the taliban shows little sign of being released or able to negotiate or respect our constitutional order. our women's rights for democracy. they have actually become more extreme in their deliberate attacks against civilian population. i know held rules they are. i lived through their rule. if we focus on political transgression which a new government, a fresh mandate backed by bilateral security agreements we can create incentives for the taliban and pakistan. for them to rethink their strategy and to one that is more

inclusive. our security, mr. chairman. the newfound strength and courage of our security forces has been demonstrated by the speed with which they have closed down recent affects the mesh attacks on our capital with minimal loss of life but we still face challenges. our forces are already missing the coalition enablers support. senator corker spoke about that. where the force is not in place, people want to serve in the air force, takes more time. technical knowledge, military intelligence is going slowly. on top of this our brave forces are not yet supported by commander-in-chief that they deserve. we know forces are fighting briefly being killed and wounded for defense of their own country but they need continued help.

that means first, bilateral security agreement to boost confidence. second, selling a commitment to the afghan air force and maintain international air support until the air force can take full responsibility. finally fulfill commitments for financial and natural support for the continual development of institutional strength of army, police and intelligence. we are indebted to the u.s. for all you have done for our country. we know it is a burden. we do not seek an open ended support but we are so close to a turning point we can soon become your ally in an insurgent region. i look forward to your questions and thank all committee members for your continued engagement and interest in my country and giving me this opportunity to

speak. thank you very much. >> thank you all for your testimony. we have the universal agreement that these elections are important. if you had the power, mr. hadley, to say this is what the united states should be doing to ensure the most honest, transparent and fair elections possible what would your answer be? put your microphone on. >> we need to put pressure on hamid karzai but really to encourage all aspects of the afghan system to put pressure on hamid karzai and the parliament to get this legislation enacted and to get the people appointed that point -- secondly we in our statements have to make it clear that this election is the top priority. a lot of afghans thought that reconciliation with the taliban was our top priority. this should be our top priority and is our top priority.

we have not made that clear. third, i would agree the election needs to be part of a broadbased reconciliation with all aspects of afghan society which largely see -- feel alienated. that is what this election can do. that will empower the afghan government. at that point after the election and empowered governments supported by its people, having international support backed by army that is willing to fight for that government, then you can talk about having some conversation with taliban to see those that are willing to come out of the flight and give up violence and let the afghan army deal with caressed and i think at that point pakistan will accept that deal. pakistan has given up the notion that the taliban are going to take over in afghanistan.

pakistan now feels that an unstable afghanistan threatens pakistan which is seeing a high level of violence and pakistan will lower its objective and accept some kind of outcome as long as there is some kind of taliban will. the critical thing will be to have as you said, and empowered, fairly elected legitimate government supported by the afghan people that can reconcile all of afghan society. that is the critical element to achieve the things mr. nadery talked about. >> mr. nadery, i appreciate hearing the words thank you because that is something president hamid karzai never seems to be able to say. with reference to your own view what would you want the united states to do to help you achieve the type of elections the afghan people will have faith in?

>> i will endorse what mr. hadley said but to add on that, one of the critical things, the messages the afghan political leadership and the public receives, starting with raising the bar higher than what was discussed in the past, that emphasize as much as you can on the process as a principal of those processes which means what kind of free election and fair election you want to see. that message needs to remain consistent throughout. we were grateful to hear recently that they changed the message from credible election to making it specific, free and fair. that is before the election so do not raise the bar, keep it high as high as it is possible before the elections and send a message to those who were preparing for whenever possible meaning of the election to not

be there. second continue the technical assessment to the institution of the election commission especially on the majors. there are a large number of expertise as lessons learned in other parts of the world that need to be translated to those in institutions including make sure you are pressing for more international observers including support for domestic election observers on the ground but the election issue remains -- needs to remain consistent and the messages need to match the issue of priority coming from your government to our government and our president. no appropriation or plots in some corner of the government, delay of the election or cancellation of the election. >> i would like to ask this to

all of you. i read the article in the new york times and i said this is certainly unfortunate, by the same token i think, because i somehow thinks that he has some leverage with us over this issue, somehow he thinks the option is not a possibility so therefore we will have to someone to be held over the barrel at the end of the day to what is his final negotiating opportunity and the one thing that he should understand is that is not the possibility, if we cannot get a bilateral security agreement. how do we disabused hamid karzai's belief that this is something to negotiate with? negotiating an agreement is understandable but there's a difference between negotiating an agreement and using the

agreement as an effort to leverage whatever he is seeking personally for his future, his security, living in afghanistan, what comes along with his influence, what ever. i get a sense that the flip side of this, we talk about the united states not making it clear and we should make it clear, we have made it clear we intend to stay. by the same token we can't be held hostage by hamid karzai. >> it may have started as an effort to negotiate with hamid karzai and to say we could pull the mall out. the problem is the multiple audience problem and it is made the rest of the country and cause a loss of confidence and that was a terrible mistake. i think he is using the bilateral security agreement and that is why my suggestion is to make a clear commitment of a specific substantial number, say this is what we are going to do to reassure the rest of the

