korea has at various junctures have threatened to test yet again, presumably this time with a highly enriched uranium device rather than a plutonium device -- although we find ourselves perhaps under circumstances where we ought to at least sustain discussions with north korea particularly if there's anything that would

delay or impede their additional testing. but ample caution needs to be recognized in this process. united states does not and will not accept the legitimacy or permanence of north korea's nuclear weapons assets. the u.s. has not wavered at all from its equipment to the says nation of all these nuclear weapons activities and to their ultimate elimination without which a normal relationship between -- between north korea and the united states and the wider outside world is simply not going to be possible. so all of this is in the face of the north korea's efforts to pocket and retain its nuclear advances and to assert that any effort of improving bilateral relations with north korea must begin with the acceptance of the north as a weapons state outside of the mpt, not unlike india,

pakistan and israel. now, the obama administration continues to advocate what it has called strategic patience vis-a-vis the north. in the hopes of building a common front among japan, the republic of korea, china and russia, a kind of common framework within which the process of nuclearization can be impeded and then pulled back and indeed without which there can't be any lasting stability on the peninsula or beyond. now, north korea may well believe that the outside world is essentially inured to the existence of these capabilities. it is after all almost six years since north korea tested a weapon for the first time. and that north korea may well believe that the outside world is somehow prepared to live with these capabilities. wearing down others if you will through its grim persistence and

its attachment to these capabilities. but i think the persistence of their efforts ought to caution us about any kind of expectations for an easy or rapid breakthrough. without engaging in magical thinking we can look upon wednesday's announcements as a tentative first step. but weather it really implies assesstation of the nuclear weapons activities it seems to me far more problematic. that said we have to be mindful that north korea often negotiates for tactical reasons. there are a couple of immediate reasons coming up that in april there will be national assembly elections in north korea, in december there will be a presidential election in south korea and clearly the north hopes to get a president more to its liking and i think it's safe to say that if north korea restrains its activities for the near term, the odds of them

getting an outcome that they would like will improve. at the same time, north korea is approaching on april 15th what it hopes will be a grand celebration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of kim il-sung, the founder of the north korean state. this may be what's going on right now. but, frankly, we can't always understand or shouldn't pretend we north korean motivations but certainly we should be mindful of the fact that north korea is not foregoing its nuclear weapons capabilities and interests simply for the provision of american food assistance. we should not delude ourselves it seems to me that we have a general understanding what animates decision-making in the north but the tests will have to be in north korean actions more than in words to see whether there is indeed any longer term way out of this extraordinary

and very, very troubling nuclear history. the implications of this, obviously, go well beyond north korea and well beyond east asian security. and with that, i will turn it over to suzanne. thank you. >> it seems appropriate on a glorious morning we started with the grave case and whatever encouragement we may find from the announcement earlier this week, it is, of course, necessary given the topic at hand to move to the less encouraging case, in fact, the case of iran which at this stage has reached, i think, a state of deep disquiet both here as well as in a number of other allied capitals in particular, israel. i wanted to start off by saying a few words about the state of play within iran, particularly on the nuclear issue. and then perhaps raise a few issues for discussion. i think what you'll hear is a certain degree of commonality as well as important distinctions between the iranian and north

korean cases and i'm looking forward to the comments of our fellow panelists who will knit these cases together in terms of u.s. strategy. what we know in terms of iran's nuclear program has been once again confirmed by the latest iaea report which is a long history of a lack of transparency on the part of the iranian regime with respect to its nuclear activities continues to this day. the difficulty in ascertaining with complete certainty that the program does not have military aspects becomes greater with every passing month. and the extension and, in fact, the intensification of iran's production of low enriched uranium and now a pile of uranium enriched to nearly 20% is moving to be a considerable worry for the international community. with that, the launch of enrichment activities in deep underground fortified sites which may or may not if one reads "the washington post" be invulnerable to even the most powerful u.s. bunker-busting

bombs is a factor which is influencing the timeline and the sense of urgency which seems to infected the body politic here in washington and, of course, in israel. add to all of this a regional environment of deep flux in which iran is both increasingly under threat and isolated from its neighbors, but also increasingly assertive in testing the opportunities that might be available to it as a result of the changing political dynamics of the arab spring and one has, i think, the recipe of great tension and great urgency within the region which we're seeing on an almost daily basis in the newspapers. of course, today in iran is an important day. it's the first time iranians will go to the national polls for the election since the 2009 presidential election which produced dramatic upheaval both on the streets with sustained protests in response to the dubious declaration of mahmoud ahmadinejad's re-election to the presidency at that time but also

a schism within the conservative political elite along the lines of which we have not seen even in iran's fracas three decades of post-revolutionary history. let me say that i think today's elections are tremendously important for iran's long-term future. the simple act of mobilizing iranians to articulate their political preferences is one that has deep meaning. the parliament is at this stage the only bulwark against the wholesale consolidation of power under the auspices of the supreme leader and it has always served as a real venue for day-to-day pork barrel politics in iran that has long-term meaning for iran's democratic development but with that caveat i'll say that i can almost predict the outcome of today's elections and the lack of the impact on the nuclear decision-making. the regime will tout the outcome today, the respectable levels of turnout as a sort of endorsement of their popular mandate and a slap in the face to use the

terming phrase of ayatollah khomeini to the united states and the western states that have been engaged in increasing program of sanctions that are having real reach to the iranian public. and the fricktiousness between mahmoud ahmadinejad and the supreme leader will continue and probably play itself out in a more public fashion as we come closer to the presidential elections of next year. but ultimately the regime sees itself and sees its fate and its survival as deeply caught up in this nuclear program. and a set of circumstances that we find ourselves in, both with the tenor of threats in the international community, the fears and war jitters that are dominating as i said here and elsewhere and the level of sanctions and the type of sanctions i think are making it ever more difficult to see a sort of functional negotiating process come out of the current set of circumstances. let me just raise very quickly five issues that i think are relevant for where we go from here on iran. the first is establishing an effective deterrence with

respect to iran's nuclear program as well as its other provocative activities across the region. there is this sense that pressure works with iran. that iran -- if it feels its survival is at stake it will see itself restrained and we have seen, in fact, in iranian history evidence that this is, in fact, the case. and yet it is not clear at this stage whether the threats are sufficiently credible or whether they deter iranian provocative behavior or encourage it. and there is, as we hear talk within the iranian press of possibilities of preemptive action as we see iran talk openly of meeting threat with threat and particularly carry out those implications on the streets of various foreign capitals against israeli and i would suspect eventually american interests a real question about how we effectively deter regime which believes that any sort of concession will be read as weaknesses and which believes it cannot simply sit back as it sees itself under threat.

the second issue that i wanted to read is red lines. we have had an inordinate difficulty of maintaining red lines with respect to nuclear's nuclear activities. as a colleague told me during the bush administration. the bush administration believed that the outset that iran should not even have nuclear dentistry. as we have seen iran has amassed this considerable nuclear program of enrichment and reprocessing and now enrichment up to 20%, a deeply worrisome level. how is it as we know that there is an increasing conversation about establishing and publicly articulating new red lines that we can make these red lines enforceable. that we ourselves can find ourselves constrained by them and that we are going to get a sufficient level of buy-in from the international community to, in fact, support them publicly. the third issue that i wanted to raise is the efficacy of sanctions. sanctions have been, of course, a persistent part of our policy toward iran and we have seen

over the course of the past two years the most robust and meaningful international coalition in terms of exerting international economic pressure on iran, conventional arms ban and u.n. security council resolution 1929. and the agreement by rushing russian countries to go above and beyond that. the european decision in 2010 and then more recently with the announcement of a voluntary boycott of iranian crude imports to effectively evacuate the iranian petroleum sector, enormous historical importance if one thinks back to prior crises with iran during which time european trade with iran actually increased and yet these sanctions are not having the desired impact. the reality is there are simply no knockout punches with respect to the iranian nuclear program and there is certainly nothing likely to be low cost and high impact. as we often have found sanctions to be oversold. once again we're finding that so

long as the international economy is rebounding, demand for energy will remain robust and the market seems unconvinced that a full scale reduction of iran's supply can be absorbed without direct implications for the price of oil and the price of gasoline at home. this puts the administration here in a cash 22 during an election here. increasing implication of sanctions will have a direct impact on the u.s. economy and potentially the global economy as well. and navigating that balancing act is going to be a very difficult one throughout the course of this year and beyond. the fourth issue that i simply wanted to raise is the question of how we approach iran in the nuclear program. we found that incrementalism hasn't worked, trying to build modest confidence-building measures that create a process of trust simply isn't effective with a regime that is convinced that we are out to remove and end its survival. and given some of the statements that have accompanied the

sanctions, the statements from the hill that have described the intent of the latest sanctions is the collapse of the iranian economy, the paranoia of the iranian leadership may not be wholly unfounded. how do we move incrementalism? well, we know ultimately a grand bargain is ultimately to be realistic under the current set of circumstances. what kind of an approach can we fashion? and as the fifth and final issue that's sort of a corollary. how do we work with our international partners? we have had tremendous support over the past three years in maintaining a very robust coalition of the p5 plus 1 but moving well beyond that to encompass, european and even african states to exert pressure and to have a unanimous pressure to iran. the level of sanctions, the concerns about military conflict are beginning to fracture that coalition. and i would argue that the key to dealing with iran over the

course of the future is going to be identifying an approach that is viable and maintaining the most robust international coalition that is possible. i look forward to the discussion. thank thanks. >> so if it's okay, i would like to start by saying, i think we got analyses from two experts, to regional experts that was subtle, intelligent, balanced and wise. now, for proscription. [laughter] >> i think that these two cases are both difficult, but when we are thinking about what we ought to do going forward, is a matter of policy, u.s. foreign policy, i see the north korean case as substantially -- and i put this in quotes, easier than the iranian case. that is to say i think the proscription is clear. it used to and it still does

seem to me that there are three broad categories for proscription with north korea. and it may be with other cases as well. one, there's engagement or negotiation. two, there is nonengagement, sometimes called strategic patience, sometimes called encirclement. various words for essentially doing little to nothing. >> uh-huh. >> and hoping for the best. and then the third is some sort of armed intervention. i don't mean to mean to have a subtle categories are necessarily exhaustive but that's how the discussions have gone. we have not in a very long time it seemed to me gotten to the point of the use of force against north korea. and we have swung back and forth between -- in a policy of

engagement and a policy that was essentially a standoff with north korea. it seems to me that engagement, when we can do it is the better way to go. that this problem or the -- what happens in north korea does not improve from our perspective by leaving it alone. the north koreans build more stuff. they test stuff. they're provocative in their relations with the republic of korea. things do not get better by ignoring north korea. so i would think generally when we can, when it's politically plausible engagement is the way to go. the details of engagement is another matter. so right now i'm pleased, happy, i think we're heading in the right direction in the sense that the north koreans for whatever their reasons, jonathan laid out a couple of them wish to engage now. i think that's good.

