polk. we'll also look at her successors, margaret taylor and abigail fillmore. first ladies, live tonight at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> on friday vice president biden outlined the administration's efforts to expand export opportunities for american companies. he called for concluding negotiations this year on a wide-ranging free trade agreement called the trans-pacific partnership. he also spoke out against cyber theft and other practices that hurt american competitiveness abroad. the vice president spoke at the annual export-import bank conference in washington d.c. ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome ms. jenny fulton and the vice president of the united states, joe biden. ♪

♪ >> good afternoon, chairman harmer, members of the board of directers and ladies and gentlemen. my name is jenny fulton, i'm the founder and co-owner of miss jenny's pickles. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, thank you. our pickle world headquarters is located in kernersville, north carolina. i am so honored and grateful to be introducing vice president biden, our keynote speaker. but before i do, i'd like to share our story.

miss jenny's pickles were born after by business partner and i were laid off during the recession. we took a family recipe, and by god's grace, we started our own pickle company. in the beginning we grew our own cucumbers, we jarred every jar. we formed a partnership with the local ymca to use their kitchen. we knocked on doors for stores to carry our pickles, and by the end of 2010, we were in 50 stores. by the end of 2011, we were carried in 200 stores. and by the end of 2012, we are now in over 900 stores. [cheers and applause] thank you. knowing that 95% of the world's population -- [laughter] lives outside the united states -- >> i was just telling them to sit down. >> yes, please, sit down.

i'm sorry, i forgot to tell them. why didn't you tell me that earlier? i'm so sorry. [laughter] i'm glad you're with me. >> i'm glad you're with me. of. [laughter] >> i do apologize for that. let's start over, you ready? [laughter] knowing that 95% of the world's population lives outside the united states, we knew that exporting was crucial to our success. we have now been exporting for two years. we are pickles in china. in fact, they left yesterday which is our second shipment, mongolia, the u.k. and very soon canada. in three short years, exporting has allowed us to grow our staff to 12 employees. that's 250% increase in employment -- [laughter] and by the end of 2013, we're going to do a million dollars in gross sales. and i hope 20% of that's in exporting. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

early on i had the pleasure of hearing ex-im chairman harper speak in north carolina. i was so impressed with his remarks that i went running out to the car, and i gave his driver, chris, a jar of miss jenny's pickles. and today we partner with the ex-im bank so we can let our foreign buyers have terms. because we have partnered, we now have our foreign sales increased. and now here's the fun part. it is my great honor and privilege to introduce our luncheon keynote speaker. with president obama he has worked the last four years to strengthen our economy, to help small businesses like mine and to open the world to american exports. please join me in welcoming our

vice president of the united states of america, joe bind. [applause] joe biden. in -- [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, this is why we can outcompete anybody in the world. [cheers and applause] this is the reason. you did a great job. >> thank you, sir. >> you did a great job. >> thank you. good luck. [applause] >> thank you. jenny said to me, good luck. [laughter] i tell you what, man. [laughter] i was telling jenny backstage that a lot of you know my home state of delaware and know it for the chemical industry and the banking industry, but i remind everybody the single biggest industry back in delaware is agriculture, and pickles are a part of that, and it employs a whole hell of a lot of people, and it generates a whole lot of balance of payment

surplus and an awful lot of it. you know, i kid with people who don't know much about farm economies, and i would challenge you this. you can go to any -- this is, obviously, an ad lib here -- but you can go to any major city in america, walk into a fancy restaurant, sit down and talk foreign policy with folks many many -- in that restaurant, i'll take you to a diner in southern delaware or out in the middle of the midwest, and you sit down with a bunch of farmers, and they can talk foreign policy literally. they know. they know more about what's going on because they know the folks they want to sell to are over there. and that's what y'all are about. i especially want to start by thanking fred. fred has done incredibly important work, and we owe him a great deal. fred, we owe you a great deal of help for what you've done to

boost american exports. but every single job you've ever taken on you've done extremely well. and i want you to know, and i mean the seriously personally and on we half of president, we appreciate your -- on behalf of the president, we appreciate your dedication more than you know. and it's an honor, also, to be with the rest of you this afternoon to have a chance to speak to so many people on the front lines of our economic renewal. i understand better than almost anyone, you understand almost better than anyone the sheer potential in this global economy affords the united states of america. and you are well aware of the challenges as well. this is a familiar story. in the postwar era, post-world war ii era, we faced a slightly different set of challenges as the global economy reemerged and the destruction of war, we knew that institutions and rules were needed to navigate through this new world order. and because our parents and grandparents were wise and

because they were committed, we did what we've always done best, we exercised our global leadership. we were driving, we were a driving force behind the creation of the world bank, the international monetary fund as well as the gat as well as world trade organization. the architecture for the global economic system. our companies and our financial institutions from that period through the mid '80s and '90s were also instrumental if establishing the standards for corporate responsibility and transparency in governance. defining the norms that shape the good business practices in an increasingly global economy. and thanks to all of you, um, participating in that global economy, you all know better than most that this is self-evident, and while many americans, too many americans to those institutions or norms seem to be abstract.

but not to all of you. they are what helped us grow the largest, most successful middle class in the history of the world. they set the rules of the road that led to economic expansion and shared prosperity in the united states and throughout the world. we didn't just stumble upon our economic destiny, we shaped it. we shaped our economic destiny. and now we have to reshape it. it's a different world. my colleagues are always kidding me, and fred's heard me say this for quoting irish poets all the time. they think i do it because i'm irish. i don't do it for that reason, i do it because they're the best poets. [laughter] and there's a poem, there was a poem that yates wrote called "easter sunday 1916" about his ireland after the first rising. that's what we irish catholic call the last time we tried to get rid of the british. but all kidding aside, he wrote a poem called "easter sunday

1916." he used a line that i think better describes the state of the world today than it described his ireland and easter sunday 1916. he said all's changed, changed utterly, a terrible beauty has been born. all's changed. in the last decade, all's changed in terms of the globalization of the world economy, in terms of the rules of the road or lack of rules of the road. in terms of watching the emerging nations trying to figure out where they fit and how we fit relative to them and so on. so these institutions that the affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order. because the global order is changing again. and the institutions that ruled, worked so well in the post--world war ii era for decades, they need to be strengthened. and some have to be changed. so we have to do what we do

best. of we have to lead. we have to lead. we have to update the global rules of the road, we have to do it in a way that maximize benefits for everyone because, obviously, it's overwhelmingly in our interests. this is not a zero sum game. of it's overwhelmingly in our interests that china prosper, that mongolia prosper, that nations big and large, east and west if latin america and -- in latin america and in africa prosper. because, you know their little expression, they asked willie sutton why he robbed banks, and he said that's where the money is? [laughter] we want everybody to have a little money to make sure they can buy american products. [applause] so the paradox -- [applause] so we don't view, the president and i and fred, we don't view economic growth as a zero sum game here, that somehow we grow and it's not in the interests of other major powers to grow as

well. that's the paradox of this new global order. so much of our success depends on the success of those with whom we compete. that's the challenge the president and i and the entire administration take very seriously. it's been the center of our economic philosophy from the day we took office. from our perspective, there are two things that we must do abroad to insure our strength at home. first, we have to reorient our focus not just toward the greatest threats, but toward the greatest opportunities that exist for us. and second, we have to level the playing field, that old phrase that's almost overused over the last 20 years, but it's true. we have to level the playing field so american companies and workers can compete in the world that the competition is fair, and it's healthy. to the first point, we came into office facing the worst financial recession since the great depression. we had to unfreeze the credit

markets, reform the financial system, inject demand back into the economy, and while this agenda is far from complete, we've made significant progress with all of your help. the economy is now -- has now added private sector jobs. disappointing this month, but they nonetheless added jobs. even still, we found the time there's a need for an ambitious agenda. we strengthened and signed three free trade agreements, we're working -- we're making historic progress toward meeting our incredibly ambitious goal of doubling american exports adding two million export-supported jobs by the end of 2014. we reoriented our development strategy to focus on sustainable economic growth. but there's so much more we have to do in the second term. the president and i believe we have to take up the task of updating the international economic architecture that serves as the foundation and must serve as the foundation for

long-term american economic growth. that's one of the reasons we dedicated so much anticipation to asia -- attention to asia. we're proud of the role we've played for decades insuring stability and security in the asia-pacific region. when i had one of my, a number of one of my long meetings over ten days if china with president xi because president hu and president obama wanted us to establish a relationship, it was fascinating. today asked about -- they asked about how we view ourselves. we are a pacific power. we are a pacific power. we will remain a pacific power. and he and others acknowledge that the -- our presence, our influence in the region since world war ii is one of the reasons why china has been able, been able to expand economic growth in terms and conditions of stability.

the world's economic engine has shifted eastward, and we know that it is in asia with where much of -- where much of the opportunity of the 21st century will be found. economically, asia already accounts for more than one-quarter of the global gdp. over the next five years, the asia-pacific may account for as much as 60% of the global growth. and that's why through the efforts like the trans-pacific partnership, our strategic and economic dialogues with the chinese, indians and others and our enhanced engagement in southeast asia, we're continuing to assert ourselves as a resident economic power in the region. think about the opportunity that the trans-pacific partnership alone represents. eleven members comprising 658 million people with a combined economic output of $20.5 trillion per year.

we've been working to forge an agreement that will bring together economies from across the pacific, development and developing alike -- developed and developing alike. the trans-pacific partnership is perhaps the most ambitious trade negotiation underway in the world. flrch -- to insuring the free flow of data across borders to enhancing regional supply chains to insuring transparency and cutting red tape. we're also working to strengthen protections for labor in the environment. the trans-pacific partnership is open to countries willing to meet our ambition. since we started these negotiations, vietnam, malaysia, mexico, canada, all have joined the negotiations, and we continue to welcome other countries. ..

>> we have build a specially deep and robust security institutions that span the atlantic. and now it's time for that economic cooperation to catch up and sink deeper roots. because the truth is the united states and the european union are each other's most important trading partners. and will remain so. the useu commercial relationship today has $5 trillion, far and away the world's largest. but we know, we know, you know

we can do more. that's why we've announced negotiations on a new transatlantic trade investment partnership. this is a big opportunity. a new partner that can build on what's already our leading export market, supporting more than estimated 2.4 million well-paying american jobs. but this is not purely about basic economic gain. it's about the possibility to drive progress together on shared priorities. that's why we have an ambitious agenda. knowledge to eliminate, but also to taco costly so-called behind the border barriers to the flow of goods and services, improve transparency, and develop rules and principles that promote global competitiveness. i'll keep saying this, when i was in china speaking at the great hall of the people, and they were talking about our

economy, i made it clear when i was recently in germany with the chancellor, in paris with the president, in england with the prime minister, we americans, we welcome competition. it's stamped into our dna. it is not a problem. it is not a problem. period. that's the fundamental point with regard to both of these trade agreements. we are talking, what we are talking about are shipping a new standard that can become the metric by which all future trade agreements are measured. that's the first part of the question. the second is something i know this audience understands well. i don't have to kill you. i just stated about competition. you're out there fighting every single day. you know, you know that genuine competition pushes our companies and our people to perform better.

genuine competition. america's welcomed it. as i said, it's ditch in the very fabric of our society, our economic system. and the benefits of healthy competition require a level playing field. or at least close some of the two level playing field. we even when winfield isn't quite level. but literally, i mean this sincerely, this is not hyperbole, when the field is level, american workers, the american capitalist system, the american market system, the american ingenuity can and does compete with anyone in the world. on any level. [applause] i had of overwhelming confidence on the competitive capacity of the american worker. they are the most productive workers in the world today.

