upgrade. the science lab here at lincoln high were built decades ago, back in the 60s. i don't know if you've noticed, but science and technology has changed a little bit since the 1960s. the world had changed a little bit since 1960s. so we need to do everything we can to prepare kids to compete. we need to do everything we can to make sure our students can compete with any student anywhere in the world. and every child deserves a great

school and we can give it to them. [cheers and applause] we can rebuild our schools for the 21st century but faster internet and smarter labs and cutting-edge tech to achieve. and that won't just create a better learning environment for students. it will create good jobs for local construction workers here in denver holocaust corrado pennell across the country. our schools throughout colorado in need of renovation. but it's not just in this state. last week i visited a bridge in cincinnati that connected ohio to kentucky. regency renovations. roasted renovations. we need broadband lines in rural areas. their construction projects like these all across this country just waiting to get started in millions of unemployed construction worker is ready to do the job. so my question to congress says, what on earth are you waiting for? let's get to work.

[cheers and applause] let's get to work. let's get to work. why should our children be allowed to study and crumbling outdated schools? actress that did that make sense? we should build them the best schools. that's what i want for my kids and that's what you want for your kids. that's what i'm up for every kid in america. why should we let china built the newest airports, the fastest railroad? we should build them right here in america, right here in denver, right here in colorado. [cheers and applause] there is work to be done, workers ready to do it. so tell congress, pass this jobs bill right away. [cheers and applause] let's pass this jobs bill of her teachers back in the where they

belong. [cheers and applause] you know, places like south korea are adding teachers to prepare their case for the global economy. we are laying off our teachers left and right. all across the country, budget cuts are forcing superintendents to make choices they don't want to make. i can tell you the last thing a governor like john hickey luper wants to do is to lose teachers. ..

the last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. that's why congress needs to pass this bill to make it easier for businesses to hire veterans and use the skills that they've developed protecting us. pass this bill and will hold hundreds of thousands of young people find summer jobs next year to help them build skills. it provides a 4,000-dollar tax credit for companies that hire anybody who spent more than six months looking for a job. it extends unemployment insurance but also says if you're collecting benefits he will get connected to temporary work as a way to build your skills while you are looking for a permanent job. congress needs to pass this bill

[applause] conagra's needs to pass this bill so we can help the people create most of the new jobs in this country. america's small-business owners. it's all terrific that corporate profits have come roaring back but small companies haven't come roaring back. let's give them a boost. pass this and every small-business owner in america gets a tax cut. [cheers and applause] if they hire new employees or raise their employee salary they get another tax cut. you know, there are some republicans in congress who like to talk about being the friends of america's job creators well if you actually care about american jobs created and you should actually help american job creators with a tax cut by passing this bill. but [applause] now finally if we get congress to pass this bill the typical working family in colorado will get more than $1,700 in tax cuts

next year. 1700 that would have been taken out of your paycheck now goes right back in your pocket. if congress doesn't act, if congress fails to pass this bill, middle class families will get hit with a tax increase of the worst possible time. we can't let that happen. republicans say they are the party of tax cuts to read tell them to fight just as hard for tax cuts for working americans as the fight for the wealthiest americans. tell them to pass this jobs bill right now. [applause] so let me summarize here the american jobs and act will mean new jobs for construction workers, jobs for teachers, jobs for veterans, jobs for young people, for the unemployed. it will provide tax relief for every worker and small business in america and by the way it

will not add to the deficit, it will be paid for. last week i read out a plan that would not only pay for the jobs bill but would begin to actually reduce debt over time. it's a plan that says if we want to create jobs and close the deficit, then we've got to not only make some of the cuts that we've made with the help of mark and michael we were able to get done but we've also got to ask the wealthiest americans the biggest corporations to pay their fair share. [applause] we need to reform our tax code based on a simple principle. middle class families shouldn't pay higher tax rate for the millionaires and billionaires'. [applause] warren buffett's secretary shouldn't pay higher tax rate than warren buffett. a teacher or nurse or construction worker making $50,000 a year shouldn't pay

higher tax rates than somebody making 50 million that's just common sense. and keep in mind i'm not saying this because we should be punishing success. this is the land of opportunity. what's great about this country is that any of these young people here, if they go out there and want to work hard they can start a business and create value, great products and services and make millions or billions, that's great. that is what america is all about. anybody can make it if they try what is also quintessentially american idea is that those of us who have done well should pay our fair share and contribute to the upkeep of the nation that made the success possible because nobody, nobody is well on their own. a teacher samore helps to give you the skills to succeed.

