and avoid the obligations of the treaty with. so you need to figure out how to avoid the whole bill also future proof the treaty in that new technologies to being developed that we haven't even thought of

captured on the road so there's a fine line between specificity and leaving things broad general enough to capture things you don't overly capture. >> you want to add something? >> gingrey response to the users there are when many different on state actors. it depends what you mean by non-state actor. it's important to clarify what we mean but in regards it doesn't really matter because they are really specified in the transfer is one. there are more states that are authorized and users or illegitimate end-users terrorist criminals and drug cartels cetera there are very few states that permit the transfers directly and the states that do wouldn't publish the data any way no but in the user

information to the extent that this is a compromise information proprietary information is transfers to entities the developing history of leakage or diversion that would aid in playing on the holes the result in the diversions to the black market. in regards to the excellent question about photoshop thing in the age of social media, that is a real concern, and sometimes it's very obvious but most the time will the technology to deutsch and his not been available enough for the amateur that's looking at this they are not going to spare and so i think it's a capacity that the research community have to develop as we seek to make better use of this technology in its pursuit.

>> if i can say something about that and the issue of the capacity building transfers and but not i agree with rachel that i think the people need to address this in the scope of the items that are uncovered. i think the u.s. should include parts and components and that shouldn't lead to the technology transfer and what not to be careful we don't make this overly burdensome bois what, and that gets to rachel was talking about the treaty specifying what states need to do and not how they need to do it but i think also in terms of what gets reported there's not going to be reporting on technology transfers and on the parts and components. there should be requirements for the states to subject the international controls and and to agree that in the national control system but i don't see because of the numbers involved and other issues there is any way to report on parts and components being transferred in the context of the reporting regime which it's going to

create but for the states to control the transfer will but not report on the transfer of flat. >> [inaudible] would like to comment on the question. when the export controls in the u.s. the administration has taken the position they are going to and form to introduce many reforms which i'm sure are over there and we were gone and how were they going to report to this we see the message that industries are very unhappy with the control with so what are the

implications going to be for the arms market for the reforms in the u.s. and where the u.s. is going. >> let me say a couple things about that. i work directly with the control reform. i have colleagues and we talk with them so they and form what we are doing in the arms treaty in terms of the discussion that we had and the position we will have the negotiation, and at the negotiation is not be a case of the tad weiss in the bald or the negotiation that is going to directly determine what the u.s. is going to do in the control reform effort but we are going to make sure we do in the reflections what is going on the export controls from the discussions. what is going to come out of the reform isn't be a streamlined more efficient regulatory regime

for the u.s. companies to with in the u.s., and the effect it's going to have on the international arms trade i think that it remains to be seen but it's not going to create something it's a lot of the u.s. goes about regulating companies with a commit more effective not about deregulating them and moving regulation or control them. one thing i will say as far as complaints about the overly burdensome nature of the regulations and stuff i will just note that with this incredibly burdensome system of regulation we have the largest arms exporter in the world and in terms of a take industry to the concerns very seriously you to keep in mind the background all this is going on and industry never lax regulation, never lacks control. it's interfering with their ability to go out and maximize

or whatever the responsible companies obviously and what not but it's the role of the government to regulate and control industries that need regulation and control we think the international arms trade is one in which we continue to need cantelon and that's why we are doing announce trade treaty other countries recognize the same kind of thing. >> any of the other panelists want to comment on this issue. >> as much as the government supports the regime's working for other who diligently towards this there's still the issue in congress and the majority, goes on to singing the -- to make particular type. >> so in that sense, how do you expect that to move forward in

congress want changing their mind because as much as one to write off at&t. >> can you explain what that particular type of treaty is? >> there are two different letters and 45 republican senators and 13 democratic senators and the express their opposition to the treaty that would undermine the second amendment in the u.s. that would conflict the second amendment and the administration couldn't agree with more. the right of the u.s. on a national basis to decide for itself the right and the ability of its citizens to buy arms and transfer arms. the att would cover that of all it's about the international transfers in the right to buy

arms and what not. i didn't have a problem with the congressional letters and again it's not that the oppose commits the oppose and of att that conflicts with the second amendment. to ratify specific duty to depend on the specifics of the treaty. we hope in july to have the u.s. due in july pushed for the negotiating a treaty we will able to ratify the will get the senate to decide the ratification or not and we have certain -- we are certainly aware of the kind of treaties the senate is likely to ratify and we don't want to negotiate a

treaty at the u.s. that we expect the u.s. will never be dillinger ratified. so my goal was to negotiate one that will allow them to ratify it. >> of we mentioned legitimate arms transfers as of illegitimate ones. [inaudible] that could be considered very legitimate. traditionally there is a lot of self regulation and it's not enforced cannot actually report whatever might not be deemed legitimate and the last is the

data methodology, is it like the payment contracting side or is it being delivered? because some contract slid opt out and it may never occur. spec rachel first and then we will turn. >> i'm going to take it in reverse order. >> the point you just raised about are you talking of authorizations or actual physical transfers. that is still to be determined he. and a license and never transfer something but reported if you are just reporting authorization so it may look like 120 aircraft when they actually never did. we discovered this in the registered during the last review that some states were reporting of physicians and others were reporting actual transfers said in a way you are comparing apples to oranges.

in addition because of the time lag and paul can talk to this you may not be capturing anything in that calendar year that actually is reflected in that calendar year so there's a lot in terms of the recording that they will have to look at some of the existing instruments and try to figure out to best mitigate some of the problems that have arisen from that instant and within them. in terms of enforcement the implementation of the treaty will be to have national enforcement systems. there are some states that don't have any legal judicial infrastructures to actually address violations of the laws with regards to export control. they talk about so many are they actually being used. a very good example with to get

what he was actually convicted of had nothing to do with the glamorous crimes that he was accused of committing. so enforcement will have to be very specific at the national level, and there has to be, that allows you to have some accountability to the states can't just act with impunity with what is legitimate and what is irresponsible. i think what the treaty will have to decide is what is legal and what is ill rather than using the was legitimate or irresponsible so that's kind of like art or other things you know when you see it but it's in the eye of the beholder and so i think that what the treaty will do is really defined what he without a definition of what is illegal transfer. what are the statistics transfers that we are talking about in a very general way because states will authorize

sales in different ways but basically using a national transparent predictable and clear process and that will help coming back to one of the earlier questions that will help the industries manufacturers around the world because they will then understand what is necessary from country to country in terms of abiding by particular laws. hopefully the criteria will somewhat defined what would be legitimate verse as irresponsible as well that the treaty doesn't want to see transfers that are going to human rights abusers were to come at other atrocities or the whole list of societal and global il's and so that will start to come again, kind of a more fiscally but define those concept is without having to say, you know, the russians failed to syria is responsible, so you don't have to name that

market in the example that you kind of start closing in on what kind you'd like to see in the arms transfers that are going forward. >> the question on the super methodology, we have the two outputs, the one represented today was the statistics and that only relates to the deliveries. but what we have is a morrill output has always portrayed registers we provided information on the supply of the recipient and information on the order date of the particular deal with the type of equipment being transferred, the number of the date of delivery if anything has happened with how many items on that particular deal have been delivered and how we've defined in the challenge on the financial value of that particular deal with includes particular missiles or training, so i guess the question is to do the two outputs and he in some

cases in algeria and morocco and the volume of the delivery to algeria in the recent years is going to add to rachel's comments which i think from our perspective tend to be treated as a baseline of what is considered illegitimate or responsible if you are authorizing the transfer to an entity subject to the u.n. security council sanctions. many of us consider sort of the ground legitimate in the hope it gets the att building up by the state department of other things considered to be an agreed upon

with has been unacceptable with. the u.n. arms embargo as many national walls do not reflect the illegalities of violating the u.n. arms embargo but he may not be violating international law where you are actually operating so there's a disconnect with that speaks to the need for for the clear control that each state conveys and i have this but that is another perfect example it's even the elderly was the case someone was operating within italy and violating the embargo and there was no small way to actually capture the person and take them to court when.

>> the suppliers would be willing to sign a treaty that goes against their own interest because i believe too many countries in the supply of major interest and i am just wondering if you have some ideas what may be forcing them to read thank you. >> this is a question about the success in july of the att. i guess it is addressed to all of the panelists and will be one of the negotiators. >> i'm hopeful and optimistic the att has made more progress during the substantive discussions i have and most people expect them and it showed i think the common ground actually is that can be reflected in the treaty in terms of will it succeed in doing that? i don't know but in terms of the likely people they're going to

resist i don't think it's that the exporters i think they want to have a att so it provides a way for regulating the playing field of you will and having a consistent set of requirements. all to understand and deal with and compete. if they don't like and what the companies don't like is to have an unlevel playing field and this would be about the unlevel playing field. with this people should do his level the playing field to a higher standard rather than leveling it down but it would be about leveling the playing field so actually the resistance to an at&t is when to come from some of the importers in terms of the arlington not be enthusiastic about having the criteria we're likely to have in the treaty and human rights and other things applied to some of them and they are going to be afraid it's when to interfere in their ability to import the weapons and we will have an interest in the negotiation in july about this. what i will say is in the voting

on the different resolutions and stuffed it has overwhelming support with only some 20 or so extensions on that and a couple of them want novo to the u.s. has a different story. [laughter] we have strongly support the effective treaty commitment be the skeptics we have to convince and that's the negotiation will be about and whether it is likely or not i think it is possible, i'm optimistic but i wouldn't say that its short thing is true to be a negotiation and there's not much time to do it and four weeks may sound like a lot of time to you all that is not much time at all. >> anybody else on to comment? >> i'm going to refer to the expert. [laughter] >> i think that none of us would

be engaged in this effort to if there was a chance for success and how we define success i will leave to your interpretation. i do think that as bill said i was amazed at how far we could even in a very short period of time in each of the and even among the skeptics, there is a clear commitment to see where this road takes us. at the end of the day it may not be an outcome that people live with. a poorly written that doesn't do what it's spread to the cassette out to do is and worse having sort it's not worth having the exercise in july at the 11th-hour reconvey we do have a treaty so it's important to get the right treaty and that is where the success would like there would be an impressive

willingness even among the skeptics want to engage in this process will i think a lot of that can be credited to the chairman himself. he is a very astute and experienced diplomat has really done a remarkable job in building confidence and not in time of a token way it may be allowing everyone to be heard and feel like they're being heard and that's an important role. i think a lot of times we hear about the u.n. as a very political organ which it is, but it's very much dirt on the personalities of the people with a net, and i think this negotiation has consistency among the people in the deliberations when he so trust has been built. if you have asked me in july of 2010 if i thought it was possible, maybe the first day i would have said a little more

hesitant. today i'm a little more glass half full and i would have been. >> we have seen it in a multitude of negotiations. let me shift a little bit. >> if i could make one comment, i'm sorry to interrupt. i couldn't agree more with you. the outcome needs to be a strong and effective treaty. it shouldn't be a weak treaty. they are not interested in having a piece of paper that doesn't do anything. it needs to be a treaty that actually does something because we don't want to have a treaty for the sake of having a treaty so we can move on to the next crisis and have the next negotiation. it needs to do something and that is what we need to get out is a strong and effective treaty. >> i think the discussion is the fact it's being held in those contexts we are not seeing the traditional division in the global south and global north is a really interesting dynamic and

the development i think also the same embargo by the security council last year was interesting in terms of the step forward so there's a few things that are surprising as well. when i first joined we had to write a paper about at&t and was skeptical and people inside said this will never fly and they pointed to the u.s. skepticism and major suppliers and i think as rachel said, there's been remarkable progress and it's interesting to see that dynamic and i guess one of the things we haven't looked at that we have we backend the league of nations one of the declining whines in the internationally regulated controls fell apart because they didn't have the recipients on board. there's a lot of supplies and i think for me that strikes me as an interesting change in africa, asia and the americas so i think it's interesting to change that.