but we will not fully realize our potential if the game is rigged, and this, there's a lot, a lot of leaking going on right now. that's why we are troubled by state-owned so-called national champion competitiveness that in choice subsidized financing, artificially inflating their competitiveness. by restricting for investments, trade, trade designed to induce american companies to transfer the technology, their manufacturing as a condition of market access, by procurement rules that unfairly keep american companies from the chance to compete, and by government that steals our intellectual properties the benefits companies increasingly, increasingly we are seeing wholesale theft of confidential business information and proprietary technology through cyberintrusion. and that has to stop.

it has to stop. and as a point that when i travel in other countries, i've traveled about 700,000 miles worth of other countries in the last four and a half years, i really mean it, when i talk to the leaders of other countries about theft of intellectual property, and i talked to them about these issues, i point out that they are denying their own people the promise of being able to become more competitive, because it indigenous capacity to grow creatively is stifled when they engage in the theft of intellectual property. these are series challenges and in many ways they are growing challenges. and we are taking them on each in turn. we are enforcing trade growth of our it on the books, bring a

record number of cases to the wto, crafting new rules and setting standards for goldman -- global trade. and we're fighting for american companies. i want to say to the press here, i make no apology when i travel abroad. to make the case for american companies. no apology. part of our obligation is in essence to be an extended chamber of commerce to make sure american companies get an even shot. that is part of our responsibility. we are fighting for american companies doing the hard grinding daily work of economic diplomacy. these efforts, large and small, are mostly outside the public eye, but they pale. just in the last few days, the usda opened taiwan $8 million fresh potato market to our colorado farmers. the commerce department is

hoping increased trade with mongolia where exports have grown by more than 1500% in four years. the state department's economic dialogue with the united arab emirates will build on a $20 billion, build on our $20 billion export last year. and we celebrated ex-im's record-breaking deal this year, $5 billion loan that will support more than 18,000 american jobs. these efforts involve everyone from the president on down. last year, i personally sat -- hammering out deals to open china's auto insurance market, and the bus to quarter that unfairly limit chinese imports of american moody's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. everyone has to understand you want to play on the world stage, you've got to play by the rules.

you know, i have, as i said, i've traveled the world for the president over the last four years, and everywhere i go i a long with anyone else fights for america's economic interests. but in the way any of the toughest markets, including russia and china, have also been cases i mentioned before that publicly and privately that an open economy and a level playing field is not just in our interest, it's overwhelmingly in their interest to develop their economies and to develop their countries. and open innovative dynamic economic system requires institutions that are open, free, transparent and fair as well. when country stick to the rules of the road, globally, they tend to build better institutions at home. this requires the kind of reforms that can secure any countries long-term stability and prosperity. that's how a level playing field and the global economy supports values would like to see everywhere. free exchange of ideas, free enterprise, transfer to, anticorruption, the rule of law.

we take these issues very strangely. we also take seriously the need to attract global investment and the united states. in the past that's been an easy sales pitch. america has long as, still has the most productive workers in the world. we are the best research universities in the world. we have a rule of law. we honor contracts and legal obligation. we protect intellectual property but it's about more than just our legal structure. it's about our culture of innovation. i don't know if any of the country in the world, including our european partners, that would actually encourage its people to challenge orthodoxy. we have a lot of trouble with our education and we're trying to improve. but the one thing our system, stands up, no matter what the scroll, children are encouraged to challenge orthodoxy's. not accept it. in fact, we don't just encourage it, we teach it.

steve jobs in a famous exchange of the student at stanford to what do i have to be, be more like you, paraphrasing. he said think different. you can't think different in a country where you can't speak freely. you can't think different in the country where you are not allowed to challenge the orthodoxy. you can't think different in the country that limits what you can be engaged in. that's what i'm so optimistic about our future, because i believe the 21st century, the true wealth of the nation is found in the creative mind of its people and our ability to in the belt -- innovate. not only spend, spot new products but entire new industries. more than any other country the united states, america is hardwired for innovation. it has enabled a generation after generation of americans to give life to world changing ideas. from the cotton gin to the

airplane to the microchip to the internet, and the list can go on and on and on. these accomplish much made possible by the capacity of the american people, and the immigrants who constantly enrich and revitalize our national fabric. and that more than anything is why i truly believe we are better positioned than any country in the world to be leading economy in the 21st century. the same time we know that things are changing. we have to make sure we maintain our edge. we need to make sure we are fully equipped for the coming competition. and that takes into the last point. that's why we are investing so much in education. that's what we think it's so critical. that's why we are making early education, s.t.e.m. education such a high priority. that's why we made investments in research and develop and so critical and central door economic agenda. that's why we're committed to invest in the kind of cutting edge technology that will help us ensure that the new new thing which is now an old, old phrase is not just imagine here, but is

manufactured here. and that's why we insist on updating our infrastructure so that it can accommodate a rapidly changing world, not only will that encourage businesses to stay in america and invest in america, it will create jobs on the scale we require right now. we also think it's essential to reform the immigration system. every year, we in a sense export. every year our university system generates roughly the thousand people with ph.d's and master's degrees in areas in science and technology that we need. we make sure they are probably escorted back to their country. at the very sometimes we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on s.t.e.m. education. it makes no sense. in my humble opinion. send them back to the country that denies them even when have a job waiting for the.

we should be stamping a green card and a diploma as they walk across the stage, literally. i mean this literally. [applause] not figuratively. literally. if they have a job here, they should be able to stay here. we should want them here. ladies and gentlemen, also adding additional h-1b1 visas for the american employees, employers can hire the best and the brightest no matter where they come from if they can't be found here. you know, in very real terms our future national competitiveness can be tied to giving a conference of education reform reform bill on the president's desk. those other things that we're doing right now, infrastructure, investment and innovate technologies education and immigration. these are things. like, for example, when the president announced that

100 million out of we would be 1 billion-dollar project to map the human brain. that's not some idle exercise as i watched some of these talk show guys thinking, you know, i mean, we should scanned their brains. [laughter] but i'm serious. it's amazing. since when did we become the nation that instead of embracing science and believing that we can solve any problem, and extending ourselves, since when is that anticompetitive or antibusiness or liberal? ladies and gentlemen, these are the things we are doing right now. we have continued to make america a place where foreign companies will want to put down roots. we have one of the most open economies in the world, so we

know there are great opportunities for investing in the united states of america, and we're determined to make sure foreign investors know about them as well. that's why for the first time ever we have an initiative that is entirely dedicated to helping foreign companies that want to invest in america. to figure out how to do so. it's very much in our interest for that to happen. each of these actions will have another effect. which is maybe the most important of all, the most important to do, and i think this audience probably understands it. that is, i think it will help grow the base of the american exports that included type of products and services that the u.s. -- that are not exported at the rate it could be. it also includes encouraging more first rate exporters in the united states, because as all of you know, reaching 95% of the

consumers who live beyond our borders is not be an opportunity for american companies, more and more it's a necessity for american companies. we've already made incredible progress in that front. last year u.s. exports hit an all time record of $2.2 trillion. without question, this export growth has contributed to americans creating more than six months out over the past 30 months. and i believe if we di get it rt we can achieve even greater results. i absolutely firmly believe we can do this. i know i am referred to in the west as the white house optimist. now, i read that all the time. well, like i'm the new guy. my grandfather would say, look, i just fell off the turnip truck yesterday. [laughter] in case you haven't noticed i've been there longer than any of them. [laughter] and i hope you all haven't noticed that. [laughter] but i'm afraid it's self-evident. when i'm optimistic, not at of

my day. i know the history of the journey of this country. this is a journey of the country has every single challenge -- >> just a couple minutes left in this event with the vice president. you can see the rest of it on a website. going live now to the ronald reagan building in washington for the nuclear policy conference or director general of the international atomic energy agency and the chair of the is nuclear regulatory commission will address the conference. this is hosted by the carnegie endowment for international peace. it is just getting under way. >> amazing to consider the longevity of an event like this. we have worked really hard to put together what will is another in a series that really tries to build on this agenda that we've been working on, wrestling with for quite a while. part of what makes this conference unique is not just that we talk about nonproliferation and arms control and nuclear energy, but

we bring together a diverse audience, officials, experts, journalists, students. and today by our count we had some 46 countries represented here, which is fantastic. with a group like that we expected to be provocative discussion. and i want to emphasize that as we thought about and prepared for this conference, the emphasis really should be on discussion. all of the panels will have today and tomorrow are intended to be facilitated conversations, audience participation is a key aspect of this and i know that you're not a shy crowd, and i expect you will participate fully. this conference, would not be possible without the support of a number of organizations who sponsor the work of the nuclear policy program and the conference specifically. please indulge me to allow me to mention them here. these are the carnegie corporation of new york, the

swiss federal department of foreign affairs, the german federal foreign office, the macarthur foundation, for no ouija ministry of foreign affairs, the united arab immigrants, the new land foundation, ploughshares fund, prospect hill foundation, the sloan foundation, u.s. department of state, and the hewlett foundation. we a significant gratitude to these organizations. in addition we also owe thanks to the trustees and leadership of the carnegie endowment. without his consistent support over the years to subsidize this conference would not be able to have it on this scale. and we are thankful for their indulgence. you all have noted from the walk through the foyer this more and that we have again a number of exhibitors. i encourage you to visit with him and hear about the work that they are doing. there's also several tables for publications, there's a carnegie table with new publications that you can take for free from my colleagues, george perkovich,

alexei arbatov, laura some of the there's also some general tables that if you brought publications and you'd like to leave out and let others take on, feel free to put them out on the table. i know that the baggage fees are getting a little excessive these days but if you feel like loading up for the trip home, please do so. let me talk just a little bit about the agenda. we did something different this year which is we sent out a read ahead which opel you received by e-mail last week but it's also printed on page seven of the program. this conference takes place at this time against the backdrop of i think series concern about what is happening on the korean peninsula. there were talks on iran this last week that don't seem to produce any new results. and, of course, there's increasingly prognostication from "the wall street journal" about living proliferation, which if you haven't seen their section from this morning i encourage you to do so. some of you might look at the

agenda and wonder where are these topics, the usual hotspots, why aren't there any pants on these? or conversely, why are we talk much you managing dimensions of nuclear weapons or emerging powers? on the former as we thought about the substance of this conference, we assumed that these issues will be ever present in the conversation. it will be raised in several of the sessions on regime change, on sanction and on the balance between nonproliferation and disarmament, for instance. and on the latter point, we think this conference provides an opportunity to focus not just on issues that are in the headlines, but those that will be of increasing importance and shape how we perceive and analyze these issues in years to come. we think it's worth the time to spend and discuss those kind of issues. we are sure that not all of you will agree with how we structured the this or the issues that we have chosen. this is a matter of

subjectivity. in any case, hope you enjoy the discussions, have a new perspective, new ideas, and new colleagues from around the world. lastly, a note about the roster of speakers. we went to print with the program and then we printed an addendum to the program, and even the attendant isn't quite correct. there's always last minute change. we are very much looking forward to hear from foreign minister of brazil but, unfortunately, he had to stay back in brasilia of alaska so unfortunately we will not have a chance to hear from them. there are a few other changes that you encounter as you go to some of the panel sessions, but we think that there's no diminution in the quality of the program in any case. request from a sound engineer who says that we do not have the technology here to block cell phones. which we probably should investigate for the future. please if you haven't already done so either turn off our put your phone to vibrate. with that, i wish i could

conference. whether this is your first conference on your 15th conference, we hope to see you next year for the 16th. i will turn it over at this point to mark fitzpatrick to introduce the first session. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, toby. i'm the mark fitzpatrick. i'm not from carnegie. i'm from london, the international strategic studies where i run the nonproliferation and disarmament program. it's a great honor for me to be introducing director general yukiya amano, the head of the international atomic energy agency. i've known the director general for over 10 years when he was director general in another guise, heading the disarmament and nonproliferation and sciences department of the

japanese foreign ministry. i knew him when he was ambassador in vienna, represented to the iaea, and when he was chairman of the board of governors of the iaea. he has headed the agency since december 2009, after winning a hotly contested election. and he must've done something right in the years since been because he was just reappointed without opposition by consensus for another term. now, the general conference has to confirm that this coming september, so it's not a completely done deal yet. it's been a challenging three and a half years for the iaea. the nuclear disaster at fukushima cast a pall on nuclear energy. north korea's provocations and it's third nuclear tests remind us daily of the failure of the global nonproliferation regime in disregard.