[applause] firefighters and police officers are protecting your property. moving your goods and products and services on roads that somebody built. that's how we all do well together. we got here because somebody else invested in us and we've got to make sure this generation of students can go to college on student aid or scholarships like i did. we have to make sure we keep investing in the kind of government research that helps create the internet which countless private sector companies then used to create tens of millions of jobs and you know what, i'm positive -- i've talked to most wealthy americans agree with this. republicans in congress call it class warfare. tuna what, if asking millionaire to pay the same tax rate as a plumber makes me a class warrior, a warrior for the working class, i will accept, i

will wear that as a badge of honor. [applause] the only warfare i need is the battle waged against middle class families in this country for a decade now. ultimately, colorado, this comes down to choice and priorities. if we want to pay for this job plan to put people back to work, close the deficit and invest in the future than the money has to come from somewhere and so my question is would you rather keep the tax loopholes all companies or do you want construction workers to have a job rebuilding schools and roads and bridges? [applause] would you rather keep tax breaks for millionaires they don't need or would you rather put teachers back to work and help small businesses and cut taxes and reduce our deficit?

it's time to build an economy to create good middle class jobs in this country. it's time to build an economy that honors the value and hard work and responsibility. it's time to build an economy that lasts and that starts now. i need your help to make it happen. [applause] remember republicans and democrats in the past have supported every kind of proposal that's in here. there is no reason not to pass it just because i proposed. we need to tell them it's time to support these proposals right now. it is some republicans in washington who've said that some of this might have to wait until the next election. maybe we should strike this out rather than work together right now. some even said that if they agree with the proposal in the americans' job that they shouldn't pass it because it

might give me a win. think about that. give me a win? give me a break that's why folks are set up with washington. [cheers and applause] folks in washington don't get it. this isn't about giving me a win. it's about giving democrats and republicans a chance to do something for the american people. it's about getting people who are hurting a seat belt. that's what this is about, giving small business owners in win and entrepreneurs and students say win and working families in win. giving all of us eight win. the next election is nearly 14 months away. the american people don't have the luxury of waiting that long. folks here in colorado are living from paycheck to paycheck from week to week.

they need action. they need it now. so i'm asking all of you. i need you to lift up your voice is not just here in denver but anybody watching and listening and falling on line, i need you to call, e-mail, fax, visit, tell your congressperson unless they are here because they are already on board, tell them you are tired of gridlock, you are tired of the game. tell them the time for action is now. tell them you want to create jobs now. tell them to pass the bill. [applause] if you want construction workers on the job, pass the bill. if you want teachers back in the classroom, and pass the bill. you want a tax cut for small business owners, pass the bill. [cheers and applause] you want to help veterans share the opportunity that the defendant, pass the bill. it is time to act. we are not a people that sit

back and wait for things to happen. we make things happen. we are americans. we are tougher than the times that we live in and bigger than the politics we have been sitting out of washington. we write our own destiny. it's in our power to do so once more so let's get to work and show the world once again why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. thank you putative god bless you. god bless the united states of america. go lancers. [cheers and applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] ♪ [inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

today "the washington post" hosted a conference on china and its increasing global importance readers part of that conference with the asia pacific representatives of the task force and nonprofit environmental organization. she discusses american businessmen can operate in china. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome back. i'm the editor of "the washington post" live division of the media company that puts out forums and debates about the most important issues of the day. today the topic is the economic

might of china and what it means to the rest of us and along with the audience here at the u.s. institute of peace building the national mall on washington, very close to the lincoln memorial, we have a whole online audience watching us and i encourage them to tweet us at - tag globalchina or e-mail questions and i will be asking some of online questions, too. now let's dive into the next discussion. there's a marvelous chinese expression, same bed, a different dream and it's been used many times to describe the ag u.s.-china relationship. so even in the most successful u.s. chinese business partnership where they are in bed together so to speak, there are disconnects between the