>> i would like to go back a little bit to the data, and you talked about it, you touched upon at a level that these reactive acquisitions and the small arms races in the certain regions that you see developing. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about that and then i would like to ask our colleagues on the panel that her dealing with the controls do you think a treaty like the att would prevent irresponsible destabilizing transfers? you know, would you be able to give me an example of how that would work in practice? but maybe paul, and you first on the different trends and regional security. >> i guess the example i spoke about earlier in algeria and morocco is one we focused on a couple of years ago before the

changes in libya potentially emerging as a major importer. the thing that struck was very much that algeria ever is requiring the kaput from russia and other countries ostensibly were just designing and with regards to combating al qaeda and monrad but i'm not sure they will help in that regard. but we actually saw was then morocco turning to the naval vessels and, in an aircraft and the acquisitions there i think will come out clearly the next couple of years to sort of track the acquisitions by algeria and compare them system by system in many cases with the acquisition spigot for me personally because my focus is with regards to the importer side with russia and central asia and former soviet space particularly concerned about azerbaijan not because they were be hosting the context and they would be participating but more broadly we've seen a

dramatic increase as a budget on the acquisitions despite the fact there's no arms embargo in number of states within the region are continuing to supply azerbaijan's assisting in developing its arms industry against the rhetoric to occur back in the potential for the use of force to change that situation despite the efforts of the mediation. now we have seen as a major importer is beginning to talk about acquiring systems and reactions to the is really built up. and i guess for us that is an area of particular concern. gaviria in terms of the reactors acquisitions where i am not so concerned is southeast asia, where we do see significant buildup in terms of the maritime systems and the combat aircraft. but at the same time, in a number of those cases, very clear descriptions of the threats in the region and some cases explaining why the systems have been acquired with overkill

perhaps you can see the rules for the coming and getting a lot of it furious with the military and the keeping up of the complex as well as perhaps looking over china and what's happening there but i don't think they're seeing that as their driver. b.c. the chinese response to the arms race. actually in that region i would like to see more developed security mechanisms for sure and more robustly put in place but the three areas i'm talking about is where there's a number of understandable reasons for the current increase, and i guess one to also point to the fact we have a delayed modernization in the region in the 90's the asian financial crisis the stones a lot of those plans that is what is now available.

>> any sort of example the actual mechanics haven't yet been decided, but these will continue to be national decisions whether or not to transfer one. what the att will do is give states a process or not limit their process should look like so that it's clear that to get an authorization you go to the party and you do whatever is required and these are the kind of assurances or other types of insurance you would need to be the would presumably make the system more predictable and it's unclear if it should be absolute prohibition it will be hit it should take into account and be kind of a middle ground or a tiered approach that some are in absolute and some are just taken

into consideration is presumably it would make the system more predictable. it goes for the companies and the countries involved in the exports but also for the recipient as well. in addition, in terms of them reporting on what is going where i think there will be more predictability and more clarity to keep track of the potential arms buildup to the purchases the house paul was calling them. but it's not going to be the solution to all of the il's related to the arms trade. i think it is just one piece of the puzzle, and it could be useful as the register was in in just identifying what systems are going aware and allowing the states to get a better picture obviously not in real time but in a more regular price

timeframe than they would have before so it is an important confidence-building measure, transparency measure but also in terms of just early-warning were those kind of things as well. >> i want to build upon what rachel said it transfer controls are important but it's one piece of the puzzle in terms of assuring with the use by intended end users. there's also the arsenals of destroying simple stockpiles and in perfect stop real security and strengthening border controls in regards to the man pads which is what my main focus is. there's airport security, countermeasures, you know, for the civilian aircraft. there is a host of measures states can and should take to prevent unauthorized access to

the weapons. >> are there any other questions? if not, we will -- please. >> this question is for paul. >> please identify yourself. >> [inaudible] >> paul, looking to the future what do you see as problematic in terms of arms flow? >> i guess i will mention the one at the beginning i didn't discuss which is east africa and their address this concern is for a range of reasons with regards to ugonda we are seeing a significant buildup in terms of acquisitions from russia to come and as i said the acquisitions with regard to the tasks at hand are unclear to the think the issue of the money could have been better spent. let's put it that way.

the lack of oversight and discussion is another concern to read with regards to kenya there's also been transfers used in the somalia transfer assertions but the question is the restrictions on the transfer controls by some states but also the desire to help them build a capacity in the peacekeeping and ability to intervene it's not such a concern that a challenge and striking a balance but we are going to be looking at issues with regards to equipping under the security secretary programs and post conflict scenarios and from that the lessons learned in good and bad practice and that is taken over the last couple of months from afghanistan and iraq to also west africa and east african cases and also the ways to

mitigate in the coming months so the data we have plus interviews with various stakeholders. >> okay. thank you him very much. you get the last question. >> i just wanted to ask as we look ahead at the negotiation in july what do you anticipate will be key issues, the key points in the diplomacy between now and july where do you think the major efforts need to be focused? >> okay. thank you. >> i need to think about that. >> i will let you think of the

answer while he gets to the specifics because obviously i'm not negotiating the treaty, but i would honestly anticipate been my experience with the u.s. and process these that milward is too small to focus for weeks of attention on and that includes an aura of or odierno. >> the difference between happy and glad. >> i'm not just trying to be cute, but i think that, again, giving back to how the negotiations work and the personalities involved, if people will come on the wrong side of the bed that can truly affect, but i think the key -- there will be key sticking points in all of the elements of the treaty, but i think determining what is at scope both in terms of the weapons covered and the transactions is going to be a protracted debate because there are those that

want a very minimalist scope and those that want literally anything you can possibly think of now and in the future, so some kind of balance will have to be made, and a lot of the compromise. i think the criteria it self, not only with the criteria are, but the standards are applied to them, the kind of absolute prohibition through the, you know, on balance we took into account, i think again, that's going to be the key the kind of meat about this the other kind of key issues will be what does the national limitation look like, how do you balance kind of what i said at the beginning of what and the house of to not be general helping the countries that have very meet national control systems develop them but how do you not present this kind

of -- you don't want to lower the playing field, you ought to raise the playing field. securing out what that looks like the national level i think there will be the bulk of the discussion over the years. >> one thing we have not really gotten a good handle on this most of the focus of the discussion has been on the exporting side, the obligation and responsibility of the export states and we spent less time and made progress of dhaka rights and the obligations of the importers and also the transit states and i think we are going to need to make some progress in july and on because we haven't had that much discussion up until now, it's been focusing mainly on the export side of the equation but it needs to address these other things as well. i'd think the biggest -- one of

the biggest tensions that exist is can't be what rachel mentioned earlier, the tension between having a treaty that is aspirational in the nature that tries to do lots of things and is very ambitious versus having a treaty that actually is capable of being implemented by the state parties because there's a basic tension coming and i don't think it's one that we have fully resolved. from the u.s. point of view whatever comes out of this needs to on the one hand it does need to move the ball forward and it needs to do aspirational things but must be one the states can actually implement so that it is actually worth the paper the treaty is working on that does nothing, and that is linked to tension so there are the other discussions that have been going on particularly in the primitive action context about the tension between what the state your people want to do versus what is actually comfortable.

>> there are still states out there for whom reporting on international transfer subject and notwithstanding the fact you have to register the state's have never participated in the register on the importing side people want to have extremely detailed transparency reporting requirements mandatory ones that is required under the treaty to. and to be careful of the basic tension between trying to provide too much detail in the treaty spelling out a great deed held with the states need to do because i think more detail like the treaty and the less likely it is we are going to get a successful outcome from those. it's not to say you can't have anything at all in the treaty, but you have to be careful about the more you want to put in there in terms of detail, the harder it is going to be to negotiate because as rachel

said, they do matter to people, and i've been both we had a week of discussions on, you know, with the resolution actually meant relating to how the conference was going to take its decisions and what the consensus actually means. so there are unresolved issues out there. i agree it is a difficult subject. transparency, national implementation. but also we need to look to the incentive some incentives for the states joining the treaty when he. the systems the treaty won't really require them to do that much and impose that much of a burden on them putting those things in place want to do this and the treaty will want to provide some mechanisms and assistance for them to the assistance is not going to be a

system of thus pwc technology transfer and what not this will be assistance for capacity building under the treaty, building up the capacity to actually implement the treaty. the biggest problem is the negotiation isn't much time at all. i worked on the conference on disarmament between 1994 to 2005 so i was then not for the whole negotiation thankfully, but that is the negotiation that took three years, and they meet for 24 weeks and years ago were talking about 72 weeks of meetings that produce the nuclear test ban treaty, and the subject that is dealing with the arms trade gets the a devotees of the states to defend themselves that is one of the most basic security concerns the states have so true to be challenging to negotiate.

but again i am hopeful. [laughter] its way to be the major arms treaty that will be concluded for a long while, so i would like to thank all our panelists for providing us a comprehensive review of the transfers and the ways to try to control of the diplomatic level. i would also like to thank my colleagues for helping organize the event. marcia come shannon zimmerman and i would say stay tuned. we have other agents like this. and go to our website. its www.cpre.northamerica and you can add yourself to our mailing list. thank you very much to match, rachel and bill.