this administration wishes to engage. even in an election year i think that's good. that the republic of korea even in an election year will have us engaged and become engaged. i think that's good. so where generally this is a good-news story. it's not the happiest news. the situation hasn't changed dramatically. it's going to take a long time if we want to get to where we want to get to. but right now we're headed in the right direction. the threat from north korea, before we get to a little more on this proscription, is analytically again three pieces. first and for me most important and i want to linger on this point, is the transfer issue. what i'm most concerned about and have always been with north korea is that they would transfer fissile material, nuclear weapons technology or nuclear weapons to another country or nonnational entity such as a terrorist group. that as an american is my

principal concern, security concern. second, is, of course, the impact of what they have done already and might do in the future in terms of the plans of other countries in the region. that is to say we could shorthand that as a domino effect. over time a robust nuclear program in north korea with a regime that stays in place may not be tolerable for domestic reasons either in solar, tokyo or elsewhere and it could change the face of northeast asia and ultimately cause a rollback in a norm that's very important to the united states and the rest of the world against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. so i put that second. and third, of course, is use. i would be very concerned about the use of a nuclear weapon by north korea. i consider that very unlikely. i do believe that when nations are dealing with nations, generally deterrence works. and i think it will work in the case of north korea.

but i don't want to exclude that because as we all know deterrence is a psychological phenomenon. it is not a physical phenomenon. and as a psychological phenomenon, we can get that wrong. and when you're dealing with regimes that have different kinds of calculations than we may have you got to be particularly careful. those are the concerns. for me now there are two things to watch out for with respect to north korea. one is that north korea understands that this would be a bad time to do anything provocative with respect to south korea. in other words, sinking ships, or shelling islands is not on. and jonathan pointed out the reason why north koreans would well understand this. i would think it would be a good idea for us to underline that with our discussions with north korean. that would queer the deal for

negotiations and second point, and this is a tad more controversial, i guess. i think we failed to do something we should have done in 2007, and that is we failed to tell the north koreans that they crossed an old-fashioned red line. an old-fashioned red line is a red line that if you cross, you may a consequence for having crossed. a new red line is a red line that you cross and nothing happens. so i'm talking about an old red line. and in the old red line, i would like to draw -- i would like to have drawn now we missed this opportunity in 2007. north korea is told at a very high and a very direct way that the transfer of fissile material, nuclear weapons technology or equipment or nuclear weapons anywhere would lead to catastrophic consequences for the north. the construction of a plutonium

production reactor in syria was an incredible move. we would talk about whether it was plausible when i was in government about a country transferring fissile material from one country to another, material that would fit in this glass that could destroy a city. would a country do that. north korea was nearing completion of a plutonium production reactor in syria. the consequences, as best i know, for that behavior was that israelis executed their version of a nonproliferation policy. [laughter] >> but nothing that i know of and i may not know it because i was not in government still not in government. was said or done to north korea for that and i think that was a mistake. >> and i think the message needs to go that that is a principled

concern of ours and the rest of the international community and it's a nonacceptable act. so i'd put that out there. and finally, final point and then i'll go to iran, i believe having noted that i think it is a good thing that the american administration is prepared to engage in these talks even in an election season. election seasons have also been called a silly season in the united states and there's a reason for that. some of you may have noticed. and so i hope that we can avoid, though, i don't expect necessarily to avoid references to appeasement or naivete or other efforts to undercut a serious national security initiative in the interest of making this into a domestic issue in which the backbone or courage or clear thinking or

whatever it wants to be -- absence attributed to one candidate or another turns out to be a part of the political exchange. it wouldn't be good for the national security. i don't think it's -- i don't think it's the high road and i hope we can avoid that. so iran, the harder of the two cases. i would make a few points. i assume people will accept. the first is that there is a nuclear weapons program in iran. that there should be no ambiguity -- it is a classic nuclear weapons program. there are centrifuges for the purpose of producing enriched uranium with a capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and moving now by iranian admission to 20% enriched uranium. so there's an enrichment program. there is a plutonium program with the construction of a heavy water moderator reactor and

already a heavy water production facility in iran, both routes to fissile material are being pursued in addition to the -- all the necessary work to construct a triggering package for the fissile material, that is to say the actual nuclear weapons package. so this is a nuclear weapons program in iran. and a robust one, i would say, at that. second point is i don't know and i don't even know whether iranian leadership knows when they would decide to test a nuclear weapon, build a nuclear weapon or produce fissile material, either separated plutonium or highly enriched uranium. i would suggest to you on point 2, though, that we may not know when that happens and, therefore, you can't wait for positive confirmation if you wish to do something before it happens. and the second point is, the

trigger here in my mind is the production of fissile material -- it is not the testing of a nuclear weapon, the construction of a weapon or the construction of a stockpile of weapons. it is the production of fissile material because if you recall, the threat as i laid it out in the north korean case, i said transfer was first, dominos was second and use was third. i have the same lineup for iran. my principal concern is transfer, that iran which i suppose if you ask the department of state or the intelligence community of the united states what country on the planet is responsible for the transfer of more conventional weapons to groups we regard as terrorists, the answer would be iran. so you give that country fissile material and you should begin to worry about the transfer of that fissile material or technology or actual weapons but i start with the fissile material. so, one, i don't know when it will be produced.

we may not know when it is produced. but it is the production of the fissile material to me that is the key issue much more what will happen further downstream. >> the third point here is that as we look at what we might do in this situation, we go right to proscription, i have been very impressed with the creativity, energy, intelligence of the sanctions regime and the political will that have eventually gotten implemented in attempting to do something about the iranian program, which i regard as inconsistent with their mpt undertakings and the iaea undertakings and, therefore, subject to all kinds of sanctions. but i have no confidence that any degree of sanctions will

actually stop the iranian nuclear weapons program. i think the sanctions were the right policy. i certainly wish they were tougher earlier but i have no confidence that given the robust character of the weapons program that they will succeed in stopping a nuclear weapons program in iran. second, i tend to think that the only way we could be confidence of stopping the program, short of a change in internally produced change and regime in iran. i'm not talking about externally imposed but internal change in regime in which a new regime decided to go in another direction short of that i think with the use of force and repeated use of force is the only way in which we could be confident of stopping the weapons program, confident at stopping the weapons program.

that said, i don't actually know the details of the military calculation. i don't know about the capacity of either of the two air forces to act against those facilities, how often with what degrading impact on the program. i just simply don't know. i don't know whether there are other options. i can say where it's like special operations forces because everybody knows about this capability in both these countries. i'm talking about the united states and israel, obviously. but i just have no way of assessing that -- our capacity to be successful at that. but i don't think i have much confidence, as i said, in stopping the program short of a successful use of force. that means over the long term, it might mean living with or managing this situation and that seems to me a very challenging

prospect indeed. so i think i will stop there. >> okay. >> at steve's suggestion i'm going to offer a few thoughts on two bits of context here. one is the very specific or pair of specific problems that we're talking about here in the context of the global particular order and the other is to pick up a little bit on what bob has already put onto the table about the context of american politics and policy. with regard to the global order, i think we can all recognize and stipulate and welcome but need not go into too much detail on progress that has been made in recent years and in recent decades. there's a lot. and it's manifest in the fact that among other things, in fact

major powers on the planet are at war with each other or in any likelihood of being at war with each other, a number of institutions have been expanded and made more efficacious in some ways, but with regard to the two threats that could turn this into a really lousy future for us for the remainder of our lives and for us to our children and grandchildren. and i'm referring to global change which is another panel and another lunch and nonproliferation which is today's panel and maybe it will even continue over lunch for some of us. there have been a number of references most recently by bob, of course, to the nonproliferation treaty. the nonproliferation treaty cannot be said to have failed. in fact, it accomplished quite a

bit picking up on its origins in the '50s with dwight eisenhower's proposal for atoms for peace program. there are a lot of countries in the world today that could be or could have been nuclear weapon powers and indeed seriously contemplated it, and did more contemplating and are not. but that takes us back to the four outliers that we now have. india, pakistan, north korea, and presumptively israel. and with iran knocking on the door, we have the very real possibility that the npt will fail and there's a greater possibility of any of the four states that i just mentioned coming into the npt as

nonnuclear weapon states. and i would boil the challenge there down to the need for a much more concerted, imaginative and urgent effort to come up with what i will call generically or lower case letters a more capacious global nonproliferation regime that would do no harm to the npt, that, in fact, would include incentives for countries to remain in the npt and perhaps even some to come back in the npt but at the same time, dealing with the four states that we are talking about. just one more point in that regard. i mean, sufficient unto the panel or the number of rogue states we're talking about, which is two, but i do want to say a word about pakistan, which i think is something of a special category. i think steve is absolutely right not to have included

pakistan as a rogue state for purposes of this discussion today. however, it is different and in some ways more dangerous than leaving iran aside. india, north korea and israel. those are three very different kinds of states. two of them are democracies, one is emphatically not. but the one that is emphatically not a democracy which is to say north korea is a cohesive state to a fault i think you could say. whether it is sustainable over the long term is another matter. but i don't think there's very much concern about who controls the nuclear weapons program in north korea. and the same is certainly true in india and israel. that is not true, however, in pakistan.