partners from two countries of different cultures and very different languages and as more and more chinese and american companies gather together to do businesses, partnerships from the first and second biggest economy in the world we hear more and more from the board room, from the airport lounge, and we want to talk about some of those today. what's it like for an american to do business in china? and what's it like for those on the panel that are chinese and doing business in america? what are the challenges? the u.s. is in great need of capital and new jobs and are they doing enough to attract all the investments talked about this morning? so we have an amazing panel here to talk about these things and i'm going to start right here with ambassador charlene barshefsky, the senior international partner at wilmerhale in washington, d.c. where she advises multinational

and private equity firms on their global market access investment and acquisition strategies. she served as everyone knows as president clinton's cabinet as the u.s. trade representative from 1997 to 2001, and among her many accomplishments, she was the architect and negotiator of china's wto agreement in the chinese economy has a worldwide market. next to her is lixin cheng for the zte corporation. zte is one of the leading global provider of telecommunications equipment and devices that has 85,000 employees and is booming. he's also the ceo of zte usa and has lived in america now for ten years. the vice president and manager of north america for air china, the world's largest carrier by

market capitalization with a net worth of $20 billion. born in china he is a naturalized u.s. citizen and holds the u.s. passport. and i found this interesting that he is the only top-level executives at any chinese carrier to be considered a forerunner. [laughter] john russell's managing director of north had a strategic communications and public affairs consultancy with the china focus. he helped foreign companies facing challenges of working in china as well as chinese companies working abroad and he's lived in beijing now for six years. ming sung for asia pacific, the clean air task parts and is just arrived from beijing. the task force of the nonprofit dedicated to reducing atmospheric pollution. he has resulted clean energy

with chinese and american companies and worked for many of the world's leading energy companies. thank you all for coming. we are going to be in with charlene barshefsky having some opening remarks and then it jump in and talk about we have chinese executives in america, we have from the ground in beijing so you are in for a treat. charlene. >> it's a great pleasure to be here today. i thought i would pick up on the last panel and talk briefly about china's innovation policies and what that might mean for a business operating in china. it there's a number of talent to deal with business in any developing company to the country particularly as you look at the standing with typically the internal competition, lack of transparency, idiosyncratic a government decision making, corruption and state meddling, red tape and so on and so forth.

each of these challenges is magnified in china because of its size and importance to the business generally. but if you add to those generic challenges a specific interventionist action by the chinese government, particularly for businesses that have a lot of intellectual property or a lot of technology, these challenges become magnified. it isn't just the extraordinary opportunities and many situations in china of course there are, but the challenges are also greater, much higher risk. as a policy that drop it's important for business to appreciate policy in the developing countries matters. it often spells the difference between a successful venture and an unsuccessful venture whether you are competing against the

state or whether you actually have an even chance in the market. china has as a core national objective as we heard this morning to become an innovation economy. why is that? because it accelerates domestic growth. it provides china the value added its missing in the chain right now as dan knows and pointed out. they are a manufacturer but manufacturing is and where the money is made. it's made on the front end and it's made on the back end. it would lead to a sustainable improvement in the living standards and help secure the national security. but exhilarated development and china is also critical to stability to get china creates ten to 15 million new jobs. in the war and the decade on the united states we created net 22 million new jobs and that's over a decade and ten to

13 million new hotjobs every single year just for the labor force. but at the same time as that challenge exists, 6 million college grads are emerging from china no intention of working in factories to the province for a living particularly when you think of the policy and the pressures on those kids to succeed, you add to that the importance of china moving up the value chain not only because the low and manufacturing has become more expensive because also if you are going to move to the consumption based model of growth, people have to earn more money so they can spend. how do you earn more money by increasing productivity. how you increase productivity? innovation. so innovation is a core national law objective. multinationals have been the key

to chinese growth of this far. the single largest contributor to the china's gdp either today. they still export 60% of everything produced in china, 80% in the text base and they provide technology and expertise and so on. but what china seas now is the value added held by multinationals, not indigenously in china or by chinese firms typically potentially retarding and this is a common complaint in the countries, regarding indigenous innovation technology and capability, and therefore keeping a less-developed country less developed. china's innovation policies are clear for many years now to a different scientific plans, bottomline is china wants to lead the second industrial

revolution. it wants to be what america was in the first industrial revolution and that is first outside the box. this is extreme the ambitious, and certainly merited in the case of china but the execution challenges china is not fundamentally a highly innovative first out of the box science country. it has become that, it has been in that and it will become that again i believe that it isn't right now. so there is a significant gap between china's's aspirations and what you can indigenously produced inside fast enough with respect to innovation so as not to slow economic growth as the transition is happening. and what does that mean? who fills the gap on innovation? on technology and intellectual

