.. has been completely evasive about his positions, has been all over the lot on many of them and that's tried to play a game of hide and seek with the american people. i think the news media will be challenged, to challenge him. to be more forthcoming and then

the story is going to be that for a while. this is the nature of this business. spain next to u.s. global aids coordinator.org eric goosby talks about hiv/aids treatment and prevention. at dr. said to also gives the preview of the international aids conference taking place in washington next month. from the brookings institution, this is 55 minutes. >> thank you everyone for joining us. welcome to brookings. i am noam unger. i'm a fellow with hard governance initiatives here. brookings is pleased and honored to welcome eric goosby the u.s.

global aids coordinator today for our discussion, key lessons from a decade of action on global aids and the way forward. in the interest of time, i will forego the charlie detailed presentation of ambassador goosby's very impressive biography but i will note despite the emphasis of today's event on the lessons from the past decade, ambassador goosby's experience in the fight against aids make him a pioneer in in a matter of. since his involvement dates back more than 30 years, to when he had not yet completed his residency, but was already becoming a specialist in the then unidentified disease that would come to define his career. in the 19 '90s he helped lead domestic federal efforts to respond to the disease, including setting up the ryan white care act that unlocked federal support in response to aids. than a decade ago he turned his focus to the laval pandemic, establishing that pangea global

aids foundation to build their capacity for response. now he has brought all those experiences to bear in his role as u.s. global aids coordinator at the state department. his office has the authority and the responsibility for coordinating and overseeing and managing all aspects of emergency plan for aids relief, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of global health systems funding from the u.s.. and that in turn constitutes more than a quarter of u.s. assistance, resources globally just to put it into context. he also receives u.s. government engagement with the multilateral global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and malaria. his visit to brookings today is particularly well-timed in the lead-up to the large international aids conference that will take place here in washington d.c. in a months time. after the ambassador's remarks, i am sure we will have time for what will be some very

interesting sets of questions from all of you so let's get to it and please join me in welcoming ambassador eric goosby. [applause] >> thank you very much, noam. appreciate the kind introduction. it's really an honor to be with you today. i think that the brookings institute has really gone way out of its way to make me feel welcome but also to kind it's ramble this to make it a meaningful and rich contribution for both the people in the audience and those on video. the aids 2012 conference is now just one month away, as we heard thanks to the obama administration or the first time in more than 20 years. this meeting is taking place in the united states. as americans that should make us proud but it should also inspire the pride as the conference comes to nation's capital at a pivotal moment in our fight

against aids. seven months ago, many of you in this room heard secretary clinton declared the historical creating an aids-free generation. less than a month later the president stated that we can not only can win this fight, that we will win this fight. these words from the president and the secretary were based on a series of scientific discoveries primarily funded by the united states which has become game changers over the course of the past year. and because of the science, the world will come together at age 2012 to say that we are turning the tide. that is the theme of the conference. a tie that once overwhelmed the world is now a tide that is united the world. hope is truly taking the place of despair. that we are not going to be wholly successful in our fight against aids or improving global health overall if we don't take on three specific areas of

improvement. first let me offer a bit of history. i have been involved in this fight against aids for a very long time. in the 1980s and 1981, i was working as a clinician in san francisco and experience the reef and loss that came with seeing so many people succumb to the disease because we have nothing to stop the progression of the disease in them. that all changed for me in the mid-1990s when i went through viral treatment literally brought people from the brink of death with highly active antiretroviral therapy in the form of the protease inhibitors. in the united states, having access to this treatment has transformed hiv/aids into a long-term chronic condition cared for largely in an outpatient setting. it has saved many, many lives. that this access to treatment was not universal.

about 10, 13 plus years ago i turned my attention to the global pandemic and i will never forget what those early years showed us. aids was aids was wiping out a generation and reversing health gains in africa. hospitals were completely overwhelmed by the vast volume of dying patients, people. these were routinely multiple people in a bed, people on the floor. they weren't getting the antiretroviral therapy that was available here in the united states and europe, so hiv infection was truly a death sentence. aids threaten the very foundation of society. it wiped out people in the prime of their lives when they should've been caring for their families. it created millions of orphans, unable to attend school without the support provided by their parents and the disease stalled economic development. leaving country stuck in the cycle of poverty. that in turn creates societal

instability, leaving the u.n. security council to identify aids as a security issue in 2001. it is because of this emergency that resources were mobilized to address aids. we weren't looking around for a global health issue to spend money on. in truth this crisis bound us. today, aids is no longer a certain death sentence and sub-saharan africa. a decade ago almost no one in africa was receiving treatment. now, 6.6 million men, women and children are on antiretroviral therapy in developing countries with the vast majority of them being in sub-saharan africa. it's almost impossible to overstate america's contribution. through have far, as of last year, the united states supports nearly 4 million people on treatment. that is up from 1.7 million in 2008, showing continued rapid expansion even during these

tight budget times. in 2011 pepfar's program supported drugs to prevent mother-to-child transmission. in 2011 alone 660,000 hiv-positive pregnant women. thanks to the suffered an estimated 202,000 infants were born to hiv negative. we also supported hiv testing and counseling for more than 40 million people, again in 2011 alone. truly an incredible achievement. these results aren't just numbers. they are lives saved, each of them. each individual as part of a larger family and community that have been and will continue to be our best test of success. for pepfar it's all about results. by adopting a targeted approach to address one of the most complex diseases and global health issues in modern history

and then taking it to scale with urgency and commitment in resource challenged settings. the united states has challenged the conventional wisdom on really what is possible. our response to the global aids crisis has also transformed the health sector. we are seeing more and more after the initial investment in infrastructure. while focusing on hiv, pepfar's investments have strained the national health system so they can more effectively deliver the central services for all the needs of their people. including the non-hiv and hiv-negative hiv-positive people. clinics and hospitals that no longer were overwhelmed with dealing with aids now have the capacity to address other health issues that our people face. beyond that, we have rebuilt

hospitals and clinics, increase quality and numbers of trained health care workers, put in patient information systems, put in quality control laboratories and strengthen our commodity procurement and distribution systems. our focused investment has enabled access to basic health care often where little or none existed before. in countries with substantial pepfar investments, we have seen reductions in maternal child tv related forcelli, increased use of antenatal care, wider wider thale phillippy just to mention a few. all of this helps explain why pepfar remains a true example of bipartisanship. people sometimes say that aids exceptionalism has distracted us from other problems but that is simply not sure. our response to the hiv/aids crisis has increased the size of the pie for global health and bolstered systems that can now

respond to a 480 of health issues that confront the population. in reality, pepfar has proved that we can take a situation with little hope and turn it around. it challenges all of us to raise the bar for what our global programs are expected to achieve because they must. this brings me to the first issue that i want and need to bring to stop -- to bring to you to consider and that is to stop treating pepfar as a one-off health program and start looking at it as the foundation of what we can do with our global health challenge. we need to stop claiming that aids is taking away attention from other diseases and look at but we can be when we build upon our substantial aids investment and response. we need a global health vision

that is adding to our global aids response and allows us to capitalize on the investments already made. when you think about this, if pepfar has built a clinic, trained at doctor, a nurse, a lab tech, put a laboratory in place that wasn't there that is reliable and be the provider of cared diagnostic care or to monitor care, to add a maternal health capacity or child health clinic, immunization capability, nutrition etc., over time we should be able to add the treatments for the chronic diseases that are also increasing again in our hiv-positive population as well as our hiv-negative population such as hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease. this doesn't mean, and i emphasize this, that we stop our work on aids.

what it means is that we need to make sure that health systems are not only prepared to deal with hiv, but with the other health challenges faced by the same person and the communities affected by aids. we are at a point where we can turn to expand the service portfolio at the already established aids sites. our task to creating an aids-free generation requires us all to work smarter and better together. which brings me to the second thing i need to put before you to really successfully achieve an aids-free generation and that his country ownership. this is the starting point for everything we do. this challenge was stated clearly in oslo earlier this month by secretary clinton and i'm pleased to announce today that we are going to hear more from the secretary on her dedication to creating an aids-free generation at the aids

2012 meeting. in oslo the secretary said and i quote, country ownership and health is the end state where nations efforts are led, implemented and eventually paid for by its government. community, civil society and for the private sector. to get there, country's political leaders must set priorities and develop national plans to accomplish them in concert with their citizens, which means including women as well as men in the planning process. and these plans must be effectively carried out primarily by the country's own institutions. unfortunately, country ownership is sometimes misunderstood to signal a complete absence of external support for a country's response. let me be very clear that this is not what we mean. what we do mean is that the overall leadership role belongs to the country, not to external

partners. the united states cannot be the ministry of health for the countries in which we work. in terms of health, this leadership means planning and overseeing its national health sector and it means that we need to address head-on the difficult areas to country ownership. donors failing to coordinate or allow coordination and making unreasonable demands on partners, governments that are devoting too little money to help and not investing in people, not being held accountable and i underline this one, not being held accountable for their results. there is no time to play the blame game for these obstacles. there is no yield on that. we have all been part of it. it's time for us to pivot and explicitly insert lines of accountability so our management and oversight can grow and learn from lessons that allow us to improve and change the output of

these programs to match the changing needs of the populations we serve. as external partners, we must acknowledge that we have a long history of playing their leadership roles. often creating an unhealthy relationship of dependence. over time, this diminishes the capacity of the country to ensure that services persist and most importantly, remain of high-quality. so we need to commit ourselves to support a health system organized around the needs of the country's populations, rather than around our needs as donors. we must choose to step back and support country leadership rather than reserving that role for ourselves. we have a responsibility to build capacity through technical support as countries is some more and more managerial and financial oversight and responsibility. as for government, they have a