pakistan is shot through with fissures, tensions, ambiguities, some of which are very obvious to us from the headlines. a good deal of pakistani territory is not under the writ or governance of islamabad or the military headquarters. pakistan is obsessed with what it thinks or its elite still thinks is a threat to itself which is india which is not a threat to pakistan. in fact, i would say pakistan is a threat to itself. going back in some ways to its very origins, the idea of a -- of a secular state for the muslims of post-british india had tensions built in that broke in favor of islamism as we know. and then there's the role of the

military. and the question which is either an open question or a question that can be answered alarmingly over the extent to which the military in scenarios that one can imagine would in a cohesive way from the top down totally control the nuclear weapons there and there is an answered question, i think, or at least a presumptivively answered question about how much civilian control there is of the nuclear weapons program and what the danger is, which i would say is acute, that nuclear technology and materials could via pakistan get in the hands of true rogues and that could include rogue states but it can also include rogue nonstate actors. so i think somehow in this conversation and others, that special cases needs to be taken into account. what i would say with regard to

the american role in all of this is that historically we have a lot to be proud of. currently, we have a lot to be concerned about. looking to the future we have a lot to try to avoid. the united states has been far and away -- i keep waiting for bob to advertise bob kagan's book go ahead, hold it up. i didn't bring it. he did. [laughter] >> the title is the world america made. and it's sort of a footnote to that title is that an important part of the world that america made is a world with an effective global nonproliferation regime. we are losing, as a nation, our ability to maintain the progress that has already been made and to make more progress that is

necessary. and the cardinal examples of that are, i would say, first and foremost the bizarre and shameful inability and failure of the united states government to get its act together sufficiently so that it could ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. we are up to the unlikely number 13. it's been 13 years since the senate, i think, brought great discredit on itself and by the way, it wasn't brilliantly handled by the executive branch at the time and i say that as somebody who was in the executive branch at the time. you bear no responsibility, bob. [laughter] >> that is really serious. and president obama to his credit came in very much hoping to get ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty which would have strengthened american leadership on a whole range of issues including the ones we're talking about here

but he simply couldn't. he got the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty proposed and ratified. had he been able to develop momentum from that and get the ctbt done, we would be in a much better position today on everything that we're talking about here, which leads us to what's going to happen to later this year. it's very hard to imagine an outcome in the november elections that will strengthen the possibilities for getting the ctp ratified in 2013. even if president obama is -- is elected to a second term. in fact, i suppose on this sort of nixon goes to china principle you could say president obama elect romney would be in a better position to surprise some people, many of whom unpleasantly by committing himself to ctp ratification. in any event, that is a

melancholy note that i feel should be struck at the end of this conversation before we go to an open discussion. >> let me first thank the panel for all the enthusiasm they shared with us today. and let me now open the floor to questions. can i ask if you could identify yourself and affiliation and put a short question forward. you should have a microphone coming up. >> i'm director of the foreign policy at brookings. i haven't been drinking this morning but i was served up by suzanne and bob analysis of the situation in iran that completely shared but raised the question, one to suzanne which is is there nothing that can be done on the negotiation front to

head off what looks like an inevitable military confrontation? and to bob, since your judgment was that the only effective way of dealing with iran's nuclear weapons program is to use force and repeatedly so, if we get to that stage, is it better from a u.s. perspective for israel to do it or is it better for the united states to do it? >> uh-huh. >> i would tend to be pessimistic with respect to a negotiating process in the short term but i think it is our only long-term viable mechanism for dealing with the iranian nuclear program which to say we can establish constrants which are sufficiently durable from the perspective of the international community. that we can arrive at a solution that is tolerable to both sides although not preferable to either side. there's sufficient evidence in

the past that the iranians have been willing to do that under pressure and there's sufficient evidence in the past that even an administration less predisposed towards engagement was willing to contemplate a negotiating process with iran. that said i think our difficulty at the moment is the time frame and the sense of urgency that has infected the discussion. if we are truly in a question of trying to beat the block with respect to the zone of immunity, i am deeply skeptical that we will be able to bring the iranians to the table in a sufficiently persuasive fashion over the course of the next six months to extract the level of concessions that we would need from them in order to offer anything in terms of reciprocity from this side and i think that is -- it is this period that we have to navigate. moving forward, negotiations are viable. they would require painstaking effort on our side. i think they almost at this stage necessitate the

third-party that would play the same kind of role that algeria played during the 1980/1981 with the arrival of the algiers accords. and they would require a considerable degree of dialog with all of our allies in the region and i would expect the extension of specific security guarantees to the israelis in particular. that is a long-term proscription that is simply not viable over the course of the next six months. >> martin, i worried when i was making my comments that they would be characterized -- [laughter] >> the way you characterize them. and i didn't mean them that way. so let me try to pull this back. just about 20 years ago i was in government working for strobe. if i had -- [laughter] >> if i had that responsibility now, in other words, for policy, i would be working very hard on

sanctions on the one hand and all these creative ideas and there have been a lot with some very smart and able people to create some sort of option that would meet iranian needs for space-saving stuff, for real fuel. i mean, i've been attracted to the idea of just getting 20 years of fuel assemblies, 20 years worth of fuel assemblies and delivering them to bush here. put them underground those in granite things. fuel supply can't be interrupted. how much would it cost compared to the kind of stuff we're talking about, right? there it is. make it 30 years. and guarantee that you'll fuel the research reactor that they say they need to produce 20% enriched uranium for. or you got enrichment schemes with a plan to somewhere else or multinational. all kinds of things. the proposition i was saying as an outsider not responsible for policy, i look at it and i say

it's not going to work. that's a real nuclear weapons program they want to have at least a nuclear weapons option and i think more than that, right? but if i was in government i would be doing just what they're doing and i think it's the right thing to do. i just as an outsider looking inside being cold and calculating i can't say that i would have -- i think the phrase i was groping for was much confidence it's going to work. right? on the other side, it's not that i think for sure the best way to go, therefore, is a military strike of some kind conducted repeatedly. i'm very concerned about the consequences, you know, the people who would be involved -- who would die in the course of that act, the reprisals from the iranians, every place they have assets. and what it would do for what i hope is eventually a change in politics within iran. it may be constructive but i

doubt it. i think the enemy would have been identified and it will be us. so really high price to pay for this. plus, i tried to underline the fact that i actually don't know the degree of military effectiveness we could have with a strike. it's just that i don't think there's another course that is open to us as an outsider looking in that i would be confident of really slowing the program down. so it's that kind of a calculation. what did you ask me, martin? >> the hypothetical if that was the only alternative to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, would it be better for the united states -- >> oh, the u.s. or israel. i have -- i read a lot.

and i have read that we are more capable than israel of -- [laughter] >> of putting aircraft over target, if it's an aircraft option, aircraft over target sustaining that for various reasons over time, restriking, et cetera and maybe even with respect to munitions themselves but like i say, i read a lot. i don't know whether it's true. i'm not the right person to answer that question. >> andrew pierre, global insights, i'm going to ask a very unfashionable question, picking up from some of bob's remarks. i interpreted your opening remarks to be moving very close to a military option and crossing that line, basically. i'm old enough to remember our concerns about india when it

became a nuclear power and pakistan and even china. we learned to live with these three countries as nuclear powers. >> uh-huh. >> especially through a system of deterrence, a very unfashionable word these days. but i'd like to pick up on that and ask why is it that we seem to close the option of having iran become a, quote, nuclear power, unquote, but not supporting the notion that deterrence might still work in terms of it doing anything, sure, it might concern the saudis and others and fundamentally israel, but israel has 80 to 100 nuclear weapons and ultimately, in my judgment, even though it's not formally written, israel has a u.s. guarantee for its existence. and this seems to be just scattered in much of the discussion in washington these days when removing for or

against the military option but part of that package very often is that we don't include the notion that we can deter a nuclear iran from doing anything which is, you know, fundamentally disastrous for israel or for the world system. thank you. >> so -- [laughter] >> andrew, i think we get a lot of that. i think i get a lot of that. i think i said it tends to states or something like that if we roll back the tape. i believe deterrence tends to work with states, even states that we generally regard as somewhat less -- and i put the word in quotes rational than we are. in other words, they have a more let's say interesting leadership. [laughter] >> so from my perspective you're quite correct. if we were to look ahead and say there is no strike and they do develop nuclear weapons and they do what other countries have done and say, okay, yes, we have

a nuclear weapons program. you found us out okay, and there it is. what will happen? will the world fall apart? when i look at the threat, the thing i think about that's a persian capability and there are arabs who will not be pleased with it. and put it in those terms and i believe that some other arab countries who have thought about this before will think about acquiring nuclear weapons themselves and the middle east will become a more dangerous place than it is now. we could unfold that out a little more. but i think we know what we're talking about here so that's the domino issue. i would say also is that while i do not believe that iran would launch an attack on -- with its missiles should have it missiles that could reach the united states, et cetera, i'm not terribly worried about that.

i do believe israel is that different circumstance. i do believe there's a certain history. there's a certain character of discussion which has been very troubling to me and i know it is to israel. so while i was on the edge of discounting north korean use of nuclear weapons, i'm more -- slightly more guarded in the iranian case than the israel case. and the reason why israel would regard this, and i use that -- the various words to capture the character of this -- of this threat, i can -- i can understand that. but i'm really edging up to a point which was my first point. i'm concerned about transfer. and i'm prepared to embrace deterrence but let me tell you if you don't know who whacked and they don't think you know who whacked you, it's hard to deter them. second, if you're dealing with

someone who values your death more than their life it's hard to deter. we have a be proper of deterrence in a world of nuclear terrorism and i worry, one, that a country will conclude that transfer will not be discovered and that our capability to attribute material nuclear device, either it's before detonated or after it's detonated is less than absolute. and we have forensic means of doing that. we have all kinds of ways but we haven't created that in an absolute way so that i could absolutely tell you right now that if anyone transfers anywhere else and that turns out to be a place where a nuclear weapon is fabricated in new jersey i'll be able to tell you who did it, and i can tell them beforehand and we can construct a system of deterrence we can talk about. we're not in that world maybe we will be and deterrence can be used against other groups but there's a whole scenario than i

worry about more than other when i think of nuclear weapons in today's world and it's a very scary one to me. so, again, i said i don't want what i said to be simplified into i advocate a strike against iran. i'm not -- i can't say that 'cause i don't know the consequences safe strike against iran. not only do i mean -- not only do i mean by that i don't know what the iranians would do, or care about it. i don't know the consequences in terms of how effective it would be and i would need to know that, too. so but i am -- the other side of it and say i don't know of another way of dissuading this regime from its course. >> can i jump in real quickly? i think what i'm going to say is consistent with what bob put very cautiously and i'm going to be less cautious. my biggest problem with the idea of living with a nuclear-armed

iran, of course, has to do with the pernicioun india. when the indians set off their nuclear device, that memorable monday morning in 1998, you know, the sinking feeling that a lot of us had, you know, it's only a matter of days. i think it ended up 12 days before the pakistanis did it. we knew that was going to happen but if yreuae has come up. saudi arabia has come up. 14 months ago we probably would have put egypt on the list and we may some months from now want to keep egypt on the list of other nations and then it's jenny bar the door from the nuclear proliferation regime. >> i'm from the international law institute. my question is, is russia on the