property? the multinationals that hold it. so what you see in addition to the robust going out strategy to try to purchase the technology branding the higher value-added components is a china that has imposed a series of domestic policy measures that make it much more challenging to do business. mandatory standards, coercive technology transfer. certainly they are improving but still relatively speaking week intellectual property protection a variety of measures including the indigenous innovation program which is the shorthand for what's mine is mine and what is yours is mine for the sectors that have a lot of intellectual property content and a lot of technology content. what does that mean for the foreign businesses operating in

china? it means not that you shouldn't do business in china, you most certainly should. not you shouldn't find partners and china, of course you should, but you have to be smart, you have to understand the underlying political necessities, state necessity for bridging the innovation divide and what that might mean for your business in the context of the particular deal you might do. >> thank you. for the tens of thousands of chinese bureau chief students at harvard and oxford or on their path to working towards innovation triet i'd like to take advantage of the fact that we have to the chinese business leaders who work in america to talk about details on the world is working here. there's a lot of discussion about the challenges of working in china. how is it to work in america

come and do you think that america is taking full of vintage of the economic investments that could come our way? thanks connect thir china has been in the united states for 30 years. we've flown to jfk, new york to feed in january of 1981 and in april of 1982 we started our service to los angeles. back then it was maybe two or three times a week. today we have daily flights to jfk, the daily flights to san francisco and double, as to double the september 1st. so that gives you an idea of how much we have grown in this country. in the last 30 years or so i

wouldn't say that we have mastered the way of doing business here, but we have learned quite a bit through mistakes, and i think today in terms of navigating the regulatory landscape and the commercial landscape, operational landscape, i think we find this to be a very shall we say easy to do business place. we have challenges and a lot of it is about learning a specially on the marketing side especially some military issues. >> what is the biggest challenge? >> the biggest challenge for me actually is -- our biggest

problem is we don't have enough people. by that i mean we don't have enough temple terse -- pamphlet. that is not a problem of our own making and also it is not a problem for our partners share in the united states but it is a problem with the united states government. to be exact, we don't have enough people who can travel from china to the united states. spec because? >> because of the visa problem. to put it in perspective, i will give you some members. in 2010, about a quarter million of chinese and other words 750,000 chinese came to the united states to visit. that same year, 1.1 million koreans came to this country.

but if you put it in perspective, china's population is 27 times the population. >> but it takes 120 days to get a visa in china and in korea -- >> it's a visa waiver program. they don't need a visa to come to the program. >> they just need a personal interview. it's a huge issue. >> it's a huge pit its gigantic and we are missing out. by we i mean the u.s. because i am a u.s. citizen. we are missing out big. ambassador locke, the former department, published this daily every year. it produces to lists. the countries that produce the most visitors to the united states and the country's whose visitors spent the most money in

the united states when they visit. you can't try find china. by the way, korea is number eight. on the other list from spending, china is number seven and you cannot find korea. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> what did i say? [laughter] >> the chinese visitor is the biggest center. they spend about six to $500 per person per trip followed by a 4700 followed by the japanese, so with about 750,000 visitors they pumped $5 billion into this

economy. >> you will have to bring this up this afternoon with chris scrambles and the state department. >> i want to hear from you what do you think is the biggest challenge? you have worked here now well long time and what do you see as what makes it hard and maybe daturas investment from china cracks >> the biggest challenge we have 26 years ago with the seven engineers so now we have 85,000 employees worldwide doing business in 140 countries and more than a 50% or coming from outside of china. so it seems now we have become a multi-billion, multinational companies, and so my biggest challenge we figured it out during the past 26 years have

these successful and effective competing on the global stage and how we can also be successful in this market and of the largest in the market in the world. so how can we bring our creative, competitive and high quality product at a low-cost to the united states? so i think that is the biggest challenge i have. so doing business in the united states since 98 and as you know we've spent about 10 billion u.s. dollars on american soil including 4 billion paying the u.s. technology companies including royalties for the rpr and high capital chip sets. so it is a business model that's very weak. >> did you find it easy to