responsibility to their citizens to orchestrate this continuum of services. they must identify their countries unmet needs, prioritize the needs, make the allocation decisions against those unmet needs using diverse funding line such as the global fund, pepfar, other bilateral programs so they are additives and complementary. governments must include the people in the decision-making process, who use the services, including civil society representation, civil society organizations, the faith community and of course, the people living with hiv. let me address the issue of financing by countries. it is only one dimension of country ownership but it is an important one in this era of constrained global resources. it at the abuja summative in 2001 african nations agreed they

would devote 16% of their national budgets. as secretary clinton has said, this needs to change. but we are also seeing progress as countries begin to step up and take over services from external partners. in south africa the government has more than doubled its commitment to hiv over the last two years, to over $1.3 billion per year. a special two-year commitment by pepfar to provide antiretroviral drugs to south africa with aggressively negotiated generic drug pricing is part of the agreement, help the government launched its own increase purchases with new low prices, allowing the shift from a trigger to antiretroviral therapy in 200 cd4 cells to the 350. other countries have increased their investments in their make and this a point of emphasis in our diplomatic discussion. in addition to financing,

discussions of country ownership must address the political and cultural barriers of an effective response. the hiv/aids dimension is often involves marginalized populations that are often at most risk for hiv including men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs than those who have experienced sexual violence. we all know the countries are at different points in terms of recognizing these realities and the need for public health responses to incorporate human rights remains critical. pepfar's job is to bring science to the table in pursuit dialogue toward responses that are both country-owned, science-based and human rights sensitive. another barrier to progress at the country level this failure to fully include women and girls. given his disproportionate impact of women and girls, hiv

is not only a health issue, it remains and has been a woman's issue. pepfar and all hiv programs must be part of a broader effort to support countries in meeting the needs -- the health needs of women and girls including those living with hiv. as external partners we are in a position to engage countries and dialogue around and strongly support country-owned plans that will improve the overall health of women and girls. there is no doubt that the move toward country ownership in pepfar is a work in progress but it is well underway. during pepfar's reauthorization in 2008 congress provided us with the authority to establish partnership frameworks to make this transition. the frameworks are designed as joint strategic roadmaps signed by the united states as partner governments, promoting mutual accountability and sustainability over a five-year

time period. pepfar has signed 22 partnership frameworks since 2009, launching really a new era of collaborative planning with our partner governments. i leave tonight to sign a the partnership framework in haiti. most importantly, discussions are creating a new level of trust and transparency among those involved as partners with vulnerabilities and limitations in a shared effort to prevent gaps in services. i believe we need to reach that same point of partnership and all of our health global work. for example, african countries face workforce issues, handicapping all their efforts. through the medical and nursing education partnership initiatives, pepfar is supporting countries in developing sustainable local capacity to produce skilled stock year's, nurses and midwives for generations to

calm. of particular note we make grants directly to the afghan educational institution, the medical school or the nursing school, they are the principle investigators in these grants. they are the senior partners in these relationships, identifying a u.s. counterpart in the process. in some as partners we must challenge ourselves to apply and are human and financial resources in ways that strengthen national leadership, to expand the country's capacity to make the programs more sustainable with the sole purpose of saving more lives. country ownership alone will not solve the aids crisis let alone our broader global health challenges. we must also challenge the world to accept that global health remains a shared responsibility. it is not the purview of governments alone but also the private sector, civil society,

faith-based organizations and communities together contribute financially and otherwise to this effort that is needed to establish a responsive and sustainable health care delivery system. a crucial part of a shared the shared response is the multilateral mechanisms, and this is the third thing that we need to achieve in an aids-free generation. that is a robust multilateral response particularly targeted toward the needs of the country level. the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis and valoria really is an indispensable tool and remains the single conduit through which other countries that will never have the bilateral programs and final resources to those countries in the. it provides that large-scale mechanism for combating these diseases particularly for those donor countries without the bilateral programs. by law, the united states cannot

provide more than 33% of funds in contributions so the money we provide leverages resources from other donors, multiplying impact beyond what our dollars could do along. in recent months since the united states demonstrated its increased commitment to the fund, both new and old donors including saudi arabia, japan, germany and the gates foundation, have stepped up their contributions. we know that other donors are also looking to do the same. part of our shared responsibility is to ensure that all resources are used as efficiently and effectively as possible. with our support and encouragement the global fund is taken a number of actions in recent months to recommit itself to this goal. the fund's new general manager, gabrielle jaramillo has dramatically reorient to the fund to assume a role as an active investor. i am very optimistic about the impact of the fund moving

forward in that heightened impact internal strengthen in its ability to generate additional new resources. to support country-owned programs, pepfar in the global fund are increasingly engaging in joint planning and now co-finance many components of country responses. for example the global fund resources covering the expense incurred by buying antiretroviral drugs while pepfar focuses on targeted technical assistance, monitoring evaluation for systems, patient information systems, voluntarily counseling etc.. we being a series of resources together that of the individual site creates a responsive medical delivery capability. the reality is that we need both the pepfar and the global fund resources to be successful, but they need to be convened by the country. all countries, global funds,

pepfar, bilateral foundations etc., resources, all are central to any vision of a sustainable future for globe -- held that it is through that responsible orchestration by the partner country that this will be realized. another important multilateral dimension is that of the technical agencies in the unit -- united nations family including aids and the w.h.o.. the need at the country level is great. these organizations have done a tremendous job in marshaling global support for health issues but now we need to figure out how to best maximize their impact of the country level and this is a dialogue i look forward to having with my colleagues globally. alt-a lateral activities in the country must be assessed through the same lens of accountability as those of pepfar or our partner country governments, asking whether they're making a contribution that is truly additive. if not, it's incumbent on the

country government to address that and on all of us to support them in doing so. when you look at the three issues we have addressed today, recognizing pepfar as the foundation for other local health successes, promoting country ownership and fostering a shared responsibility, the threat that unites us together is that we are truly putting countries in a stronger position to ensure we can reach the goal we are all committed to, achieving an aids-free generation and creating a stronger and more secure world. so, as we draw closer to age 2012, let me end where i began. and that is with a message of hope. we know what most of us know and have learned over the years, we know what must be done to end

this epidemic and i have great hope that we can do it and get it done. hope that we see in the science that guides our efforts, hope that we see as the world unites to turn the tide against this devastating disease, hope that is taking the place of despair, hope it keeps everyone in this room pushing forward, getting up and doing it again. it is the none to be part of this effort. it's an honor to be with you all as we move forward and they begin to see the light at the end of the tone all. i want to thank you for this opportunity to address you this morning. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you ambassador. from a development respective it is wonderful to hear from a leader of this program about an approach that is health oriented

that has an increasing emphasis on country ownership so thank you are in much for that. you spoke about strengthening a broader health system and also about others stepping up to multilateral support. i am sure we will get questions on those topics and some i suspect on different ways of pursuing and prioritizing prevention and treatment. before a turn it over to the audience, some questions -- i would like to ask a question of my own about the transition to greater country ownership which is clearly essential. this administration has had a heightened purpose on sustainability and some of the program components that you mentioned that focus on building capacity, some of them have been in place for quite some time. others are newer and wider recognize innovations that are just coming on line like these partnership frameworks. do you envision significant shifts within pepfar's overall budget?

sitting in congress and looking at the overall picture, shifts that demonstrate and greater focus on building capacity and if so what did the ships look like wax what are the trade-offs clicks you have talked about the trade-offs of not building capacity in countries but if there's a big shift now within the programs, are their trade-offs in the other direction, and especially in light of possibly a flat or decreasing budget. >> sure. well i think that if we aren't serious about shifting our emphasis to country ownership, we will not achieve sustainability that you refer to. we need to take the lead to partner with our partner countries and a dialogue that allows them to the gain and trust so they revealed their vulnerabilities to us and their ability to manage, oversee,

monitor and evaluate these programs. once we can develop a technical assistance kind of strategy or curriculum for each country, for each ministry at the provincial levels as well as federal, we will then be in a better position over time to expand their capacity to truly manage and oversee these programs. the management and oversight is critically dependent on the evaluations system that gives and is as close to real-time feed active policy decision-makers, allocation decision-makers, where and what they are doing, what they are not doing, what they need to continue to do and whether adjustments are needed in the program to achieve that. i believe that although this is a slower trajectory to get a capability in play, it is the only means through which a sustainable service portfolio can be realized in these

countries. it's a long-haul. it's a long-term commitment that the united states remains committed to that sustain portfolio of services and not just a transient, expansion of services with a retraction on the ending of the program. in terms of the ships that we expect, the vision here is to take an existing platform that is strong, with trains doctors, nurses, laboratories as well as patient information systems, procurement distribution systems, all of which could be used for any service needed be it hiv/aids, tb, malaria, maternal and child health services, children services, nutrition etc.. those types of expansions need to be added on to that platform to allow the services to increase that are available not just to the hiv-positive person

already using the site, but also for those who are hiv negative who will start using the site. i don't envision shifting resources from aids to hypertension, diabetes and coronary artery disease except insofar as they need a lab to support diagnoses and treatments of those other diseases. they need doctors, they need nurses and they need a procurement distribution system. all of those need to be taken advantage of venues for the same purpose. other resources need to come on and be additive to that already existing platform, and we need to be open to using our age-specific resources to expand them and stretch them as far as we can to support that expansion. >> thank you. i know people have been waiting patiently with questions. if you have a question please raise your hand. wait for the microphone and identify yourself and please make sure it is an actual