[applause] >> thank you all for coming. the scientists that nailed down iraq state for the hiv epidemics starts tinderboxes and in most parts of the world there is in that much hiv and in some places there is a time and it's incredibly destructive seóul understanding these two

categories exist and allow you to think what are those factors to keep this moving and what can we do as a world to end it? three president barack obama fri nominated jimmy on him to lead the world bank. dr. kim is a physician and a pioneer in the treatment of hiv/aids and tuberculosis. following his announcement president was asked about the trayvon martin case. >> good morning, everybody. >> in february the current president of the world bank announced the end of his term in

june. he's been a strong and effective leader the think the last five years and when he told me about his plans, i immediately began to search for someone to fill his shoes. now, despite his name, the world bank is more than just a bank. it's one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and race standard of living in the poorest countries on a plan that. in the world that is growing smaller and more connected everyday that is a critical mission not just for those that are struggling, but for all of us. when we reduce hundred world or help the farmer recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. we've put an end to the preventable disease all of us are safer because of it. auctioneers considered in a business that creates jobs in their country and also opens up new markets for our country and ultimately win the nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes the world stronger and

more secure for everybody. that's why the world bank is so important and why the leader of the world bank should have a deep understanding of both the role that the development plays in the world and the importance of creating the conditions where assistance is no longer needed believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission than dr. jim kim. it's time for a professional to lead the agency and that is why today after a careful and thorough search and i'm nominating dr. jim kim to be the next president of the world bank he spent more than two decades to improve the conditions in the countries around the world. as a position and an anthropologist peace cofounder the partners and health and lead a who campaign treat 3 million people with hiv/aids. i made hiv/aids and the fight against that dreaded disease the

motion of public health a cornerstone of my development billing on the outstanding work that was done by president bush to really pursue these around the globe because it's the right thing to do and also because the population and it was the growth and prosperity and i am pleased he brings this particular experience with him to his new job. jim was also the share of the department of school health and social medicine at harvard medical school. he has earned a macarthur genius fellowship. and for the last three years, he has served as the president of dartmouth college. i should also mention that after immigrating to this country from corrine at age five, he went on to become president of his high school class, the quarterback of the football team, the point guard of the basketball team pure i just found out he is a five handicap in golf. i'm a little resentful about that last item. [laughter] but he does it all. jim has truly global experience. he's worked from asia to africa to the americas, from capital to

small villages, as personal story exemplifies the diversity of our country and the fact that anyone can make it as far as he has as long as they are willing to work hard and look out for others and his experience makes him suited to forge partnerships all around the world so i couldn't be more pleased to nominate him for this job and i think i can speak for secretary clinton and secretary geithner nicoe we are looking forward to working with him. i also wanted to get to thank him once again for all of his artwork. over the last five years he's made the bank more transparent, he has helped shore up progress in places like afghanistan. he's raised billions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry out legacy, and i know his unique set of skills and years of experience will serve him well. so i am grateful to him for his willingness to serve. i do not think the world bank could have a better leader.

thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. >> allegations of lingering racism in our society of the so-called -- stand your ground law and the justice and that? can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> wallen the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me so it got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we are not in paring an investigation that's taking place right now. but obviously this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. and i think every parent in america should be able to

understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state and local to siggerud exactly how this tragedy happened. so i'm glad that not only is the justice department looking into its, and a stand now that the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what's taking place. a think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this had been? and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident. but my main messages to the parents trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look

like trayvon. and i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we are going to get to the bottom of what happened. >> [inaudible conversations] >> we covered doctor can in 2005 when he outlined the findings of a report on the global aids epidemic. during the appearance he spoke about the role of churches and preventing hiv/aids. here is a look. segment you know, but me just

say if you call evangelical churches the american conservative organizations, you can trace their participation in a number of ways. i credit them with bringing to the attention president bush and jesse helms and others the problems of hiv deaths in poor countries, and they are the ones but really pushed the republican politicians to move forward on the program. so, they have played an extremely important role bringing attention of the number of deaths. they were losing their missionaries and the stars of their work in poor countries, and i commend them on that. in terms of the role of conservative organizations in areas like prevention, but we know is that we will never really know for sure exactly what particular intervention led to a particular change in a person's behavior. and so, what we recommend it is that the full range of

prevention intervention must be utilized. this is abstinence message and certainly for children. behavior change when it is relevant, when it's relevant and can be helpful and of course economies. we know condoms prevent the spread of hiv very effectively. every time you take one or the other out of it for the ideological and political reasons you are putting your country in individuals at risk so this is our position specifically. tammie focus on on the other? is there is no question that they are. there are groups that would like to see abstinence-only programs to which we just say flatly you can do that, but then you are really pulling free legs out from underneath the four leggitt chair. event at our website, go to c-span.org.

phil donahue is a former tv talk-show host and activist on numerous fronts. thanks for coming to seize them. >> guest: it's a pleasure. host katella so the film body of war. >> guest: in the the subject of the film at walter reed. thomas young is a kansas city and want to say kid, i am old enough to call him a kid. she was an iraq for two days to read down the back of a truck, mean city, fish in the beryl and the bullet exited between the

shoulder blades. so he was paralyzed. thomas sustained urinary tract infection, nausea every morning, 20 something prime of life impotent. i mean, a sacrifice to us and i saw this young man lying in bed at walter reed and his mother come he was out at the time on morphine and his mother explain his injuries to me and i said people should see this, and i nominated myself and that is the result. this is almost five years of work and was an experience that all of us will never forget. we've never been this close to what is truly catastrophic injury that turns a whole family of sight down. and the point that we want to make is that there are thousands of homes in this country just like this, and we never saw the team. we don't know about them, and we are arguing if you're going to send a million people to the

war, show the pain. the president said you can't take pictures of the coffins and the whole press corps said okay. there was no pushback. it makes it easier to conduct it, easier to call on others. if the people don't know the sacrifice people are making we are going to have another war to reduce its called body of war. phil donahue is one of the producers of the international film festival to the several standing ovations and the claim it's one of the best documentaries from the national board of review and nominated best documentary from the producers guild of america. as a, you were taking a ticket great lengths when the war was starting and you're speaking out against it. do you feel like you've been proven right because public opinion has changed so much? >> if i am proven right i would rather have somebody else take it. we have over 4,000 young men and women dead because of this

massive blunder, and who was right or wrong doesn't make any difference now, and i don't think much is ever -- no good thing has ever resulted from i told you so. so i'm keeping my mouth shut. i've made no sacrifice at all. it's the people that fought this war. >> let's get to the phones. steve is a democratic collar and illinois. good morning. >> caller: good morning. first of all, the second war of the second superpower in the world russia went into afghanistan cannot with their tails between their legs. i believe in the 1980's the united states as a whole should have taken a look at russia to see how many they've lost in a useless war.

the tribal countries have religious right stating that thousands of years where we as a nation are killing our youth and to stabilizing our youth. we have so many nabal naval bases and air force bases in our whole world and around the world we are invading the mass of countries and destroying the lives. >> guest: we have nothing that can possibly be added to what you say. i admire your wisdom and it's another to estimate i think to c-span. this is the voice from the people and we don't hear it often enough.

president karzai has to be a will to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship in the context of the long-term relationship of afghanistan. so i understand his frustration. and i understand that if there was just one event, you would have a particular view. but we've had several offensively. the video, the burning of religious materials to include the carotid, the shootings and punctuate and in the aggregate,

those are significant events. but i believe he is committed to a relationship with the united states. he was very clear in a strategic -- in a video teleconference in which of his attendance with ambassador crocker recently with the president. he was very clear in its commitment to a strategic archbishop at the united states. these incidents can't be ignored. >> host: afghanistan commanding general john allen testified in e. yesterday. phil donahue, what is their responsibility as americans to the people of afghanistan? not the leadership or even hamid karzai, but the women who could be educated coming to children. is there a risk of getting out and having things fall apart even worse? >> have adopted outcome will have more dead americans. it is america's choice. it's up to you. you can have any kind of foreign policy wonk. you can have any kind of country

you want. you can have a country that puts people in cages for five, six years. no red cross secret. waterboarding, no gps. you can have this kind of country. we have so much to offer. this is a great country. and instead of sharing, instead of reaching out, we are lashing out. and we are never, ever -- we have become the thing we hate. we are dropping bombs on crowded cities at night, were old people and children are sleeping. and we think we are going to get on with the rest of our lives. turn it upside -- turn it reverse. imagine somebody coming in with an unmanned aerial vehicle. where's the dollar here? you've got a man in a cave somewhere in either suburban washington. i think we have in nevada, sits there with the joystick looking at the tv monitor. there they are.

and we are killing children. and this is on obama's watch. we have to get rid of the drones. the drones will be banned. and sooner or later, it will happen and i want my president to make the first call on it. postcode which is in fairfax, virginia. republican collar, good morning. >> thank you so much for taking my call. i'm in taking about this for a while. i spent 20 years in memory call and the business of the ending support to war, when i was in the marine corps i was a dead casualty officer and on four different occasions i stepped in someone's door and told them what their child was dead and they would never see them again. and so, i come from that background, but the problems that i have is that it can, we have one and of the poor and the lower middle class doing the dirty work for the country.

and i'm a republican. we have a presidential candidate, mr. romney through his five sons, not one of them has joined the service. i don't know whether that is because of religion or because of their father or whether, but we have got to get away from this business of letting the people who are looking for a chopper looking for a trade for a way out of for something better for the life and they graduate high school to do all the dirty work for us. and you know, tv shows on right now, the car -- and some of the rest, why don't we have a reality tv show that shows what these young people are doing about the families families are going through that or they're doing this bad stuff for us. so mr. donohue, keep doing what you're doing. c-span, maybe you could have a show about the draft. include some congresspeople in the military generals because the military general say they

don't want a draft, but they are part and parcel of the rest of this and i think that really needs to be addressed in 19 you see a lot of our young kids going off to die. >> guest: i thank you and you keep me to my film. this is the reality. this is the harm in harms way and it's available at netflix to no profit recruited me i assure you. although as libby mentioned, we won a lot of prices. we were on the shortlist for an oscar, thank you very much. we have sold no popcorn. this is not a take your girl to the movie movie. it is rough and it is up close. i had charlie -- he owned washington monthly. charlie peters is on the donahue show many years ago and i remember an audience at which we do? which we do?

amulet that parents first of all, trapped the rich and the audience when -- and it's what everybody thinks. but nobody says it. and obviously it is not current because we have no draft right now. but he is absolutely correct. wars are fought by people who are jobless. i heard guys say we didn't go to vietnam because he loved america. we went to be a mom because he wanted to get out of calm. these are the realities that we seem to be talking ourselves in many ways. you know, democracy, democracy. less than half of this photo. so, there is a lot of pretense around in one of them is that the people here in this day, very comfortable in their air-conditioned homes, telling us how wonderful the troops are. and it's like, after a while it doesn't have any meaning. the troops come home and the da

doesn't cause and that. we are a wash and pretense. we think if we state it is true. how past -- >> host: at, not twitter wants to know if you're avoiding discussing commerce in ron paul's foreign policy strategy. here she points out is somewhat different from one republican candidate. what do you think of this? >> guest: i make this point in an appearance on pure smirky. the truth is that ron paul, who i could not vote for -- i'm sure he is a lovely man and he is going to happen and it looks like a very nice chap to me. i would love to take them for dinner. but i could not vote for him. i think he is a very distracting history. but he is a -- the only candidate speaking out on this issue. we are killing people. they are killing us. we are bogged down in afghanistan and no one on the

presidential campaign trail will talk about it except ron paul. ron paul is saying what are we doing in all of these clerics can you imagine mitt romney saying all of that? they do not say because they believe to make the point is to be politically fatal, but you can't survive not supporting the war. this is another reason that war is so easy to get into. six monistic man, six years to get out, which is why i am not on the trail stumping for norman solomon who is running for the north coast of california and am pleased to have this opportunity to say that i think carmine ohman is right on all the issues. postcode you have been involved in a lot of issues a special on the front of american involvement in these wars. you have not supported -- you have not taken your time to go out and campaign for a lot of calm -- candidates. close go i had to be a virgin a

supporter. >> guest: you haven't waited too much into politics invented this great of a link. >> host: i was on meters bonus in 2000. i got off in 04 to save my marriage. quite certain we would elect another bush. my wife, marlo thomas. marlo thomas.com by the way. i can't go home if i don't get the den. libby, thank you very much. a heck of a website, way. so i speak to are now through her agent. so i think -- i think ron paul is a fascinating study of our political reality right now. we can't -- these people out there can even talk about what is right in front of our eyes. so how long will this go on?