the iran issue has gone from bad to worse. the agency's november 2011 report laid out the harshest charges yet, but iran claims it was all politically motivated. the agency's governing board remains polarized. in the spirit of vienna is in some cases a distant memory. to speak to some of these challenges and to look ahead to the next four years, director general amano is going to come to the podium for about 10 minutes. then we're going to engage in a bit of q&a. i'm going to take the role as a journalist, and then we will turn over the role of journalists to you all for continued discussion. director general amano, the floor is yours. would you like to speak from the podium? [applause]

speak hundred and unde -- >> good morning ladies and gentlemen. i am very much pleased to have been given this opportunity, to speak to such a distinguished audience. i am very much delighted because i can see nice cherry blossoms here. that's an average japanese when we are in a foreign country, we miss cherry blossoms and hot springs. last week i read that for japan, and this year by the season of cherry blossoms was very early, and i could enjoy the cherry blossoms. and i enjoyed hot springs. and now i can enjoy the cherry blossoms again for my second time, a good omen. today, i would like to talk very briefly about the contributions from the iaea towards some

creating the world free from nuclear weapons. about one of the most important, activities and nonproliferation. before going in detail i would like to briefly explain the basic arrangement from nonproliferation system, regime. neither the npt northern nuclear weapons state make commitment not to use nuclear material for purposes other than peaceful ones. and they are requested as to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements and some decoration to the iaea. the iaea, for its part, has the obligation and rights to verify that nuclear material, --

[inaudible] in the country in some uniquely for peaceful purposes. if the iaea finds that some activities of the country constituent noncompliance with a comprehensive agreement, then iaea board of governors reported to them come united nations, security council council, and the u.n. security council adopts appropriate measures. this arrangement seemed to have -- [inaudible] up to the early 1990s. but the discovery of secret nuclear weapons programs and iraq after the first gulf war made it clear that the iaea was

not very -- [inaudible] to discharge its responsibilities. the response from the member states was the approval of the additional approval which took place in 1997. with this, the iaea has an expanded tool to have access to information and people. i always remind the iaea member states as the additional protocol is essential for the iaea to give credible assurance that all the nuclear material in the country is in peaceful purpose. when i joined the agency in

2009, the number of countries was 93. now that number stands for 119. this is quite important progress. the recent trip, even, -- event, the iaea found the activity of some country considered noncompliance with the iaea safeguards. the iaea reported it to the security council on the security council, and adopted resolution of. but these countries do not implement security council resolutions, and do not

cooperatively activate -- actively cooperate with the iaea. which are legally binding as they were adopted under chapter seven. we are focusing on iran, dprk, and syria. and sure, we have a lot of questions on this issue, so i would like to come back to this issue in the question and answer period. other area where than one is -- other area where iaea is lacking is nuclear disarmament. the iaea is not nuclear disarmament -- [inaudible] body. it is rather, the first committee and united nations

that never shape the nuclear armament agreement. or bilateral have taken place. what the iaea can contribute is to make its expertise game through -- [inaudible] available for the country if they requested. in fact, the iaea helped to verify the disposal, the dismantlement of nuclear weapons when south africa abandoned nuclear weapons and joined the iaea as a nonnuclear weapon state. if there are requests, the iaea is waiting to do more in the area of verification of nuclear

disarmament. another very important area is the nuclear security. nuclear security means to prevent the fissile material and radio fissile material falling into the hands of terrorists. the iaea was involved in these activities and has intensified. it therefore since a decade. we've established -- [inaudible]. we have provided assistance. we have trained people on, we have cooperated, started that illicit traffic database. we've already some 2000 cases of illicit trafficking. many of them are not very

important issues, but there are cases in which some tried to traffic highly enriched uranium. and the same people repeat. so this is real threat. we never know that we know everything. what we know may be -- [inaudible]. the iaea cannot do all. however, we are prepared to function as a global platform to strengthen the nuclear security force. this july, iaea will host international conference on nuclear security at minister level. this will provide us a good

opportunity to take all of our member states, over 152 countries, on board. we also have gathered in vienna and discuss -- [inaudible], database, and these discussions will help us establish the future nuclear security grounds. my last point is about nonnuclear weapons, nuclear weapon free zones. as you know very well, we have now five nuclear weapon free zones. we have 113 countries. this is very effective tool to achieve the world safe from

nuclear weapons. and all of these five nuclear weapon free zones provide for the iaea verification. in autumn 2011, the iaea hosted a forum on the nuclear weapon free zones in middle east. nuclear weapon free zone in middle east is an issue with long history. it is a very complicated issue. the idea of the forum is to learn from experience from other countries. you may think that is simple and easy. actually, it was not. it took us 11 years to come to reach agreement to actually host this forum. the result was very encouraging. of course, we could not produce them, the agreement, and it was

not expected, but despite the complexity of issue, and despite the differences of a few, we could have a very constructive discussion in the forum. and i'm very happy that we could have this meeting. it is of course up to member states in the region, the countries in the region to decide whether or not to establish nuclear weapon free zones in that region of the world. but we are ready to help them. perhaps 10 minutes have passed, and i will be very happy to exchange views with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, director general. it's not only cherry blossom season, it's baseball season.

so let me start with a softball. as i said, you were reappointed without opposition. you obviously overcame the hesitancy that some states had about your candidacy as they did four years ago. how did you do that? can you tell me about when you look back these three enough years of your achievements, maybe lessons learned, maybe some disappointment, and maybe looking ahead to what you hope to do for an encore? >> the election in 2009 was a very difficult one. it is very natural if there are more than two candidates that member states are divided. and it happened in my case, and it also happened with my predecessors. [inaudible] if differences are

put aside, member states right around the new general. i am very pleased that i've received the very strong support from all the member states in the past three years and a half. what have i done? i tried to pursue the objectives of the iaea in a balanced manner. i did not mention in my introductory statement, but the iaea is an organization with multi--- nonproliferation is one thing, but making the nuclear techniques available for all the countries is another very important area. so in the past years, i tried to pursue these objectives. just for example, on iran, i provided the assessment of the iaea with clarity. i drew conclusions on syria.

we have hosted a forum on nuclear weapon free zone in the middle east. on the nuclear safety i never thought that a huge accident like fukushima would happen in my country, but it happened, and the iaea tried to do our best. of course, not everything was perfect, but i'm very happy that member states get together very quickly to reach agreement on the action plan. and now action plan about safety is being implemented. i mentioned the nuclear security in my introductory statement. i also tried to improve upper management. the iaea is now modernizing the safeguard analytical level with

state-of-the-art equipment. [inaudible] under budget and within schedule. this is very real. in many cases, but if it's overrun, it takes more time. i think it's one of the examples of effective management. and the disappointment, i do not tend to talk about disappointment. but i wish we could have made more progress in the nuclear, safeguard implementation issues like iran, dprk, and others. i also, i think it would be good to see activities of iaea and peaceful application of nuclear

techniques, with some better recognition. >> well, you hit that one out of the park. let me follow up with a fastball. you said that all the member states are favorable. there's one member state that's not so favorable. i think they've even called, not just you, yeah, they don't like it very much, that one member state, and they seem to not like the agency much. they said that the agency has been infiltrated by terrorists and saboteurs. now, if you can overcome that level of distrust and move toward a solution to the iran nuclear crisis, you're going to be up for a second nobel peace prize for the agency, and first for you so. so do you see any solution anyway forward, at least the way

that the states can model through without iran getting to the point where they could make a dash for nuclear weapons without being discovered in time? or an alternative worst case scenario of a war being started to prevent them from giving to the point? any good ideas? >> i think iaea, particular opposition, but we are operating extremely political environment. so i'm not surprised that different countries have different views what the iaea is doing, especially in the field of nonproliferation. what can we do to make our activities fair, impartial, and practical? i have lots of thoughts on this issue, and when i joined the agency i made it clear that i

will apply standards for all the countries. the standard is simple. all the countries have to free implement the comprehensive safeguard and other elements, obligations if there is any. i apply this standard, not only to iran, but to all the countries. in case of iran, it is clear that the board of governors decided that some of the activities of iran constituted noncompliance with the agreement. it is not implementing them. u.n. security council resolutions. under the situation, what i can

say is that, yes, iran has placed -- [inaudible] and we can verify that the nuclear material in these facilities are staying in peaceful purposes. but as iran is not implementing fully comprehensive safeguard, and does not implementing the u.n. security council resolutions, we cannot provide assurance that all their activities in iran is for peaceful purpose. in my view this is a very impartial statement, assessment, with clarity. what we can do for the future, again the agency's view, is very clear. by applying this standard, we provided the assessment with clarity. in any event, in any issue,

having a clear understanding of the issue is the starting point. then in november 2011, i shared the information with member states, and i identified the areas which iran has to clarify. and if january 2012, the iaea and iran have been negotiating with a view to reaching agreement under modernity, which we call second approach, to resolve all the other issues. unfortunately, we have not yet reached an agreement. but the way forward is clear. we have provided clear

assessment. we have identified issues to be resolved. we are now negotiating the modernity as to resolve these issues. we need to reach agreement, and then we implement it. the iaea is determined to resolve the iran nuclear issue through diplomatic means. resolving this issue through diplomatic means by fully cooperating with the iaea should be the interest of iran. therefore, i'd really hope that we can find we, i mean iran and iaea, will find a common ground spirit thank you, director general. let me ask a follow-up question about the modality structured approach but you've been working on a for 16 months. you've got to tehran. your senior officials have gone there. so many times when you have gone there, it looked like you were

almost at the verge of striking a deal. and each time you've gone there, no deal. what's holding up agreements? and related question, is too much attention being paid to the issue of parchin? some people think that even if you go there you won't find anything after all these years. no evidence of malfeasance. order related come is too much emphasis being placed on what happened in the past at parchin and elsewhere to the detriment of getting a handle on what will be happening in the future? >> since january 2012, the iaea and tehran have been negotiating with the reaching agreement on the so-called structured

approach. the objective is to clarify results on the issue, mainly the issues with some possible military dimension. we have covered along stance on why we have differences, and sometimes are quite important, we have narrowed the gap. the sticking point is that for us, we are flexible, but in our view the agreed approach should be consistent with the iaea verification capability, certification. this agreed document should enable us to conduct our

verification work. if that is not the case, this does not serve the common objective to resolve these issues your meeting the agreed on a structured approach is important, but we should not use them, big picture. the objective is to build or rebuild the confidence in iran's activities. a structured approach should contribute for this purpose. this is the reason why we have not yet been able to reach agreement. and so why do we focus on parchin? parchin is a priority issue, but, of course, parchin is not the only issue.

we are asking, we've already asked questions. we are asking iran to give us access to the site, but we are also asking access to people and information, as well as the site. since we identified them, the facility which we want access, parchin is a huge facility. in the past we have visited, but this time we're pinpointed opportunity to which we wanted to have access, and since we identified that facility, iran has engaged in very extensive -- [inaudible]. we may or may not be able to find some meaningful things. but if we find something, that is good.

if we don't find anything, that is quite normal. it is not only iran that we're wrestling with. we wrestle with many countries, and when we have information that we want to clarify, we -- [inaudible]. almost all the cases it turns out that there's nothing normal. so the purpose is to clarify the issues. and if iran gives us access at parchin, that will help iran. because that is contribute to enhance the confidence in iranian corporation with the iaea. so i think i continue to ask iran to give us access to the site of parchin spent quick follow-up, director general. you said in a recent interview

that in addition to the information about nuclear activities of a possible military dimension in the past that this may be continuing now, and the word now struck a chord with some headline writers. do you have any evidence of that kind of activity continuing in the current present tense? >> we have some reported in the annex from the november 2011 report. we have all information that iran was engaged in activities for the development of nuclear explosive devices. these pieces of information indicate that committees before 2003, but some of the pieces of the information indicated the activities.