question. i will start here in the third row up front with you, sir. please wait for the microphone. >> thank you. this is chris collins with amfar. thank you ambassador goosby for your tremendous leadership and it's truly incredible what this program has accomplished. you know, november of last year secretary clinton gave a wonderful speech and in that speech she said it was a priority to achieve an aids-free generation and called called out three and abrasions -- interventions and she did acknowledge of course that we can deliver those and be in isolation and she called out three conventions. i'd like to get an update on where we are with going to scale with those interventions that the secretary called out. pmctc for example. where are we in terms of the

operational and bringing to scale those three core pieces? >> says we know the allocations to treatment happened falling overall at pepfar and i'm wondering if that is changing? >> thank you. see they are all good questions. we have reviewed country operating plans for 2012, and have tallied up kind of where we are in our pursuit of world aids aids day target. those include the treatment targets as well as the male circumcision, the expansion of pmctc services as well. we believe that in light of the review are on track to reaching all of those. week, since 2009, continued to expand all of our portfolio areas of care, prevention and treatment significantly. really during this kind of resource constrained budget

period. and we are quite confident that we will achieve the goals that we are -- were articulated by president obama and secretary clinton. in terms of the male circumsion scaled, it is a slower process. we have learned this by direct experience, having political buy-in is difficult to get and critical to have before we can move to implementing the program. trying to put the other first doesn't work. we have kind of pulled back in that expectation, putting the cart before the horse and are now showing up the political buy-in and the kind of targeted community awareness that needs to come with that for both the mail as well as the partner and have given and gotten a lot better at doing that. it is going to be of the three, the most challenging to achieve but we are positioned to achieve

it and their budget is to achieve that as well. in terms of the pmctc, we have been in a strengthening exercise really since 2009. week, over the last year, have partnered with u.n. aid, unicef, w.h.o. and other drive-in and public their partners, to bring the resources together to aggressively move to scale our pmctc effort. we have targeted out of the 390,000 children who are born hiv-positive annually on the planet, we have looked at where -- what countries are contributing to that. they boil down to about 30 countries, 22 of whom are in sub-saharan africa. we have developed specific plans to look at what their current effort is and look at the polls and drop off from testing, staging to initiation of

antiretroviral therapy for pregnant positive women. we have also looked at where and when they identified and providing therapy for both a woman and the baby, that they have a seamless line into follow-up care for their continued antiretroviral therapy. we have also funneled the hiv-positive into that treatment line but have not forgotten the hiv negative at high risk and the hiv negative prevention kind of messaging that should go along with that and tried to address that as well. i am confident that with our current plan and our current portfolio, that we will move aggressively towards the aids-free generation, achieve the goals that were articulated last year by the president and secretary and i believe we have engaged in the other dialogues needed to make sure that this effort can be sustained. multilateral dialogue as well as

dialogue with our their colleagues and bilateral relationships. >> towards the back on the aisle, please. >> thank you. thank you mr. ambassador. that was a very positive presentation. in light of your emphasis upon health systems, the importance of health system, your stress on partnership and your emphasis on multilateral programs and relationships with multilateral institutions, found it interesting there was not a single reference to the world tank and i wonder if you would care to comment on that particularly given the resources and the other kinds of things you talked about. thank you. >> i would absolutely include the world bank and that multilateral community.

i think that all of our multilateral efforts need to understand their current contribution to the aids effort into global health in general. they need to explicitly understand what their resources are doing in each country that they are and over a given time with a specific i too, does this intervention have a high probability of sustaining, or is this going to be a transient contribution or can we change it? i think more attention to that needs to be part of the thinking on day one for any of the multinational multilateral programs that are existing. i think the world bank has a special role and there is great hope with ken coming into the position, that the world bank will look at its portfolio of services, its loan programs

,-com,-com ma the resources that moved from north to south and better understand how to maximize the ability to truly have a demonstrable impact on capacity expansion for the countries. examples of world bank creating an ability to work with countries such as angola and nigeria, that have a significant mineral reservoir of resources, that those kinds of extracted industries betide -- be tied to the treasury of these countries so they are immediately before that resources up for grabs, it does meet the health and education for their people. when you put money in the treasury of the country, it quickly becomes subject to a lot of competing needs and figuring out how countries, norway in

particular, position itself to make sure those resources were tapped, botswana another example, that those types of strategies be part of what our world tank will bring into the portfolio of services and resources. >> let me take two questions and i will lump them together. i will go to the back row and then we will come up to the front on this site. >> i am carol pierson with the voice of america. ambassador goosby could you talk a little bit more about this partnership and what it looks like and what you are doing? >> let's combine it with one question up front and ambassador you can answer the two together. >> hi matt. my name is mindy and i'm with results educational on but i also volunteer with the local organization hips.

my question is, with the upcoming aids conference, it seems like there's going to be one population noticeably missing and that is sex workers and the state department travel and pepfar's anti-prostitution pledge seems to make it difficult for sex workers to engage in this conversation about ending hiv and it's had some unintended consequences. given that he said pepfar is an evidence-based, it is evidence-based in human rights focus. i'm wondering if pepfar is looking at reviewing and possibly reversing these policy so that staff workers can better engage in the fight against hiv? >> well, let me take the haiti question first. this is the result of really work that began in october of 09, to work with the haitian government to define what their

specific continuum of services for hiv-positive, hiv, tb positive are in haiti. what services the government wants to make available to each of these individuals over time so the continuum of services they are supporting. those services basically what we agreed to in the partnership framework is setting up a referral capability from primary care clinics systems. there are about 137 bar sites that are already up and running. those have a rpk but the deep. those sites matched with primary care sites will raise the primary care services in that same region, referring to secondary and tertiary facilities. there is only one tertiary facility in haiti.

it dropped and fell down with the earthquake. earthquake. the united states is rebuilding that tertiary hospital in port-au-prince and it's rebuilding three secondary hospitals that are out of the states, you you know, that are secondary hospitals that were referred from the primary care sites. a referral system is really what is being put up. it will have an ability to also put maternal and child health referral in place, immunizations in place and a small list of essential services that basically allows for screening for hypertenon, diabetes and cholesterol, coronary artery disease. and that is all at the midpoint of being implemented. it's already started. it's about a year into being implemented at over the next year and a half will lead to

completion. the building of the tertiary hospital and port-au-prince will take about a year and a half to complete. in terms of the band that was put in place, really focused on individuals who have to report a disease such as hiv. that was taken off of the list as something that would lock entry for a visa. any other activity really wasn't related to the waving, to the removal of that waiver for the visa, but the customs and immigration's services have a lot of you know, laws that are still in place that need to focus on the sex workers and their ability and the past history of felons. i hear what you are saying. we have been in continuous

dialogue with them. we won't be able to change the law, but the sensitivity around that issue and blocking an individual who indeed wants and has something to say and do at the conference is actually in dialogue for kind of exceptions to be made but it has been a difficult thing to overcome. i appreciate your question. >> i will jump in with a question of my own which is, the bit of a different angle. but it relates to your point about the broader global health investment, the additive ways to build on to the pepfar program. within the quadrennial diplomacy and development review, there was a commitment to look toward the target of the end of fiscal year 2012, so september of this year, for a transition of the leadership of the president's global health initiative to usaid, an effort to build usaid,

to be the lead agency for development across government. that seems to now be on hold or is not going through. the idea was that target would be reached and certain benchmarks are met. what benchmarks have not been met in this process and is part of the hesitation that if the global health on that suit that is led by usaid but pepfar is still separate from usaid, that the majority of global health investments will be outside of the agency that is leading the effort? can you explain the thinking behind that? >> well i think that the global health initiative really did show us the advantages that are realized by coordinating and working together and integrating our planning, decision-making around what services we are putting in place across

programming. hiv/aids, maternal health and planning, nutrition services, all of those service portfolios which are in most countries that pepfar is then as well. bad gets an opportunity when we integrate our planning to actually implement it differently so although services thrive in their ability to be available. our need to coordinate at the country level is evidenced and we have been also impressed with that coordinating effort through the usg programs that the need to coordinate at the global of full across bilaterals, other bilaterals with country program in is the essential kind of means through which we will achieve a greater capability of services, more services kind of for the same amount of resources. that ability to integrate is

really diplomatic dialogue and secretary through the global health initiatives process has realized that we need to elevate our health diplomacy truly to a diplomatic dialogue and put that expectation on our ambassadors and country to support them in that effort. the decisions on the benchmarks and how this will evolve is in its final stages of deliberation. it is now with the secretary -- up to the secretary to make that final determination. >> we have time for one last question and then -- right up here in the front row. if you could come in your answer, mention -- you have as well. >> thank you very much for your positive and hopeful speech and i share the hopefulness. if you look at the international numbers on the government held

what happened in the past 10 to 15 years is actually unprecedented if you look at health metrics and evaluation reports in 2011. you see that external support, financial support for health has increased $27 billion annually, which is many times more than a few years ago so it's a truly amazing story. if you read a little bit further in the report, for every eight -- that answers the country for help, the country itself reduces its own expenditures by 56 cents. that is a big number. the number is in line with previous studies of the same kind. you must be fully aware of this. what is your view of this and what do you think in the next few years can be done to really reduce if not eliminate this

kind of issue? >> thank you for that question. there has been an understandable response by many countries to have resources coming in through the global fund or pepfar and to our colleagues in in the country who are looking at many unmet needs. they turn their resources towards something else. we have seen this as counterproductive and really precludes our abilities to be added to. the date and need to not only be sharing their resources but also over time as they are able to increase their resources, so they truly are investing in their population. i have found in partnership framework kind of dialogue the most -- discussions i have had have been when i remind our partner countries leadership