country and then say to hamid karzai we would love to negotiate with you but if we can't negotiate with you we will with the folks to come in after the election. that takes the stick away from him and take the leverage away from him and the combination of those two things at the end of the they will lead him to come to the table and negotiate an agreement because i think he wants that to be part of his legacy. i don't think he wants to leave it to the next government so that is what i would try but it is a frustrating situation but that is what i would try. >> i have to go in just a minute. i will second that. i wouldn't say maybe we will do it. i would pause those negotiations. i would do the same thing, the intent of the united states is to leave a troop presence after 2014 in the order of x but we will resume these negotiations after reelection. >> i fully agree but just to add

and emphasize on the point that you hear an entirely different message from the rest of the afghans including from parliament and compared to what hamid karzai said there is an overwhelming majority of support for the bilateral security agreement endorsement and adoption and therefore it needs to be all flyer of messaging engagement with the afghan parliament and without a stakeholder's crowd and therefore not to cause the bilateral security agreement negotiation in needs to continue with the knowledge that no answer should not come making it clear message and communication to the president that if he is not fighting it the next administration with popular support of the public are going to achieve and it will not be his legacy but will be a legacy of the next government which will have popular support of the

public. >> you have a question for miss chayes if you would give it to her first because she has a speaking engage intent has been hanging in here and you asked all my questions almost but let me just threshold one and maybe miss chayes could start first. just a threshold question. what is your perception about the degree of support in the afghan population for u.s. residual force? post 2014? >> i agree with mr. nadery, not very high. >> mr. nadery? >> a good indication of looking at that would be all the discussions that have happened when there was a final decision that was going to be made at the time from the partnership agreement. overwhelming support on the floor and at parliament, overwhelming discussion of support throughout civil society and in the provinces in support of the strategy partnership is an indication of continuous

partnership with the united states. whenever there is a discussion about the option or withdrawal, you hear a higher degree, a higher sense of anxiety and fear in the population, that creates further in sir indeed see about -- uncertainty about the future and that makes a drive of a lot of support for residual number. that needs to be a way that it is, if the numbers are not coming right away, need to be announced in a way that is tailored to the needs on the ground, insecurity increases significantly and afghan forces are fighting hard but need more support, number of troops will be taken that way. definitely we hope that we take more responsibility, we are going to fight for the country and the numbers will be corresponding to those needs for the support role and the areas

that we need. the numbers will definitely make a huge confidence and boosting and building roll. >> last question, mr. hadley, you answered the question i just afton your written testimony but in afghanistan what are heard was the two bad narrator's would be u.s. abandonment or u.s. occupation, so what we are doing is attempting to establish a residual force that is clearly not an occupying force and clearly not an abandonment strategy from your professional judgment based on what you are hurting in terms of leadership regarding the size of that force which is a combined u.s./nato force is the range you're hearing discussed, generally that is acceptable.

>> the word is it is an enabling force that enables the afghans to take full responsibility. that is how we should see. i think it should be mission driven, not just an abstract number. ron newman who is the former ambassador tried to do that. d-day sort of mission driven. i used to have a lot of respect for general madness and my guess is if you do the mission driven which as he did it, you are a number in the 15,000, not in the 9,000 they give you add 5,000 nato troops which is what people are talking about that gets you a 20,000 number that ought to be probably roughly adequate to do the mission but i am no mission planner but ask me to read the tea leaves that is how i read them. thank you. >> thank you both for your testimony, thank you for traveling all the way from afghanistan on short notice to be here. it was helpful and insightful and.

the record will remain open to the close of business tomorrow for any members who wish to submit questions and with the thanks of the committee this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a couple live events is do you about on our companion network c-span3. the senate foreign relations committee will get diplomatic and embassy security including legislation that would fund programs recommended by an independent panel that investigated the 2012 benghazi attack at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 5:00 p.m. eastern the house rules committee considers two bills aimed at the lane and 2015 the employer and individual health-insurance mandate in the health care law.

a discussion now on u.s. strategy toward north korea. former u.n. ambassador and new mexico governor bill richardson along with former south korean ambassador donald gregg discuss foreign policy and necessary changes to engage north korea denuclearization talks. this was posted by the asia society in new york city, it runs 1 hour and 25 minutes. >> now to korea and a personal note, to begin with, i am a relative newcomer here. i started in the fall as a journalist for three decades before that and in thinking about tonight's program i was reminded of something that happened fairly frequently when you were on the international desk as i was for many years and something that happened to international news editors the world over. you would get a call, might be during the day but quite often

in the middle of the night, wake up call. kim jong un or kim jong il, has said he wants to rain fire on south korea. he wants to destroy the american aggressors, he wants to take a shot at japan. sometimes it was a lot more than rhetoric. vessels have been sunk, self korean vessel, missile had been launched. quite often the response after we race to digest the headlines and respond to the headlines would be don't worry, it is bluster, it is meant for internal consumption, everyone calm down. many of you know this spring in particular, calm down has seen a bit off the mark. we had major provocation from the north and they have come from a relatively new and by the standards of north korea, little