as to our access to information, our limited. our knowledge of undeclared activities reducing. what i meant by now is that the iran activities could be continuing up to now. about, you may recall that what i did was to ask iran to clarify. they do not have, by now does not mean we have information that iran is conducting activity as of now. we do not know. we have the information, credible information that iran continues its activities beyond 2003. that's what i meant. >> okay. director general, the way the

agency goes about the investigations that iran has wider implications for the way verification is conducted. the november 2011 report, particularly the annex, relied on a lot of intelligence information from member states, most of them probably have their own agendas. and one thing, i'm wondering if there's any issue of balance between relying on intelligence sources from member states and the need for impartiality in order to retain credibility among all states? >> as i stated in my introductory statement, after the first gulf war, it was discovered that iran -- sorry, iraq engaged in secret nuclear

weapons programs. it became clear that the iaea did not have sufficient tools. we have intensified our effort to collect as much information as possible. we use all the information available to us to conduct verification. this includes the information collected by our inspectors. we have a huge pile of information collected by our inspectors. this is essential. we have also information from different source. that is very helpful.

we also have the information that we attained, for example, through satellite imagery. in some countries provide us with information, this is the intelligence information. [inaudible] inspect the information call all source of information, intelligence information, and other information. we collect information. we cross checked this information from second point of view. we apply very critical judgment to verify these pieces of information. we are prudent and we do not rush to conclusion.

in case of november 2011 report, we do not rush to the conclusion. what we stated is that as we have information, we believe that iran has to engage with us and clarify the information. iran has a case to answer. >> thank you very much, general director. i hear i focus too much on safeguards and our other pillars and other aspects to work. i think we need to turn to the audience but let me ask this one last question on a different aspect. let's talk about nuclear power. in the aftermath of fukushima, what do you see as the role of nuclear power? and should the iaea still be promoting an energy source that seems to have so many problems? is nuclear power still beneficial, sustainable, and responsible?

>> the position of the iaea is that we respect that decision from each state. .. >> we have been following carefully of the trend after fukushima accident. what we found is that despite the fukushima accident, many countries continue to include

nuclear power as an important option. according to the latest estimates, now we have 437 nuclear power plants in operation in the world. according to our low estimate, there will be 90 more nuclear power plants on top of these 437. this is low scenario. in the highest scenario, there'll be hundreds of nuclear power plants to be added. now in the world 68 nuclear power plants are under construction. this is completely different to what happened after chernobyl. why this happens? because the fundamental conditions have not changed.

until quite recently we heard from all the political leaders that climate change is the number one concern of the world. armed nuclear power has contributed and will contribute to mitigate the negative impact of global warming gas. the price of fossil fuel is -- [inaudible] many countries would like to have energy security. the pollution -- [inaudible] according to the who statistic, 2.3 million people die prematurely because of the

particle matters and others. i said five-year estimate. five-year estimate is not our fantasy. we ask countries. usually we put question during this period from april to july and gather the information and combine them. and that is our estimate. the difference is that more emphasis is placed on nuclear safety. the pace of growth has slowed down or slower than what we have anticipated or estimated before fukushima, but with slower pace and with higher emphasis on safety, nuclear power will expand. >> thank you very much, director general. i have more questions, but maybe i should give a turn to somebody else. why don't -- go to the microphones. there are microphones on either side, and i think that'll be easier than me trying to catch or you trying to catch by eye.

and we maybe will take a couple questions at a time. if -- and when you start, please, identify yourself in the usual way and your affiliation. try to keep your questions short and without extended commentary. so we'll start over here, please. warren. >> hi. warren stern, brook haven national lab, formerly an employee of yours, mr. director general. so the safeguards regime has evolved -- >> speak a little bit closer to the mic. >> so the safeguards regime has evolved substantially over the past decades from 66153 and, of course, the additional protocol, often in reaction to crises. and it's always best in reaction to cry ice of to have a -- crises to have a plan already written down or thought about. so my question, sir, is what do you see as the evolution of the regime? what do you see as the next big change to the safeguards regime?

>> okay. question about evolution. we'll take a second question so you can think about that a minute, and others if you want to be lining up at the mic. so over here, this side, please. >> thanks, trevor finley from around saturday university. harvard university. mr. amano, the 2014 nuclear securities summit in the netherlands is supposed to be the last in the series, and i note in your address you said that the iaea is ready to be the global platform for nuclear security. so i'm wondering whether you believe that the agency would be able to take over the role and functions of the nuclear security summits. thank you very much. >> thanks, trevor. that was going to be my next question, so you got it for me. so evolution of safeguard system and is the agency ready to take the handoff if given the handoff from the nuclear securities summit? >> the safeguard approach has

been evolving since decades ago. as i stated in my introductory statement, first we focused on declared facilities, then we found that that was not sufficient. additional goal was approved but not, of course, not all the countries bring -- [inaudible] into force. and we are collecting information from from various sources, and we have the obligation, right and obligation to verify the completeness and correctness of the deck that rations. declarations. we will continue to use all the information available to conduct our safeguard approach. also, technical development is

very important. nowadays we have more sophisticated equipment. the satellite imagery did not exist when the verification system started. we have the equipment that can transmit data on permanent basis from the site to the headquarters. using more advanced technology is the key to make the verification effective. we will continue to use all the information available to us by critically cross-checking the information. we will use as much as some advance of technology possible to make verification effective.

regarding the relation between the 2014 nuclear security summit and iaea nuclear security activities, we are not viewing, we are not putting a question to ourselves whether we will succeed the summit or not. we have our mandate on nuclear security. we have over 150 countries as our members. and we have capacity to establish norms, provide assistance, provide training and maintain database. what we want to do -- i do not exclude other important organizations from doing activities. but someone should function as the global platform to enhance

nuclear activities, and we are ready to do that. it does not mean whether 2000 nuclear security summit will end in 2014 or continue. it is not us who decide, but it is the participants of the security summit who decide. on our part we will continue to work july 2013 international conference at military level on nuclear security is very important event to strengthen activities. by the way, we have two priorities in the current budget process. one is technical cooperation, and another is on the nuclear safety and security. >> thank you very much, director

general. let's take two more. in the back here and then over here in the back. or, no, i'm sorry, i think maybe you were first here, weren't you? yeah. here, these two. go ahead. >> hi, this is samantha pitts from the nuclear threat initiative. actually, my question is a follow up to trevor's and your answer. you mentioned the already-existing organizations that work on nuclear security. i wanted to ask you how do you envision iaea collaborationing with these existing organizations -- collaboration with these existing organizations to maximize all available resources in expertise and to avoid any unnecessary and potentially counterproductive duplication of efforts? >> okay. collaboration among agencies and was i right that you were first or in front here? yes, please. okay. >> thank you very much more your presentation. michael rosenthal now on loan to the domestic nuclear detection office. but i'd like to switch pillars. you said that you wished that

the iaea peaceful nuclear support programs had more recognition, and i'd like to ask you about one of them which i think is unique in terms of being a public/private partnership, and that's the program of action for cancer therapy. i know you support that, and i wondered whether you think that would be one means to, or vehicle to try to enhance the agency's recognition in those areas? >> michael, repeat the program you mentioned? >> i'm sorry. it's the program of action for cancer therapy pact. >> program of action for cancer therapy. okay. we're talking about nuclear applications. >> yeah. this is the one program i think that's unique, and the agency has public/private, and it has 90 partners in the industrial sector and also in other u.n. organizations. so one question is how would you support or grow that program and increase its recognition? and are there other programs in

the peaceful users that would be advantaged by trying to develop public/private partnerships? thank you. >> okay. so the questions were collaboration among agencies and organizations in nuclear security and public/private, um, support in particular for nuclear applications such as the nuclear therapy. >> okay. first, regarding the coordination among the different players on nuclear security, one of the objectives of the nuclear security conference in july is to better coordinate the activities. we have invited various players working in this field, and we have invited experts, and we are

very much willing to hear their views. different organization have different expertise, and we do not mean to monopolize the work. that is not effective either. at the same time, better coordination, better exchange of views is very useful. we are sending peer review missions to countries that can give advice to us and to the countries. and some -- [inaudible] the international conference on nuclear security that invite all the member states of the iaea, over 150, and international experts, we can have better views of what the stakeholders are doing that will help to better establish our plan on the

nuclear security in the coming years. for the coordination private and public and with other international organizations' coordination on cancer trump and others -- therapy and others, this is a crucial element. the iaea is very much interested in cancer therapy in developing countries because this is the real issue. in the past people tend to think that cancer is a disease in developed countries. that is not the case at all. two-thirds of this occur in developing countries. two-thirds of cancer patients in developing countries come to screening too late. therefore, we cannot give life-saving treatment. this is definitely a global health agenda. the iaea, why the iaea is involved, because we have nuclear medicine. we have nuclear techniques are

very useful to screen and diagnose the cancer. it is also very useful to afford the therapy. i do not mean that we can do all. for example, be patient. it is not the iaea's role, and i do not have the expertise how we had better to get rid of smoking. it is who's work, and health care system is not our expertise. and we know our limit. so we have made an agreement between who and iaea, and we are working together. we have expertise in particular field, but we know our limit. and we recognize the need to cooperate with the other entities in case of cancer, it is who. nowadays the private companies

have the expertise and financial means. they help us to finance on the cancer program. this coordination is not only in cancer program. just, for example, we have some very important program for the plant mutation, food security, food safety. and we have the joint unit established by fao and iaea. and this joint unit is local motive -- locomotive to promote additives in food and agriculture. >> thank you, director general. um, we'll go to the gentleman in the back and then diagonally here, and then i, i'm supposed to be getting somebody's flash cards. i'm sorry, we'll go gentleman

here and then the one in back, and then we'll keep going, but somebody has to tell me how much time i have left. okay, got it. thanks. we've got time. >> okay. thanks. ed lyman from the community of concerned scientists. you spoke of the interest to of the agency in verifying nuclear disarmament activities, so in that light i'd like to ask you about two years ago the u.s. and russia both requested that the agency begin negotiations on the agreement to provide monitoring, i'm not sure if verification is the right word of the u.s./russian plutonium management agreement. there's been very little publication about the status of those negotiations, so i'd like to ask if there's anything you can say publicly about them, about who would pay for them, what about whether design information of the facilities that are already under construction would be provided to the agency. thank you. >> okay. a question about the status of

the u.s./russia plutonium disposition management program. and over here, please. >> i'm -- [inaudible] from georgia tech. i have a question about the state-level approach of conducting safeguards. i understand that it is a very important effort to build a more efficient and a more effective safeguard system. however, on the other hand, it looks like the effectiveness of the safeguards also depends a lot on the relationship between the agency and the state inspected. so under the -- so if the state inspected does not have a good and a cooperative relationship with agency, that could create a lot of problems for the inspection. for the safeguards. so under the state-level approach, those states that

might receive more focus, that might receive more close, a closer scrutiny, they may feel unfairly targeted by the new approach. so i was wondering do you think the two goals can be compatible? one is to build a more effective and a more efficient safeguard system, and the other is to maintain or even promote a better relationship between the agency and the state inspected. and if so, what are the manners that iaea could do to help promote good relationship between the state and agency under the state-level approach? thank you. >> so question about the, um, the state-level approach and how to balance questions of fairness of scrutiny with efficiency and relations with the state. but the first one was the

plutonium disposition. >> first, regarding the plutonium management disposition agreement, we have received letters from the secretary of state and from -- of the united states -- and from the prime minister of russia some years ago, and we have had rounds of discussions on this issue. this is a very complicated issue, and the basic idea is that 34 tons of plutonium will come from the military cycle. plutonium, 34 tons of plutonium will be no longer needed for military purpose, and this

plutonium needs to be stored or disposed of. and these two countries, united states and russia, have asked iaea to play a role to verify the disposal of the plutonium. this is not a simple question. there are discussions how to deal with disposal. there are various techniques. shall we radiate it in the reactors, or shall we store it, or shall we dispose it? these are some aspects that should be addressed. we need to address the financial aspects, we immediate to define the role -- we need to define the role of the iaea. so this is not a easy, simple

task. but we have been working on this issue, rounds of discussion have taken place, and we are continuing these efforts. i cannot say at this stage when and how we can complete this process, but the idea is to, that the iaea plays a role so that the 34 tons of plutonium coming from the military cycle will no longer be reused, reenter into the military cycle. next question is about state-level approach and impartiality. state-level approach is not something new.