that i have a discussion with our appropriate ears every time we try to move resources to your country, that diminishes my ability to ask my appropriators for more money if you aren't willing to invest in your own population. and they are very aware of that investment or non-investment. so i have found being honest with them about what my challenges are and trying to agree and sustained more funding, that is the best way to make it happen. so i want to thank you for the opportunity to have this dialogue with you and look forward to all of you contributing in your own ways to move his agenda forward. i do thank the president and secretary clinton feel strongly that we are at this moment in time where we can convert their resources in a smart way, to convert them at the country level, to have an agenda on day

one of capacity expansions of countries can truly mana and oversee these programs which we know for many times over time will it evolve to become more realistic and that will increase our ability to really put a basement of health care on the planet for those populations most in need. i want to thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you. >> ambassador goosby thank you or your leadership. please join me in thanking dr. goosby. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> when did clean energy become a dirty word? and mean what is wrong with clean energy? you can believe what you want about our existing energy but why couldn't you also believe there is an opportunity for

clean energy? >> i think we need to create demand in the next five to 10 years for renewables to offset all the advantages of fossil fuels have had and i think it's clearly happening on a state-by-state basis. it would be much more effective with federal policy. >> roughly three times as much of our energy is consumed in mobility as it is in keeping our homes and offices, and natural gas is the only kind where we don't have widespread vehicles coming off the assembly line that can use compressed natural gas. there are still a ton of people out there that honestly believe you can -- cars and trucks are more likely to burst into flames during a crash. >> developing alternative energy sources including wind and biofuels were all part of the next-generation energy forum hosted by the atlantic magazine. watch their conversation on line at the c-span video library.

>> recently the state department's bureau of democracy human rights and labor celebrated its 35th anniversary. secretary of state hillary clinton talks about u.s. efforts to promote universal human rights. in this panel discussion senior diplomats discuss the evolution of u.s. human rights policy. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you deborah. will come everybody. we are delighted to have you here. this is a great day. i want to thank deborah and the whole team for putting this together. our public diplomacy team, anthony and karen, matt miller and also tony bell who did a fabulous job in getting us organize this morning. welcome everybody. i want to just say one word of introduction to how this happened. in the last three years in doing this job, i have had lots of

conversations with people in our bureau at drl and i reflect back and i start reminiscing to my first visit to the state department, and they talk about mark schneider and the things tex harris did in argentina and i would get these slightly dazed looks. it occurred to me that everybody was not actively involved in human rights advocacy in 1982. we drove out and so i did some research. i did the forensic investigation, yielded the fact that 65% of our bureau was not born in 1977. [laughter] so this day is really dedicated to the generations that is the drl generation, the people who were born and raised in the world from 1977 until today and the generation both in government and outside, who are

the next leaders and advocates for human rights. i think we have a terrific -- i know we have a terrific group of people here. we are delighted you are all here and so sit back and enjoy and have fun. one final thank you, the thank you to tory nuland who is a fabulous spokesperson in the department. she called me yesterday morning from istanbul. she was traveling with the secretary, a typical relaxed secretary clinton affair, eight countries in eight days. ..

deputy assistant secretary in 1977 and 1979 and he is now vice president of the international crisis group. all these gentlemen let me say have been lifetime members of the human rights club and it is also a bipartisan panel which is something we are very proud of. next to markets elliott abrams who is ronald reagan's assistant secretary for the drl1981 to 1985. he's now the council on foreign

relations that is a middle east scholar and also a lifetime human-rights. next to him, we are proud to have congressman jim mcgovern, who in 1989 was the lead investigator on the moakley commission investigating the murders in el salvador, and since 1996 has proudly represent the people of the third district of massachusetts. he's also a minority house rules committee with and the co-chair of the tom lantos human-rights commission and finally, a mentor to a whole generation of foreign service officers who spent 35 years in the foreign service and was so one of probably the first human rights centers in the foreign service and he will talk to you a little bit about his adventures in chile in the 1970's. argentina, sorry. there we go. when so, as you know, durell was

a beer when the state department was born of controversy. it was i think it's fair to say forced upon us by a bipartisan congressional group right and left who felt that this building was not understanding. the important and to grow role that human rights need to play in the u.s. strategic approach to the world and i would like to call on hashmark and tex to talk about what it was like on the department side and on the field side when the bureau was first created. first getting it up and running let some of the challenges were, mark coming and then also making it into a bowl to the way our

embassies run and the way foreign service officers and people in the field do their job. mark went to start us off and then we will go to tex. >> i thank mark and everyone else for putting this together. it does make you feel old, however. [laughter] and a very real sense though, we are not supporting the 35th anniversary of drl. barras a lubber and the establishment of the first formal human rights policy as part of the u.s. foreign policy, and was a major shift in the way people thought about foreign policy coming and you are absolutely right that it was the first time that people were arguing that there needed to be a him greater public focus on human rights in terms of u.s. national security, in terms of u.s. national interest and in terms of u.s. national values. i think what's important to understand is where it came from. my argument has always been

while president carter made it the legacy of his administration that in fact the human rights policy was waiting there. it was already there. it was waiting for somebody to champion and within the executive branch. in terms of the country just gone through vietnam, the aftermath of the civil rights movement there was a sense of the their needed to be fundamental changes in terms of recognizing basic rights within this country and that the same time those values needed to be reflected in our foreign policy. and you have a bipartisan group in the congress and the senate and the house. i remember the first legislation that demanded that there would be focus on taking action with respect to our assistance engaged in the consistent pattern in the harkin amendment and put together by don fraser and whose staff is here in 1974 the amendments to the foreign assistance act.

there with the kennedy amendment to cut off assistance to chile, the church on stop and torture in brazil and the efforts to recognize torture and in the 70's the sort of made it clear whoever is going to be president starting in january, 1977, was going to have to take account of this movement to recognize human rights as a far greater factor in american foreign policy, and elliott with scoop jackson in terms of the effort to force the soviet union to allow more soviet jews to be released. those were all actions that were taken on the hill. and then when we came to state, i sort of thought that on the hill having worked with committee chairs on issues of jurisdiction i knew what turf fighting meant. i was a day in the bureaucratic world when i came to the state department. and in dealing with a variety of

very competent, very smart and very able and committed assistant secretaries there was a degree of tugging and pulling that took place. remember at that time assistant secretary for east asia was a gentleman we all love and remember. you had george at the er. i was working. you had terrie in the latin american bureau. there were to the same views between the national security concerns in the cold war era and human rights objectives. i learned of a huge amount from phill. we didn't see eye to eye on many things, but he taught me a great deal about how you think about these issues and then what we did in order to -- i don't want to say force, in order to encourage a greater degree of collaborative action in the state department, i warned christopher and was given the

charge by cy vance to do something about what seemed to be constant disagreement between the little bureau over there which is the bureau of human rights and humanitarian affairs the predecessor of drl and the rest of the department. so we have chris create the christopher committee. the interagency committee on foreign assistance and human-rights and foreign assistance. there was a mechanism to force consideration of the different views and bring about some policy coherence in an ideal world. the effort which still believe is the case. we criticize as some of you may remember for selectivity come for inconsistency. the effort was to see that every instance to the degree possible we proceed human rights objectives as part of the foreign policy in the united states recognizing that there are other interests that were

also important. to some degree the was the object. we believe and the gentleman was here at the time tom pickering to pursue that effort, and we did it in a variety of ways. quiet diplomacy affecting aid, the efforts to vote in the multilateral institution. we did what we could. all i can see is the people that i worked with and i think it's important for all of us to remember the role that he played as the first both facing heart of the department was an enormously valuable and had a tremendous impact, and to some degree we have others here, roberta cohen and steve cohen and others from that era who attempted to ensure that the human rights reports were more honest, though we did in fact both publicly and privately reflect the human rights

concerns. and i think that to some degree we were successful and the evidence of it is the 45th anniversary here today. >> thank you. [applause] >> you were one of the first win one fso on the field to come from that policy tension between the relations with the government and what was happening inside the country. as a relatively young to stand up. excellent. see what human-rights will do to do. [laughter] to stand up to the power and say what's happening matters and we have to speak out about it. i would like you to quickly tell those that were not born at the time a little bit about the argentine a story with and what it meant that the time. >> we have come a long way,

baby. this isn't a reunion this is a step forward. thank you for putting this together. argentine military decided that in order to save argentina and western civilization in confronting communist terrorism they had not only to kill the terrorist but in the medical analogy with cancer, they had to cut out the surrounding tissue of subversion thinking not the guys with guns or grenades but people with bad thoughts and a set of killing at least 13,000 but probably closer to 20,000 of their own countrymen. they captured and tortured them and told them. this happened the same time the carter administration came into power with a commitment which culbert told me that he invented

or convinced carter to adopt. fellows told me that it's true, so i checked it. i checked the source. the adopted a change in foreign policy from the nixon, ford, kissinger and the communism to a new policy in which the united states would stand up on behalf of abused citizens of other countries. if you as a foreign government abuse your own citizens, you and your relationship with the united states would be affected and that is what human-rights is. but it changed from the enormous debate and the war that market and pat or fighting in 1977 just seen last night the secretary of state standing up tall and

really excoriating the syrians for their horrible, horrible actions in shelling and murdering their own people. that's human rights. >> you are a young man. you are working in the political section and you have a backdrop that we are supposed to care about this stuff. what happens and what do you do about it? >> it's magic. the offer me the job. it wasn't my job. my job wasn't the nuclear non-proliferation because at those days are brazil and argentina were moving to get the nuclear atomic weapons and i was the guy in the in the sea working on that issue. they asked me to take jobs and i said i would do it on one condition. that the embassy, which is sealed would be opened up and they would allow people to come into the in the sea. i saw my role as a foreign service officer as being kind of a soccer midfield. the defense then, the goalkeepers for the family