understood leader. we also have a brand new and safe to say still untested leader in the south. if there were ever story or an issue that warrants beyond the headlines treatment it is probably this one. beyond the headlines treatment you could do no better than our guest tonight, 13 trips to north korea, worked hard for a long time to deal with these issues. at first glance bill richardson's resume doesn't scream korea. he has been congressman, governor of new mexico, energy secretary and ambassador to the united nations but he is here because of his long-term involvement on the north korea question and because he has on so many questions than on a voice for peace not just their but in the tougher climate on the planet. he has negotiated with saddam hussein, slobodan milosevic and many others and he has had eight of those trips to north korea

that i mentioned earlier. earlier this year ambassador richardson, governor richardson led business leaders including the google chairman eric schmidt to the north, has a wealth of experience in a place where most people have none at all. so as ambassador donald gregg whose career has been profoundly tied to the korean peninsula as ambassador to korea, national security adviser. after he left government he was chairman of the korea society and is the chairman emeritus. donald gregg is a big advocate for greater engagement with the north and he has been there five times. a special welcome, i will embarrass you, jon williams, editor of the british broadcasting corporation. i held that position at abc and whenever i was in a pickle which was quite often i would call or

e-mail jon williams who always had an answer and it was always an intelligent answer and when i left abc someone asked about potential candidates to replace me and when jon williams's name came up i said, this is an exact quote, if you get jon williams he won't ever miss me for a moment. abc got him. so now jon williams is the one taking those middle of the night calls and don't know how many other global matters. a quick reminder we're streaming this event as we always do live and around the world. we have an audience at our center tonight -- not tonight but friday morning and you can, those of you who are out there, e-mail questions to moderator or twitter at the hash tag ask asia. governor richards and will have remarks and then we will open up for questions here and a broader audience beyond this room.

please join me in welcoming bill richardson. of good -- [applause] >> thank you very much. last time i was here, i was running for president. i know students mention that. that is okay. i was forcibly brought here by ambassador holbrooke who imus believe but you know how insistence he was and how dearly we miss him. it is an honor to be at the asia society. i feel that when i addressed the asia society i have arrived. the establishment has accepted me as the maverick negotiator, especially with ambassador donald gregg, the most knowledgeable person could be in the world on the korean peninsula. i am probably going to defer to

a lot of his opinions but let me go into the issue. i am going to answer the five most common questions that are asked about north korea, concluding in the end with how do we improve the relationship? the apocalypse? how can we avoid armageddon with north korea? what do we need to do? is it just us and others? non political actors, etc.? i say this because lately i have been unfavorably compared to dennis rodman and i don't know what i will say on that. why is this issue important? obviously i think we know the answer. that is number one. number 2, i think in the great

introduction setting of the event, what are the north koreans up to? what is their strategy with this new leader? number 3, the young leader, is he in control? what is he like? what is he trying to do? number 4. is there a chance, the wishful thinking of some, of regime change? is there a chance we just do nothing, that the regime will collapse? number 5, perhaps the most important, who can influence what can we do about north korea, for the international community, and obviously for u.s. policy? let me go into the first one. what should be our goal? our fundamental goal should be how do we denuclearize the korean peninsula? how do we get the north koreans

back to the table? that has to be the fundamental goal. why is this region important? obviously our treaty relationship with south korea, our french with japan. the fact that we have 30,000 american troops, the fact that there are land mines fair and constantly in danger. the fact that north korea has nuclear weapons, some say a to as many as 6 missiles, development of missiles, their range uncertain but clearly developing. 1.2 million military arms, men and women in arms, and unpredictable leader. this is critically important and china. china's presence in the region,

a region vitally important to american interests. number 2, what are they up to? in the past there has been the traditional, ante up the rhetoric, take some shots at south korea, find the most incendiary words for the american press to stargel american policymakers, scare everybody and make a deal. make a deal on food, on fuel, the agreed framework. i am generalizing. but across the board, scare everybody, be very hostile, but eventually show your cards after what you want. is that the case now? the answer is i don't know and i

don't think so. let me also say that even though i have been to north korea eight times and am referred to as the foremost north korea specialist in the country i always say i don't know what they are going to do next. they are unpredictable. i don't know where all the power centers are. if anybody says they are like us when they negotiate, they aren't. they don't think like we do. they don't negotiate like westerners do. their idea of a negotiation is not a quid pro quo, but instead their view is okay, we are going to make a concession, we are going to give them a little time so that they arrive at our conclusion. that is generally their idea of negotiation. i will also add one more element to why is this in our interest