i don't know. >> host: norman solomon is running for congress in california. one of the 11 candidates to represent the new coastal district in california. it's a wide-open race triggered by democrat lynn woolsey's decision to retire this year, looking to replace congresswoman woolsey. tell us why you're supporting him specifically. >> guest: first of all, he is the son my mother wanted to have. he is very, very educated. he brings to his freshman year congress more foreign policy experience than any rookie could possibly have. he's been to afghanistan. he's been to iraq more than once. he's also taking no corporate tax money. imagine that, no corporate money. and that's tough. that is tough. they have to worry about paying

for on-site. am i admire him for his grassroots effort. i met many members of his team. he has scores of volunteers. i mean, the volunteers were the determining terry. he would be elected immediately. the grassroots campaign by a man who will never allow this country and to go to war without sent to congress as mandated by the con dictation. up until now, congress has said here, mr. president. here it is if you have to. and if he does and it doesn't work, the euro could say he said i thought he didn't. so it is a cya, cover your maneuver. congress has been spineless on this issue. they do not want the job of calling a war and it is their job. as robert byrd says in this film, james madison, don't give one man the power to declare

war. it is too much of a temptation and he was right. the framers were right. and here we have people claiming to be proud of americans and turning their backs on the vision of the framers. even free speech now is a quaint idea and now that we are in this world of nukes, we really can't be bothered with the bill of rights. >> host: phil donahue is that talkshow host or decades talking about the war in afghanistan. doug, democrat financing charles, missouri. >> caller: good morning. a great pleasure to speak to both of you. i watch her program often. i have two questions. the first is mr. donahue, have you been to afghanistan or iraq? >> guest: no, i haven't. >> host: i am a former marine. i did my four for the core as they say. and i was watching when we went in to ask him if and when tom

pertinence program mentioned this the other day that they send out feelers to try to not have a worse start. they were going to give up bin laden. they just needed a veneer of some reason to do it. the bush administration refuse to do that to see what they refuse to make peace with syria. and i think that what i hear from these candidates in the republican party is marching toward another war with iran and chimney it my mind. we don't have the troops. but he's been way too much good for multiple deployments are absolutely terrible. and i sent screaming at the television. we could've had that lawton in tora bora. the work of an excuse after these after the previous administration. basically dropped the ball on and then dropped again when they went after iraq. and that happened after cheney's oil summit and they were dividing up the country for their oil buddies.

i just do not understand how we can trade lives for profit of corporations. and that is my point to you. i do not know how much you agree with, but if you'd like to discuss any other be willing to listen. >> host: what was your rank? >> guest: i'm sorry i just disconnected. >> guest: you have to respect this man some point. we are all talking and he did. these wars, and by the way they are worse. i've been corrected often. they are occupations -- i don't know which one to call them. they are not words. these military actions in both iraq and iran are not fair to the american troops. and america is waking up to that by now most of us are very anxious to bring them home. >> host: danny is an independent color and louisiana. good morning, danny.

>> guest: good morning, mr. donahue. it's a pleasure to speak to you as a man of common sense. i calling off into the station and i watch it often and i see the very diverse attitudes towards everything. being a follower of things and an independent thinker, i seek the truth nac on one hand this media, the media that represent the money interest in this country, the hard right wing of this they led us into this. in fact, people who watched fox news say well, if you are not for us, you're against us. they've america, whatever. i'm a decorated combat in via tom and it goes back to the founding fathers and besides my family. when people tell me things like that, my point is, what do people get such our shadiest clinics the truth is not sought any more in this country and the media and this very format of

the vendors you are on which is one of them which could do a great service to the american people by seeking the truth instead of seeking reading instead of a sickly morally bankrupt network. >> guest: well, am not sure what he meant about c-span. brian will tell you, i have been as early a fan of espn. i could not believe c-span when i first saw it. to actually see the house and the senate. do you remember in high school you have the squares in the bill goes to the senate after the money comes from the voting and it goes into reconciliation. i mean, i fell asleep in civics class. to watch this happen live on both chambers and then i got involved in all of those conventions, you know, where they hang the banner on the wall? i am crazy about this. this is the best reality show in town and i said that in the early 80s on my own program.

to the gentleman's call, i don't know. you know, we spent $2 billion a day on things that go boom. if you at end of the eight nuclear program, the war, the supplemental, added that. $2 billion a day. norman solomon taught me that. and that is why i am campaigning with him. solomon for congress.com. i am pleased to encourage you to visit the website. >> host: our last caller who support the c-span network that has concerns that other cable news shows and to, what responsibility do you have as a trailblazer in the talkshow industry, creating that community on television where people can discuss things, trying to get hype and issues

any of them? as it turned into what you envisioned? >> guest: well, i used to say they are all my illegitimate children i love them equally. but that is kind of cute. we really have gone -- we did our naughty shows, too. we had male strippers. it wasn't my idea, but i had a lot of women outside. i said, where you going to put the microphone? you have to entertain the people. and this has to be understood. the coin of the realm of art businesses size of the audience. if you don't get an audience, you'll be parking cars next week. and male strippers will get a larger audience didn't get gephardt, who by the way was a guest on the donahue show. abdul was on for the whole show. two talking heads. you will see that anymore. and by the way, i party made the

point, this documentary south of the marquee in six minutes. this, you know, it's got a wheelchair. the daytime talk shows were not interested. i wanted to be on to promote the film. they don't want anything to do with wheelchairs. >> host: in the documentary is phil donahue is talking about his "body of war," a feature about thomas jan from a 25 throat paralyzed from a bullet to his spine. he was a veteran of the war in iraq, but he served there for less than a week before he was shot. penny is our next caller in mobile, alabama. hi, danny. are you with us? last call for danny. just going of this feeling. >> host: walter is the next caller to new bedford, massachusetts on our independent line. >> caller: good morning, how are you doing? i was a fan of your show years ago when i was younger.

we used to sit and watch her crazy show. we couldn't even believe half of the staff used to have on. now look at what we've got on television now. >> host: i'm glad you're watching. you turned out anyways, how? >> caller: i appreciate what you're doing with the video. i wish that the war in our country was always taken for a joke. i remember growing up as a kid. wars always romanticized. you've got john wayne and all off. it's always seen as beautiful and heroic. you've heard george bush refer to something romantic and heroic when he was talking to some troops in iraq. but at the end of the day, do i think americans need to recognize its loss of life, nature, you know, everything that could go wrong could go wrong when you're dealing with war. war is not something like in the movies, yet the bad guys going

to get the bad guys. the good guys going to get the bad guys and they go home. war is not like that. when you say go with go, bomb shooting and killing. one of his last inmate is the winner. imo heroes, and a real thick trees. you notice the guys who start the wars at home, drink a since the her cigarettes and do whatever well, just like you said the poor, the younger on the front lines fighting for what they think is real, what they think is true. in america we need to start recognizing that. stop letting politicians tell us what is important. we have got to point for every little thing is justified for life. >> guest: >> host: a response from phil donahue. >> guest: this is a really stressful collar. i want to know the invasion of iraq followed a brilliant strategy of fear executed by the bush white house. it was the bush white house --

white house iraq group that created the bumper sticker, a smoking gun will become a mushroom, written i. believe by michael gerson, who is now an op-ed columnist for the "washington post." and the congress -- by the way come you see this in my film. we leave the congressional debate on giving bush permission to invade iraq. only 23 senators voted no and the house and the senate both stood up good many members have been read the talking points. a gun smokes after it has been fired. the longer we wait, the worse it becomes, the more dangerous he becomes. john mccain said that. the longer we wait, the more dangerous. you could feel the heart age of the nation began to be faster as the web for war and this

president took this nation by the year and walked right into the sword. the last gentleman calling is where i think more americans are rising up finally and i think it's going to be tough for her to go to war. it is always easy, but i think it is getting tougher with these horrible mistake. >> host: our guess is creator and host of the train to show, one of the early talk shows to change the conversation in the way talk shows go in america. he focused on controversial issues at times that divided liberals think of there because his most frequent guest is ralph nader for her marquess campaigned. he's not on the campaign trail for norman solomon who was in a battle for congressional, rather california's second congressional district adding california's coast. one of our followers on twitter

asked a question about joseph colony and whether or not you think he should be brought to justice. should the united states engage in not so with the rebel leader, the ugandan guerrilla group has gotten a lot of attention because of the 2012 video. and our tweeter asked, is there a case that america should get involved click should we put troops on the ground or help out? >> whenever you think about peace, you have to answer, what would you do about hitler? it's like okay, we'll want peace. but i mean, you've got to join the real world, man. this is the fox method. wow, what he wants to do? just rollover? if you call for peace, you are risking the life of our nation. another reason why it is so easy to go to war -- you know, we

have the ability -- relate to them in. i think we have the ability to affect coalitions with other nations who are just dishonorable as we are to intervene in a civil way than these disturbances. i don't think we can pour a magic dust on these violent, angry coalitions of people, but we certainly have the ability to promote peace. when i was on msnbc, i people from peaceful tomorrow. these are people who lost loved ones in the towers. and you can see the pain in their faces. and they were saying, it don't go kill other innocent people to avenge the death of my innocent loved one. i've never seen more kerslake at. this is like a month or so after

the towers collapsed. i think these are the peach trees. these are the people who believe in the bill of rights. these are the people who don't think he should be able to tap a person's phone without judicial authorization. i mean, all of these fundamental bedrock features of this nation are being chipped away because we've got to protect you. we've got to protect the american people and now you don't want us to go to war. if we didn't go to war against italy, we'd all be standing here with swastikas. they're able to talk themselves into the virtue of this idea of going and dropping bombs on people and nobody likes us. we are near alone in the world. it may not even be a strapping those bombs, but they incudes. and it often is the united states dropping the bombs. so let's ban the drugs.