members, the brothers, the sisters called fathers and mothers had disappeared. they come to the embassy and they give to me and my local system the information there was before computers. if we had computers we would have been dangerous. we had five by eight cards and we would write down the information and we would say my gosh, what happened today? we try to piece it together and we saw a pattern set in which liberation theology, christian groups from a catholic church working in the suburbs, 19 kids and their spanish priests were sucked up, disappeared, killed because they were identified as being subversives and we were the midfield. we took the information comes of families, came to us. we organized in the embassy and passed on to mark snyder and terry todd then and warren

christopher and they made the decisions. >> you make it sound easy that you pass the done but we know that your ambassador was and welcoming of this work and in fact you had to back channel. give us a minute or two on that. raul castro by the way. >> i did everything was the sixth i sent pat and mark little cassettes and other things to get the information off. leggitt memorandum conversations and then they discovered that he saw a stack of my memorandum conversation i could no longer serve those. so it was very tough because the ambassador was not against human-rights, but the ambassador wanted to control american foreign policy in the region. when i came in to the bureau, the exit after vector that chose me had been a person who had been negotiated with me on the other side of the table and pulled the selection for by told

he said honor want paris for buenos aires because that some of the bitch will keep them honest and it turned out to be prophetic sadly. but the ambassador lost control not because of policy. i didn't do anything with policy. there was mark's job. what i did as the meal with the command fielder is i sent the quarters of argentina forward and the was the job of the foreign service was to tell the department of state honestly what was going on and when the investors all the facts were changing the decision making process in washington, he decided logically one way to solve the problem is to stop the flow of information. so i ran around and ran around. the worst case will take a minute but it's a critical story

i sent an official in a formal letter and gave a copy to the ambassador. i sent one to todd but the ticket out of the pouch because this was information that the embassy had been provided to the united states government that accompanied seeking if three utter 50 million-dollar loan guarantee was the subsidiary of the navy which was killing people every day and this was stopped by mark snyder and pat barry m. and a cause an uproar because american business saw that they were losing jobs. they were losing business because of the carter human rights policy. a year earlier because the navy admiral had seen themselves being rich guys having this turbine factory under their control and they saw that as their retirement nest egg.

the human rights commission to come to argentina because if they can to argentina just like when your mother-in-law comes to the house you clean behind the couch. we thought if we could get those guys to come, they would stop the killing and that happened because mondale made a deal to invite the inter-american human rights commission to argentina and the killing stopped. it was serendipity that it happened. [applause] >> individuals matter. what miss matters, washington support matters. elliott was a carter leaves office, ronald reagan enters office with george shultz and everybody thought this was a

nutty to change the policy and feel differently with the government as the human rights record, but the in pioneer is backed. this is over. they are seeing all of that. it turned out not to be the case. it turned out that ronald reagan and george shultz cared just a match about human rights. can you talk a little bit about that? >> i will start by saying that you are right. a lot of people thought that. the president didn't think that a lot of people did. i actually started the bureau and moved over to the human rights bureau which was and i can't agree physically a dump. if you think there's a long-term permanent war rivalry between india and pakistan and recent turkey tried the human rights bureau and the regional bureau. this is a permanent conflict. i invited secretary shultz to

come to my office and he was astonished because the regional bureaus were and they are now pretty nice. and he then ordered that the human rights bureau would be gussied up because he wanted it to look better. just to give you the mood of the department, i got a call very soon after becoming the assistant secretary from the office of tibet. they would like to come over to talk to me and i said sure. this was not permitted. the east asia bureau went nuts. they were not permitted in the building. i had to meet the people from the office of tibet in a hotel lobby for a couple years until finally they were in the building until of course one of the things the human rights group is we would meet for the people the regional bureaus wouldn't meet with of for tibet and other places.

but what i presented appreciate this will so did secretary shultz was painful in times. joey is a good example. most of the people that were in charge of economic policy, the so-called chicago blaze trained at the university of chicago and they were doing a terrific job in the economy. when i would go to him and see him we have to denounce it he would shake his head and he would announce it. remember the last previous republican view of human rights was secretary kissinger in the

ford administration and secretary kissinger, who i admire has never really understood human rights policy to this day, and the was the last example. so, we had to create a new policy. basically the argument we made was anti-communist and is not enough. it has to be there. this is the day the height of the cold war. but it is not enough and one of the things ronald reagan could have and did dad was in the chilean for central american cases, paraguay and other examples was being able to argue to these dictators you are not the best against communism. you're going to lead to a communist revolution if you don't stop the human rights abuses and move towards democracy. that became particularly important in chile where panache it didn't want to let go, and we

finally forced him into holding a referendum which he thought would win and which he lost, so these were interesting times. just one other a sample of the way that things change. in those days, now talking of the 70's and these it was dictated. you couldn't get anything human rights because it was a mutual protection society for dictators. that changed with the human rights adopted in the 90's but i think it's hard sometimes for people coming into the foreign service now to think back to a time when i was actually argued under the model that no country had any business criticizing the internal affairs of another country and that argument was made what it was in argentina or the soviet union was made as a

serious argument and was accepted by a fair number of people on the state department of the times. >> i think it's fair to say that there are places and policies which we still troubled. >> in the department you mean. >> congressman, you started your career staffing in the congress obviously, he liked it now, but as we said at the beginning, the creation of the first human rights bureau was pushed on us by the congress, which reflects the fact that in fact there was people power at work not only on the streets of chile and argentina, and other parts of the world but also in the united states that the american people will actually care about human rights and that's why it is now in trouble to the foreign policy.

can you talk about those years in the commission and the role that it played? >> thanks you very much and i'm honored to be here with this panel and i am thrilled that we have this day to celebrate the incredible mark that the drl. i want to clear something up in the beginning. about half a dozen people came up to me and said i have been a longtime supporter of your father. and i really should tell you that -- [laughter] my father isn't george mcgovern that owned a liquor store in massachusetts. [laughter] [applause] and if he meant walter, please, keep supporting him. [laughter] i also want to say that on occasion when congress does some things right, and kind of the insistence that human rights be a major part of our foreign policy is the assistance that we create an office and a bureau i think is something to be

commended, and mark mentioned there are a lot of people involved that john missiles burba that worked for john frazier is here and played an integral role he held 150 hearings on the human-rights. a lot of the ngos and so many others who were very important. but i think that members of congress, you know, realize this was important because they are constituents that visited some of the country's they've had a great human rights abuses and they became part of church groups and sanctuary groups and a sister city groups and they saw firsthand some terrible things going on and they want to know why our government was and saying more about it and why that wasn't a major component of our foreign policy. and so, i think that congress pushed in this case they pushed restrictive and i would say that

over the years, you know, the congressman continues to push. i think anybody that had it up this bureau knows you are never given credit for doing the job it's always why aren't you doing more? why aren't you looking at this country, why aren't you criticizing this government more? why aren't you suspended the military here? why aren't you suspending, you know, economic assistance here? so, this office continues to rating to benefit from congressional pressure, and i think it's been incredibly important. i think over foreign policy has transformed over the years to a policy that reflects more of the importance of human rights. i would tell you i wish -- i would be honest with you i want it to reflect even more human rights than it does now. that's not a criticism it's just i believe we can do better. i think if the united states gets ready then we ought to

stand about for human rights. this ought to be our priority. and so, in any event, i am thrilled to be here. thank you. [applause] >> we have about ten or 12 minutes before the psychiatry comes. i wanted to sort of throw out a general question to the panel and get your perspective. we sort of started this part of the conversation with the comment eliot made about how rare it was in this building before the 70's and the 80's to have that conversation about whether the internal affairs of the country mattered to us or whether our relationship was purely geostrategic and the compact if you will between the american people and the people of the country's the we deal with around the world so let me throw to a panel the general question of how much does the

nature of a government matter and the nature of the way that it treats people and the compact that it has with its own matter to the u.s. foreign policy to the relationship that we should have with that country and to the american people really care about this? who wants to kick off? >> i think the american people do care, and i think that the reality is the traditional argument, national sovereignty changed after world war ii and coming to the united nations and the adoption of the covenants and several political rights. there is an agreement that the countries did not have and that responsibility to protect didn't have the right to do what ever they wanted to their citizens but there were other international norms that had to be respected. the other part of it internally is that u.s. interests or not

advanced by closing your eyes to those violations. and i was thinking about before when i saw his arrest in 1978, and made it clear the united states was concerned even the we had a major strategic relationship with korea the way in which north korea treated its citizens, so it was important to us that leader when he became president and invited me he made a difference. when the chileans that had been political prisoners came to washington and met with us in the human rights bureau and later they became the ministers of government it makes a difference. our ability to see now the victims of human-rights abuse are people that we should identify with advances not only our own values but our national

interest as well. >> there's a question of things coming up for the american people. sudan is a good example of that. the american people were paying more attention to human rights abuses in sudan in the u.s. government for several years. it's still the case if you look at church or synagogue website he will often see what's going on. there's a reading group hears when the services are then there's the sudan action group all across the country. so the notion that people are in different i think is not borne out. i want to say one thing on the opposite side of mark's could exceed as if you look at public opinion polls in europe for the united states, the place where the attitudes are the worst is greece. one of the reasons for that, i would argue is because we supported the dictatorship of the military dictatorship that took over we didn't adjust to it we worked well with them and was

quite clear we really didn't give a damn. to this day that has affected the greek perception of the united states and its decades later. >> i would say that one of the tensions that continues to exist is this whole issue of and we have a country that can it's terrible human rights abuses but it's important economic ally or important strategic ally, would you do? sometimes it leads to an inconsistency that quite frankly is troublesome. human rights is not only moral issue of national security issue. eliot mentioned the issue of attitudes increase, but i think that when we are on the wrong side, human rights and ultimately catches up to us what it is in the short-term, medium-term or long term. and i think that again, the struggle that goes on we continue to have with every

minister every administration is how do you apply the standard human rights? should we -- we have different agencies that you rest your cares only about trade. we have a reasoned debate on columbia free trade which is all about the economics. was really tough quite frankly to get the human rights part of it on the table which i regret whether we should sell arms to bahrain given the fact they haven't been treating these people very well we shouldn't but i also understand some people think that there is a strategic military advantage to doing that and so, the policy goes forward. but again there is always a struggle about what we should do, what our policies should be. it's not enough to say i don't think that there are human rights abuses in the country. i think that when people abuse

the human rights of the citizens, they're ought to be a consequence. the ought to be held accountable, and we ought to be consistent on that because when we are not we lose some of our credibility. >> i want to talk about the triggers for u.s. response to human rights beyond bahrain. first is the relationship between communities. argentina was triggered because into this borut of russian jews from eastern europe, the jews went to canada, the united states and argentina which you are standing on the dog some injury boarding the ship all of those destinations look like good futures at that time. so, when your nephew is kidnapped and murdered in argentina, that becomes an issue in the jewish community in the united states. second, ngos.