to improve the relationship and that is the humanitarian. we have a young man in north korea detainee by the name of kenneth bay, a tour operator sentence to 15 years who possibly could be in the labor camp and somehow the cries for his release and humanitarian release have not been as strong as other detainee's. let me get to the second issue which is what are they up to? when i was in north korea, kim jong noon, the new leader gave a speech and basically said we want to do two things, improve the economy, focus on the quality of life, which as you know is not good, and secondly, we want to continue our nuclear weapons program. that -- parallel bowls he gave

in speech to speech and has continued giving so that could be a change in policy. there was perhaps a view that they would start to denuclearize, they shut down some reactors, they met the iaea in, they took certain steps, but this time there is nothing at the end of the title that suggests that that is something they are prepared to do. that doesn't mean they won't. i don't think they have shown their final cards. they continued missile lunges, hostile rhetoric, underground tests, they have, unlike other cases with humanitarian releases, have not even hinted at high-profile americans come

and bring americans or others back from north korea. ..

what is he like? very few have met him. a chinese envoy has met him, possibly donald gregg has or

knows more than i do about him. by the way, i think we have excellent intelligence agencies. nsa, cia, they are excellent but when it comes to north korea we don't have much. i hope i haven't violated classified information. but there is little that we can pin down about this man. regime change. i don't see any possibility. i know there are those who say their economy is going to collapse. is in terrible shape, people are starving, no question, there are bowlegs, no question, every single foment that might need to and insurrection may be they're out were the to our eyes but internally i don't see it happening. i find that kim jong noon has wide support. i admit a lot of my visits have

been in guesthouses, government guest houses, treated well, but i have ventured out into subways and fields and i have little bit of an antenna and my sense is because of their very strict personality, he retains the support of his people land when his people don't see outside of which is capable in a democratic society they don't see openness, they have hardly any internet, television is controlled, it is not as if they have a lot of options to seek alternative courses of leadership. i will get to the last point because i know we want to listen to don and get lot of questions from you. what do we do about all this? i am not of the school and i don't think don is of let's bomb

them or outlast them or continued sanctions. if we have additional more sanctions i don't think there are any left. we have every conceivable multilateral bilateral sanctions and when you are squeezing an entity or group of people who don't have much, i don't know if that provides much leadership, much leverage. possibly there are some banking sanctions that have not actually gone into affect such as we had under kim jong il, but i am wondering whether our policy right now is, i don't know what it is. i am not privy to the policy. i think john kerry is bright, secretary of state, open-minded, he said some things as a senator that i think make sense, a new

kind of engage and with north korea but i don't know what we are planning. it is not my role to examine what we are planning because i don't know what it is. what do we do about north korea? i think engagement and by the way, i think it is of very nice introduction. you can see i talked to some of the people in the world like saddam hussein and castro and president clinton used to say let's send richardson, bad people like him. what i am trying to say is it is important nonetheless to engage bad people. do it right. don't necessarily offer concessions just because you are meeting but i do think engagement is better than

isolation and isolating north korea is not working, it is not going to work but obviously it takes two to tango and when north korea doesn't respond it makes it hard to have a concrete six party policy, asian policy, south korean policy, american policy. so i will conclude with this. what do i think are the main entities and actors we need with north korea? we need out of the box diplomacy. we need perhaps special envoy with, we need sports diplomacy. i am one of those that doesn't begrudge the dennis rodmans and others that might be able to open up a nation. donald gregg bought the philharmonic orchestra from new york. that was a wonderful move.

his culture, interlocutors we haven't thought of. south korea is very well positioned, the new leader of south korea, she is the daughter of former president, not exactly a progressive, a hard-liner he was, she has those credentials, she has made the right moves verbally. i don't know if it is going to lead towards more engagement. i am encouraged that the case on talks opening up that industrial park are going on. back again to north korea policy, this is the first time they have shut down that facility. when there was tension, which provides 50,000 jobs to north koreans, 50,000 jobs, that is all locked and they were willing to shut down and there is a heartening i believe. i will just add a little bit.

i think that kim jong is an is trying to impress his people, his military leadership, and he has some relatives that are influencing him in a negative way, i think he is screeching to an audience and basically showing his stuff before he formulates himself as the leader. part of what he is doing, i believe, is to strengthen and buttress his internal position. he has been there a little over a year. lana. everyone always says china is the key. if china puts leverage on north korea, they are going to fold. i don't think so. here is why. china doesn't want hundreds and

thousands of rich he's streaming in to their country. number 2, china and russia have a strange new alliance which causes us a little trouble besides the fact that there is the strategic relationship and possibly talking to each other on north korea. number 3, there have been some signs that china has lost a little bit of its patience with north corey and that is basically over the latest tests and i do believe they made overtures, squeezed the north koreans, gone to the un and participated in the drafting of tougher sanctions so it could be they're losing a little patience but are they ready to put on the screws? the answer is i don't think so. if they do put on the screws will the north koreans reacted? i don't think so but they might because china has substantial