i mean, if a soldier, sponges did when he goes into the house and was the family away with an ak-47, that is a work brian. if they drown kills everybody gets collateral damage. all of these contradictions sooner and later become conscious of consciousness of not only this marine who has fought in war and knows what it might, but the citizenship as well. i think people at home are seeing the absurdity of our military foreign policy. >> host: let's go to lawrenceville, georgia. welcome. call co-hello. >> guest: you're on the air with phil donahue. >> caller: this is kind of a let's say you question to phil donahue. i wonder, what do you think about the reason we don't get

out of iraq and afghanistan all so fast is because the higher-ups face when considering the expense involved in getting all that equipment and tanks and armored carriers and just the places we have two has our soldiers and everything over there. if we pull out in something happens in iraq or afghanistan or iran, then we have to move it all back in again. it is the double expense on top of that. what do you say to that quiet >> guest: well, i say there are too many armchair warriors in congress who can't wait to go to a war that would think of sending their own kids to fight it. we are in iraq in my opinion and afghanistan, bogged down now in

order to save -- in order for the military and i think many civilian leaders to save space. and this film, thomas young is the subject of my film, who was watching i hope, shut up for tomas. these are the people i think who find it very easy to call in the war and send other people there. i am not sure -- i don't think one path of one american is worth an old man's cave to modify return air. >> host: bill king says to you i believe every politician should be required to read mark twain's the word prayer. we have that here on our screen if you want to take a look at that. kerry is our next caller. independent in michigan. heather kerry. >> caller: i just have some

opinions. generally i believe men in general have too much ego and when money becomes involved in that, it just kind of gets us butting heads against other countries. i believe women should actually be in charge of it because women on neither side would not let their own children who did the work go to slaughtered for men's mistakes. >> guest: occurs you. you don in the bluejeans, george w. walking out there with cheney and rumsfeld. i mean, how about the aircraft carrier? i mean, a flight suit with that helmet they are, strutting that carrier, the media had come slowed. we are on the l. counts now. we loved it. we thought it was fabulous but the president landed on an

aircraft carrier and a plane piloted if someone else. and he goes spreading around but like a cod piece to me. the worst stand in the history of the white house. and here we are, more than 4000 dead come in millions and of refugees living in tents because, you know, don't mess with texas. that is why winning this thing. bush couldn't wait to go to war. cheney said to bush and the cabinet meeting about saddam hussein, you're going to take them out or not quiet the madchen. are you going to take them out or not? it's that simple for cheney to send thousands and thousands of young people from other families. you're going to take them out or not? we definitely have a macho

feature of our culture. it is in our movies. it has been since i was a kid. i wanted to be john wayne. so yes, i tell you these are thoughtful call spanish impeachment is anybody because of his impressive really how smart -- and imagine these calls now imagine that shoot against the calls now against the calls during the invasion against iraq. the nation is changing. you know, gay rights are now popular. they think gay people are now subject to the full right of the constitution. i don't think there's anything worth calling attention. if you criticize america you don't write anything about america. that's a thing or two liberals. you don't like anything about

america. wait a minute, we are the peachtree is. i believe in the bill of rights. if you put the bill of rights to vote among the people i hang out with, it would pass. i don't think he could say that, for example certainly not in the bush administration and the national defense at, there was only passed at this horrible. we are killing other americans in another country. how long do you think we are going to get away with this? i have grandchildren. are they going to look around out there last? did i just get on the wrong bus? i mean, this is the world we are giving our kids. >> host: violent video game makers are targeting young people with messages that gore is good. it's all part of the campaign to prepare them for war. >> guest: is certainly true. what is it doing for their mind? these pictures move. they blow up.

bodies chopped in half. different world now. >> host: as a former talk show host, switching gears for a moment, what do you make of what the conversations have been regarding rush limbaugh, the comments he made about the georgetown lost couldn't come at the hallmark has piece in "the new york times" called please stop apologizing. omar has a part of this is a because of his derogatory comments about sir palis family. what do you think? >> guest: i think the system is working. the framers are right. don't shush brush. the state should not shush brush in the state should not shush me. the fact that the sponsors have risen up as a fabulous demonstration of our democracy and the ability of sponsors to make their own judgment about what is good for their logo,, company and their stockholders.

hooray for that. and by the way, all of this has happened without any kind of state intervention. i love america. i'm proud to be an american. >> host: musket curt on the conversation. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm a 72-year-old american veteran of the cold war submarine sailor and this is my opinion about war. we haven't fought a war since world war ii. world war ii in the eastern jeter against germany was one by total annihilation and total destruction. japan, same thing. what we have now is congresses occurring more when they don't mean war. war is and that is by definition. you have to go when and you have

to be able to totally destroy the other side. if they don't want our people to go to war, tell congress, don't declare war. declare a meat grinder for our troops. have a wonderful day. god bless america. >> host: something our color just that is the ugly truth behind war, war is murder. sometimes increases opinion it's necessary but still murder. >> guest: well, i agree. you have to say it's necessary. if you don't say it's necessary, you know, peacenik, doesn't really understand the reality of geopolitics. i mean, they will knock you down whichever way you go. if you criticize the war before the war is called you don't support the president. and how could you undermine troops like this? these young people going to war and you're at home criticizing it. when you need to set the most, you have to shut up and sing.

i am arguing and millions of other people agree with me, if you can't speak out against the war in the fact thousands of people down through the years who have fought to protect or defend our way of life at the center of which is free speech, then you know, if you're not allowed to speak, stop sending these people to their death. we will find a neo-mussolini and we will make decisions behind closed doors the move also the. it is said to us. what kind of country do you want? >> guest: our guest is the creator of the train to show. he's been talking today about a new film -- "body of war" by alan pharaoh and phil donahue premiered at the toronto film festival and won best documentary for the national board of review. it was released theatrically through landmark theaters. >> guest: no distributor would

take our film. at landmark theatre. he said brutally about. i am learning about movies. ruling out means we will put you in her theater and see how you do. so i would appear with alan and we do q&a after the opening in chicago, theology, all over the place and the place to be jammed. and the next night they would be seven people in the theater. we didn't have the budget. this is an out-of-pocket investment, which i would do again you this is a chapter of my life. i hope none of us who work on the film will ever forget the experience. alas it commercial hit we were. we played the clinton library. we were asked -- you know, we've shown the film in several dead is, but, shall -- by the way,

the actual distribution is a lot more honest than, for example, the opportunity i had at msnbc. in a network, a vice president in the morning while he is shaving can cancel you for a political reason, for any reason. maybe his wife doesn't like you or her husband doesn't like you. in theatrical distribution is different. if you do not put fannies in the sea, they take you down. they take you off the marquee. who could blame them for that? good old free enterprise. >> host: thomas can't come a 25 field veteran of iraq was paralyzed in a bullet to his spine after just a week -- rather less than a week of service in iraq. thanks for being with us. >> guest: thank you.

>> as a genetic scientist to finally to finally nail down a brass date for when the hiv epidemic starts describes kenner boxes and wet mops. in most parts of the world there

is not that much hav and yet in some places, there is a time and it is incredibly good. so understanding these two categories exist and it allows you to think, okay, what keeps the virus moving and what can they do as a world to end it? >> genera doug fraser, the man in charge of military operations in central and south america with the features featured event hosted by the woodrow wilson center for scholars in washington. the force to air force general spoke about u.s. efforts for transnational crimes and drug trafficking and central america. the former ranking member of the house intelligence committee, jane harman gave the introduction. this is an hour and 10 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome. i am jane harman, the wilson center's president and ceo. thank you for joining us for this important foreign to examine the u.s. southern command or south console and countering transnational organized crime and improving citizen security in central america. cities and insecurity poses an ongoing nyc challenge to our latin america and the caribbean. latin america's crime rates are astonishing by any standards. the region's homicide rate is the highest in the road, creating a crisis that continually trots governments between the need for comprehensive reform of the public demand for immediate action can usually mean the kind of police type takes hearken back to the repressive pre-1986 airships. not a good response. the center is latin america program fosters comparative research and dialogue among

scholars and policymakers from throughout the americas in order to address citizen insecurity through the program also focuses special attention on the changing sub regional dynamics of organized crime and recently released two superb publications first, organized crime in central america, the northern triangle and second, the rebellion of criminal networks, organized crime in latin america and the dynamics of change. as a member of congress for 105 years, that is what it felt like. i was actually only nine terms, i visited latin america on numerous occasions, especially to assess the terror threat. but i have seen the disastrous effects of crime and narco terrorism in countries like colombia, a place for our guest i think spend some of his school years in boca do.

am i right? yes, progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go. as one who served them all the congressional security committees, i can tell you that beyond latin america and the caribbean, organized crime is a global threat and some of the money from organized crime unfortunately fund terror movements, which are alive and well around the world. segue to the introduction of general douglas fraser. as a four-star general and commander of south com he manages a force of over 1200 latour and civilians personnel. the general has been treated us to established during the air force by the event 2800 received a multitude of decorations including the defense distinguished service medal and the legion of merit and given his current assignment, seems fortunate as far as i get that attended school. three years of high school in bogotá. notwithstanding a proposed

$13 million cut in their budget and seemingly insurmountable odds, general fraser and his commander hard to overcome accounting effects of the illicit drug trade, maritime traffic and organized crime are essential and south america. we just had a brief discussion in my office and i was impressed by his view, which you would hear in a moment that military force alone is not the right way to go here, that it is what i call and would show an acclaimed as the use power, which is a far better strategy not just by ask him about government in the region by this enormously toxic and difficult to defeat bad. the general fraser, we are honored by your president to look forward to your next in the discussion will follow and i'm not sure whether interning the podium to send your general fraser. by doing? but let me just say about dr. cynthia arneson who directs

our latin america program that is they often say, if you want to get the job right, put a woman in charge. and she is superb in the program is one of our best here at the wilson center among many other affluent programs. it is a leisure to a general fraser here and to discuss a very hard topic and i hope to brag a little bit about the excellent research and report turning out here. for the podium yours. please welcome, general douglas fraser. [applause] >> well, thank you very much for that kind introduction. and i will say a couple of things and appreciate the great work at the center is doing, especially your publications. they really are important. they really do help us understand the situation and gain insight that we would not

get otherwise. so billy is a pleasure for me to be here today, have an opportunity to talk with you about a topic that from a military standpoint is not something that i grew up in a military career as a topic i thought it was going to be focused on. but as i look around the region -- thank you -- as i look around the region and i look at latin america, i really look at the western hemisphere bit large for essential south america the caribbean i don't see an external military threat. as i look within the region, there are some issues, some concerns between some of the countries. but again, i do not see an internal military conflict anytime in the near future either. governments, institutions have worked through diplomatic avenues to enter international venues to address the issues

that they are concerned about. and i see that trend continuing. so the issue -- the security issue that i see throughout the region is transnational organized crime and the impact of this having on security throughout. i will talk a little bit more about this very specifically. i see it in my terms as a 21st century threat. and as a 21st century threat because of my terms i see it in two different landscapes. i see it on a regional basis as one that doesn't start and end in one country. it doesn't start and ended when subregion. if i look at cocaine specifically, there is a source outcome which is the northern part of south america. there is a transit dawn as the data from the united states come a transit zone that comes through central america primarily right now through the caribbean to a lesser amount right now but if you go back 20

years who is much worse the caribbean. i meant is that demand part of that, which is the united states. we have to address each part of that landscape. there is no way to address each one individually. mns we look more broadly than not at some of the other influences on these organizations, it is not just trafficking and cocaine. the focus on that a lot because that is what we know the most about. but in reality, is a criminal organization that criminal organizations looking to fund activities in whatever manner you can. so we see precursors in growing numbers for methamphetamines flowing from other parts of the world into central america and then up in the united states. but there is another landscape we need to look at if you look at this problem also and that is it is a network of networks and it doesn't begin start and end in one location to work from the

source onto the transit zone to the demands on. they're different organizations, different parts of networks that all enable and empower. we need to understand the networks as well and we need to start putting pressure on them. again i talk about this and united states perspective. but if you go and take the same analogy in this that much by bradley, the source node, the transit zone, the demands on his other parts of the globe. not just constraints the western hemisphere anymore. we are seeing increasing amounts, upwards of about 40% of the now is moving into west africa and into the demands of the europe and the middle east. so this is an issue that connects much more broadly than just latin america and the western hemisphere. from my standpoint as a step back and look at it, we have a role to play from a u.s. military standpoint. we have a supporting role and i see it as a in supporting u.s.