list? is the interest of russia in iran part of the equation? >> you're looking at me when you ask but my colleagues will all have -- i think,f course, russia is an important factor and has from time to time not as consistently or as fully as we'd like on the spectrum. the russians emphatically do not want iran to be a nuclear weapon state for all kinds of reasons including the one i alluded to, what it would do to the region but also because insofar as that enhanced or fueled iran's capable to make trouble in various parts of the culturally muslim regions of the russian federation they would be more of a danger. now their behavior has not been consistent and sometimes not helpful but i don't think there's any question that the russians hope very much that

they can avoid two things, one, iran becoming a nuclear weapon state and the other is a war in and over iran. whether they will have both of those is at the core of what we're talking about here. >> would you say -- i mean, when i look at the way the russians look at iran, i mean, the sort of levelisk that i think the united states or israel attaches to a nuclear-armed iran i think the russians feel a lesser sense of urgency in a sense maybe they look at a nuclear iran like a nuclear pakistan in '98 where we think, well, it's a bad thing but we can deal with it in a way that we don't look at it and that's part of the difference here. >> maybe, i think there's another motive, too. bob and i and a couple others in this room spent some time on this issue in the '90s when the russians were materially helping the iranians both with their nuclear weapons program and with their ballistic weapons program. and i can remember -- i forget if he was in his capacity as

prime minister or foreign minister saying at the time -- he said this is one way we can maintain our leverage with the iranians. we know that they were in your camp once upon a time. they had this shah. the shah went out, but they're going to be back some day in rapprochement and we want to make sure we have leverage. i'm not going to try to either explain or justify the logic of that but i think that's part of i it. >> bob, you characterized jonathan's description as balanced, which i won't disagree with except to say that there was a great deal of caution expressed and i wonder what you would think of rather than our thinking caution now, i'm thinking maybe a reckless effort almost at least one that's

energetic, robust, maybe provocative, urgent to use the word and maybe a capacious one maybe even has a chance to bring north korea back into the npt and so forth. what i'm saying is, shouldn't we be now looking at creating opportunities for what we have? we've seen some positive factors here. isn't this -- would you describe it as such an urgent issue one where we pull out the stops and try to see what we want and we make it work? now, i say that to you because i remember you and i have had a conversation about the agreed framework where you said maybe it had been flawed but it's the best agreement we could get. that's the other side of this. should we be shooting for what we really want or what we can get? i also noticed that china was very little mentioned in today's conversation and that was sort of surprising. >> admiral?

so i think that we should be creative aggressive, et cetera, et cetera, in a kind of philosophical way but in terms of politically how we approach these talks, there are at least two good reasons for not -- for that not being our body posture, i think, our visible body posture. i'm maybe thinking this way and i think we ought to be thinking creatively. one it's the dynamic with north korea. i always thought that -- and i had reason for thinking that every time the north thought we really wanted something it would be -- it was a lot harder to get it. i mean, that's true in any negotiation generally speaking. but it was literally said to me before the congressional elections in '94, and i can't quote, but it's something close to, i know you need an agreement

before your elections. now, in any negotiation if someone says i know you need to buy this car, whatever -- i can walk away whatever i want. .. need this for regional balance. it may be true for the second part of this, but i worry about how much they think they are invested in it and how much harder the would make the

negotiation. second, there's that domestic political context. you can leave that out of the serious foreign policy discussions but i think it's your peril, and i've injected it in here because i know it matters in this country in south korea and other democracies, and library -- in this administration you notice the way that the plan put it and others have talked, the secretary of talked about this, but very cautious. they are poor mouthing that engagement in beijing to the max, and in terms of american domestic politics, i think they have to do that. now, these are both comments go to what's visible. below that in terms of how we ought to be looking at this, absolutely, but i was trying to say and do it cautiously that the alternatives are really not there, and the only reason you go into that mode of containment

is because you don't have the political basis to continue engagement, right? because contant doesn't help you. they are not bursting out. the building up inside, and containment is not a good strategy. this issue doesn't age well. it doesn't become fine wine. so i'm very much in favor of an aggressive intellectual approach. this is the way to go and inside government, definitely making the case that we need to seize these opportunities and move, but that can't be the presentation of the issue in my view for political reasons. >> that would be good. >> if i could make an added comment or two. first of all, endorse everything that bob just said, but add to this the risks dealing with an extraordinary preferential system to put it mildly, and we can already see in some of the comments even in the context of the announcement on wednesday he

granted north korea is trying to put its best foot forward, it is being characterized by the north koreans as indication the americans are really ready to move now, and indeed for example in the north korean rendering on what we agreed today said the united states says it's no longer has hostile intent. every administration has said that. their own purposes perhaps their own obscure purposes and legitimacy purposes. they feel it's necessary to characterize it in this fashion. i think -- i am totally persuaded that the state department team that responsible is mindful of risks and also trying and their levelheaded best to test the possibility that we can make some headway. but i think for the political reasons, both here at home and internationally, we have to do this in a very prudent manner. one of the things we must know

to when someone asked me the other day why can't we move ahead with north korea come here to there come and everywhere? i reminded everyone there were too caribbean states, not one. and our primary loyalties and affiliations and the interests lie with the republic of korea. we should never forget that and should never forget that the north and south are fighting this six decade-long battle on who really has claimed to be the legitimate caribbean state, what to me as interesting as we think about it is that china and russia have long since recognized we live in this world. china's trade with north korea last year went to the highest levels, the two-way trade, five went $6 billion, historical highs. china's trade with south korea was $220 billion. i'm not saying trade alone is an indicator but that is in part of the challenge here can north korea let go or ease what i will

call its nuclear identity that it sees as so and trouble to the way that it proceeds as a state. and that it is closely associated with the deeply adversarial view of the of side world. that doesn't overcome the year but that is to meet the real test, the challenge yet to come. >> right over here. >> peter erickson, u.s. air force. i wanted to first start with the whole question that strode started out with, talking about the saudi and possibly egypt. i would think that if i were m i iranian security planner that i would see that proliferation as a war, too, and i would probably be inclined to keep the recessed capability without moving to the weaponization until i have somebody on my doorstep doing that. unless i was dealing directly threatened by the united states

or israel. so on the one hand, at least i have heard kuran discussing what they see as a security deficit, and i have to wonder then if sanctions in particular are not expected to work, and i haven't heard from any of you that there's reason to suspect they will work as they currently did not india, and if our strategic competitors think an eventual rapprochement with iran is one day inevitable, then what is the sense in slowing down the potential long-term approach that we think will not work, will consolidate the regime's hold on their pockletless and further distance those that might be sympathetic to us while passing up the potential where we could be working on the usual strategic interests and supply

afghanistan for larger security interests in the region such as the ipi, etc.? >> t want to -- i will start. look, i think i'm the most skeptical but the prospect of the sanctions having an affect. during the time period that we need them to have an affect. but i understand the motivation for them. and i understand the persistent tendency we have towards the overoptimism, irrational exuberance with our expectations on sanctions. it was only two years ago that there was talk that the ban on the refund petroleum sales to iran, which at that time was dependent on the imports for about 40% of its daily gasoline usage was going to hit the iran achilles' heel and drive the population into the streets and therefore force the regime to take a moderate approach to each

foreign policy in particular the nuclear policy. each of these expectations have persistently proven untrue yet you can look back at history and it is quite clear former president said so in his memoir that was the economic constraint that iran was under and forged ayatollah khomeini to do what he said he would never do which is to accept the cease-fire short of the victory over baghdad and so there is a sort of economic dimension and a rational dimension to iran strategic foreign policy from the strategic decision making which underpins this impetus toward sanctions as well as a desire to see the next step, the difficulty with the formula the be applied to iran that when we deposit, the pressure will work. the solution to the pressure is always more pressure and so you have this constant escalation of pressure and at this stage we are at a point is almost nothing we can yet against the wall other than a wholesale enforce

the embargo on the oil exports which brings us to a military conflict, fairly quickly in any case. that said, i would argue that these sanctions are not sanctions, which are likely bring about the administration's stated goal and the administration they are sanctions which if left in place over a prolonged period of time will expedite the changes on the present to iran and even today during the run-up manipulated process we see a process and existence of politics in iran which is deeper and wider than almost anywhere in the region today. and so for that reason i see these sanctions as sanctions of containment, sanctions intended to be grave, the capability of the regime's record and to bring the regime to the negotiating table, and facilitate over what will be a long the period of time for longer than what the

israeli and other decision makers say we have to affect their calculus. some sort of change in the character of the leadership and in their decision making on the nuclear issue. >> i wanted to make two points in response. one is that the narrative that i proceed with what i think that the iranian nuclear weapons program, and the second is on our best day what we can hope for from the current strategy. on the first point, ma eight - begins not with some iranian government making up and deciding they were threatened. it is born of the desire on the part of the sharnak, which is everybody or increasingly notes and is true when the program began for a persian position in the region that i think is traditionally called hegemonic

coming and that is what the weapons program, nuclear weapons program was born of, and i believe that's why it has been pursued. i don't believe that iran doing this as a matter of defense but it feels threatened and the only way to deal with the the threat is to have nuclear weapons. i don't believe that for a minute. i do believe this is still they try for the hegemonic position in the region, so that speaks to part of what you said. as to where we could end up on our best day, on our best today what would have to happen is that it becomes slipping hits in tehran and they would say okay, the pain is too much. it's going to cause trouble internally for whatever reason we've got to deal with this. we can't get up our program, but what would we want them to do? what we want them to do is accept additional protocol, accept the special should go ane would flush this program.

we would then inspect the hell out of it and we would be sure there were no higher levels of enrichment. if they reconcile themselves with the npt and the safeguards agreement obligations pursuant to that treaty, there wouldn't be a good basis for saying that iran can have an enrichment program as i understand it in legal terms. there would be this this is very suspicious and israel wouldn't like it, we wouldn't like it, it's inconsistent with the nuclear economy of one reactor, one power reactor. okay. that would be the best outcome, the enrichment program and you could reasonably hope for a cut operating low levels of enrichment under very, very nearly constant inspections, access as necessary to ensure there wasn't a parallel program anywhere, no nuclear weapons development work of a non-come and then probably something would have to be said about

that. also known as the research reactor. so, there's a way out of this without a strike or nuclear weapons program in iran. the question is getting from here to see and see where they're going to get slapped who decide that this is just to back painful set of political and economic conditions to live with that we would go and embrace the outcome. that has been there. the europeans have been there, they said they would love that but we haven't gotten there yet and the exquisite comment and to have that happen to be inspected for one last very short question appear. >> steve tonnes and i would like to think the panel for their insight and muskett reef question which is or there any

useful lessons we can draw from the south african experience with? >> sanctions work, and so is the regime change. [laughter] >> thank you. thank you. >> well short question, short answer. >> so complicated. 11:30 let me join you in thinking the panel for the presentation today. [applause]

on wednesday 100 german citizens gathered in the city for a town hall meeting with german chancellor angela merkel. in the first of the three

scheduled meetings. this is one hour and 45 minutes >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this first meeting with the chancellor, i'm glad that you came, and the chancellor, dr. angelo merkel will be our host tonight. >> mrs. chancellor, we want to talk with the people from our guests, and how we are going to live together in the future.