food, fuel and other leveraged. so then what do we do? u.s. policy. i am of the view that we should let these other actors, south korea, china, possibly two new interlocutors that could play a role. both have a south korean heritage. one is the president of the world bank, very creative guy. i would love to see the world bank and the e.u. doing an economic study of north corey and see just a study of what needs humanitarian, mainly baby food, they do that. and the former foreign minister, politically, south korea. and used to have argued un envoy, a canadian, can remember

his name. and may be that as a potential role, i don't know if you'll accept. i have gone 15 minutes. i will conclude with this. i do think some creative thinking is needed. i don't know who has the answers. sometimes it is not just government. sometimes it is asia society, sometimes scholars, sometimes other countries and out of the box diplomacy and the un and regular human beings. and jimmy carters. and don gregg and sometimes it is media. that is the fresh thinking that needs to evolve because what is happening now, just in

conclusion, is not good for the international community and the region. and not good for the u.s.. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for an illuminating and stimulating, and moderate a discussion and the main speaker, questions and answers. and utterly redundant. let me just remind people who might be watching or listening on line, we welcome your

questions, you can tweet us with hash tag ask asia. and some of those questions and there are many, the remaining time we have got. let me begin by asking you to paint a picture, you had the privilege of going there eight times, many of us have not. fascinating that you think the u.n. leader has the support of his people. on the streets of pyongyang and after pyongyang, what is life like really for the people of north korea? what do they have to look forward to when they wake up every morning? >> there is a wide gap between

the city pyongyang and rural areas. the rural areas are in horrendous economic shape. you can go out in the countryside and see the agriculture, using their following apart. go into a school ask pyongyang there is no heat, all the kids are in school with huge cuts on. there is no light. and electricity shortage problem. that i detected. most of those in north korea, the military provides more viable jobs, the military gets a lot of the food, the humanitarian aid, there is obviously a few huge investment in weapons. one of my last points is i

go with eric schmidt of google and eric schmidt in our visit took out his computers, google stuff, and i was just another politician. and crowded around him and limit the internet. and the technology in the north korean people is going to be a factor that will play a role in moderating the country. i wish i had more answers. i had some success in negotiating with american soldiers, prisoners, food, and hope they don't want another missile and they did. and they don't let me see him.

difficult to put that next. >> diplomacy, the governor talked about it, takes two to tango. in this stance, you know her, her father. what likelihood that it takes the daughter of a hardliner to say things, what hoops do you have, changing the dynamics. >> i have a lot of hope for her, i know her as a young woman. and when her mother was assassinated the north koreans, killed the mother.

she went to north korea in 2001 and that is kim jong il and i saw her in 2002 at the opening of the world cup and congratulated her for going to north korea and we must look to the future with hope not with bitterness so that is an astonishing statement. she talked-about trust as the defendant -- and the north politic. i haven't seen too much of her being able to build into a policy as of now. there are usually post-election perturbations in the south, a few people get arrested for corruption. their intelligence is in disgrace, i know directly from my own experience with the cia.

i am very hopeful that she can make a difference and of all the players that you mentioned the think she probably is best placed to open up some sort of running room for other people. and the new head of the asia society, and at the head of the food program may be three years ago. and it is thinning. and places like north korea, and innocence quickly so they are not permanently damaged and that

cries allowed for implementation. i am head of the german institute and i was galvanized by that. and get other people involved, and there is no trust now. >> take a society oval office, when president park came to the office. when he came to the oval office with president obama, what would he say to her, how does the united states administration incentivize both in korea, where they are now, that only they can but would that be your sense, the main actors on the

peninsula? >> i am going to go back to putting into a real-life situation but my concern, and i am a big supporter of the president but i worry that our policy over the years with north korea has not been imaginative enough. i think president clinton, a great framework was good, president bush moved from confrontation to more engagement but there was a surgeon inconsistency and i defer to don's view on this that toe -- too many times we listen too much to south korean domestic politics. i am not going to -- nobody cares.

i have always felt somehow we should respect the sanctity of our allies in south korean politics but i have been asked many times don't go, i said why not? you are going to influence south korean election. they don't care about me. i did the fur on those times, there was an election. my answer is i hope not but i think the president probably said what do you think? we will do what you want, back in the one hundred% instead of saying let's try something new, why don't you reach out to her, reach out to the north, let's find ways to increase the case and reopen that and why don't we we engage humanitarian aid? let's try something new instead of cheerleading each other? that is what i think happened. >> one of the interesting things

the governor raised was about leadership and whether it is about north korea or syria, who really is in charge and to what extent kim jong un is a master of his destiny and the country's destiny or to what extent he is a slave or student of those around him? is he the guy calling the shots? in a sense that has to be the starting point, knowing how you move forward? >> i think the number of things you said were right on the button and particularly when you set a lot of the histrionics and the law of the threats and waiving of the arms, with kim jong un and establishing himself in the minds of his people as a strong leader. i think kim jong il chose very

well among his three sons. he was a educated in part in switzerland, he knows more about the outside world and his grandfather or father and i think i absolutely agree with you that he has very strong political instincts so i think he is in charge. the chances of regime change are virtually nil. strategic patience which is what the so-called policy is called will get us know where i feel. the president has had -- president obama klystron we support has had other huge crushing questions like dealing with our congress. north korea is not a high priority. and he is not a passionate advocate of north korea. there aren't many passionate advocates of north korea anywhere. >> apart from on this age.