compete? do you feel like america is welcoming the chinese investment? >> i will give that to the report, the open-door policy and i feel like the u.s. market particularly is closer than china so chinese to the vendors in the sector for accumulated market share for the infrastructure is more than 60% today so for the foreign vendors they have 90% market share and the investor when you negotiate with china that is one area of focus and fer 3g companies still

have about 50% market share. so, with that, and china benefit from this kind of competition so now today china has 1.23 billion -- 1.23 billion telephone users including the wireline and wireless in china, the biggest user base in china, so actually we leverage out americans so we pay to acknowledge and by technology from the high-tech company like microsoft and texas instrument. thought so effective engineering resources and the low-cost manufacturing base. we integrate this in the worldwide market so i think this

is a win-win situation unfortunately until recently we cannot bring those kind of products to the u.s. -- >> you can or you cannot? >> cannot. >> what is stopping it? >> it is this .2% of the so-called national security. so there's a lot of media coverage about this interesting project we are building last year, so if you go back to "the wall street journal" last november talking about that -- >> or "the washington post" petraeus too "washington post" also. so i expect more in the news coming from the "washington post". i think that is typical. i don't want to go into detail

but their number one in technology, known in commercial and in financing but they couldn't get the project for the different reasons. >> different reasons meaning what, political reasons that was a chinese company tax >> we understand the sensitivity of the chinese, the u.s. relationship impact on the business that we see these companies, public treated and the hong kong stock exchange and we have no the government influencing us. so, our ownership structure is on par with most companies. we have about 20% of the shares by the european and the institution investors such as fidelity, morgan stanley, and we also have the records including most of them independent and the one u.s. citizen on the board.

estimate does anybody else want to jump in about this issue because this is a big one. on the one hand there are many states need for investment. on the other hand you have politicians and on the other, not wanting china to own a to much of america. a very similar to the 80's when they were worried about japan buying up america and that went away and there was tens of billions worth of investment that followed but in the other spots about that and do you see it -- >> i would pick up on david's point on investment in the dumping cases here in canada but also dealing with all of the challenges some of them closed a

week ago. the simple thing is it is pretty prickly here because china is merging into the mature markets where you have the steady competitive situation and then the opposite with steelworkers and all those goods just come out of the woodwork with the interest group politics and countervailing cases and it's charting the course and i think that china will go through more grief to invest. to give you one facto it despite all of the media, china has no

equity invested [inaudible] there's more chinese investment in the real economic activity in australia with 21 million. it's a mid-level economy and 25% more than the u.s. and actually china is the region in the top ten investors in australia, the japanese, the koreans speak to until china can produce jobs in the country as the japanese and koreans, they will be issued. islamic in today's financial times the ceo of coca-cola is interviewed and says in many respects it is easier to do business in china which he

likened to a well managed company come easier than the states. he said you have a one-stop shop in terms of local governments that are there fighting for the investment. does that surprise you? you live in beijing now and you've worked for international companies. how do you see this issue? >> it really doesn't surprise me because from my viewpoint anybody that thinks it's open transparent process i would beg to differ because it is not from my experience it's difficult to understand how they think and they don't have to justify. >> they are improving direct investment. >> right. for the chinese investment into the united states many times as he was saying he's not related to the national defence placed

by the committee and that kind of thing is difficult for chinese to understand and for americans to understand why is it that way? whereby a in china even though many of the process these have not opened to the non-chinese but have chinese employees, people behind the stands -- >> that's a pretty big if though isn't it? >> it's not that difficult. here you have one sitting there and she can put a lot of insight. i myself as american, but i feel i and stand about the chinese business and a lot of times that these business executives

together on one of the few that happen to advise on both so i advise their executives and i served also as an adviser to chinese. >> let's hear the advice. what's the advice of? first tell us how you advise the americans. >> the first advice i would give to americans would be looking at china their system ms. moore back in texas in 20 or 30 years ago. you understand and forgive about the legal system is only worth the piece of paper it's written on and that you trust the people you're dealing with across the table. so i normally advise american

executives to sit down with your counterpart, look them straight in the odd as you can trust each other and let's go. if you don't, go find another. the second advice i would give is to choose those reviewable companies that you want to deal with as there are some doubts there's plenty of companies out there that you can work together and those are in the beginning and you do want to have somebody on the ground in china let's say american companies do business in china you want somebody on the ground because the situation changes very fast so as in the united states. there's lots of changes.