this -- first, safeguard is an evolving process. and this concept of state-level approach has developed especially after early 1990s. and we use all the information available for the agency after carefully scrutinizing the information. i use the standards that all the countries have to implement fully the comprehensive safeguards and other relevant obligations. there is not such a thing that for some countries our safeguard approach is generous. for some countries, approach is strict. we apply the same rule; that is,

the comprehensive safeguard and relevant obligations. >> thank you, director general. i think you're running out of voice. we have maybe time for -- >> sorry. >> -- two more quick questions. we'll have to make them quick to fit them in. so over here and then -- okay. >> good morning, director general amano. in fact, ambassador amano, because i was in vienna, ambassador of pakistan for the iaea when you came to vienna. it's a pleasure to see you speak here and to learn what's happening. ambassador, i want to ask you about a think tank now in islamabad based on, focused on security and nuclear issues. i want to ask you about the expansion of the board of governors.

i mean, there has been an amendment to the iaea's statute that's on the books, that's on the table for many, many years now. and the expansion is badly needed, because this was a structure that was created in 1957 or '58, and ever since so much has happened, and the organization has evolved. so we need to have an expansion of the board of governors. and the matter is held up. can you tell us what is the present position? thank you. >> thank you. and final question. >> okay. i must say for pakistan's strategic plan -- [inaudible] my question is with regard to the nuclear countries in the middle east. i know that iaea's job is more technical in nature and not the politics, but you can't -- [inaudible] recent part of the conference in the middle east --

[inaudible] and recent couple of weeks -- [inaudible] one of the entities -- [inaudible] so how do you see the iaea's role in that so to insure that non-proliferation drive your aim is not undermined by nuclear-free zone political part of it? thank you. >> okay. iaea board of governors expansion and the role of the middle east nuclear-free zone. >> the iaea board of governors took a decision to expand the membership of the board of governors, but it has not yet entered into force. from time to time, the member states push the idea or try to accelerate the entry to force of this amendment, but the progress is quite limited.

it is not only related to this amendment. there is another amendment to introduce the biennial budget. if it enters into force, that will enormously enhance the efficiency. but this has not yet entered into force. one of the problem of the amendment of treaty that member states are very enthusiastic in amending, but -- [inaudible] are weak. this happens in this case. it is not only under iaea statute-related issues, but we see the other issues like the amendment in on front of them, e amendment on protection of nuclear material. but we would like to see the entering to force of these

amendments. for the nuclear weapon-free zones and postponement of some of nuclear development zones in the middle east meeting, this is a matter that is handled by the secretary general of the united nations and the facilitator who was appointed by the secretary general. so i do not have, i am not directly involved in the hosting of of the nuclear weapon-free zone conference, npt. what we can do is we are helping five nuclear weapon-free zones existing in the world in the field of verification and in the

peaceful use, for example, in the treaty. if requested, we are ready to help the establishment of the nuclear weapon-free zones and implementation of the nuclear weapon-free zones, but addressing the issue under the npt is rather than by other entity. >> mr. director general, thank you very much. i wasn't keeping score, but if this was a baseball game, i think you have a very high battle with l average. [laughter] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the annual carnegie nuclear conference is taking a short break when they come back we will talk about non-proliferation issues that is expected to start about 1040 eastern. of the senate is back this week and lawmakers are expected to work on judicial and nominations and the debate could be under way on the legislation. the house is back tomorrow we expect work and hydropower projects also limiting the actions of the nlrb. the senate is life here on c-span2. later today a look at u.s. defense policy in asia. president obama is on the road today traveling to connecticut talking about

gun legislation live at 545 eastern also on c-span. and the news from london the former prime minister margaret thatcher has died at the age of 87. known as the i.r.a. may be the longest serving british prime minister of the 20th century. we have of footage available to view any time from our archives. president george of the bush this morning glory and dire saddened by the death of margaret thatcher she was an inspirational leader who stood on principle and guided the nation with clare it -- confidence and clarity. >> the ftc is structured as

a wired division and a wireless division and it issues the annual report by congress on the state of wireless. the hidden assumption behind that direction is the wireless market is somehow separate from the wired market but in fact, in the world the broadband, these two have been increasingly converged. >> host: what stands in the way that i'd like the cable companies they are beholden to a special tax sometimes called the legacy regulation they have to maintain two separate networks. the copper net -- the copper network and the broadband network and the problem is it is a diversion of resources and it is not a trivial diversion it is significant if they were freed from those obligations that would have billions of dollars to invest and expand

in the broad band network. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the chairman and president -- [applause] >> i could get used to this. thank you for joining us. it is a late start. everybody have a good day yesterday? [applause] i don't know about you but i've learned a lot

yesterday. i learned about the dollar and latin america, mexico the democratic institutions in latin america and other regions for strong growth. also the innovations we may have with fix data and how that affects marketing decisions and how we could make decisions on how to target our efforts. i heard from a small-business panel talking about social media and twitter and things like that. we had our twitter feed and if you have a smart phone i hope you don't know the program because we will do all the surveys on-line to find out which panels were worthwhile and the more things you like unless you don't for next year india

india, my mom said you cannot dance at two weddings i tried to dance that for every hour. the average age in india is 26 and in china it is 36 may be a slower growth with some challenges the long term a lot of good opportunities that it has been tough to capitalize on some of those. a lot of activity with the indian state government in the solar area and not surprisingly they have an election next year and things slowed down before federal elections. nobody has ever heard of that in our country. [laughter] i heard about informally conversations you'll heard -- you'll hear from danny about nuclear opportunities

as countries look at energy security, reducing the carbon footprint and a number of interesting factors with that and i also heard any talk about the balance between markets and the state and frankly after the financial crisis a shift a little more faith in the government and a little less faith in the markets. that is what i picked up yesterday. also yesterday we signed an agreement with the economic council and memorandum of understanding. i was just there three weeks ago. very quickly we signed an agreement to provide financing for $5 million with the uae. if you look at the cigar project that was the size of

it and a lot of infrastructure in dubai dubai, power, water, opportu nity for small businesses and today the uae is our fourth largest country of exposure globally. right after britain, mexico, india saudi arabia. a lot of opportunities there. i had as a meeting with the chairman of the bankers in here. burbank has a return on equity of 20 point* 5%. i cannot make stock tips but that sounded good to me. but we signed an agreement was then one year ago with burbank for $1 million of mo you in an alice the purchase of boeing aircraft so that

is one of those deals we talked about one year ago and a closing in on the next several months. i am hopeful you find opportunities and new relationships you can nature of this conference so you come out with the understanding of opportunities but perhaps the beginnings of an order. let me give you a quick wrap up. after this, larry summers former secretary treasury had airline problems coming from boston so i will have a conversation here with michael o'neill the chairman of citibank. after that there will be a panel on competitiveness, i should not say this one of the best channels we had last year. after that rail the hood and i will have a conversation

about transportation, infrastructu re and how it impacts global trade. if you have not met stephanie yet she is doing focus groups to the information on how we can do a better job than the survey will help us. and last but not least of vice president will be here there will be a big seal on it so i just ask at the breakout session you have to go through the magnetometer to get screened for the luncheon speech. the sooner you can get in here, the better. if you have to make a phone call better to do that in here to get the luncheon started on time. i would just add the unemployment figures came out this morning. unemployment dropped seven point* 6 percent the lowest it has been in several years

with 88,000 jobs in the month of march and a lot of that has to do with exports. thank you for being attentive i will ask michael o'neill to join me to it is right here. i got the privilege of getting to know on the vice three committee the chairman of city group, he also ran the bank of hawaii for a number of years. probably had nicer weather there and the bank of paul weiss was named to the three at of the last five years one of the best banks in the country, the best bank in the country. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] i am always reluctant to because it has been so long you have a 30 year perspective but you have been in the banking industry for a long time and part of

the third largest what are the big changes? what are some of the takeaways from your perch? >> where do i begin? by the way it is 40 years in the industry not 30. >> i was trying to keep you younker. >> the environment we are in now is one where the economic prospects are less clear. i started thinking there was great confidence in the u.s. it was the locomotive that drove the world economy. that is no longer the case. another key point* that i think needs to be made is regulation, appropriately in my view, a much bigger part of the banking business than

it was back then. i learned early in my career what not to do than what to do. i had my first 10 years of my career was at continental illinois that some of the older members would remember. the bank failed, $46 billion bank at the time perceived to be too big to fail at the time and bailed out by the government. it got its money back but still, an awkward situation. jpmorgan and is 2.$3 trillion bank, we sit here at the 1.8 trillion dollar bank so at 46 billion it was too big to fail can you imagine the changes of scale that has occurred in the last 30 or 40 years? that creates all sorts of issues as it relates to competitiveness to serve

companies around the world. but it also creates potential problems like we saw in 2006 through 2008 with problems in the industry that is threatened the global economy. so night and day over that time. we're still struggling not to right the ship because they think that has happened but to insure the safety and soundness issues that occurred in do not repeat themselves in the future and a number of appropriate actions have been taken by government and have now been explained and how do i describe it? identified by the regulators

and we're not done yet but by the time we are with the implementation of dodd/frank , we will see a much safer and sounder industry. i think we already are safer and sounder than we have spent for a long time. that road is not completely traveled but we're making terrific progress in that area. i feel comfortable about the future, capitalization, liqu idity of banks. this point* the economy will determine our earnings prospects and their i am a little less sanguine than i am about the improvement of the industry. >> with the aftermath many brokerage firms and others

became bank companies. so a little more of merrill lynch so what are the good outputs from that war that we have to keep our eye on as the country with the merger of the financial markets? >> guest: let's first start with asking ourselves why those brokerage firms became bankholding companies. period and simple it was the liquidity issue the environment was toxic. the liquidity was evaporating. the institutions could not so quickly enough to meet the call from depositors.

it was absolutely critical the banks and the government establish those large banks were safe. the way they did it was to allow the brokerage firms to become banks to have access to the federal reserve window. very quickly those liquidity issues threatening to become more serious were resolved. so the impetus to do it was making sure those institutions had liquidity. the consequences are that they have to live and a much more heavily regulated world. some of the discipline they have to live with our good certainly for the economy overall. the risk of mixing makes

that take consumer deposits have been discussed and everyone is concerned that these consumer deposits are guaranteed by the fdic would be used to make imprint investments. the u.k. has gone so far to would suggest the capital markets banks, and unfairly in my view but described as casino banks be separated from the consumer banks we are taking a different approach but there is a concern that consumer deposits are used appropriately. the government is concerned that they ensure those deposits. i would say that would be the area one would want to watch and continue to make sure the banks are being prudent for well-capitalized

>> before the conference started on wednesday some of us met with a to order nine of the largest banking partners to see how we're doing one thing that came matter that is a number of bankers in the room said they felt their institutions had more capital to put into projects. what is your perspective from that? what should people in this room think about? >> guest: that is a good question. i think the statement is true. we have seen is a massive deal leveraging by the consumer and by companies. that is not all bad but in reaction to the issues of