>> i'm not a passionate advocate. i may have been there. i called north korea the longest running failure in the history of american espionage and i am very well qualified to say that because i taste the around unsuccessfully for 30 years. they are a tough nut to crack but their big concern is their relationship with us. that is the key to denuclearization. that is the key to stability of the whole region. we have to start from where we are in beginning to build trust. >> let me add to that. don is right. the north koreans have said to me, the north koreans, we are the powers here. we should settle old this. we should form an alliance. let's not overdo it. so when you say let china be an

interlocutor, why china? let's you and i discuss it. let's have bilateral talks. the six party talks have vanished especially now with russia and china playing this game. i am not saying you abandon the six party talks. in a way i do. some new consolation involving it needs to happen. they see if we reached out to them and said let's have a new -- they would jump at it. a lot of it is personal, it is ego, it is powerful, respect us and i say to them the actions you take don't indicate you should get this respect. when you start bombing people and islands, don has an interesting pherae about the

bombing of that ship. when you start kidnapping people, when you start doing the things you have, this rhetoric of yours, it doesn't instill much confidence. ..

virtually every lever of the world is gone with pongyang you pull it and nothing happens? >> the north koreans do not like the chinese. i was taken to a nearly built museum of history because we flattened pyongyang during the war and there were marvelous battle paintings all around the ceiling. i said who are the bad guys? the answer was, oh, it was the chinese. i talk to chinese about their dealings with the north koreans and it is very difficult. the senator koreans don't like to be beholdenned to anybody. i think the chinese have

influence but i think i r it is limited influence. our ability to influence north korea is huge but our potential, we limit ourselves by handcuffing ourselves with something called strategic patience. >> john, back to the chinese question because everyone says why can't we get the chinese to do more? here is another theory i have and i'm not a china expert. i'm sure there are a lot here. i ask myself if china and the united states see each other as competitors, by the way i'm for engagement with china. economic, i'm a free trader. i think we have to deal with this huge emerging power in a positive way but, we're competitors. and i say to myself, if i'm china, and i see turmoil in northeast asia and the u.s. deploying resources and i don't want all of these refugees coming to my country, why should i help the u.s.? the turmoil is good for the u.s.

if i'm a chinese policymaker, maybe i will be challenged by a china expert here. that should be my thinking. why should we help the u.s. even after pressure from the u.s.? >> let me ask you both a couple of questions that are coming in. one from the korea herald. when kim jong-un took power upon his father's death in 2011 hopes emerged that the young swiss-educated leader would bring about change in the isolated society. why did he fail to change the impoverished country? is it because of political character or vested interests resist any changes? >> i think it depends how you define change. he was smart when he took power the first thing he had to do to be effective at all was to establish his own ledgesy. -- legitimacy. the idea of changing it to make

us happier is a rather low priority for him because he is not sure what it would gain from us because we don't really respond to much of anything he does. when he first appeared on the scene in 2009 i sent a memo to the vice president saying, why don't we invite him to the united states for an or arery entation tour? he will run korea sooner or later. he will be around for 30 or 40 years. it would be helpful if he came here and learned something about us and we learned something about him. the invitation might not be accepted but the fact it was offered could be recognized. it was turned down saying the republicans would laugh us out of town saying that was a mistake. i think you sort of approved dennis rodman. i wish it was michael jordan. it would be easier for us to relate to him. i'm all for the kind of things you mentioned. more sports, more unorthodox kind of things.

bring them out of their isolation because by bringing them out of their isolation they will more clearly realize it is in their own interests to change. that is how you get at the gulag. in my early days in the cia eight countries we would bring around regime change. number one was iran. we're still paying consequences from that. second was guatemala. that created genocide in that state. the third was cuba. i think to change a regime to help it change itself because it realize it is needs to change and that will only become as they become closer and more clearly oriented to the outside world. >> and, john, i don't want everybody to leave with a view that this is an intractable, impossible problem. and bit way in politics, there is sometimes problems that you can't resolve. i'm not getting into that but

but i see a little light at the end of the tunnel. i see the absence of heated rhetoric lately. i see the caisson talks coming back. i'm talking about north korea. we want to talk to the u.s. bilaterally. and then we say but you have to denuclearize and include that. the north koreans don't come back and say, then go to hell. i see some little movement. i see envoys from north korea going to certain parts of asia. i see some of the people that dealt with that maybe don dealt with too, like their nuclear negotiator. he is a pragmatist. i hope i'm not ruining him in north korea now but some of the foreign ministry people. it is like almost, you've got the military. they're hard-liners. my worry some hard-line military guys have the ear of kim jong-un. that is win of my worries by the