it's a citizens dialogue. i know that you always talk the format is different. first i would like to thank you for coming in and also for the ones who couldn't make it we will interchange the roll today. here i can to listen to you to hear your ideas. of course it doesn't exclude that you ask me questions i might answer, but i came here to have information and advice how do you want to live together, maybe not the way we live together today but what is going to happen to us in five years' time and in ten years' time? we think it is probably good to see what doesn't work today and how we can change it for the future. the question today is how do we want to live together in the future? so this is important to say on a daily basis the chancellor has to deal with quality, it's good

for now and then to think about the future, what am i going to do with my children or my grandchildren? so the airport is your first stop we thought about which cities we would want to visit for the dialogue or where to go. should we go into the smaller village or the big city? we decided for a mid-sized town and we thought of the city should be in the new state, it is a nice city but also a lot of diversity, and we thought that it could be a good start, it's probably a good place and the media was enthusiastic so it wa a gcood choice, and then the third one in heidelberg all three being midsize. you'll look good, ladies and gentlemen, really good.

the room is empty. nobody can hide. we give the three subjects, and it's written on the cover here. first generations, never to come security and safety from number three, identity. we are going to start with generation, and we are going to probably start with a small video to start the discussion. here is the video. ♪ >> living together in germany is feeling more and more diverse. of course the family is the key to personal block but the family is changing. for me, the family is to be together, to support each other

in tough times, belonging, that is a big important part of my family i think that it's having children you have to work so hard to make a living from and having children on top of it, no way. the requirement for modern life are changing. very often it is the expense of the family, the expense of the children and very often even existing families have a hard time. the birth rate is getting lower and lower and we have less and less children. life is getting faster and faster. there is more and more to do in the professions. we have less and less freedom. more and more families are out

of breath, and now they are in a new stage the partnerships, but? everything is difficult to reconcile everything. although the people, we have a lot of social skills and would like to help very often live alone. so how can we overcome all these obstacles to the family life? how can we bring a young and old together? what structures should we build for the next generation? and be responsible for each other? >> dialogue about germany's future. first degeneration who is responsible, who takes responsibility, who commits one?

we are going to start with this gentleman here. microporous coming. wait. and then this gentleman with the red tie. mrs. chandler, times are hard. there is a lot of conflict. there is a lot of unemployment. i think that what we should have is something which is going to make life better and make us safer. what can we do about that? >> thank you. >> what was your name again? wheat for the microphone, please for the last three years i've been working on the crisis

socially. >> and so you think that we shall all have this common position? >> i have seen on the internet that your topic, the one that you are working on, which is a common basic salary for any citizen is a topic that is discussed all over the society and germany today. but of course for that it's a basic salary to everyone would have to increase taxes, but it's a question, and of course some people could work on top of that and earn more, and others would not go to work because the income. of course it would be something for the safety of your life and you're living, but it's something to be debated.

the gentleman with the red tie. who are you, please? introduce yourself. you think we would live better with the income, yes? >> i am a farmer coming from the countryside. 70% of the population in this state lives in the countryside. we work a lot in the agribusiness. it's the second largest industry in the land. there is a lot of potential in the countryside, and people don't pay attention to it. why? for instance, we could extend the culture, we could use more land. we have the land. we do not have enough cattle for instance. we could grow the agriculture.

we could use the renewable energy that comes from agriculture, and we could proudly reform the old forms and give jobs to the old generation because there is quality-of-life in the countryside, but really what is close to my heart is that in the future, since you're talking about the future today, future? we should not neglect the potential of the countryside more than we did. i fear that among all of the big problems in the world this is not one of the big ones. >> you are right. if you're right. it is true but at least half the population of germany lives in the countryside, and of course this is a question we have to see how to go shopping, what is the quality of the communication

network, how can we improve with the internet coverage for example the quality-of-life, and i think we are going to take aboard your proposal. let's not forget about the countryside. and of course if people were to lead the countryside is terrible consequences for the big cities. >> i would like to talk about volunteers on. i am coming from the old tradition of volunteers. it is a commitment of mind, and we have problems when we are volunteers, especially when we are talking about generations. i have learned to be a

volunteer, and very often young people -- i'm not attracted by volunteers, and i think we should have different generations. we should push people to be volunteers in all different ages. we should create the conditions so that young people are more recognized. we should not judge people. in the training we have a lot of volunteers. we have even a foundation for the volunteers. the structures are extremely heavy. i used to work for an administration and then there is the law so complicated that people are not interested in becoming volunteers. so you would like to make it easier to the volunteers. possible to change the rules in the law but can we take into

account the different skills, for instance, the people have federal jobs to volunteer. it was a great thing that we should have more security for volunteering. for instance, there is the 26 about the responsibility in germany. i think that we would gain if we were to simplify, streamline the rules so that we would be more protective generally than we could be volunteering without all this difficulty and for instance you could give us the tax holiday for 100 euros. >> the tax code, the rules and the law in order to protect your responsible become and third, the fact we should probably intervene also in the pension law we to recognize for instance

your professional career. i am a student and 12 great interest in education. germany -- a lot of people say that we should have the federal education. of course this would be a huge change in the country if we had federal the education. and since we are talking about the future, i think it's something we should finally come to call and what do you expect? >> of the federal government makes a mistake then all of the germans are impacted by this.

it's better if the state is making the mistake and impact less people. as long as i am the chancellor we can talk about the state's of the federal government. so like when we move from one state to the other there is no equivalency. yes. we don't have equivalency between the states. and when you have to move from one state to another, you have a totally different school system. and the curriculum is changed. and when the new party takes power in the state then it is again so it costs a lot of money, and i think we could save tons if we had the uniform education system, uniform for the whole of germany with just one sorts of experts to tell what to do in the future and

that would encourage education. so i am taking your advice, but of course we have to talk with the different states and the equivalency for a start. okay. >> you can plan also that the education is changing, there's a new program every day, well, not every day, but it is true that the curriculum is always changing and it's not always very useful. and i think what is important is to take care of the local conditions. yes in the position for instance decided to keep the same curriculum for ten years at least one generation is not the way through the constant changes and there isn't a whole new curriculum. it has to do with living

together you live this way, yes, you in the back. the back. >> i have prepared a little speech written. >> welcome a written is not so good just talk without your paper. i know it's better for me if i can read my paper because i worked on it. ether future?

>> the family will decide on the future of our society so 7 million children there is the risk to live in in the unstable life, this formerly an out-of-wedlock children and legal children come and we are not taking into account the reality. we should have the law that takes into account the quality of parenting and, and also we should encourage the parents to be parents. i have a model i would like to propose to you. one, the heart of the family in my model is a new law for parents and giving rights to the children and equal rights to the

parents and the children. three, we should have a philosophy that ensures that we maintain a children's rights. then the role of the family should be at the heart. we should give optimum of living conditions to the family. the children must be protected within their families also. old law will be protected 2 million children, and i thinko that we should use my model that would protect 14 million family communities that would cover? 7 million children who are not covered now.íííí chancellor, i know there's a lot of people that have thoughtñ about that, but i would like to

send you a whole proposal to the parties of the coalition to heló them with the drafting of the law, and i would like for you to support the proposal so this model, and for this i need support from the experts that are up there. good, said that to me, and i think that this is a complex scheme that takes care of a lot of people and touches a lot of people. it's true that the life has changed a lot of situations, but it's good to cover the children and the parents. but we only have 100 people, we have 90 minutes, so we don't have a lot of time for everybody. the rights of children -- okay, let's go on. this lady over there. next to the gentleman with the

nice mustache. >> i think it is well known that large families no longer exist, and what we should encourage is houses where we can gather generations. what we should do a lot more about that. we should make it public now.? we should give every town and every city home for several generations to meet. it exists already, but this is the most important subject of the future? yes. i see very often that people are living alone but to the of such a huge potential they could communicate so much to the new generation, and they are people

who idle where to go, the young experience, the skills of the young people where this could really change their attitude and people could be very active. no, i agree with you we have had a good experience with the homes were several generations but it's not everywhere in germany. they take place in the town halls, and we have fought about it. and as you said, perhaps it shouldn't be part or all of the administration whether local or regional. but what we need to have is we probably need a citizen home where the citizen could get together. i would be in favor of that. and the home together several

generations i think that could be good. we could do something both the old and the young and i quit in favor of that but of course we have to think about that. still on the family, if anybody wants to add about the family. yes? >> good evening. greetings from my daughter. you are a strong woman. >> [speaking in german] >> translator: my problem is that we should no longer split families. i'm working on a construction job to commute between the east and the west, and of course it takes a huge amount of time, and in the germany, our wages 13

heroes, and in east germany it is 20, and right now east and west are not equal and if you are paid only ten an hour this is not a whole lot. you can't live with that. so, for the same job in the same industry, we should be paid the same so that we don't have to commute between the east and west of the time. [applause] first are you making the proposal, and of course you know that i don't make the policy in terms of wages. it's between the employers of the union, but it is true. there is pressure to bring the wages at the same level, but it's true, commuting is a big challenge for a family. >> how much time you have left

for your family to keep competing on the freeway every day? was believe in freedom and on monday and pay for the community i'm a servant cannot construction and i leave the construction site at 7 p.m. and then three or four hours more and your daughter is in bed, yes? >> my daughter fortunately is grown up. >> by your day is very long. i would like to ask a question about the generation. we are saying people don't have children anymore. but on another problem is to say it would be good to live in the countryside and would be better to create children, but the children need adults in the countryside to take them everywhere come to sports, to the doctor, and of course the old people also have to be taken to the doctor, and the road

infrastructure isn't there for them. >> yes. the second person was talking about that and it's an important topic. here we promised to go on this side. you almost took the words right out of my mouth when you said you were a single father. i'm the director of parents services. we have 8,000 old people and a lot of single mothers also to come in and i see that these people are calling for the safety nets after a while because they are to work part time. the work 22 hours a week for instance, and therefore the children of the single mothers fall under the poverty line.

the women cannot make it anymore. so we should take care of that aspect of this. >> what do you propose? >> i think that we should have a social net that is stronger. we are trying to protect single mothers. we guarantee child care with people and we are trying to find volunteers who could spend eight to ten hours a day with child care, but it's almost impossible, and so the poverty requirement starts with single mothers and we are saying that the children are our future but we should really mean that. >> and the fathers? >> the grandparents? >> we have 44 grandparents who are active. and how many fathers are

helping? so perhaps we could make a little bit more with city for your volunteer group, yes? >> and then i just want to look it is always the same in this to watch. this gentleman here. we for the microphone. >> thank you very much. our future, it's our children. we are to follow the swedish model. they do a lot more for children. these are ombudsman's virgil friends, there are so many social services given to families that the children are now living in a socially secure

conditions. we don't have that. we don't have that. otherwise we are going to lose all of the innovations in the future if we don't take care of our children. so you think that the children restructuring? >> yes, we have to restructure parents. the need socially secure relations. we have to finance more and especially for single parents. yes, we all agree that children are the future and we will have less children in the future therefore it is very important to give the right education to children if we want to have them as good innovators. we will have more children, not less children.