2007 / 2008 with a decline of property prices. , etc., etc.. but long term it is not sustainable we were over lunch while this ochered -- occurred. but that they are not willing to lend it is just that the economy continues to sputter along. there is good news on the horizon apparently but not much loan demand from people that are strong. i don't think there is a policy some would argue your building capital to meet the new basl standards i don't think that is true we will make whatever loans we can better -- but there has not been that much demand. hopefully that will change. >> host: i was trying to be generous in 30 years and

you mentioned 40 years. tell us about the country's you mentioned earlier in your career that you -- that blossomed much earlier than you thought or it looks like it had more potential but it is taking longer to come to a task. >> guest: let me think for a second. as a child and a teenager i lived both in europe and asia in the late '50s and '60s. so the place that impressed me most with progress is singapore. i recall leaving the u.s. on pan am and stopping every

two or three hours and ending up in singapore. it was a boeing plane. [laughter] there was no air bus back then. [laughter] >> those were the good days. [laughter] >> we landed nice although it was you could tell it needed a lot of work. i am happy to report a lot of work was done. it looks fantastic when you go today, it is state of the art. now you get on an airplane with singapore, still blowing, you travel back to look for via. it is a different feeling than you had four years ago. [laughter] it is we who need to work. there are challenges that need to be met but i am

confident that they can be met if we have the political will to get a little wind in our sales economically but that is a contrast that jumps to mind to answer our question. >> host: that reminds me before the global crisis people looked around the world to the united states and as a model of market economy, regulatory that has gotten kicked around with the financial crisis. how does that change from your perspective of our country's ability and financial institutions to provide models for the rest of the world? does that change your opinion and how? >> guest: it has. as a reputation we took a body blow because the perception was it was the

u.s. and the ever gracious and cree the and speculative ways that caused the crisis. from my perspective i don't think the financial institutions were the only culpable party. where do i begin? i think we had government policies that certainly was in favor of making a lot of difficult loans and fannie and freddie it was suggested that they do that. monetary policy was such that is sponsored it and an over reliance on the regulators on self policing by the institutions. there were dishonest people in the business with mortgage brokers come to mind not all of them let me say but some that would help

people fraudulently fill out applications and make loans and perhaps no lack of financial responsibility. plenty of blame to go around but the mortgages were bundled and sold also europe and asia with results that were not good. so the perception of the u.s. as a bastion of capitalism as a great market economy has been hit. if you looked at those economies that have been successful over the last tender 15 years there is a combination of government and business working together. that is the direction that is the right one to take. we will talk about that more with the competitiveness panel but i think we will

see more of that in the future. obviously there are bandages and disadvantages to both. your voice had a government involvement. i think that is the direction of things. >> host: what keeps you up at night? >> guest: since assuming this position i sleep less well. i will tell you that. i worry about the sustainability of the economy. europe continues to be a problem and is being dealt with on balance in a pretty good way but it is a long-term problem. the export oriented

economies giving europe's problem and our slow growth are bogged down still continuing to perform okay but not as in the past. we have our own unique problems at this point* with the government increasingly dare i use the word dysfunctional but please don't quote me. the issues that people are wrestling with that need to get resolved hopefully sooner the invader. i am not an expert but not confident that the big bang solution will be found. we have exposure in various countries so we watch them carefully. another issue is cyber security. secretary panetta and one of his last speeches describe that as a single biggest

threat to the united states. the secretary of defense says that you have to listen. we have been targeted. all big banks have been targeted. it is not just about guys trying to get your credit card number. it is an instrument of the stage with the indication of many economies there has been a lot of press about china, iran, israel it is a reality and these are very, very sophisticated people. building fire walls against them will be very difficult. we have a very strong team but this is a threat and it should keep us up that night. it is a tough one. >> host: to end on a positive note you travel

around, this is a personal question, where do you see opportunities that people might take a second look at? i think columbia it is a strong market for the u.s. exporters and pro american and wants to do business with us. you have a couple of places or tips to think about? >> guest: we cleaned a term we use internally i am not sure it is our role yet we call them frontier economies and columbia would be one of those. mongolia, kazakhstan and if you look at the fundamentals they are strong they don't and the institutions to support growth but they have hard-working people that are

well educated and it typically strong leadership. lee probably have 15 on the list. >> host: i will wrap this up so we can reset for the next panel. please give a round of applause. [applause] you will hear more from michael o'neill for the next panel. this is a warm-up act. please give us a few minutes and we will start the competitive panel at prom please 10:00. we have a full day to keep you occupied through lunchtime. >> a quick reminder if you missed any of our coverage it is in the video library.

we are live once again for the carnegie international nuclear policy conference. up next a panel on deterrence, disarmament, & nonproliferation issues that should get under way in a moment. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> hello out there. we will begin. we are grateful there is such a large group and here for the entire conference but that also means people will tend to wander in at the same time we want to try to stay on schedule to present all of the of content we have. it is my pleasure to moderate this session with three truly outstanding experts, colleagues and officials. we call its the prague agenda of the you could also call it the future of the

nuclear order. the themes that president obama of laid out in his speech four years ago with the npt action plan anything that anyone is concerned about nuclear energy development so whatever the label is come of we want to start the conference with the director general of the iaea by focusing on perspectives from the three states that arguably will determine the pace of the implementation of many items

of the agenda here of the nuclear order. russia, china, the united states for obvious reasons and perhaps not so obvious reasons. they will create the necessary conditions for the progress. not sufficient on nuclear disarmament and including the u.n. security council but as the nuclear suppliers group and nuclear industry with russia and china are the two most ambitious plans with nuclear energy. it will be necessary for progress. that is why to have such insightful speakers alexei

arbatov and general yao yunzhu to address you. i should say to of our colleagues are acting officials from their government. that means among other people their report to their president which also means if i ask a question that their president would be one that only the president can answer, you should stop me and if others want to ask questions i will try to avoid the waste of time and stop you. we want to have a discussion about the dynamics and issues but there are certain questions will the united states bombed north korea? rose probably will not answer. >> that is correct. >> or she will not be here by the end of the session. [laughter] we went to keep the panelist

here for the entire session. so we have that understanding. said with a preliminary comment by a especially appreciate we get to do this conference in english. because i would suffer enormously if we didn't but as mentioned earlier we have people from 46 different countries here which is fantastic. that also means is bash -- especially for the speakers that english is not the native language, and new ones can be difficult so i will try to speak slowly and when we open the discussion i would ask you all so to speak slowly because of his arduous to have paid nuanced discussion was complicated topics.

but now let me start we want the panelists to give an opinion since 2009 has there been progress in total on meeting the objectives of the nuclear agenda laid out by president obama or the action plan? are we making progress, and going backwards or are they about the same as four years ago? let's start with rose. >> thank you george for the opportunity to be here with my two colleagues alexei arbatov from the moscow center and also general yao yunzhu who i had the pleasure of visiting in her academy in beijing to talk with her impressive graduate students. it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today.

you're talking to the negotiator of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty so i do feel we have enormous progress over the last four years. but it is quiet progress has been an implementation over two years and to the success story but quiet in the way the verification regime has taken sheave -- shaping come together but not only the boots on the ground but the fact we have created a realtime day and day out mode of communication among the strategic forces. we have received 4,000 notifications every time we move one of the bombers greater than a 24 hour period we have to notify. any time the russians take the icbm i of the silo to send it to make this

facility they have to notify so not only the database that is exchanged every six months but a living picture day in/day out realtime picture of what is going on with the strategic forces and at the heart of it is what to have that mutual confidence that leads to the of chance to relationships so i do feel we made progress with a new start over the last four years but in addition i would say we need to take a good look at the action plan for the npt review conference. we have made significant progress. have we done everything? no. the next week i am headed to geneva to take part in the fourth conference up and -- and only china and russia

and the united states but the u.k. to talk about where we go from here with the overall environment and what steps we need to take to eventually get into multi lateral arms negotiations. what i see of the richness of the discussion and the relationship that itself has been greatly enhanced over the last four years i know we have other opportunities to talk about accomplishments so i will leave it there. >> first of all, thank you for inviting me it is a great pleasure and honor to be here again. i agree with what rose said with the accomplishments of the last years but the prospects are foggy and it is a serious problem as far as nuclear disarmament is concerned.

the bad news is relations between russia and the united states is at the lower point* since the end of the cold war but the good news in this those difficulties are not blurred between friendships of our presidents. [laughter] so we're able to address the issues in a businesslike manner. >> correct. [laughter] >> the main problem is that the old paradigm of arms control, since the great speeches of robert mcnamara mcnamara, we operated on the common base of strategic

stability formalized in a joint declaration of 1990 which put forward some important principles. what was the paradigm? on the ballistic missile defense, emphasizing survivable strategic assistance. reducing the warhead launchers. putting aside the nuclear weapons based to disregard conventional systems which may affect the balance. politics change and international relations are different and technology is changing and apparently russia and the united states have moved far away from each other with strategic

stability without discussing the issue head-on. for example, united states never considers territorial defense and russia does not consider new liquid fuel as destabilizing. the headed states government considers precision guided conventional systems but russia does not consider spee levin as destabilizing but with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty we have been talking to each other on the issues into the future of arms control. . .

>> giving the ceiling down to 1000 or below. however, the main problems a line and adjacent areas. will be serious issue, very difficult issue to resolve. ballistic missile defense. conventional precision guided missiles. tactical nuclear weapons. third nuclear weapons states, whether we should count them.

whether we should take them into account. all those issues will be agenda of the future. and i think to start talking about it we have to start, and i'm using the opportunity of rows, for a well-known expert being here, to start talking with russian counterparts about new understanding of strategic stability. we have to develop a new understanding of decision ability. so this is adapted but it is not blurred and diluted so much it doesn't serve as a basis of complete negotiations in the future. >> let me ask general yao just to pick up on alexei's point, in terms of the u.s. have proposed and urged with china that it would like to discuss and explore stability. but it don't think there's a

mutual understanding of what is meant by the concept of what is intended yet in strategic stability. and that's in essence what alexei was saying, the definition and objectives have changed, the element of the problem have changed. so when you think about the nuclear agenda going forward is, is understanding the challenges of strategic stability the key next step that's required? or is there something else that can be done, even if there's not a kind of operation and understanding, strategic stability? >> first, i have to say i am really humbled -- [inaudible] >> try again.

>> i don't know what happened. >> keep talking. i'll give you mine if it doesn't work. spent i wish is going to say, it's much better all the way around. i was waiting for that. >> first, i have to say i am really humbled, and totally -- sitting here together with colleagues from the united states and russia, because united states and russia are the two, by far, biggest nuclear power in the world. and actually i don't know why i am here last nigh -- [laughter] china has a very small nuclear arsenal, and china has about did -- [inaudible] -- for many, many

years. but to be frank, i think china do, does have something to contribute to advance the cause, and i think it's a noble cause, proposed by president obama during his nobel peace prize speech in prague. for the last four years, i think there's some progress made in reducing the drawdown of nuclear weapons and national security strategies of united states. for example, the release of the mpi in 2010.

the nuclear summit, nuclear summit, the npt, assigning of new s.t.a.r.t., and the ongoing p5 mechanism to talk comes out about nuclear issues. look into the future, i don't think that united states and russia both have to do at least one or two rounds of negotiations to further reduce their nuclear arsenal, before the other, smaller nuclear weapons states should join in a multilateral disarmament

process. and i agree with alexei that bmd and some other things should be included in the further disarmament talks. and also i think the further reductions should also include both strategic and a non-strategic nuclear weapons. and both deployed and undeployed, stalled the nuclear weapons. so far the question posed by charles, strategic stability, between russia and the united states, i think strategic stability between these two nuclear superpowers are still very much cold war, but

strategic stability between china and the united states, and between china and russia are quite different. china tried to have strategic stability with the united states, on the highly -- [inaudible] basis. and china has, for a long time, reduced, kept very, very minimal small for nuclear weapons in its national security strategy. so i think it's totally different. it's totally different, the current development, especially the deployment of missile defense systems in east asia

would be in chinese eyes, would be a very, very disturbing sector. having implications for the speculation of china's nuclear and strategic arsenal. >> thank you, general yao. you actually, you raised the question that i was going to come back toyou, so let me just ask you again and we will work our way back. you talked about the need for one or two further rounds of u.s.-russian reductions. and yet when one talks to people in washington or moscow, they say well, we can't come down much further without knowing where china is going. and there's an argument that if the u.s. and russia go much

further, then china will use that as an opportunity to build up much more. some people even say that china already has many more nuclear weapons than is commonly discussed. so i guess one of the question is, what are, is it necessary then for there to be some greater understanding soon about china's intentions, or the limitations of china's arsenal if the u.s. and russia were to come down further? do you understand the question?