government efforts in international efforts around the region and more broadly around the globe to play a part in that. i will explain a rule specifically as we go through the morning and i'll be happy to answer questions or discuss this after we console. so in my area of responsibility, central america, south america and the caribbean is the responsibility for u.s. forces in that engagement. i see the biggest concern right on central america. that is where violence is causing the biggest impact on the stability of security within the region. some of the violence is caused by organized crime. gang members cause part to it. there are social issues presented in that violence. so again, we can't just consign this to one key issue that has

all been caused by transnational organized crime. so need to understand relationships and capacities they are better. but it is an issue in an area we continue to focus on. why do i see this as a 21st century problem that we were not facing a century? and from that i see as the globalization standpoint. globalization and all the capacities that have helped support business and commerce and grow our economies around the world have had a negative result and supporting the growth of illicit trafficking in kidnappings and facilitating their ability to move product around the world as well. as a result of that, it follows an cross inside the boundaries i talked about before and again i'll explain that as they go through it a little bit more. the impact it is having because

of the resources that cannot garner. our estimate is the prophet gained from a transnational organized criminal activity and central america and an annual basis is $18 billion a year. that is profit. so you take the profit and look at the gross domestic products of countries. you look at the capacities of governments to fund their security forces and these organizations really outclass their ability to fund and support their activities. that is having it destabilizing impact in the region as we talk about bodily from -- of illicit trafficking, but the violent concern and also the bribery and coercion than the other impacts it has for that to facilitate their activity. these organizations have been central america are very diversified.

as i mentioned, the work and precursor chemicals, weapons the back-and-forth throughout the region for military grade weapons to also commercial weapons. there is trafficking in persons, trafficking in cash and not those back-and-forth throughout the region. it's not just a one-way street in the united states. a lot of the activity comes back out of the united states. and so it is having it in a bear. if the tax cocaine specifically, 90% transistor central america in whatever manner. we'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. it is a very lucrative business of these businesses also support all of those activities. as i look at what they support and how they conduct activities companies are smart and capable businesses. these are pressuring one location.

they look for a way to move to other places where there is less resistance and look for their build. many of you are aware of semi-submersible vessels as we call them or fully submersible vessels that we've seen recently. a semi-submersible vessels are built in the jungles primarily of columbia adequate or. 100 feet on correct refer to through country was through coast off the coast of mexico, guatemala and refueled, can carry up to 10 tons of. if you look at that from an economic standpoint, our estimates are at cost $2 million to build one of these vessels. the market value for a 10 metric tons of cocaine is roughly $250 million. so it is a pretty significant return us to look at it. the vessels are hard to detect. the of the water lines. they are painted to be

camouflaged in the water and said they are very difficult to find. we are seeing them in evolution into fully submersible is. basilar symbol to make wood, fiberglass that can submerge when they detect that there is fine for some activity or international activity around trying to detect them and stay there for some amount of time and continue to transit through sophisticated vessels have periscope systems that have exhausted intake systems so that they can operate in a submerged basis. these are all built -- homemade vessels again. so that gives you some idea as you look at that capacity along with a lot of other types of maritime activity as well as aviation of how they are transiting these goods to the maritime environments of the caribbean and the eastern pacific into central america. and why are they using the maritime means is the transit? primarily because there is no

good connect to columbia with panama. and so, they work to move around that obstacle if he will and then make land wherever is most favorable throughout central america. today that happens to be primarily honduras, eastern and northeastern part of honduras is very see both aviation and maritime activity principally. panama as a second location where where the activity comes short and guatemala is the third. the reason they do that as once they get on ground they can distribute their lows. makes it much harder to detect a missile at the systems that are mexico to the southwest border and across the u.s. border into the united states. it's a very difficult challenge. those networks are supporting all the way along the path perceptual america. and as we talk about the violence has got to pretty genetic dimensions have been

central america. honduras today in 2011 has a homicide rate of 86 per hundred thousand. guatemala has a homicide rate of 100,000 in el salvador 66 per hundred thousand. there are pockets that's even worse. pedro sulla is the most violent city in the world now and it's 159 per 100,000 in honduras. so pretty significant is having an impact as you look at the lives of the people who live there. it permeates entire societies if you will. for example, if you're a prosecutor at our focus on a high profile case against drug traffickers, there is a high potential that you will be dismembered and be left as a warning to governors and to local officials. journalists -- it is a very difficult place to be journalists who are now focused on addressing and writing on

corruption and illicit trafficking. that has become in many places a death sentence as well and in fact students walking back and forth to school. if they're the wrong place at the wrong time, they could be the dems are just incidental violence. it is having a significant impact throughout the region. as a result, because of the deteriorating situation in the capacities of law enforcement, countries in the region, especially in the northern part, ramallah, honduras salvador have asked their militaries to support their law enforcement capacities to address the situation. as i talk with militaries, they clearly understand their role. they understand that they have limited authority. their job is to support the enforcement. but they focus on what the government have asked them to do in these situations. and so, we see enormous challenges as we look across the region in helping support.

so that is where i see our reality is the focus and approach this issue. it is the reality to militaries have been asked to come in and support this activity. so how do we help train? had would help them work so they can better integrate and coordinate with law enforcement activities? as you look in the international waterways and airspace, caribbean and eastern pacific, that has been a traditional role for the united states military to support it to the peace. join the vc task force south celebrate his 23rd anniversary this last year. an interagency group for law enforcement, military intelligence organization is represented as friend agencies working together to address this common problem. ..

work bilaterally, but this is a regional problem, not just a bilateral problem so how do we coordinate the activities of one country with another country with another so we make sure we are adding who this along the line and we look at it from a regional problem. that's where i see that we as a role to play supporting the state department and other agencies in the u.s. government to address this problem. and i see the entire interagency approach growing very, very

deliberately throughout the region. from my perspective our goal -- my goal, i will put it specifically from the u.s. command standpoint is to support this engagement, if you will, support our interagency and militaries to the point this is not a regional security problem but it becomes a problem that local police and law enforcement capacities can handle, and right now that is not a situation that i see with in the region, so let me give you just a couple of ideas of how we support the central region tillers roles because we are integrated very directly into the state department goals as we look through the central america. before i do that, let me also say that as i see our engagement, the united states engagement throughout the region, it is a coordination of more than one program, said a program with mer above in mexico

and next with the central american region security initiative, which connects with the caribbean basin initiative which also connects with rothfuss support to the u.s. government to columbia. and we are also engaged very much with peru in a similar matter to help prevent their fight. all these different organizations are different strategies are connected and i think we need to look at them as connected whole and not just as individual programs. and we are working to support each one of those with the exception because the deciduous command responsibility to work with the mexican military in that capacity. as i look down the pillars, and the polemic to is to disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband coming in here is where we work very directly in the maritime and air environment

to direct the detection and monitoring of illicit trafficking as it flows through those regions. but i want to make sure we understand this is a connect a whole. all we are doing is one part of the link of the traffic as it moves through the region. as a departs south america that information normally comes from law enforcement intelligence information. that is to the joint task force south which robert mix the ships to monitor as it transits through the maritime environment and once it gets to a location where there is a ship or capability that can intercept the vessel had intersects but it has wall enforcement capacity on both boards so that it will be teamed and move those individuals to prosecution of it be the host nation or other parts to the united states, so

it is a truly interagency operation everybody working within their own authorities and capacities towards a common goal to focus and support that effort. it's been our focus for up to 20 years now. we've recently changed its strategy and our approach in the maritime environment and we call it operation focuses on a little more persistent focus on the traffic as it is moving back and forth throughout the region using the same capacity and authority that we have always used, just changing the approach we are using to see if we can reduce the impact of the organizations in the movement we can force them to move other places that makes their trafficking and their movement of their capacities in a more difficult area and that is

primarily where we are working as we support the pillars. the pillar iii is strong and capable governments and local of safe streets. our programs look to foster professional military, civilian let military's foster respect for human rights and the rule of law and help support their engagement in the region but also looking to see how we can be created in this area as well. where does it make sense to have u.s. military police go down and help support that engagement back-and-forth of house armed forces support law enforcement as the work back and forth within each of these areas. we also conduct exercises and training with these military to help build their capacity, very traditional military to military engagement that still continues

today. in addition to that, the next killer is number four, the effective state prisons, and we see that very much working with usaid with other parts of the u.s. government with coordinating where we can and support humanitarian assistance projects where we support building disaster response capabilities how do we coordinate and continue to support usaid efforts and other government efforts to build those capacities where they need to be built because that is where the biggest problem is, so it is working with each part of the u.s. government, coordinating our efforts so we are making the most of what we have and then finally the other number five is enhanced cooperation and we do that on a routine basis through military to military exchanges, through

international military education and training programs, which helped train military and educate military's on the role in society and help build relationships between one another, and then the exercises that we routinely conduct throughout the region also that are again a very traditional defense related exercises that help build those relationships as low. we find that interaction and that the engagement is critical to our role in sustaining our partnerships within the region and building and growing capacity throughout the region. let me conclude by saying i think as vice president biden demonstrated as he visited the region that this really is from the united states standpoint a whole of government effort but i see it as a whole of international effort to look at a group of friends supporting

this effort internationally we see growing support from nations within latin america, colombia as an example of who bringing their experience and understanding to help support the countries in central america to address this key issue as well. so i see growing strength and growing connection with a u.s. interagency and the international community in building the capacity to support. the governments in central america to address this critical problem. i just want to leave you with that thought i started out with. it is regional and it is a hemispheric problem, and there is no one solution from one organization the will solve this problem. it is one that we have to work together whole of government and an international basis and i will take it one step further to a whole of society is also

because it is the societies that ultimately will benefit from this and everyone needs to be involved to reduce the impact of this criminal activity. and we will play our role in supporting the u.s. government efforts and international efforts to address this problem until we can help move it to a place where governments working with one another have the capacity and the capability to address this on their own and to coordinate that on a regional as well as international basis. i think we have a road to go on that but that's the way i see a rebels tikrit large from the government standpoint. thank you, and i will be happy to take questions. [applause] >> general, thank you very much for those remarks, and we'll you

are getting ready for the question and answer period i would like to throw out perhaps a first question. i just returned from guatemala where obviously the president has made headlines by calling for the forms of decriminalization and i think as we speak the presidents of central america are meeting in antigua to discuss proposals to bring to the summit of the americas for alternatives. i instruct -- and i think all of us that all the phenomena know that for a long time the drug problem or cocaine protection was under colombia and peru and now we see the displacement of that. so if you are successful in stopping some of the traffic to the dhaka trafficking through central america and africa where do you think this will go next? and is there more that should be

done within the united states on the demand side seizing weapons flows, and prevent money-laundering, and are there alternative strategies that might be worth considering given the tendency that we've seen over a period of decades of the production and the trafficking moving from one place to another? i know that is a pretty broad question on the table but i think some of us that followed this issue closely have those kind of questions in the back of our mind. i would like to leave that on the table and how you perhaps touch on it in curious ways and invite the participation of members of the audience. i would ask you to please wait for the microphone and also identify yourself by name and institution. let's start with this gentleman here and if it's o.k. we will take maybe three questions so we will start with this gentleman. yes, right here.