>> in the future we will have more children, but right now we have to say there are less and less young people to be clear. this lady and then the lady next to her. >> you talk about education. i would like to talk about education outside of school and talk about the continuity of education project because it is becoming useless. we have a project for a year then we want to extend the project for another year, and even to change the content or the budget, so i think our projects will continue because education should be much longer than one year. time, one-year, two years, what would be your --

it depends on the project but least three or four years can be useful and we won the project is to have any action. i am taking note of that. we've discussed that in the government. we have to see what worked and what hasn't worked and after the year you can't see anything but after three, four, five years, and also we must have the courage to see to it that what has not worked is cancelled and in our society that is difficult but it all ties up. perhaps hear one or two. please come to the microphone. >> i've lived in the airport for the last seven years and germany the last seven. i would like to go back.

we need to have more children. i think that we are scared to have children. we are scared to have a lot of children because immediately people think about poverty, think about small housing, freedom. this is because of ideas we have in our mind. we want to have this and that for the state. no, i think that we have to start having another image, starting with the media having a lot of children as good. for instance look at smoking. through the media, through publicity we've managed to cut down on a huge number of smokers. smoking is no longer cool. we do the same thing with having more children. [applause] you are talking about a very

important point. how can we change society if we have five, seven children? we should scare society. noise and restaurants and i don't want to live in an apartment next to the family with so many kids. can i keep my career if i have so many children? you are right. myself i come from a very large family. [laughter] >> with ten people and my family, left the family since we live in one apartment on two floors, and we have tried to overcome all the problems, but of course it is not easy, it's difficult to find an apartment. it's a lot of difficulties that we have as a large family, but at home and we don't have any problems because we have so many

choices. there's parties and family gatherings, we have more fun. but of course if people see that you have so many kids, people are scared, right? that's true. >> said you would like for the society great, large family come congratulations? is, of course. may be exaggerated. [applause] but i think it's too bad that some people are saying i'd like to have no children or to be simple. it's too bad because children are great. what kind of future could we have is we have no more children? [laughter] >> i don't plan on it right now, but -- and a christian, and a sportsman, i do handicapped

sports, but i think we are really behind handicapped people's freedom. there are many projects but we don't see them applied, and i think that we should go about that another way and make more effort about that. we have a lot of money. we are a rich country. we see what is happening in other countries and in germany. it's not done yet and you see a lot of other people, too that have a limited freedom. >> and what is the problem on a daily basis? there are many stores i can't get in. the doors are too narrow. when you want to go to the public for the for instance, you can't get in either. >> when there is a sports event, you can't go to the toilet. you can't go through the doors. and i think that in germany we

should seek a broad what are the countries that are doing this and of course we have a huge amount of regulation but they are not all. i take note of that and unfortunately going to take another five to ten years before the law is fully translated and applied but i think that we have to make progress. buildings but i take notice to the subject and next week i am going to talk to the handicapped council. but you are right. you are right. it's not only for the handicapped is also for the old people who have the same problem very often when you see how hard it is to cross the street for instance. what kind of sports are you doing? >> i'm doing a wheelchair basketball. and in the federal eletes. [applause]

the first, great. >> bye train seven times a week and then i plan on the weekend. i could talk about other topics but let's leave it at that and he and niquette freedom. >> i will follow that. other advice? >> [speaking in german] >> translator: right now i am working in a textile factory. my problem is the basis for good living together to say we should have jobs for everybody according to the skill, and it is very important for us to talk

about made in germany. my fear for the future it's not quite there yet, but in the future if you look at our industry, we are going to stick the made in germany tag on the products that are made abroad. as a, we should go back to the innovation with new technology. we should start on the bottom-up and create new jobs so that we can have more employment and we no longer have to pay unemployment allowances the way that we do now. some people that earn the money again and with wages that they can live with and so we could get rid of the humongous amount of money that we pay for unemployment. people that have the self value and the job, and the would be the basis for the next ten years

and i'm sure that you could have an influence on that. [applause] >> it's a problem that we are talking about at great deal. of course we are also talking about the specialized skills, a lot of people were building machines for instance, but you also have people that are not rocket scientists on the other side, so it's always difficult to find a job that we need. i hope that through globalization of you look at china and other places their wages are going to go up and up and so we are going to come to a better balance. how can we retain jobs is of course the big question for us. but for you come in your industry is doing well? no, no, i know that we are going to do well. i know we are doing well.

i talked with mr. clement, we talked about all of this because it is possible to recreate jobs. i'm from the airfort. i heard the young lady talk about education, and i've been dealing with education since the beginning of my life. but i have a wish. i think that. very often people that are independent do not have the same working conditions house volunteers as the administration's, and so i think that independent people should be encouraged to do good and therefore continuity is a challenge, and look at where it says the cultural theme.

you have a lot of people who do feel better and dancing, do poetry come all these people are independent, and not a whole lot is invested in these people, and i think this is going to be bad for our descendants, for the children if we neglect culture. there is a great potential for young people coming and i think that we should encourage music, musicians to give more latitude to people who are independent. welcome culture should be encouraging otherwise we are not going to be a cultural mission. i think the culture should not be compulsory, but everybody of course can be in culture. when you're right, absolutely right. a country that neglects its

culture can along her claim to be cultural. .. and so, perhaps they think that people would -- that has better value, so that people would learn to live together with different people instead of being scared or fear them.

and also that the old no longer feel via. and some people said i don't know what to do with these old folks at the handicap. and it should be part and parcel of our education if you want to live together. yes, we should send people mor⌝û for practice than spending so much time in theory. i'm an old guy, so i need to sit down. i'm sorry. we must set a one point. >> and 12 years old and i go to school and i think we should spend more time with him only and we can also save energy. and so for instance, we should play games with the family instead of watching television.

or you could decide that one day you no longer -- no facebook, no twitter because all that of course is going to be part in parcel. you should spend more time together rather than watching tv and having fun. >> on this site i think. >> thank you. anita kalyan. i come from zion next story. seven years ago i decided to be an interpreter and i work at the iha. when you see people are trying to have education and also when you see the training that we have on the market come you see that it's more and more

difficult to hire the right people, people who are trained ready. people usually are very poor in the german language and math, but i think this goes back to the roots of education. very often we don't have the basic skill in many schools. and also people don't how to get up early. they don't know how to be disciplined. but of course this is only from the schools. it also comes from the family. i have to children myself my children are very active in sports clubs. and of course, they play in school sports clubs and this people, friends of people who are single fathers don't have the time to take their kids and sports of the the times, but i k that we also do otherwise.

it is a call. i mean, i'm calling upon the schools to go back to the school teams so that our children. learn from school again. our children have nowhere values. and i think that if you are playing a sport, you learn to play in common. you learn to lose. you going to win together and this is great to train you and to prepare you for the professional life and i think it is the basic training that children will cherish the rest of their life. >> so you're telling us that we should insist more on the practical side of life and miss of course this goes back to independent workers. i think we chairman, we are too theoretical.

the independents, the school, here are the rules. i think there could be an infinite number of combinations. but of course, who is going to supervise him and all that. but you are saying that the schools should teach more so that we don't get the entire responsibility to the parents. what about the young people there? this gentleman looked at his neighbor. >> i am 58 and i am ahead of the savings bank. i heard all the wishes, but i think people should think about the budget, the state budget because of course about money, nothing works. everything must be financed. and i think that we should also,

when we talk about policy, when we talk about society and the economy, people should be more realistic view they should be aware of reality. how can we finance all of that. and what i am saying is that altogether we showed no longer think that the state is all-powerful and that person can do anything. yes, all the generations should think about. and i must tell you, for instance, the budget matter and we don't have as much money as he used to have in the demographic factor have shown less a less income government and we should have a better communication and we should not hide the reality is. and we need this and we need

this in a new dad and i think people should see how we can finance the mendicants out. yes of course, there's a lot of wishes, it would be good for our children in the future we are going to leave our children, but it would not be fair if we did not talk about the possibilities. i think we should come to the second team of security. a couple more questions. i'm a student in the air force. my problem is children who have cancer. and we are trying to visit them and we would like to read books to children who have cancer, but recently people said we couldn't do it anymore. built the wall. there's no access access for us

anymore. teachers should do that for professionals, people who are specialized in children or children sick with cancer. longer read books to these kids. sad. because it is very important for us. are sick that we can no longer deal with them. so my wish would be that we should have better access to this point. two things in your concrete example is very good. and secondly if we think about the future, i think we should make it more possible that students do something further children who are in the more difficult situation because if

they are human and shares. >> i've been saying that this subject for a long time. how could we have more trust with each other through more participation from citizens? many citizens are unhappy with the decisions that are being taken by different authorities. and this turns into citizen's initiatives. i'm the chairman of the citizens initiative. 50 billion euros are frozen today because of complaints and lawsuits from citizens initiative. this is a lot of money and a lot of frustration, a lot of anger

and i know there is a drop in the federal government in order to make more transparent government decisions. it's been adopted by the council of ministers today. it goes in the right direction of course and then we can be more transparent and the citizens can feel like they are participating again. yeah, we're going to talk about that for the next two years. and we should always learn politics. every big project and is different from the frankfurt airport, different from wind farms, different from solar plan. so we have a draft law. we are going to learn. and we are going to have a place where citizens can say what they gained, tell us what has worked and what hasn't worked. so in the next five, 10 years we have to have a better better

dialogue to see what is best. what should we consult the citizens? not to really, notgz too late. but this of course is a totally new to rain for us. right behind them. yes. >> i'm one of the older gentleman you can tell. i have a wish mrs. chancellor. in the newspaper for instance, we see that governments would like to have a new love for pensions, and equalization of all tensions between the east and the last. many people who have a pension and just it that finally

happened after 22 years of reunification of germany coming young people today will be of a retired people of tomorrow. and i think at one point we should equalize, balance the two pensions. and i note that in may there's going to be a seniors stay in hamburg and i think they are going to present to your government a solution that sunlight days the same amount of presence in the senior day for the young people for the next five to 10 years is not the problem, that there will be pensioned and 30, 40 years the course. we must be carried careful so people will have less suspension did today and in the future people do not get less either.