they capture the information, which i provided and others provided and the amplify that and they transmit that. the media. the media came to argentina, and they saw a story, and because the international story because there were not only american jewish relatives being held, they were french nuns, swedish and social workers, british social workers, so it became a question of the murder of your national citizens if you were in western europe or if you were in the united states and the pictures and the images were indefensible at that time. the next is the congress. you need leadership in the congress among the staff and among the members come and in those days that was really very instrumental. but the was the amalgam of having the abuse and then having these institutions which worked

in the body politic of this country. the community relationships, the ngos, the press and the congress all these things coming together make human rights policy. >> i think one of the things listening to you all talk is about the tools and the appropriate role of the u.s. government media and ngos and compact among us there is tension how much of the role should we play how much of a nag should we become how much aid should we withhold, what are the most effective levers. they've grown in the 70's counties and today. would any of you like to speak about what you think the most effective mix of pressures come inducements come encouragement might be coming and what you are most proud of and what you think has been the biggest failure you have seen as you have tried to

find this next? >> i will start. first, i don't think that there is single appropriate this versus second. this is one thing that i think should be done. you have to have a strategy where the state department and in our agency comes together and says this is the current situation with a given country, the human-rights are being abused these are the tools we have available. which is going to be the most effective, whether it is diplomatic communications, whether it is telling them that we are going to halt grand military assistance, f m f, unless something changes we can't maintain the military relationship of the government's using those tools to torture or abuse citizens. we have to look at a range of

issues publicly and privately. symbolic access is very important when the secretary in a given country, the secretary travels and meet with dissident communities and people know that. extremely important it's important when the ambassador goes out and goes to the defense that reflect the conservative human-rights. and then obviously the assistance relationship. in the end i've always believed that it's not the question of the dollar amount of assistance. it's the question of the relationship and use different mechanisms to demonstrate to the government that the relationship with the united states is going to change for the worst if they don't change their attitude with respect to the way they treat their citizens. >> if you both do it bilaterally and multilaterally, you use the tools available that the human-rights council you use the tools available. >> can you talk a little bit about sometimes the instrument has been too blunt and hard if

you cut off everything they stop listening they don't have a reason to engage with you how do you find that mix of encouragement and pressure? >> i agree with mark there is no formula that employees in each case partly because we of a different relationship. some countries for example are dependent on us for the legitimate foreign aid. others are completely independent of us and so you are going to have less clout. what it seems to me the most important single thing is not the dollar amount, it is the message. first is the message coming from the top? it's very nice with all due respect to mike and all of us for the assistant secretary of human rights to say you have a human rights problem, but it's very different when the president says eight. that is a much bigger deal.

>> it looks like we have our guest of honor. [applause] this pnac [applause] >> i'm proud to introduce my boss that needs no introduction but to every day gives me the strength and support i need to do my job, hillary clinton. >> thank you. [applause] >> well, good morning. as i walked in it is a standing room only crowd. i love that. well, welcome. it is a real pleasure to have you here for this occasion.

and i want to thank all of our special guests including the congressman jim mcgovern who has been such a champion on behalf of human rights and the role that the congress should play and tom lantos human rights commission it goes back to the very creation. i also want to thank the former assistant secretaries that you see before you elliot abrams richard, harold kallur and trainer, and also tex harris, mark snyder, just a star-studded cast and my great colleague ambassador nuland. it is one other, former secretary pat darian who did so much to shape from her infancy.

she couldn't be with us today but she sent a note that read pronounced dead at birth, it is wonderful to see that we have not merely endure but more than occasionally have prevailed. that is to all of you i only wish i could be there and. it's amazing to think of for drl is coming 35 years. it has a rocky childhood critics at posts in the building who fought we have no business pestering anybody about human-rights the would get in the way of human diplomacy even getting an office on the seventh floor causes protest no one questions the value of the drl contribution there can be healthy tension which i always think is good with the better decision making, but the story of this bureau is the story of

leaders 11 and people would really believe in it and thinking that has been absolutely fundamental to the values come interest and security and the way that we conduct our foreign policy today. drl works hand in glove with colleagues around the building and around the world, and it also helps us to think more thoughtfully about how we are going to respond to the extraordinary range of changes and challenges that we face in the world today. i want to thank posner publicly for being a great leader during such as a challenging time. [applause]

it has been just for me a joint working with mica whether we are with nurturing reform in a country like burma or support the space transitions and the middle east and north africa and for defending a gbt rights or expanding internet freedom. mike's creativity and savvy have been absolutely essential. so we put more effort, more people, more money into the work of defending and promoting human rights than any country ever has. and that investment is not only the right thing to do a number the state department of the smart thing as well. for one, it makes us stronger leaders because when we stand up for universal principles and establish our moral leadership, true that our wealth and our military might remain defining

features of our power, but of those things carry more weight because of who we are and what we stand for. when we celebrate in the emerging democracy or criticize a repressive government, words do matter. and when activists are harassed by their government, the turn to us for help. and i don't have to tell any of you what kind of complications that can occasionally cause. but that is who we are, and that's who we want to be. and we should never forget how much it means to the world when we stand up not only for our rights but universal rights. this work not only makes us stronger, i would argue it does make us more secure. as president obama's national security strategy recognizes, a world that is more space is a world with fewer adversaries and fewer partners. now creating this world is not

easy, and it's not always clear how we get there, yet there are the inevitable trade-offs. they are by necessity always will be. but the mission remains the same, and it's what brings our drl team to work every morning. now, i have heard some people says that makes them ideal list and is meant as a complement. the narrative, the counter narrative seems to go as a complex world we have to deal with all kinds of people that don't share our value and yes, we do and we will. we must. there is no doubt about that. but, we will come from a stronger position knowing that governments that don't respect their own people's aspirations not only me in today's world not endured, but cannot be the kind

of reliable long-term partners that we and the rest of the world need, and they make the world less stable, not more. you know our interests are best served when people live in societies that treat women equally and stop gender based violence, protect the rights -- yes, i think that deserves a round of applause. [applause] protect the rights of religious and racial and tribal and ethnic and every other kind of minority and respect the dignity of every individual. to me, that is hardly an idealistic soft world view. it's tough, realistic and essentials in advancing america's interest in the 21st century. so, i am very grateful for the work of everyone who is serving and has served in this bureau.

i am deeply proud of it. to be 35 again. [laughter] with the hope that as you move through the next 35 years you will stay as vigorous and robust and committed as you have been for the first 35 years. this is a well-deserved celebration come and it's one that this administration and this department is very proud to join, and we wish everyone here the very best and as you continue this is essential work and to the activists and the advocates and the reformers and the protesters and the demonstrators, well, we want you to realize the aspirations that represent the universal human rights of every man and woman and the united states will

continue to be your partner. and you all very much. [applause] thanks everybody. [applause] >> if you didn't know before, now you know why it is not a human rights abuse to work for hillary rodham clinton. and she is off to deal with one of the biggest humanitarian crises we have on the planet right now. she is going to see the special on flake kofi annan to talk about syria. let's pick up where we were both on the question of tools, pressure, and also anything you have to say in reaction to what she says. >> you know, almost everything that we do is symbolic in the sense that there are cases like south africa or iran where the

sanctions really damage the economy and are meant to really damage the economy as much as we can. very rarely is the case. it's more usual but you are doing something symbolic and here is an example. when the bush administration refused to enter into negotiations over a free trade agreement with egypt because they put him in jail for the run against mubarak i don't think that he wanted a free trade agreement. but it was the symbolism of the united states saying no. the message and i think is what is important and as i would say i think it has to come from the president and the secretary or there were mixed messages. one of the things we have great problem with and i am confident without asking this that marketed and i am confident about asking that you have today is the interagency problem. i noted, for example, and you

all know that there has been a regression in human rights in the last couple of years in vietnam, and we have said so, you have said so, the department has said so and they were very clear on this. i asked myself the question a couple days ago there was secretary panetta in the policy talking to them about human rights i don't know the answer i don't really know the answer. even if you get the secretary of state to see what you want him or her to say four to get your ambassador to say in the country this is very important but your station chief is saying don't worry about it or in visiting generals southcom is not touching the subject which makes messaging. so i think what is critical is how do by human rights abuses affect the relationship with the