>> thank you congenital. my name is david nelson with ge now. my question is -- i have to closely related questions. one is does the definition of one of these trafficking groups as a criminal group for terrorist group affect the doctrine of house of, or other u.s. military engages with them? and second, your emphasis on whole of government approach to dealing with the issue is important, but one can foresee a situation where the budgets of most u.s. agencies decline relative to the pentagon budget. you're faced with a dilemma of stepping up to fill in the gaps that are left behind as other nations are forced to cut back leaving a hole for the trafficking. how do you address that?

>> to the first question, it does differ on how we approach whether we see yet ezra criminal organization were terrorist organization. i think columbia provides the best example where we see the farc that really crossed those lines, and so our approach changes a little in that realm but still requires a whole of government approach because the military isn't going to solve the problem by itself. no part of our government is going to solve it by itself. we have to work all those different avenues. >> as i look at the hall of government, i would argue as our budgets get pressed that puts more emphasis on the need to improve our coordination because more limited budgets mean we still have the same problem and we have to address it in a more

focused manner if you will and it still takes each part of our government to address it. again, the issues that i see -- one of the reasons i think mother teresa being asked to support small enforcement is they are the highly regarded institution within those governments come and the populace and the government has more confidence in them than they do in other agencies. the solution becomes building the other capacities within government so that the military isn't that organization that come sen and plays that role. that's why i say it isn't going to be our solution to this. we can help support those activities but the solution is building the other capacities within government and the rest of society so that there isn't the opportunity for the criminal organizations to have the same impact. >> this gentleman here on the

side. right behind you. >> for the council of economic affairs my question is pretty straightforward. what do you think of the future role of the basis quintessential america and honduras and therefore -- de for c for example marco airfields or do you foresee the extended presence to support the organization's? thank you. >> i think those locations have remained critical to the support to address problems and the issues you look at aircraft that are patrolling they only have so much fuel on the aircraft, so the closer you can get to the location they need to patrol and operate from that location means

you have more time to spend looking for that traffic. the more transit time the last time you have there and that's why the reason to the kuhl value of the locations have been important to but overall international effort to counter the traffic through the maritime environment and i find in the joint task force bravo and honduras it provides support but also the ability to support parts of our government as well as other governments in addressing directly to the trafficking through those regions. we are not involved in any operations, we just provide support and also helps respond to disasters and provide humanitarian assistance for her required, and it provides a pretty immediate capacity to do that where it would take longer without that location so i see those locations remaining important. where and how that changes we

will work with the governments in the region to see where the demand is and where the opportunities are and we will look to see as the forces become available from the war in iraq and afghanistan whether there is a better replication for those capabilities but we need more surveillance and reconnaissance capacity and we see more of that hopefully coming in the future. >> just because the availability of forces. >> i'm going to take this woman here in the blue. >> thank you very much. i represent florida international university in miami florida we have quite a few relationships with southcom and other departments here in the government and i was wondering where you saw the future of academic institutions such as ours playing a role in your objectives and the government objectives in central america and around the world.

>> i see a great relationship we have today as you mentioned a very close relationship with the university of miami and other academic institutions, and your ability to go out and study programs, help educate one another on the capabilities and requirements help us see the solutions may be in a different way than we would be looking at it otherwise are going to be important and finding the solutions i would argue even as we go more broadly and i will give you homework since you are supporting fiu how we look at this and what i would say as a nontraditional manner count we approach to addressing the problem in a manner differently than we have traditionally approached the problem and i will go back and address columbia for linux sample. we focused a lot of u.s. government standpoint in supporting columbia. columbia really is the success

story because of their focus and other efforts. we just provided support where it provided a good leverage opportunity. but as a result as you see, trafficking organizations are moving other places. so we have to keep pressure on all parts of the organizations, not just on one part and our systems are built to work bilaterally, less to work regionally who and less to work across agencies. so you all can help us determine solutions and find ways to address this problem differently than we have in the past. >> the gentleman here in the middle. >> general, good morning. i am from the u.s. naval war college for three questions are

reductions in your budget, and you mentioned coordination, how do you see the participation of the countries in the region to help each other and do you see it feasible problems, what problems are there and how do you see that it could be solved? >> this is a very difficult issue as we work through and let me just use the u.s. government as an example and i will use the u.s. military has an even more defined example. we have been working on being more joint in operating more joint for almost 40 years now. we are still evolving how we work jointly. we are evolving today the interagency coordination and we have varying degrees of cooperation to work within the u.s. government of how we work on an interagency basis and it's great to the embassies the normally work pretty well together that as you expand that on a regional basis, the

interagency doesn't coordinate as well as it could. now as you start bringing in each government and each agency within the government it gets to be a very complex problem but that's the problem we have to address and solve. and i see that there is opportunity and solutions if we all focus on that single problem which is citizens security, and citizen securities in the interest of us all and each part of our government and our interagency partners as low as international partners have a role to play that we can only do that working together, so why go back to our educational institutions standpoint. we need solutions and new ways of thinking about how to approach this and we need that from us as well as the other institutions. the last thing i will say going back again to the fiu question

is that we have started a private public relationship. how do we work better with a private sector? we talk a lot about the government's but we cannot forget the private sector. the private sector, non-governmental organizations we are all part of the solution, so we all have to see ourselves as part of the solution and work to that. >> if i could jump in with another comment i picked up on some of the things he's been saying about the budgetary limitations i think that's been reflected in a number of the comments i think all of us who work on foreign policy face the challenge of making these issues of interest and relevance to the u.s. public, and i am struck by the figure you cited in your presentation of the 18 billion-dollar value of ten times of cocaine in one shipment and then i sort of balance that against the amount we have been spending over basically the last three or four years and it all comes through that 450 million.

we obviously face budgetary constraints in this country. do you see the american public and the congress in particular in going to understand the magnitude of the problem and being prepared to perhaps do more to support the variety of efforts to talk about? >> i think it's a complex problem and it fits within a mosaic on a global basis that there are other issues that our government and nation is looking at, so we put it in that context and we keep working within that context so i'm comfortable with where we are and how we are approaching it, but the real issue and the real capacity for me is how do we connect those capacities the we have better to make a difference in that manner? and then we need to continue the efforts we already do. i don't talk about what's happening in the united states a

lot because that's not where my focus is. but the government, the u.s. government is investing over $10 billion a year working to reduce demand, to educate, looking to help support, counter drug activities in the united states. but the one thing we don't talk about in the united states is drugs directly are related to the death of 37,000 americans a year. that's more than we kill on the highways. but that doesn't resonate. there are criminal organizations who have networks or are part of these networks in u.s. cities. there are problems in the united states also. we are not divorced from the problems both domestically as well as throughout the hemisphere. we need to help support all parts of it and do our part within the united states. >> here in the middle and then

in the back. yes. >> make sure the microphone is on. >> partners for space change. i was wondering if you have concrete metrics for success on citizen security does that mean you are looking particularly at homicide rates increasing sort of indicators in that area? would you consider increasing the price of cocaine on the streets of the u.s. to be a successful indicator? what are you using to measure progress? >> we traditionally looked at the national drug policies number which is to get to disrupt 40% of cocaine flow that comes to the united states as that goal and there's been a steady gold to 2015 to address

that issue. that is the traditional because our focus has been in that detection and monitoring area. if you look at the price of cocaine, it's gone up 50% over the last five years. the quality has come down, so those are indicators. actually, the use of cocaine has been going down in the united states over the last three to five years, but the views of other types of drugs is going out, so there's still the demand issued and we can't just focus on cocaine so that's what i say there. but beyond that, and this is from an interagency stand point as well, we are in discussions right now of what are them right metrics, how do we look at this as we cross interagency boundaries and how do we focus our efforts to improve the way that we have been supporting and

working? so i don't have the answers. if you have ideas i'm open to whatever their ar, good metrics the would help us measure that better. >> right here. >> one second. >> montgomery county the port of reduction and services. two years ago i had the pleasure of being a part of this event i believe led by secretary gates called the mentioning of warfare, where it had in place it looked like a scenario we were focusing on central america, and talked about the level of coordination you've been talking about, general, in terms of how to address not just trafficking but a wide array of citizen security issues, and coming from the more grassroots perspective and experience myself not being in government i was impressed with the process. so my question to do is, or two

questions, the first question is how do you see something like unconventional warfare being used as a strategy to bring about of a little love coordination and everyone getting on the same page because it's my belief that there is a serious potential. the second piece is if that strategy continues to stay is there a possibility we could then try to make efforts to involve the other countries in the exercise like that? that is the first thing that came to mind as i sat through those ten days out here in the potomac is if we could just have a wide array of people involved in the process i think we could do some incredible work. >> there's already a lot of

support and initiatives going down. i would call with an unconventional warfare approach, but the state department has a group that is working very deliberately on how we work this interagency effort and focus those efforts to build that strategies support. it's how we put a little bit more finality in the details to how we approach that effort. we look at the countries within the region. we're focused on this region as well. other countries in latin america as well as the community are also bringing their capacities and i see a lot of different efforts to focus your and others efforts in the united states government to coordinate those efforts, so this is a work in progress, and it is improving. maybe not as fast as i would

like to see it but we are moving into taking very positive steps forward, and that needs to continue to be our focus and i get the sense from everyone i talk with that that is the key focus and we will remain engaged in that manner. yes, here with the mustache. >> [inaudible] >> if you mentioned in passing the caribbean. can you comment on puerto rico, which is rapidly increasing and drug-related violence is approaching at the level in the economic crisis is beginning to look like a collapse. islamic the trafficking organizations are looking for any opportunity. they have looking for those areas. today on an overall basis the

traffic through the committee in this much less than it is in central we continue to monitor that. it has a differing impact as you look at central america with the same kinds of programs as we look at the caribbean initiative, and that is where i am focused. but other parts of our government are hoping address and support the issue in peru goes as we look at this initiative, all these different elements in the territories of the united states are all a part of that solution, so i don't have specific answers for you right now other than it remains to as our work with u.s. northern command and other agencies within the u.s. government is very close focused that it's not just central america, it is a regional. >> all the way in the back over

there. >> ha and a public policy scholar and also a journalist. i refer newsweek and the daily beast. can you tell us about the submarine's you described for how many are there and also how do they build them in the jungle? >> of questions i can't answer. [laughter] >> this is not in open session. >> well, they are built in the jungles. they pulled them or they have construction sites in estuaries and triple canopy jungle along the coast of colombia and south america, very hard to find and discover and they take the commercially available products and construct a vessel. the dimensions, 100 feet long, the crew of four to six, some pretty sophisticated vessels

that proved or the captured one of for a year-and-a-half ago that had both diesel motors and electric motors and it had batteries, it had a video system so they could look outside and see whether or not there was an approach from another vessel. it had a navigation system and so it hadn't gotten underway so that was an opportunity to understand this capacity. i can't tell you how many there are. i just don't have that information. it's a difficult vessel to detect so we are working on both where they are building them to see where the opportunity to detect them in the transit area and how they work and offload their cargo to figure out where is the best way to continue to address the problems. we've seen the growth to take longer to build and cost a