way. i think those foreign ministry types are kind of reemerging. i recently met with north koreans here in new york, the new people, they have a new team here. i said, what about so-and-so? some of your friends? yeah, don't overdo that. that is supposed to be funny. [laughter] it is not funny anymore. so i see a little light at the end of the at least the rhetoric tunnel. there's a little movement there. so i'm saying let's grab that movement. maybe the south korean president is the key. maybe some kind of new envoy or some kind of, world bank initiative or ban ki-moon or something, u.n. you say that military of the hard-liners there is an interesting question coming on facebook from jose

medina of the university of chicago basically asking, if the fact that the united states still has got 30,000 people on the peninsula also a provocation, particularly when they engage in war games with south koreans at a time when it is quite sensitive and then the north koreans react and nobody's then very surprised that the north koreans react? >> the north koreans have always reacted with great hostility to our training exercises. when i was ambassador, we had something called team spirit which was a reenactment of our intervening to repel the north korean invasion and whenever we did that the north koreans went on major alert thinking we might be actually coming in. and i got the pentagon to cancel that operation one year and that opened up all kind of things going. we also got our nuclear weapons out of south korea and the

combination of those two things opened up all kind of north-south contact. and then dick cheney, who was secretary of defense without consulting the state department put back team spirit and the north koreans saw that undoing everything we had done. they pulled out of the npt and a major crisis was caused. so you've got to be consistent. we haven't done that we always blame them for doing something but they have the same men in dealing with us for a dozen years and they remember all the naughty things we've done and is forth. >> given things like face are so important in the asian culture do you think times we just don't quite get that? >> absolutely. >> i remember, i won't say who but i was told that kim jong-il felt really dissed, president bush in a book said something about his height, which was not

overwhelming and, like he, look it really bothered him. so those things are important. >> called him a pigmy. >> okay. axis of evil stuff. they don't like to be lumped with these other countries even though sometimes they act worse than them. military to military ties are always good. now i was an envoy to president george w. bush, i think it was 2006-7. the north koreans came to me through new york and they said, look, we want, we want to do a gesture and we like you. i was about to run for president. i said don't broadcast that. so we want to give you some remains of american soldiers. and i had been working on that for years. a lot of people, don, families. i said, you're sure you're going to give us?

so i went to the national security advisor, steve hadley, i said look, this should be bipartisan. give me a republican counterpart. gave me tony, the secretariry of va under george w., tony, anyway we both went and they turned over seven remains to us. we had proper ceremonies for the north koreans. we said we want to increase these military ties. there are more remains here. there about a thousand according to some of the organizations that specialize in this. i think this is another area of potential, potential cooperation that the political side says, no, no, don't do that because that's something we want. we pay them for that. but that's another area, military to military. u.s. military to north korean military. south korean military, you know, those joint exercises, the

telephones that they have, things like that, symbolic things in asia are much more important than they are to us. >> let's open it up to some questions on the floor. what would really help if you could say who you are before you ask the question. this question just in. >> hi, my name is james. i recently came back from burma and the big commercial capital. there was an assassination attempt where the, i guess north korean agents tried to assassinate some south korean officials. i wanted to know what, the burmese didn't know what the purpose of such that i knew, didn't know what the purpose of such an attack was. the korean tourists who i was traveling burma through with had no compassion for the north koreans that they knew in seoul who had managed somehow

to, through much hardship to escape north korea and flee into seoul. they just saw them as rubes and inherently lazy. and the south koreans i talked to had no, absolutely no desire or discernible desire for a unified core re, korea, it wasn't a replay of germany divided by cold war or vietnam. >> what's the question? >> my question is, what, can you please provide some insight on to why south koreans, especially, the young, have no patriotism for a united korea? and what's the purpose of north korean agents for assassinating south korean officials? >> that took place in 1983 in range goon. they were trying to kill dujaun. he was coming to late to temple

they mined and killed many key people and foreign minister including several close friends of mind. it was one of several attempts that the north koreans made to kill the president of south korea. the view of the kids in the south, for a long time they were afraid of north korea when north korea was divided by the united states. now south korea was much weaker than north korea and there was fear in seoul for years. now that fear is gone because seoul is so much strongly economically than north korea. with that fear has gone some feeling of sadness for the south. and, the sectors are usually not warmly received. i worked with a lot of soviet defectors when i was with cia and they were never happy. home is home. and the receipt they receive when they go over is never what

they hoped. they're always regarded as people who can't be trusted and sort of regarded as the debris of a failing society. >> this question just here. yeah. >> herbert levin. it's, next week i think it is 60 years since the cease-fire was achieved and certainly it's not only intelligence failure but policy failure that we've just brought about nuclear weapons in the north and continued occasional firings, yet every time administrations of both parties have had an urge to try and get into realistic negotiations with north there's been enormous attacks that we're selling out the south or lower morale. at one point i was told you could go forward with something like that if you get a half

dozen senators and congressman prepositioned to say this is a great idea. i wonder whether you see in the present congress any enlightened personalities who might stand up and endorse a real effort toward the north? and, that, going to a more difficult one because the congress is very easy to understand, going to a more difficult one, we know what we have asked the chinese to do and why they have not felt they should oblige us. what have the chinese told us to do recently? >> well, look, right now there's, the days when partisanship stopped at the water's edge are over. it is unfortunate. almost every foreign policy issue there is a political divide that is really unacceptable. i have never seen it as bad as it is. on egypt. on syria.