[laughter] >> can you hear me? thank you. i think there are, chinese presence, hu jintao -- i think president, chinese president, hu jintao spoke at meeting, made the promise that while the conditions are appropriate, all the other nuclear weapon countries should join in unilateral disarmament process. so what are the conditions? that's why i talk about one or two drones, because right now the two greatest, largest nuclear powers you have more than 90% of nuclear weapons, you

know, and i think it should be further goes down too much, much lower level, at the same time all the other smaller nuclear weapons states should promise, i think china can promise that china, china has promised that china will not go into arms ra race. and china can, by that, i think china at least mean china will not seek clarity with the two superpowers. you were wildly downsizing, and china will not seek nuclear superiority. there's also some discussions among the p5 agreement of a

standard reporting form to the npt in 2015. to report the arsenal on the number of warheads that the current arsenal, the nuclear material, also the weapons that has been dismantled. so you implied actually that china has maybe a much larger arsenal than some experts, that minister -- ministry experts think china might have some 3000 missiles, warheads. somewhere in the mountains. so when i read that i cannot help being amused.

i'm amused by the united nations, and also by the approach that such -- [inaudible] assumptions have been taken so seriously. i know that the most recent national defense authorization act which was signed into law in early january requested the command of the strategic command to submit his report by 15th of august, to evaluate such assumption. and also to evaluate the nuclear

conventional capabilities of the united states, to try -- [inaudible] -- nuclear capability can deal with this under tunnel network. so i think you can wait for some experts assessment by 15th of august. but one thing does worry me, impact. both -- in that act. so my concern is that, is that a current policy? is that going to be a future policy that united states is going to use conventional

weapons to wipe out chinese nuclear arsenal and a first strike? that is the issue that worries me very much. >> the good news, if you 3000 weapons we did know about, we couldn't do it. so then it would all work out. alexei, i think we have, we set the table for a good interactions of you guys want to comment or come in on any of these points, you know, let's do it. because i think they're a number of issues here about kind of effect next steps or the lameness of each to take the next steps. >> with all due respect, of course we will be waiting for american assessment of china's nuclear forces. [laughter] but it would be much more helpful if china gave us the authority, official figure. because without that, all the

talk about china having many capability, not participating in arms race, not striving for parity, this is just, is just talking. what does minimal capability? it may be 200, maybe 400, maybe 1000. still much, much smaller force than russia and united states your but the range is quite a. and the range of assessment of chinese forces, total nuclear force from 300 to 900, the forces that we know. and big underground tunnels. you dismiss them as imagination. then you should tell us what are in those tunnels. y. building so huge tunnel?

so i think that china should play much more active part in arms control. if its forces are real small, it would have very strong credit if the forces are larger will have strong ground to affect the future of arms control. with respect to russia and the united states, i think that we could make another step forward, but i doubt we could move much further beyond that. because when we're having an agreement, it's usually an agreement for 10 years or so. and 10 years is a long time. china with its enormous production capacity, industrial capacity, during those 10 years to build up its forces this several times, especially in its wartime missiles like the united states did in the '70s and the soviet union did in the '80s.

multiple entries, very big increase in nuclear capability. so china is the only country of the third nuclear weapons states which could build up quickly to the level of russia and the united states quickly in the course of 10, 15 years. and which could upset the global balance. israel, pakistan, india, north korea cannot do that. for different reasons. they cannot do that. china is the only serious sector to take into account. i'm talking about not trying to create an impression of chinese threat. it's, i want to great impression of the importance of china, not only in world economy and finances, not only in politics, not only in peacekeeping operation. but in arms control. china should become i think much more effective action that could move things forward which are presently being stalled because of russian-american

controversies. >> general yao wants to respond but let me rose comment and then we will come to general yao. >> it's interesting to be at the end of this round him and i know you want of conversation back and forth so i'm going to turn to my esteemed colleague, alexei, and say, please talk to your friends and colleagues in moscow and tell them we want to get back to the table. we are looking forward to it. and particularly to begin with, for strategic stability discussions. we do have an enormous agenda. i agree with you on that. i cannot discount that agenda at all, but resistance to coming back and sitting down again i can assure you is not coming from the u.s. side. now, as to the issues that you raised, i think it's very, very important to say that these are, you know, to party issues in this particular context, and it bilateral contacts. general yao already talked about

conventional strategic threats, to targets. so yes this is, i recognize, a bigger problem. but when you're just talking about it bilateral interaction between russia and the united states we are very interested to understand also what russia is thinking today about the development of very capable, long range, accurate, conventional systems. because we see them in emerging on the russian side as well. absolutely there's an enormous not engaging in an intense and serious discussion on the broad agenda strategic stability topic. and we need to get back to those discussions sooner rather than later. some of the come just as in a short comment on general yao's presentation, some of the things that are again under the radar scope and what we're talking but in the p5 context are quite important in this regard. and i think over time will develop the kind of relationship

and the fabric, the agenda of a fabric are very solid discussions among the five. in the first instance she mentioned the reporting for me. we've been working on that very, very hard among the p5 and we hope that it will lead to more mutual transparency, but also more transparency for the entire npt community and for the world as a whole. and we will continue to push that rock uphill because i think again it's not sexy, it's not exciting, but it's exactly the type of agenda item we need to be working on. another one, and here i want to give full marks to beijing and the work they've been doing. they have taken on responsibility in the p5 context for a working group on nuclear terminology. and you think, oh, boy, how boring, we're going to have another -- but when you think -- when you said that at a table and talk about how to define nuclear terms, you wind up beginning to develop more mutual understanding.

a discussion about how to decline issues of nuclear deterrence will have enormous value in terms of providing i think mutual understanding among the five. and begin creating that fabric, that environment for multilateral negotiations at some point in the future. so these are all very, very important aspects, but they are not glamorous. they're not sexy. they don't stand out, you know, for big public, that public displays. but nevertheless, i will say that there's a very considerable series mind about how to proceed in this regard. one final thing i would like to see. alexei mentioned bob mcnamara's speech from 1967. i would like to say this is the 50th anniversary this year of president kennedy's speech at american university. it launched not only the negotiation of a limited test ban treaty that was accomplished in record time, but it also led

several years later to the negotiation of a nonproliferation treaty. and who does not remember john kennedy's words at that time, that if that weren't for a successful i npt problem, if it were not able to achieve that by this time we would have many thousands of nuclear states around the world. so i think it behooves all of us during this conference to remember the successes of the npt, as was a serious problems that we must confront in continuing to implement it. >> general yao, you wanted to comment? >> i do agree that china should take a more active role in the disarmament process, but i want to respond to alexei's suggestion that china should be more transparent on its nuclear capabilities. first i have to say that china has been very, very transparent on its nuclear policy and on its

nuclear intentions. china has a very small arsenal. china has always been having a very small arsenal. and it seems paradoxical, it seems conflicting to have a small arsenal and also to adopt -- [inaudible]. if you have a small arsenal, he should have taken preemptive doctrine to preserve, to reserve. if you have no u.s. party state you should have a large arsenal. so china's arsenal has to certify three requests, demands.

the first, it must be small. the second, it must be second strike. and the third, it must deter. how did you all these three things with a small arsenal? first, china has to have a very survivable nuclear arsenal. maybe that have some reason, had some relations with the panels. we have panels. the united states has panels. russians have panels. titles are to increase the viability of a very small arsenal. and china's nuclear arsenal has to have penetration capabilities. because after a second, a first strike, a small arsenal will not have much to strike back.

and the third, china's arsenal has to be common has to deter. and it has to be stopped more and it has to deter. so china depends more uncertainty, not uncertainty. not on transparency to deter him a but more uncertainty to deter. and a certain amount of all take this -- opaqueness is an immigrant part of china's no strike first policy. >> i'm going to invite people to start coming to the microphones because we're going to move into the question session. we have plenty of time for that. but let me ask while we're doing that a transitional question, which has to do with extended

deterrence. because i think in the u.s., a lot of the pressure as it were, a lot of the need for the arsenal and for nuclear policy now is extended deterrence, both in northeast asia but also in europe, and some call for its values to be enhanced in the middle east. and my question is more for alexei and general yao. is a better -- people here would argue that extended deterrence actually helps make proliferation less likely, so it's important for nonproliferation. and it's stabilizing. is that going to be, is that you accept a enough that it's not an amphetamine in going further with reductions? over the extended deterrence issue interfere with the overall implementation of the reduction

agenda? >> extended deterrence is not homogeneous notion. you may say that we may use nuclear weapons in case our allies are attacked with nuclear weapons. that's one kind of extended deterrence. another kind we may use nuclear weapons if our allies are attacked with conventional weapons. ..

>> in principle, the experience shows that those kinds that were reliably covered by assurances didn't go nuclear. well, of course, great britain, france were an exception. they were covered by nato corp sighs, but otherwise japan, south korea didn't do that. israel never had reliable commitments in a formal streak. in principle, yes, but it's not app absolute guarantee. it's not an issue without exceptions as history shows, and now we see rising moods both in japan and in south korea to come back again and to see whether they should go nuclear they

think or they are facing across the sea. >> right. that was a good set up. we have a session tomorrow morning with the leading figure from south korea who will talk about this. general, and then we turn to the questions. engs tended deterrence, is that stabilizing it? >> i -- i think they should be able to -- the nuclear rise is extended deterrence because they -- i don't think any european of the united states feel need, the nuclear component in the -- maybe some asia -- south korea, japan, they need, they still have a missile nuclear component, but i -- i

have some different views about it. the threat, in most cases, the threat mission e nuclear threat, but eprk had nuclear weapons, only a nuclear capability, only from two southern sites, but nuclear umbrella has been provided to this, to asian nuclear -- to asia for many, many years, so i -- most powerful on the power. i do think united states has largest collection to detour any threat, even the threat from

dprk, from launching conventional attacks against. as for the role played by ed, by extended detourers not for proliferation purpose, it works both ways. it might have stopped japan from going nuclear, but on the other side, it did -- simulated or motivated the dprk took over nuclear. when i talked with dprk, they frequently mentioned that to me that we want the nuclearization of the korean peninsula, but the nuclearization means not -- if

the south are shaded with a nuclear umbrella and we go to nuclear attacks, that's not a peninsula thing. i think they had reasoning in it. >> could i just say one thing? >> yeah, go ahead. >> before we turn to the floor. we had a nuclear posture review process going on and the implementation studies is still in the course of being completed, but one of the basic principles of the u.s. nuclear posture review under the obama administration is to lessen the role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national security strategy, to reduce that role, and so that's been one the basic guiding principles, but there's been another principle, and that is to continue to have a strong extended deterrence relationship with allies and partners where we have the responsibilities, and something the general