united states? you will get them mostly in what the president and the secretaries say coming and what officials say, so the whole relationship is affected in this way, and it may sound like well, this is an important, sanctions are important but it's not true. look at russian reaction on the hill. it's not going to bring down the russian government, the putin government. but they are really, really concerned about its what is happening is unacceptable and despicable and it matters to them and it matters to people over the world when the congress of the united states or the executive branch makes that kind of statement. >> that is a good segue to asking the congressman mcgovern about two things. first of all the tension within

the congress because just as you have to have the interagency there are sometimes sharp divisions in the congress as to whether how high on the agenda of these issues should be and whether they are national security issues. and he is a human rights which is different than the guy that appropriates my foreign military funding. so, to speak a little bit about that. but also to speak a little bit about when the congress feels the need to actually apply the tools over the objections of the administration and whether that makes us stronger or whether we look to divide it overseas. >> first of all, let me say that i'm really proud that hillary clinton is our secretary of state and some of the statements that she has made specifically with regard to all ddt bites is reverberated all around the world, and this is a and an incredibly profound way. it's important to the people but, yeah, talk about human

rights and explicit about human rights. one of the challenges originally was for the most effective tools to deal with the human rights abusers? that is not always the question that the congress or the administration deals with because it depends on which country we are talking about and that is where some of the advocates to get very frustrated because sometimes the issue is how we get a trade agreement or how we ensure that our military bases in place. i agree. some of these are mixed messages. you have the human rights situation in viet nam and the secretary defense goes there and there's nothing in the papers about human-rights. and so, it was that important, wouldn't you think, that there would be a statement? and so, in the congress is kind of the same tensions exist. you have members of congress that are very much interested in getting something what it is a

trade agreement or a military contract, you know, for something in the district or there's all kinds of reasons or constituencies that are very active in support of the government that may not have a good record on human rights. the same kind of tensions exist in congress. as a result there are divisions. i think when there are divisions, again, it kind of undermines the credibility and human rights. we mentioned the bill as the author and the house and we are thrilled in a very bipartisan way republicans and democrats are saying the situation in russia is so horrible. the idea of going ahead not having some sort of human rights conditionality is absolutely unacceptable. and i would argue that what we are trying to do is actually strengthen the forces of good in russia because what the bill simply says is people that are guilty of human rights violations and corruption talk

up the united states and freezes your assets if you have assets to them that it's a consequence. it is the consequence, and i think that if we could find a way to be better united on this issue of making sure that people know that they will be held accountable and there would be the consequence i think we would all be better off. >> tex, could you speak a little bit on what happens to the permanent bureaucracy, the essence of the world when the parents are arguing whether it is within the interagency about the appropriate role of the policy overall and when dhaka congressional fight about this. how do you find your personal conscience if you are that human rights or political or economic officer in the embassy who may have to advocate tough things, where is the balance? >> the balance is very tough in

this issue because we are normally an image of a balance to pans on a scale. the secretary laid out the issue differently. she says there are three things that are being balanced. there are values, interests that's mostly money, business, relationships and security. so you've got a situation in which i don't have an image for the three skill balance but that's when you're dealing with. the state department and foreign policy is essentially based on the professionalism that they have those standards and that's the basic standards telling it as it is. what's fortunate is we have thanks to the congress a human rights report, a lot of reports these days. but the of the mother of the report is the human rights

reports. so, and every embassy and every consulate in the world, there is an officer who's cutting conversation votes and cutting clips from the newspaper putting in that file because he or she will spend two or three weeks putting together an input which they will send to my posner and his team to be put into a human rights report. the chinese have done a human rights report on the united states. so what's happened is the professionalism of diplomatic reporting has become essentially part of the fabric of what we do and what other countries do as well. that's good news. >> i want to close our excellent session with the mother of all questions, the question that the secretary t up by saying

whenever you talk about human rights as a foreign policy and who we are is this realism, is this idealism and in that context, if you want to take this opportunity to share with the group the incidence of advocacy where you felt your most successful and the place where you have regrets as you looked back over your own lifetime of support for those who needed a around the world. >> tough question. but i would start with the question of the balance and say that it's not always an easy decision to make. right now i would say that when one looks at the range of human rights abuses i would say right now in central asia we have to

deal with that balance because the bureau of repressive governments and yet there strategic issues. but most likely region to exploit over the next x number of years is central asia and dealing with making sure people the u.s. is concerned about the human rights violations but it's important. and it's important -- this goes to your question. in the philippines we didn't do enough in my view with respect to marcos and we lost the case, the space government came into being. and i think it is not only the end of evaluation and the balance is that you do reflect a greater concern for human rights you lose the security advantage. ..

>> in terms of my own view, and we needed to do more earlier against them. particularly after washington come that we need to put more pressure on the regime and the regime -- the military regime in argentina that time. and in central america, think we could've done more on follow content by unkempt lot more than we did. we did a lot, but we didn't do enough. >> i'm going to come to tex harris. >> those in jail were tortured,

they said yankee, go home. someone had cost -- crossed out in spanish, in britain take me. that is symbolic. it would argentina today, the u.s., which is a country that doesn't like the u.s. its government is drifting towards the model. yet, there is a brief bright shining memory and it is referred to as saint pat. that is really a nice image to have an in memory to have and a marker for the u.s. human rights policy today. >> elliott, revisit ideally a 10 idealism. >> i think it is a idealistic

policy of reacting to what we have learned over the life of this bureau, is that you can never foreign policy detached from the decency of the american people. and their desire to have a close relationship with decent government. it is an on the list of policy. that's it was once their policy, but we have come far far beyond that. i cannot envision either the congress or the executive branch ever returning to the view that that kind of polity is sensible for the reasons that come as the secretary said it, but also possible for churches and synagogues all across the country. actively involved in human rights cause around the world. one other thing that is really striking me. if you go back to the 80s, we were talking about human rights in the soviet union, asia, south

america, central america, not the middle east. there really was the sense that the human rights -- it just wasn't a subject. this happened, obviously come after 9/11. in those years, we seem to believe in every bit exceptionalism. they were off the human rights map. >> of course, it is the main subject. congressman mcgovern,? >> i think that human rights, it is the right thing to do. whether it is realistic or idealistic, and maybe it is both. you know, i also think that it is important for the united states to knowledge every once in a while -- when we have supported governments that have been impressive. i think it is appropriate to say that we made a mistake. i think we are now engaged in war on terror.

there have been excesses which constitute human rights abuses. we have to live up to them, to the extent that we do, again, it enters our statute and credibility on the issue. i spent a lot of time on el salvador in the 1980s. i have strong disagreements with our policies. i thought that too often, we let ideology get in the way of doing the right thing on human rights. i think too many people died in that war went on too long. what i regret is that we don't have a policy to deal with the issue of the human rights abuses in sudan. i think the whole world should be appalled by what is going on, and about it ought to be more of a public priority worldwide. a few years ago, i tried to get into sudan, but they wouldn't give me a visa to go when, probably because i got arrested in the front of the embassy a couple of times. i understand that. [laughter] i remember visiting a refugee

camp in chad, and a young mother was giving testimony to the international criminal court to be used against president bashar al-assad. she talked about the most gruesome episode in which her family had been killed before her eyes. i went up to her and i hugged her and i said, i told her how courageous it was for her to be able to tell that story. she said to me, the only reason why i could tell that story come in the only reason why i want to stay alive is because i think by telling the story, someone will care. and they will do something. that woman, that episode haunts me every day. i think we have some big challenges ahead. we have a lot to be proud of. people who have worked in this bureau should be proud. those ngos who are here should be proud. our job is not finished and we have a lot more to do. thank you for having me here. [applause]

[applause] >> with apologies, we are out of time, i would like everyone to think their panel for their thoughtfulness and generosity today and for their service to our nation. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> i would ask everyone to move to the center and get cozy. that is a request that i have to the people that organized the

gathering. as much as you all can, please move to the front and center. >> welcome, everyone, to the second panel. i have a lot to live up to now after victoria. it was fabulous. i am with newsweek as it says here. i am also the executive producer and managing editor. the gathering called women in the world, which has now had three years at lincoln center. which examines the global issues to the prisms of the narratives about the lives of women and girls around the world. we bring men onto her status as well. what we have discovered in these three years, particularly at

lincoln center when we were sold out, is that human rights has become the issue of our summit over the course of three days. so i feel very passionately about these issues, and i'm delighted to be here for it. i was just telling ambassador pickering, which nightline began right after the invasion of afghanistan. people associate with the hostage crisis. but it was really at the height of the cold war come and we have you on our program many times, and actually, harold koh as well. there is so much to get into. our esteemed guests, i would begin with a great ambassador, thomas pickering, who has the highest title here at the state department. also known as the diplomats diplomat. it is a great honor to have you here, sir. i think he deserves a great hand of applause.