we have to discuss that with the prime minister about 10 new lenders so that there's no political controversy. we have to find a common solution. we're working on it, but we are not there yet. [speaking german] >> translator: we need more rights. mrs. chancellor, we are going to go to the next theme, security, safety and theirs too we have a small video for you before we go to this that checked. [speaking german] >> translator: the germans live in a safe country. peace inside, peace at the european neighbors, no threats of court by any country.

i think that in germany we have in europe except there's a few incidents in the metro and the freeway or whatever, but otherwise i feel very safe. i think we are very safe here in germany. of course perhaps it could be a few more cops in this industry, but otherwise were okay. [speaking german] transcript of violence subjugated against violators has made us more aware. if we do nothing, we are going to have neighborhoods where there's going to be high unemployment, crime, violence and of course we have to work very long ears if you let that go. and there's another gander. corruption and white-collar

criminality, which have huge consequences on our society and the economy. a big proponent of features cybercriminology. and very often, the young. radicalization calls for violence. more and more prevalent. how can we prevent the radicals and radicalization from some extreme groups? how can we make it so that the dems and criminals are reintegrated in our society? how can we have more security, but keep our freedom for individual freedom? says security and the future of germany here, of course this is a sign for impact society. but we're going to start review,

i think that we must do everything to try to stop extreme right ideology. it is present in the schools. we should explain to students what is going on, especially when you have extreme right radicals who are creeping sports groups to attract the young, the sniper and then we sure as tracked in a lot of title kids and indoctrinated them and we should not have began in this country would have been in the past. we should keep our eyes open and do something for the kids so that they are not captured by these people. and we have to act immediately. have you met such groups are so÷

even in my family have had long discussions with my oldest grandchild and of course he's been interested by these groups can be said bad words about foreigners. he wanted immigrants to go back home and i said my god, what group are you involved with? and i think a mean of these people start at the bout that, the family should intervene to prevent. and i think the whole of our society is responsible. the parents must intervene, the grandparents naturally. and especially the grandparents who have gone through world war ii. if you wish that everybody takes responsibility and acts. it starts with little things. if you're not responsible come you don't deal with that, you have discrimination in the end. thank you.

i come from the following question. for years and years was that the npd. we never stop to forget them. now we have the extreme right radicals. they are allowed to do what they want. should we limit the activities so that they cannot spread the ideology? i know we live in a democracy in the extreme right can say what they want. but right-wing ideology we have suffered from for 12 years in germany. i don't want it anymore. and if the party supports that come in this party must be gotten rid of. [speaking german] >> translator: of course they take note of what you said and we have to doubt that. and of course we have forbidden the npd party. you know that. but the supreme court in germany said we couldn't do that.

so it happened doesn't make a second request and it is tonight against the npd will find itself encouraged? the problem is that you know you can forget the party, but people are still there and it's been the head. >> yes, but it shouldn't go in public as the party. his limited and restrict to. >> well, i know we know these people have these ideas and should also see what is the fine line between freedom and thoughts. and of course there is a cat and mouse game because the cities have forbidden gatherings of right-wing people and the state allows it so they go from one or the other. yes. [speaking german] >> translator: i take note of your proposal. and where you can do something i will do. i can tell you the supreme court

is independent and it is a good thing. of course if i were to assist you with just is, i mean, it would be a lot worse than it is. so we have to live with that. yes, but we have to prevent them from having to spread the ideals. using any idea that we have, but also what is legal. [speaking german] >> translator: we have a lot of and security. the lady. [speaking german] >> translator: icon firm released him in. i'm a principal in a small school in south, and i wanted to talk about generations and now we are talking about security and then were going to talk of identity. go back to school. but can the school do? and today, i would ask for you

to invest more into schools. we need much more investment and the children. and of course this will be more security for the parents, more security for the children. our young people need to know where to go in a safe place. anybody is entitled to live in a safe area. and we have to tell the children these huge cuts to try to get safety. so my wish is that in the give priority to schools and two children. the young lady just said i think in terms of education policy, federalism should be absolutely a must, should be finding.

[speaking german] especially more possibility for the children? it's a bit question of inclusion in many states what the problem of inclusion and it starts atñ schools. the schools can do what they can. with us, new teachers with new house, new would be difficult. she went to had sent in? are you okay with that? pincushion of course is a big topic. and of course people have an image in their head and we should attack that very early on. it is not only the school, but also this image of foreigners within the family.

and i won't say that it is inherent, but very often it is the parents who transmitted this right tiempo foreigners and i think we should be a lot to talk about that. and we should talk whether this idea is right or not. so of course the parents have a responsibility. they have to transmit value, but also the school should transmit certain values. what is your experience in your0 life? what is happening in your schools? [speaking german] >> translator: we live in a peaceful school. we live in a peaceful school. and then a high school and it's a peaceful school. i'm in the 10th grade and is forbidden to wear a scarf, but

this is my religion. my religion tells me i have to cover myself. i'm wondering why it is forbidden. this is forbidden for the teachers? >> know, the students too. my kaizen works an image that name. she works in crash that she's not aware to earth to be there. that's what she decided legally and of course her a scarf and??? student it depends. you wish that we should all

there's many, many students were spent including secretaries, but every time we try to where people take it off. but now that you talk to the chancellor, maybe she'll do something. [speaking german] >> translator: no, no, no, i don't want to be responsible. these are the chancellor decided, no way. we talk about the future any say that's your wish come it. you. [speaking german] >> translator: i have come here from a volunteer group for right wing. for us. we have a lot of work for young people. we are trying to prevent infection by these people. and i think prevention is a lot more effective than waiting happens. and i think our program should

be strengthened against extreme right wing ideology. i think it is very important if you are talking about security to see what's a neighborhood and even if there have been bad things happening and people have paid with their lives and we know we should be more aware. we also should all stick together against this ideology and we could work together against them. and this would give a little more security to this country. [speaking german] >> translator: so used to the states must intervene at the state cannot do everything and the citizens do something together. and we're not going to make it in the future if citizens are doing their job. what is important, what is interesting is that you could do

it with the administration, but also you can do it by itself. you one of the four corner of [speaking german] >> translator: you decided to give the floor to people. it's all right. i'm very happy to. [speaking german] >> translator: icon firm angola. now it is here in erfurt and germany is my home and i feel good here. when you're talking about security and safety, i will tell you that our society lives under the problem of judgment, value judgment. it's a problem. i think that we should no longer use value judgment against

people, wherever they come from and whatever the color of their skin. numbers two, we need to have a simple procedure when discrimination happens or disadvantaging people. we have an antidiscrimination law. but it is not really applied the way it should. it's difficult. so i want to applaud you, mrs. chancellor. we need and you need the full support of this. [applause] [speaking german] >> translator: so on the one hand you say we should not a value judgment on people? have you been discriminated against yourself? >> possibly. >> it's that. it's that.

[speaking german] >> translator: so you come from uncle and people look at you. it's bad, it's bad. u2 on the value judgment? >> i was born here in germany, but i knew from the beginning that people would look at me twice, take a double take wondering where it came from. you must be strong. there are good people and bad people and sometimes you have to take the bad mikey take good. you must be strong. you must be strong, yes. but life goes on and that's the way god created me. so why should i be ashamed for what i am? i don't have any problems with that. [applause] [speaking german] >> translator: so we have to

see around when you look at germany today and we have to see what were going to look like in 10, 20 years are going to be a lot less people, we are going to be a lot older that we are going to be about more diverse because we have people from many, many more nations. and so we are not going to look like we let today. and so i'm glad that utah. and of course we should have the right to rule so we can all live together. [speaking german] >> translator: icon for mop up. with three children. security. i feel very safe in germany. i have no fear, the likud 10 years from now. i feel safe, but i as a bit as a fear of the internet. the whole world now disconnect

it to the internet and i think that is what concerns me for the future. my i.d. card is safe, but what about 10 years from now? and i still save? so i'm a little bit concerned. i'm scared for the future. >> yes, that is a subject we have to do deal with absolutely. the internet is useful. of course it's freedom. we should have freedom on the other end. fairness. we are saying well, of course protect my child and of course we have a big societal discussion on that team and where to find the right measure. and it is not easy for the parents because we didn't grow up with the internet. of course the kids today are born with it and they are like fish in water. facebook. he said he spoke?