>> it's good and bad and american companies could have this you look them in the ausley and find once they are comfortable with and i presume are more transparent. there's a lot of talk about corruption this morning but there's good actors and bad actors. is that basically what you are saying? >> the corruption and china is very straight and you see in the news many of them get cut as capital punishment. >> like texas. [laughter] >> economic crime -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> why we would keep somebody in the lifetime in jail. >> just briefly your advice for

chinese doing business here. >> well i also advise chinese companies working in the united states, so i usually advise the senior leaders be respectful for the u.s. business practices especially the legal system we have set up. you can't go by the state legislatures thinking everything will be hunky dory. it's not going to be that way. you will go to jail for that. so those are the things that i advise both and the need to understand how things are done. >> charlene i just want to hear from you. if you can do one thing to take advantage right now of the investment what would you do?

>> if you go to school here you get your ph.d. your it's an irrational system irrational in the sense chinese officials can't get her visas. we've taken a principled developed after the unfortunate even if 9/11 and expanded to cover situations it shouldn't pertain and does not pertain. i think if i could change one thing about doing business in china or doing business here i think the bulk of the chinese investment in the u.s. is easy

and requires no approval or filing for national security, even those filed for that reason did very few transactions turned down under this process. less than 13 in the last five years. unfortunately, some of these have been chinese and the lesson for china is first of all, start smaller, not a huge. i think second, to understand the regulatory process in the u.s. better and most chinese companies to. i think third, to be flexible to find solutions for the investment problems which can be worked out with regulators and the executive branch and last, to partner more often with american companies which then helped provide additional

credibility to the chinese entity would also some greater comfort with respect to national security. >> do you think john is right when the investment is followed by actual creation of jobs but they will be a more welcoming political the atmosphere? >> i think that's always very important and certainly as we invest and create jobs abroad so china investors abroad it ought to be creating jobs a abroad for those national workers, not the chinese workers as is the case in other places where china. if i could change one thing on china's site investment, it would be the liberalization of its investment catalog. china quote suffice all investment opportunities in one way, permitted comer restricted which may mean yes or no, and

prohibited but the prohibited category has shrunk over the years it seems it's moved to the category but it is with the u.s. has sensitivities with respect to certain areas. china has many sensitivities with certain areas. the investment prospects are much more certain and sober a further liberalizing of that regime moving the rest of the prohibited towards the permitted category would be welcome. >> i'd like to get back to the tools of the road idea about the same bed, a different dream when we were talking backstage several of you were talking about the cultural differences, and i just wanted to hear from a couple of you that worked so closely with americans about what is it like and do you have any little stories you could tell to kind of show how there

are challenges of these joint censures that we would be seeing more and more rough? >> i will first follow up on your comment that you quoted from and i will make a general comment that in general china is getting easier and easier in terms of doing business. china has become more open for business. i think the u.s. has a tendency of becoming less open for business. 30 years ago -- >> in general or to china? >> in general, especially when you talk about the chinese companies they will think will actually, we came here, we thought this would be so easy

and do you welcome that we actually thought of it is not the case. there are so many regulations and hoops you need to jump through and there are all of these non-business, noncommercial related issues. if you look at china 30 years ago but was a very ideological society. there is a very ideological seen. today it is very practical and getting back to the issue of getting a visa 20 years ago when i came to the united states, my challenge was to get a chinese passport, getting the visa was nothing. but today it is the opposite. getting a chinese passport is so easy you finally piece of paper and in two or three days. back then it took about three months to get my passport it's open for business.

they are trying to make it easy. >> you cities in ten years ago the chinese panelists and a forum like this, things are changing quite rapidly in which china. >> if you think about, i'm sitting here representing a state-owned enterprise, national carrier, big deal. we fly hu jintao run around and yet they put an american by in charge here in north america. in that sense that says a lot about china, the chinese company. >> a lot of things have changed, right? >> it really has changed quite a bit. in terms of creating jobs to your point or to your point, first of course we created jobs. now today we have the american made their plans. we have 15 of the 787 south and we want to fly them to the

united states if chinese folks can get visas. and today the top job china has in this country is to help america and i bought a building right to buy the airport of los angeles. we opened a center for north america. i added 30 people. >> americans? >> americans. so yes, the writing is on the wall. respectable but the jobs. since i took this job so about 186