little bit more money, but the return is the same as we talked about before. and this is the first year also we have seen the semisubmersibles build a very similar vessel just stays on the surface. we've seen it on the first time on the caribbean sweeter seeing the expanded use of these types of missiles for the transport of moly drugs but also both cash moving south so it is a transportation vessel. estimate of one to go back to something you mentioned earlier about the role of the military command as we know the armed forces as you pointed out is one of the institutions that has the greatest level of respect among citizens in the countries of central america, and at the same time there is a lot of controversy about whether or not the military should be involved in this kind of struggle precisely because the efforts

during the peace accord and the implementation to get the armed forces out of an internal security will conflict. what role is there for southcom in a reinforcing of the law enforcement capability in central america and how are you working or how to bolster that element of the government response. >> we work very deliberately with our military is and the focus on the respect for human rights and the rule of law. the role in the government organizations and the civilian governments, and what i see very deliberately and consciously from the military that i work with is a very keen respect for

the role and whether they should be conducting operations were not to read and the governments decide on a case by case basis how they choose to bring the military into that. we have a limited role in helping support some of law enforcement capacity and is hoping build facilities that help them operate, the training capacity is the department of state and departments of the government so our efforts are to coordinate with them and as i see most of the military is country by country, but in a lot of cases they are providing security for the law enforcement, so they are not a arresting people and again at various country by country but they are providing security where the law enforcement organizations might not have it otherwise. so they're looking for those solutions that respect their role in society, but understand

they have a -- when the governments are asking them to play a role in the security problem. >> the blue shirt. >> good morning. from the inter-american foundation and i was intrigued by the comment about engaging the whole society i wonder if you can expand and describe a little further what form that is taking other countries or activities which you have seen the most progress or potential we're seeing where the other opportunities are. it's just an opportunity where we can connect some engagement it might not otherwise. flexible, if we go in and build a school, we don't have the authority to equip but we don't have the authority to pay for teachers or provide for teachers

or other capacities, so we will look to see if we can find a private organization who can provide that capacity. we're linking opportunities so that overall we can respect our authorities and i'm not trying to change that. we are just looking across all these problems that there are solutions which is to to look in a different manner and a lot of this then goes back to the disaster response. pd is my best example of that. as we responded there were lots of private organizations who were looking to assist, and in some cases there were organizations that have products that they needed move to come and there were other airlines and cargo companies who could move, but they didn't understand how to connect to the opportunities we just provided a connective tissue to help him do it. working with usaid to help to

support those opportunities. so as we looked to the future, that is what i see as we look at the projects with a lot of different programs, how can the private industry support government activities and not just the u.s. but opposed government activities as well. it's an area where i think there's a lot of growth opportunity. >> if i could just do authority second advertisement, the school is involved in just that kind of project to engage the private sector in the citizen security issues and there will be a conference on april 19 that the world bank and the state department and the wilson center is also playing a role so across the board is what people see this as a vital part of the solution coming from countries themselves. i think we have time and for two more questions. >> can i just add a and one?

it is with the society's decide is their problem to fix that we will find the solution, if that's the real crux of the sand from my standpoint i think it's important to enlist and help them understand how they can connect with various government activities to provide part of the solution. and that's why we are looking at where those opportunities are and to support our activities as we support other activities to build those relationships. >> thank you. you mentioned there are some concerns in the region. i would like to know what are

these specific concerns. you mentioned recently some issue involving drones in iran and venezuela. i was wondering if you can make comments on that between both countries. thank you. >> can you take one or two and then we will take -- okay. right here. you want to call somebody? go ahead. >> she asked a question. schenectady want to take a couple of questions and come back for an answer wargo one-on-one? however you prefer. >> let me just answer the question. on a military to military bases, we have very small relations with venezuela today car and that has been their intent more than ours but there's just no cooperation that we see back-and-forth between venezuela and of the united states and we

face common problems. the issue that we are talking about is a common problem and from my perspective, venezuela hasn't stepped up with in the international community to support these efforts to the level at which they could come and i think there is an opportunity for them to help support and address this problem because as i mentioned, it is the supply side to a transit to the demand side, and all parts of this effort need to be addressed. the coordination they have between colombia and venezuela has improved. over the last couple of years i think that is a very hopeful indication and i just would like to see that cooperation grow as we face this kind of problem. 64. my name is alexander, a former

government official. i wanted to go back to the question on the intervention of the military that is being called out to help with law enforcement. what are some of the metrics to determine whether that has been successful, with a that is a successful effort what would be some of the metrics the policy makers should be looking at to determine was this a good decision, are we making progress or not, because one can get the impression that would almost be more of a -- i don't want to call it a publicity measure, its visible, the soldiers are out in the street but what does it specifically -- house and add value in terms of solving the problem? >> each country has to decide what is in the standpoint of el salvador they have passed more than half of the military engaged in supporting law enforcement activities and their

supporting the operations of prisons because you know as well as supporting law enforcement, and what i see is it is the security. homicide rate is one measure. i think we need to look at other definitive measures also, but that isn't the only measure, and i think the best understanding of that is what put pressure on some of these organizations do would become more violent rather than less and i guess the other impact i would see is by a understand some of these organizations are starting to focus on attacking the police and the military because the impact they are having on their operations. that's not a very positive measure but it shows the impact of their security and folks on the streets. not again this is sent from a law enforcement standpoint and

the cooperation but goes back and forth to help them out. that is an area that we need to do more working and figuring out what are the exact metrics that help us understand where the positives factors are and are not. going back to colombia there is an opportunity to understand that from columbia's prospectus, and it is just a perspective because they have been working at this issue we need to understand in each of the countries as we go forward and see how we can move those metrics out. so why don't have a very specific answer for you yet to begin again, we are working our way through to understand how best to measure the impact as we support the government's and as they address this on their own terms. >> did you have time for one more question? one more. all the way to the back. >> to go back to the of original

question -- >> and identify yourself as well. >> from the anthropology department at the smithsonian. to go back to the original question that you posed and the platform that you are using to address the issue, i would like to add to that equation bolivia. i'm surprised that bolivia wasn't even mentioned as being a problem but maybe that is because of the fact we have more as the president but are there things you can do to protect this enormous investment that we've made for 60 years seems to have had progress in that area, but also the whole area of the alternative agricultural production. i'm just curious to see if this is still on the radar scope in this area in terms of joint efforts between the military's the department etc triet

estimate is still part of our focus. we are engaged with all of our partners from the military to military standpoint. over military engagement with bolivia has been reduced over the last few years. their desire not our desire, and from a drug and for some deutsch as the standpoint that has been very much reduced as well. we are committed there is a trilateral agreement that has been formed between brazil and bolivia and the united states to help address this transnational organized crime issue across the borders of brazil and bolivia. so the united states is playing a role in that effort, not us directly, that really is other agencies in the united states government. so there is still a very deliver this engagement with bolivia. and we are looking for the opportunities to continue to

work together. and again, we all face a very similar problem, and it is only working in this together that we are going to be able to really address them. i talk a lot about central america and the impact one because that is where i see the biggest issue and impact on security and from the u.s. perspective, that's the area that affects us most directly from the defense standpoint. with that said, we are very engaged with all the other partners on a mutual relationship and mutual partnership and i see that very much continuing into the future. >> would you like to be final comment, one last thought that you would like to leave us with? >> i will begin or end with how i started, and that is there is no one solution to this problem. we have to decide it is our problem and we are going to be

part of the solution. and every one of us has a role with it is here domestically or supporting activities in government international. i would ask for your ideas and thoughts of engagement on how we can address this issue very large because it is an area that is when to continue not just on drugs either because it is criminal activity, and my example of that is i was in colombia about three or four weeks ago because of the prices, the problem of the gold mining is growing. the problem of illegal mining is growing in other places to support criminal the activity. the same organizations are engaged in the same types of efforts. so we need to look at from what it is and what role we play to address the problem over all.

thank you for the opportunity. [applause] of selected a very generous with your time and i appreciate the leadership that you provided come and we wish you well in this next phase of your life. >> thank you very much.

>> think of the fdr memorial. it wasn't just designs, it was three plus designs before they got to a final plan, and so i think that we shouldn't be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries, and we want to get it right.

>> the stockholm international peace research institute last week released their report on international arms transfers. according to the new data, india has overtaken china as the largest arms importer with asian nations be the largest consumers of military hardware. the institute for the rest of the panel looking at the new numbers and the impact on the global security. the united nations is scheduled to meet in july to negotiate treaty regulating the international arms trade. >> welcome, everybody. i'm the executive director. this is the research center of the stockholm international peace research institute based

in washington, d.c.. now, as many of you may well know, we are an independent in every international research institute dedicated to research on arms control, disarmament, but also of transnational security issues. i think many of you might be familiar with the annual your book that provides authoritative information data and analysis on security and conflict, military spending and armaments, nonproliferation, arms control and disarmament issues. would you may not know is that sipri is increasingly present in the major decision making centers of the world to read a few years ago sipri opened an office in beijing and china and since we have an office here in washington, d.c. to but i must

say we are delighted we are co located within institute in the center. the aim of the office is to bring new global innovative voices to the security and foreign policy debates across north america to strengthen cooperation between european, american and international experts and institutions, and we will be bringing our colleagues from stockholm to this side of the atlantic by organizing the events and roundtable discussions like the one today by seeking partnerships with other institutions and university think tanks, governments on this side of the atlantic and by doing original research. in terms of the research, sipri north america will initially have a focus on the four main

areas. one is on the women, the war and peace come engender issues if you want, and we have a number of projects in the pipeline. we have a conference on sexual violence and the settings that will be held in november later this year and a multi-year research project on the implementation of german security council resolution 1325. this was the revolution and lofted by the security council from 11 years ago that landed estates to pay greater attention to the participation of women particularly in the peace negotiations. the second area of research would be the global health and security. third, the regional security issues and here we will have a particular focus on central asia and what is going to happen in

that region with a broad central asian region after the drawdown of allied troops. and last but certainly not least, arms control and disarmament, the sort of bread and butter issues. back to today this is actually one of our first defense, first big public events, and i think it is very fitting that it features one of the flagship programs, namely the arms transfer program. each year the colleagues of the military expenditure program do a superb job and provide us with authoritative data that many inside and outside of the government have come to rely on. i think this type of data is crucial if we want to better understand what is going on in the security field. it allows us to identify pollution surely destabilizing weapons, to identify a arms

races or as call likes to call them, every active arms acquisition command in theory it also allows us to devise policy to be escalated the areas of tension. i think the data for 2011 shows that the conventional weapons street doesn't seem to have suffered much from the economic crisis, and while we are all preoccupied particularly in this time, the conventional weapons are the ones that are actually killing people around the world. 2012 is going to be an extremely important year in terms of conventional weapons. we might see the conclusion of the treaty that will regulate the global arms trade. will be negotiated in july, and in august we will have a conference that will assess the progress made in terms of the

small arms plan of action that was adopted in 2006 and the committee for that conference actually met this week in new york. now today we have a terrific panel with i would say really the leading experts in the world on these issues, and we will examine and look at the trends and efforts to control the transfers of conventional weapons. we will start with paul holtom of the transfer program who will introduce the data and set the stage. before joining sipri in 2006, paul was associated with the prestigious institutions in germany and russia in the u.k. and also the council of europe. paul also has expertise in