[applause] [applause] >> also here is harold koh. he is the dean of law. he is going to give us a great important perspective of the international tribunal criminal court. he is a very important intellectual force in human rights movement because of the rule of law and the rule of law and the role of international law and human rights. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> to my right, ambassador daniel freed, who is the special envoy of the closure of the guantánamo facility. i hesitate to ask you who you kicked off to get that assignment, but it is an important one. it is terribly important, and i'm very excited to have him here because he has also posted as the ambassador to poland and

to central america -- not central america, until your upgrade assistant secretary in central europe. we have so much to talk about, the ark from 1989, the fall of the berlin wall until 2001. i hope that i thought it would begin with the president. the news this morning, ambassador pickering, from russia. vladimir putin is rounding up protesters because they wear ribbons. there is a congressional movement to crack down on sanctions -- imposed sanctions for vladimir putin. my question is is it déjà vu all over again? >> yes and no. the prudent effort to deal with this has been real and i think it raises the question of the fact that he is fiercely concerned.

intimidation and co-option. co-option where he could and intimidation where he thinks he has to. he is now reelected, he is an intimidating mode. he's going to move ahead with this. you have a movement in the streets of osaka stock. and that there is no serious way you can use force against it in the kind of rude opposition that the soviets would have practiced, and something that would have occurred with them. we need to be very much aware of it. i am deeply concerned by two aspects of our policy. i think we need to get rid of this, because the russians -- it is a torture instrument for the purpose of which is long disappeared. i support congressman jim mcgovern.

i wish, in fact, that we had scraped up a host of issues that meant misty represented the top. people have been killed with no examination, with clear sense that there has been government involvement. i think that that concerns me. can i say to other things at the outset, which will not, i think, for be any of us happiness. i think it is important that we put them on the record now as we take a look at what we are facing ahead. one of those is us. i could not agree more with the job that dan has undertaken and taking the burden off everybody else's shoulders. but we should not forget that we have people permanently in detention in the united states. it is not in my view and in accordance with the constitution or with rights, and it is something that we ought to face

up to. my feeling is that they deserve trials. i don't like military commissions, but i think that the administration has made a serious effort to make military commissions as much like district courts as they can. i disagree, however, if there isn't much like district courts that they are -- why we are using our district courts, and i think the congress has been unconscionable. in interfering with the process of justice in these cases. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i recognize that unhappily, we may not be able to convict some terrorists. and i am distraught. but i think because of our own folks, we do not have the right to violate the constitution and keep them permanently under detention with no access to a judicial process.

and if it means -- and this is highly unpopular -- letting them go, we're going to have to do it. i'm afraid i'm going to have to ask, i was going to get guantánamo later, but i think you better respond. [applause] >> first of all, it remains a position of this administration that guantánamo should be closed. that is the president's decision. and the administration's decision. [applause] [applause] >> the fact that it has not closed, is the result, not simply not even principally the intrinsic difficulty, but because the congress has put numerous robots in our way, prohibiting us, for example, from the kind of civil, normal trials in federal court. there have actually a very good track record of convictions and long sentences. i say this with regret. also, in the spirit of bipartisanship, i will note that the bush administration, over

500 come in case none of the restrictions in the congressional way that we face. two presidents, not simply one, wanted to close guantánamo, which begs the question, if both presidents wanted to close it, might they both be right. that is a question for congress, though not for congressman congressman mcgovern who has been on the right side issue. >> i think i'm going to ask you, harold koh, to weigh on on the issue in regards to the courts. >> when he favors what a joy it is to serve with both tom pickering and gantry -- dan fried. let me just say this nice to be not on the early panel. [applause] [applause] >> i think the most revealing point to me when i came to this state department from academia, that indicated me that we were in the post-cold war years, which was tiananmen square following the berlin wall

falling in 9/11, do you remember -- i don't know, if you remember this, but tom pickering and madeleine i write, and our ambassador was all there in minsk. and so, they started saying that everyone speaks russian -- they started talking in russian. they come over to interpret for me. and about myself, i'm glad jesse helms is watching this. [laughter] [laughter] this is a sign of how much change that not only could you have real dialogue -- bill dialogue between people and countries, which had non-zero-sum interests, even though they were not in a strategic partnership.

and that our diplomats could have the kind of knowledge of the other country that previously they only had about us and we didn't have going the other way. i have worked on guantánamo for some and she is under -- which was a very scary thought. i disagree with with tom in one respect. i think this demonstration has tried to make what is currently at guantánamo lawful, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. i don't think offshore detention of enemies of the state is a good idea. whether it can be brought within legal rules are not i think that

that has been the challenge of this demonstration is guessing. and i hope it can be addressed at the start of the next presidential term. >> let's now get back and to the air of 1989. i would like to back up a little bit before that because you do read the forefront. and i would like you ambassador fried and ambassador pickering, the flavor of the weight of human rights pre-1989 in your works? >> i remember that extraordinarily well. in the 1980s, the human rights bureau look at eastern europe for the place for it dissidents and trade union activists. their job was to defend these people. the notion that those dissidents and those train the union activists might have actually succeeded -- but they would succeed in the success would change the world was a thought that occurred to no on

in 1989 occurred, the realists in the department who opposed human rights in principle dismissed it as irrelevant, and human rights activists were skeptical because they thought the communism of it was too rigid to change. well, they were right the profound consequences of that collapse unfolded only as it became clear that it would in fact in great part of central europe, be replaced by real democracy. in the 1990s, from 1989 through the clinton administration, two presidents, american foreign policy, had to take account of the profound change which the fall of communism meant for the world. and that meant, in fact, that europe and european peace was at

hand. a cause which we champion rhetorically since 1945. a cause in which we have long since ceased to believe in a cause which was suddenly upon us. that was a profound era, and i'm proud to say that presidents bush, clinton, and bush 43 is funded in similar ways and were enormously successful. in the europe that we see today, despite the economic problems, but an undivided europe which seems now inevitable and it's probably taken for granted by the people from the rl who were not born when it was established -- that europe was regarded as impossible. impossible. and that experience of going from impossible to reality affected all of us who went

through. >> ambassador pickering? >> i agree with much of what dan has said. i would say two things. in the 80s, i was in el salvador. it was a huge problem. i would not have taken the job if george shultz hadn't reassured me. that not only was he in favor of doing the utmost to deal with the human right violations, but that he would back yet. and that was critically important. it made the job from a horror into something in which there was some satisfaction. the tragedy is if anyone follows of solid or now is that we have deported all of the youth members and they have now afflicted el salvador with a second hell. and we are now beginning to take conscious side of that and beginning to work on. in russia, there was consternation, and indeed, lack

of any serious sense of what to do. what did happen in the name however was free press and freedom of movement and a private life. it's appeared pretty quickly. and indeed, by 1994, they were pocketed by the public worried about the other problems, economic adversity, no pay, no pensions, no doubts. this took on a different category. dan is right that we got europe free, but i just spent last weekend in croatia. and we know that that is a reminder of the fact that there were many remnants of difficulty still not cleared up that we need work on. and that they had a dimension in which crosspost human rights in what we would call traditional diplomacy. i don't think realism is necessarily there.

that we have a diplomacy and a policy that is informed in part by our moral values and principles and in part by national interests and objectives. human rights is a critically important part of that. i want to talk later, if there is a moment, about this potential conflict. between realism and idealism and human rights and the regional euros. i think there is much to be said for ways to bring it together. gerald was sitting there throughout this -- most of this period, certainly the second half of the clinton administration. and i had the honor and pleasure of working with harold as undersecretary. when, in fact, many of these issues, as harold knows and i know, were on the plate. and we had to work our way through. and i think, although herald may have a different view, we worked our way through them incredibly with balance. >> let me back up. you had a have a success story by and large. yugoslavia, we have driven me --

what with the mechanisms that did not come into play that could come into play? harold, do you want to take that? >> maybe we can go do what i think was the big picture shipped in 1989. all of the berlin wall and tiananmen square. there was a change of paradigm, there is a change of strategy in a response to the change of paradigm, and there is a change of tools. the change of paradigm was, in the early period of human rights, post-world war ii -- genocide in the cold war, the paradigm was individual dissidents. after the wall came down, it was a little bit like the floodwaters receding, and suddenly you see all of these other problems and the paradigm became ethnic conflict. with yugoslavia and the balkans being the model, because it had held something together and as it started to fall apart, there was a need to change our approach. what was the approach?

it was democracy and human rights and labor. as one my son who graduated from college and he comes back from my swearing in ceremony and a friend says wizard at your job? and he said, my dad is assistant secretary for truth, justice, and the american way. [laughter] [laughter] and i actually thought, -- that is not bad. [laughter] [laughter] because the strategy, the tools that they were using was really truth, telling the truth to her human rights report and my pal mark susser is here, and the number of reports line by line, word by word or only model is to tell the truth. just as in the accountability, truth and reconciliation commission. engagement, particularly with the big powers, china, russia.

then the promotion of democracy and focus on the atrocities prevention and i think that continues to be the strategy. finally, the tools have radically changed, particularly private and public networks. they became a key part, and this is the early days of the internet were suddenly, you know, in china a cultural revolution occurred without many people knowing about it. by tiananmen square, people are flexing for democracy, and then in the present day, you have people twittering and tweeting. this is president clinton's's statement, that you can't -- you know, trying to block the internet is like trying to nail jell-o to the wall. this has radically changed the paradigm we might let me tell you for a moment there because i was in 10 tenements where. it was a slaughter, i stayed on another month. i was there the month before.

i know that they went back to china not very long after that and with officials there he met and was hosting them. i understand how things changed elsewhere, but i've just been back to china two weeks ago. we know the situation with china. help me out here. there are people who can see me and said they were meeting me to weeks ago. >> i'm glad he mentioned [inaudible] which i saw couple weeks ago. i don't think anything is more visibly proved the change of paradigm. after tnm and square, the yer in 10 days, he gets into the united states indicted in the united states without having the possibility of human rights in china that he would have felt. the only options for a dissident back then was what you would call inside china dead to the world or outside china, dead to

china. we don't have that anymore. the first thing that we did was to say, were their possibility of where you could be in china, communicating to the outside world? were in new york, commuting with china through the internet. this is an important point. the media needs to understand this. we were getting calls, saying when we brought china out of the embassy, saying what did the u.s. government do to protect chan. we got into a place where the internet will protect him. you better start thinking about it in old terms. this is not about government alone anymore. this is about public, private networks. and the fact of the matter is that we were talking to china about how their own vision of the rule of law am including granting passports and etc., would allow