[speaking german] >> translator: yeah, i like that. [speaking german] >> translator: allows? q. and then they say. we've really neglect to the other side there. the lady -- you are to have the floor. if you're at it at the floor, it's over with. no second chance. you didn't speak though. the man with glasses. [speaking german] >> translator: i come from zion and i think security and safety is very important, but i have other problems. imagine the future of germany. i think we live in peace, not what they were. it's very important. we should live in harmony with nature. we should live in safer

conditions. we should have a much better that same standard. i think it is possible. but what i really fear is that it is rich country, 2.5 million children live under the poverty level according to spiegel online. we have 12 million people who live under the poverty line. and i think the solution is to have a basic income for every citizen. it's a great solution. it's quite easy to finance. we can have a tax on consumption and a whole new tax code that finances it. it's very important for me that the government should be governed by social politicians. okay? [speaking german] i think we need a mixture of politicians. we should have politicians who

it's social issues important for you, but also technicians who know what they are doing and we could sell inexpert perhaps from business, yes. i mentioned business actually. people with social skills of course i think it's important. and people mentioned the basic income again. >> i'm 47 years old. i'm a pastor and a free church. what scares that is what is failing, what is foreign. for instance i invited this year and who didn't show up because he feared i would cook a meal with pork. we never thought about talking about it. so the fears we have not met, what we do not know. for instance, we say out with

the. these people can't go out of the country. we have to bring them to our side. we have projects where i live, which is called in her garden. it's a garden in the center cities with people of all origins meet, foreigners who can dance with german girls. but they can dance with them. it is a project where people can meet each other. so we can bring different generations and it's a central garden and i would like for this project to be replicated in different cities. it has to do with these homes where we can bring several generations were in one day the whole family lived together with different generations. very often that when you meet the old people or the old feels

weird. it's no longer grumble and should become norwell again. very often we don't have this opening anymore. guess in the back. [inaudible] >> translator: i live in security and safety. the problem is courage. a lot of people have not had the courage to stay and a lot of people have left the state. it's too bad and all the relations they keep their facebook. that's it. i wish that enterprises and the tour dates would reward people who have decided that they have the courage to see in east germany and this courage should be honored and we should not only concentrate on what is

wrong, but we should perhaps synthesize what works, what is okay. we should not constantly say this does not work, you can't do that. and what is your experience? >> my experiences very bad. i keep meeting closed doors, but i stay anyways then i keep going. i hope that i'm going to bring people with me. ambler, there's a lot to do in the tourism industry, and other industries and i hope people are going to come back or people are going to be attracted. [applause] another place to opening, yes. >> translator: yes, you are looking at me so nicely. you are hoping to give you the floor by smiling, right? [speaking german] >> translator: i am the mayor

of a very small town near the thank you for having the idea of having a dialogue with the citizens, not only is courage, but it unexampled. mrs. lubitsch has does the same, but it would be nice if people were doing that at every level so we could look at all these problems. it's not always easy because very often are problems of deep roots and very often when people are committed, there's obstacle after obstacle that doesn't work in the countryside, for instance, we don't have the same right to develop as the big cities. as mayor, do you also talk to your citizens?

>> yes, we have a constant dialogue and they put projects together. unfortunately of course, we have no money so we would like to have some money, just like people did in bavaria. so we are not giving a. we keep flying back to safety and security. it is true bayard about corruption and white-collar crime. the corruption doesn't start at the bottom. it starts somewhere else. crisis. that i have enough. we are going to go off to people. you said that. and the people have not seen any punishment, not a single one of these people have been sued in the population sees that.

they see that nobody has gotten seriously after them. and i think we should have measures to prevent that it happens again and i think our prosecutors should go after them. but i think the prosecutors are in the same feeling in all other states. and my wishes that they should be a commission that works on suing these people. you yourself should be imposed. you should put in the intelligence services, the equivalent to our federal police, criminal police, federal criminal guides. the should go after other financiers and and you could encourage that. and i think -- i know that it's in good hands with you. [speaking german] >> translator: we are seeing

to it that this work is sufficient. we have to make sure that everybody will be punished if they have committed a crime. yes? relatively quickly please. i'm going to provoke you. and i'm going to say what happens. 20% of the population tends towards extreme right-wing ideology. 20% of the population and so what is the population? well, it is common citizens. also it is part of the . , higher. and then i have this weird idea

that the police couldn't find this extreme right-wing criminal. why not? for so many years becoming scat sick. but we really going after these people? are they protect it? this is the problem and the chancellor said it, that it is difficult to stop these extreme right-wing people. the supreme court said we could go after their party. so why a quick something is happening there. 20 years later, they are still legal. i mean, yes goes back to the schools also. we should train the kids. we should practice the kids. it is difficult. it is difficult. one more thing. one more thing. this state is the one that has the most tv cameras everywhere. citizens, i am not disturbed if

i had served to keep my figure three years, but what we do after three years is destroyed. how do what to protect citizens if we do all that? >> guest: yes, more video cameras for security is, otherwise i will tell you -- for this racism or will do something. and of course it needs to be affirmed. now we have to go further. i mean, we keep walking on the carpet. and of course the question as, what are we talking about? another video now. identity videos. if you have security, but his

identity. [speaking german] >> translator: germany, a catcher with the lot as diversity. for us it is normal that when they go in different regions, we see new traditions. but how do we see ourselves? were always on time, we are punctual, we have rules for everything, we are responsible, in germany are well known. we are very warmhearted. today, germany is a modern country in a europe that gets ever closer. but how are we going to define ourselves in the future? germany has a culture of welcoming people. and yet, we are a little bit

insecure. we always worry. we think that people are going to css clothespin, as posing problems. germany is a great economic nation, great export nation and a country is always the mediator of political processes. and how do other countries see us? i think there are two things we can be proud of. on the one hand, we solve problems in the world. we are the persons who put people together. and number two, we have the great strength of innovation, technology. we find lots of solutions and people turn to us for solutions. so what does it mean to be

chairman? how can we understand the will world? what can we learn from other countries? the question of identity, ladies and gentlemen, where we going be? how do we see each other 10 years from now? we have had democracy for six years? way to peaceful reunification 20 years ago. >> you look very interested they are. the third one. [speaking german] >> translator: icon for accented and yesterday i was in a big department store and i heard publicity jingle and it was a country that i understand. and it said a kanshi where people still count.

as i said, i was in a department store. what i do not wish for germans is that germany is going to be a country of consumers in all we do is buy. i am german. i'm not a consumer. i am a citizen and i'm not just a consumer. that's important for me. and i think that what we should do is to have another culture. a culture of giving, a culture of welcoming people, but perhaps we should be less impersonal. we should make less advertising than we should give ourselves a lot more so people would learn to know each other and this would improve the quality, the human quality and people would know us better as people.

[speaking german] >> translator: so not ever more money and not ever were buying, but more humanity. good proposal. of course it cannot be decided by the state, right? it's a mentality. [speaking german] >> translator: i am a teacher. 10 years from now affect to be proud of being a teacher. we now all the time given to schools and i can talk about a lot of teachers work hard, not only become on time, they don't spend their time and holiday. they are committed to go the extra mile.x there is contact with youngçyçyz people, parents. even if they give their time after hours and that is the image that people should have a good teacher, isn't it?

everyone should be part of their professor and i am proud of my own. i think perhaps we are hiding too much. >> yes, we heard that. we should be sure that 10 years from now we should still say that teachers are still very important, yes. [applause] [speaking german] >> translator: we've all been to school and everyone who has been in school knows the work that is done by teachers. they do a great job and it means i recognition. [speaking german] >> translator: so would we want to be? how do we do that? had we see each other? [speaking german] >> translator: i am a student, but i come from marburg and i would like to have some need to buy the teacher just said. the picture she painted looks

very exemplary and positive and of course it's true. many teachers work hard for their students and they love this profession and they have a lot of courage and they've invested a lot of strength. but i've also seen that it's not always the case. and there are many problems very often, especially when we talked about identity. sometimes teachers can't take it anymore. they are no longer interested in transmitting knowledge. they just go through the motions to get it over with. they are totally uninterested. they call in sick and they come to work in a bad mood and i ago i can't wait to get it over with. [speaking german] >> translator: do you have a

proposal on how to train teachers for the chancellor? should teachers be trained for more modern type of life? [speaking german] >> translator: i think we should change the curriculum. i've heard several cases where people are studying curricula that go nowhere. and of course, when teachers classes are too large, they have a hard time teaching. this is true. at least we've heard two different advice and were still going to talk about teachers, motivation for the next 10 years. >> who is next? you? [speaking german] >> translator: and a specialist in immigration

problems. we are talking about identity. there is a problem when you're talking about violence against immigrants, especially anagrams of the third generation who have learned german fluently, and they've known german culture and still have a problem. and therefore, i think it is very important to talk about normalcy. it does not matter what you look like, but you should be considered a human being and not without these value judgments that are considered as an alien. i have a wish. i depend on projects financing. have a project, for instance

where we are putting germans together with immigrants so66666 children do their homework, successful. we don't have any budget to extend it. it's a big problem for us. basis. it. we should not allow it, violence and we should live together. and the best way to live together is to be together and this is the best recipe against violence. of course the projects where wep talk about projects earlier is? always the same problem.

use. you and you. [speaking german] i had the microphone. [speaking german] >> translator: i listened to all the wishes that people have for this state and my identity is also that i'm a citizen. i'm a german citizen and i'm thinking not only in terms of the task to buy up on the states in the states will not be able to code if we keep on failing so many wishes. i think the family can do better. we should also think about what is the state not able to do? when you are talking about the basic income for everybody, that

is good. of course if i tell my children, home is going to motivate them? promulgate them to do anything if they are going to, or whatever? don't forget that we should give the impression that kids can do absolutely anything. it's not the money the state, by the way. it's our money. is it good for the citizens to give up if the state does everything? >> it's his question of identity. my question is my identity. i can do things myself. of course everything is linked to god, even if i do it myself. but this is my wish, my proposal because families, we've talked about protect in the family.

we've talked about 120,000 euros per child throughout the childhood of our citizens. why instead of that shouldn't we give two years of parental leave , give them the same amount of money. it would solve a lot of problems. >> i think it would be economically a good investment. >> young man here. >> chancellor. i am a student. two small points about identity. on the one hand when i think about republic of germany, we are a democracy. we are lucky for the last 60 years at least on the windsor

part of germany, we have lived under democracy. and we should insist more. we should emphasize that. of course it goes without saying freedom of the press, freedom of association, but we should talk about it. we should talk about it at school. i see that were going to have a new president. divided hopes. all the discussion about the new president, maybe talk about freedom and democracy, we should talk a lot about democracy in the school. so personally i think that's a discussion on this topic is very important. but i see that in school we have a skilled complex that we transmit to the students. it still exists. it's very important. what happened in the past which was terrible, we keep that gil

today. we seek to transmit to the children, but we are your new generation of national socialism we should accept it as part of our history. we should talk about it and that it never happens again, but we cannot continue putting the guilt on the new generation. and i see that at school and it's still a problem. [applause] [speaking german] >> translator: i think we should not put the guilt on the new generation. that is why we have to work it out through the teaching that history. and also we should learn about this terrible event. this is important for democracy in defense of democracy. we should not separate people again and restart the whole

thing. blast. [speaking german] >> translator: quickly. thank you, mrs. merkel. i am a businessman. i i have a company and i represent the business people. we have a problem to solve in the future. two points. very, very briefly, we have foreigners. we should train them faster. we should give them all the training that is necessary for them to work in our current day. we shouldn't qualify them.