reminded me you have in the context, the juxtaposition of those two principles in the pursuit of our npr, and that is that extended deterrent has many facets to it. it's not just a nuclear extended deterrent, but compromised of other military and policy resources, and so i do think that that's an important point, and the point that general yao made reminded me of that, so i just wanted to briefly comment on that. >> sorry. >> sorry. please. >> no, please. [laughter] >> well, extended deterrence is important for alliances, but it should not necessarily rely on nuclear weapons located as a territory of ally. american tactical nuclear weapons was grown from great britain where it was grown from greece, and i think that those securities suffer, do suffer in

a traditional way. maybe it's suffering because of economics problem, but not because this has weakened the securities of vis-a-vis russia. i think the commitment, alliance commitment, are much more dependent on joint foreign policy priority, in the understanding of who has value, economic interdependence, those are the strongest foundations for reliability of commitments of -- and including extended deterrence. >> do you want -- >> yes, just brief. i agree with alexei. i think it should be denuclearized. there's no much need to have nuclear component in extended

deterrence. i think the u.s. party should make a clear because the dpr didn't make it clear. >> i will add, and as we're meeting here, the nonproliferation and armor initiative is meeting in the hague i believe, and that initiative, which include -- which is involved ten middle powers, basically, emphasized the importance of reducing the role of nuclear weapons, and yet seven, i believe, of the ten are allies of the u.s. who rely on extended -- now, on extended nuclear deterrence with the broader point being that i think the ownous is just as well on the state that receive the extended deterrent to wrestle with the policy issues and what they expect of the u.s. and whether they can do that without a nuclear component or without

basing, and it's not just a discussion that needs to happen and is happening in washington; it's a discussion that the allies, i think, need to be involved in. you can be invited to be involved in by others, but let's turn it over to you all, and we'll start, ladies first, and back down to tom. please, please say who you are, and kind of where you are from. you know the deal. thanks. >> i'm with the office of secretary of defense of middle east policy and at harvard university. i have a question -- >> can you speak a little more than into the maven. thanks 3 -- thanks. >> you stated china does not seek nuclear party with the u.s. and russia, met with a lot of scheme -- skepticism. in what ways is china seeking to become a super power with

regards to defense if it's not nuclear parody. >> you said china doesn't want to seek nuclear parody, but lots are skeptical of that so in what ways will china seek tore a military superpower that's not nuclear, is that fair? >> uh-huh. >> china does not seek to be a military superpower, so -- what was the question? >> the question is basically people -- my -- >> how can that -- >> yeah, yeah. look, everybody -- >> [inaudible] >> in this town, people think we come down, china's going to race up, and it's all -- >> china has -- >> we're all fools basically. yes, right. [laughter] >> china has great capability now. china can produce nuclear

vessels as it produces shoes and clothes and -- [laughter] >> ties. >> ties, and everything so we can -- china can catch up very, very fast, but china has been producing shoes and clothes and ties for 20 years for chinese military arsenal. all those consistent. it's small. it's consistent, but it's small. if china has been producing nuclear weapons like they produce shoes and -- it's -- it must by now -- must -- >> how -- >> how many is small? [laughter] >> i'm sorry? >> how many is small? >> at the minimum necessary level -- [laughter] to -- to retaliate against any

nuclear threat against china, and what is the retailuation capability that you'd have asian capability? china wants is to have the adversary as certain whether it can wipe out china's arsenal in the first army strike. >> thank you for clarifying. [laughter] to be continued. [laughter] >> tom, arms control association. thank you, all, for being here. general yao, you asked why you should be on the panel. it's great you've been on the panel because the answers have been illuminating, so thank you. i have request question for you. as you know, the united states made a significant shift in the

missile defense policy not too long ago saying it was going to cancel the fourth phase of the european missile defense employment, and at the same time, or in the next few years, add additional intercepters into the west coast deployment in alaska. i'm wondering how both you, personally, and your governments or however you are comfortable saying it, feel about the missile defense -- feel about the missile defense shift in policy for strategic stability, and i imagine there's differences in how russia and china feel about that, but if you could give us a sense of how that announcement has been received in your countries. thank you. >> you go first. >> well, how was received in china, and ewe say how it was received in russia. [laughter] >> she can certainly say how it was received in china, but i would not take upon myself to

tell about china, not in the position to speak on behalf of china. in russia, you know, official position, at first, it was quite reserved; then it was a little bit more flexible, and there was some signals that it was accepted in russia, and that now the prospects are little bit better, although it does not resolve the fundamental issue of legally behinding, guarantee american dissent is not against russia and so op and so forth. this is official position. what is below the water? those in russia, in russian communities and agencies who are sincerely concerned and scared by american ballistic missile

defense phase number four. they certainly gave style. those who were not really concerned, but pretended to be concerned, those, i think, are very much irritated by this. [laughter] this new complication. [laughter] >> would you care to name people in those two categories? general, yes. >> i couldn't. [laughter] >> china is regimely -- generally concerned about the redeployment of the ground base intercepters. china is opposed to u.s. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems. in general about such systems

being in asia, particularly, and i think china is concerned that we have very small arsenals, what can i tell you how small it is. [laughter] so the systems would increase the difficulties for china's second strike capability, and china has in defining in planning the size of the arsenal. that's a very important sector that china has taken into consideration in designing the sites of the nuclear arsenal. >> let me ask an analytic point so not a policy point, but app

litically if -- analytically that if the threat of north korea goes up and there's a recognition -- >> already enough, already enough ground base intercepters to deal with north korea missile s. >> well, i leave that to the people who work op missile defense because if you don't think many of them work anyway, maybe it's not enough, but -- >> i might add to that. russian experts, and the number of very interesting seminars, they agree to that, that the reference already deployed by the united states, by japan, by south korea, various types, systems on ships, land based systems, their suspicions to intercept north korean missiles which are there to intercept it. it's a matter of political decision, but everything else

may be to by china with a lot of concern with a good reason whether it forces our small or not so small, it's still something which may undercut china's nuclear deterrence. >> so that the assessment of chinese expert. >> i knew he could answer for china. >> also, i have not finished. >> oh, i'm sorry. >> back to my point, about the reason for china to be opposed to the bmd, they are jointly deployed with u.s. allies like japan, rk, and some other partners like the philippines, and china deals with some of the

allies, and this joint deployment means greater integration of command and control systems, and then would have implications for china and another reason china is worried is about space systems. china together with russia has proposed treaties to prevent the mod earnization -- modernization of space, and base the -- in the chinese official language and restrain deployment of ballistic missiles. it's not good. sometimes mean. sometimes would help implications further security of the state. >> thank you. what i want to do is i want to take two questions -- >> go ahead. >> quick two things.

>> no, go ahead. >> talking about numbers and so forth, today is budget roll out day, and as we talk about the need for numbers and transparency, well, of course, our official talking point, which i am dutifully checking here is to strengthen homeland missile defense by increasing the number of ground base intercepters from 30 to 34 for a limited defense against limited threats so far from north korea and also from our concerned iran in future, but for those of you interested, i'd take a good look at the budget roll out happening this week because there's quite a bit of information in there about our limited ballistic missile defenses. >> thank, rose. let's take two, and then we'll try to answer those, and hopefully we'll get to the last two. please, howard, go ahead. >> howard moreland, private citizen. theoretically, the cold war

ended before today's college seniors were born. what's the best explanation rt ability of the bloated u.s. and russian arsenals to outlive their rationale by so many years? >> okay. hold that idea, and then go ahead. >> thank you. i just probably -- i would -- >> introduce yourself. >> member of the press. >> okay. >> with the challenges that you are talking about and the big picture, here comes another challenge that is iran. how big is the challenge of iran, and how worrying -- lieu look at the program of iran, especially after what the director of the iaea spoke this morning. >> okay. >> well, i'll start iran and then i'll move to the other question. we are, indeed, very concerned about iran. we've been concerned not only about their nuclear plan, which, although, iran's president is for civil nuclear power purposes

has another appearance to us, and it appears to be moving in the direction of a military nuclear program. we're not alone in this, obviously ivelt we have a whole team of negotiators p3 plus 3 process to complete the latest round, and it doesn't look too good at the moment, but in addition, we are concerned about the very considerable developments going on with the iranian missile program. it's that combination that led up to look for some limited missile defense capabilities and in europe and particularly the first three phases of european faces of adaptive approach will be designed to counter that limited threat. this terms of the numbers of, you know, i like to say that by the time new s.t.a.r.t. is fully implemented, we'll be down to

the lottest number of nuclear warheads since the 1950s, and i just want to point out again that we went from 12,000 deployed warheads at the time that s.t.a.r.t. was signed and brought into force. when new s.t.a.r.t. is finally completed and in implementation, we're down to 1550. that is just the deployed system. we have steadily, both we and the soviet union, now the russians, have been eliminating nondeployed systems as well. the number of warheads is steadily coming down. i keep saying it is step by step hard flog to rid ourselves of the overhang of the cold war which is what it's all about. it takes time. it takes money. it takes a lot of money, and it takes an attention to detail, but step by step, we are getting there, and we will get there.

president obama was the highlight of the speech to say that we must keep the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, and the president meant it. >> i agree with what rose said. some people, not in the room, but outside the room, of course, underestimate the great program that was made in the last 20 years, not just in strategic weapons, but in tactical nuclear weapons in particularly o bligeing unilateral matter. i would say the rule that we are now down almost by an order of magnitude in deployed weapons. however, our -- the core most strategic relationship in russia, the united states, has not changed much. it is still mutual destruction. maybe criteria of them is much lower. maybe they approach to greater

exan expected threat planning is much more reelect, but still, it's the same roulette relationship, and much more needs to be done, you know, in order to change the model of relationship from mutual to destruction to something else, and that needs to be done through reductions through the alerting partial forces through more transparency, and what's most important, cooperation on ballistic missile defense. cooperation on ballistic missile defense fails, then negotiations in the recent times were not successful. it doesn't means we can want have -- cannot have success in the future. we have to change the mode and posture we're discussing actually joining u.s.-nato ballistic missile defense programs. in the future, it should be different. it's cooperative projects within

russian air space defense, which russia is now developing, a huge program of the defense of russian territory, and american ballistic missile defense. having two programs and systems might be more conducive to finding the way to cooperate on early warnings systems and measure building and so on, and i hope the next meeting with the russian and american president will give some reason for optimism and moving into this direction. >> i agree. >> actually, you read, and toby mentioned that on the publication cable out there, there's a new paper that elects generals to work and written and explores the issues, and also one our colleague has written and explores from the chinese perspective on north korea and iran, and they are available out there to read. let's try to squeeze in the last

three questions. bijan and then my pakistani brothers we'll try to come to you to wrap it up. >> i'm incidentally from iran that you were talking about. i hope the question is not the source of question george said not to ask. as private citizen, i want to know what's the top nuclear threat on your mind that's justifying a nuclear deterrence? to confuse you and with all do respect to the pakistani friends, for me, it's a talibanized nuclear party. i want to know if it has any place in your analysis of nuclear threat. >> thank you. don't answer that, but ask your question. [laughter] >> go ahead. >> introduce my friends, and he knows me, that i would have

responded so i abide by your word it's not a taliban pakistan, but pakistan that exercises a lot of restraint despite what happens on its eastern and western borders, but let me come to the question. the question is that have you heard about some bilateral reductions between the u.s. and russia, and we also recall that on april 5, president obama says reduction is not going to happen in his lifetime, so the question is is if these reductions continue, what would be the stage in which it's purely literal and the other armedded states come into the equation? given that we have issues, political issues, we have security issues of the country, so how would this all jell into further reductions. would it happen in three, four, or broad 20?

thanks. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] i start with this that nor criminalized, but my question is with being important and impressive where we have cuts to now and things happen, but at the same time, the mod earnization programs which are taking place, especially with efforting of space war fair, and the new investment within the united states on a original -- all weapons have to go into the -- they should be dismantled. threat changed and demands deployment differently. what is deploying when you look at what the