on north korea, this is a chance where both parties, senators from both parties you can be really tough and you will not have any political liability. i think that kind of limits our policy options. i am not saying that north korea desevens to be praised. it doesn't but that doesn't mean we don't try to engage in a more, i won't say realistic effective way. let's try something new. what we do is, they, they have, they have rhetoric. they do an underground test. there's more sanctions. let's talk again. both side dance around. what i think is needed is some kind of a new bipartisan view. and i don't have an answer. you're not looking at somebody that has got a clear answer but

i think inattention, i think don is right. the president, you have so many problems around the world, our own economy, that this is kind of pushed aside and when the north koreans, the rhetoric heats up, let's deal with it but we basically don't change. i think the chinese tell us, okay, we're pressuring them. we're tough on them but they, but there's so much we can do. i think there's a lot more the chinese can do. i've said that. but again, whether the north koreans are going to listen to them, that es an open question. >> i think the chinese tell us, that we ought to do more. that what we're asking them to do is to make up for a very ineffective policy on our part. i went to a series of meetings several years ago run by a brilliant chinese and we had sort of a mock six-party talk

and she just made it very clear that the chinese view felt that the u.s. policy was the cause of the problem. because we were not offering north korea anything. all we were doing is denigrating them. i'm very glad that the president met president xi. china will never be an ally but it certainly can be a partner at times. and i think we have certain things in common now with the chinese. i think the chinese do not want north korea to become a permanent men nuclear power. i think we can work with them to work against that but that's going to take more positive engagement on our part with north korea for that to happen peacefully. >> stories about madam fu later on. some questions in the back. there in the green. >> hi, i'm gregg beck from tokyo

broadcasting system. earlier, governor richardson, you said, you spoke about the importance of dealing with bad men. and i, i love the ideas about, you know, using more imagination and soft diplomacy dealing with north korea but i wonder how we can do that in a way that doesn't endorse their humanitarian violations and other problems? >> well, again, i notice there's an election in iran and now everyone is talking about a new moderate president there. i don't know if that's the case, you know. i have my doubts, but i'm not saying there's, in the international community there's a dual inconsistent policy but we've seen with iran that doesn't, hasn't developed a nuclear weapon, but they're a major oil power, major powers in

the region, that we always say, well, let's give them another shot at dialogue. and they have got repressive tendencies there too. so, what i'm saying with north korea is that, one dialogue is important. if you don't talk to each other, you just do it through rhetoric, press, you know, who's tougher, it's not going to work. if you don't encourage, other players in the region aren't encouraged to play a role, it's a problem. this is why i said, you need some creative, out of the box thinking, out of the box actors. it is not only politicians and state departments that change things for the better. it is other entities. i don't, look, i'm saying i don't have the answer but what we're doing and what is happening now in the international community and in asia, the six-party countries is

not just working for either side. >> let me jump in quickly. i think the greatest single diplomatic stroke the united states made since the end of world war ii was nixon's opening to china. and he did that at a time when mao zedong's hand were dripping with blood of 19, 20 million people who died in the cultural revolution. was that endorsing what they had done? absolutely not. it was seen very correctly as the only way to get them eventually to stop doing that kind of thing. that is the point of dialogue. you're not saying hey, it is okay, we don't care who you put in the gulag. we're saying get out of your isolation, get out of your cave and make yourself realize it's in your own interests to behave better toward your own people. >> there is an interesting question coming from jay from columbia university which speaks to the inconsistency point. he writes, the u.s. does not

seek the denuclearization of other states like pakistan, india, israel, russian federation or china. isn't the goal of due nuclearization of the dprk rather than including the u.s. nuclear umbrella a policy of particular hostility toward north korea and could u.s. include umbrella into the denuclearization in the formula? >> i think that is a very good question. last time i met with north koreans was in march here in new york. these were people representing kim jong-un and some pretty provocative things were said by the united states on the bad tendency we have to demonize countries we neither like or understand. we make it harder for ourselves when we fill our gaps of ignorance with prejudice as we do with north korea, as we did with vietnam, as we have a

tendency to do and the second ranking person in the north korean delegation said, if you would really treat us with respect and extend to us the same umbrella of nuclear protection that you extend to japan we would give up our nuclear weapons, flat. the moderator, it was run by the germans, and the germans were just astonished to hear that. did we hear you correctly? she said, yes, you did. i think that question is a very good one. the north koreans said that to me. >> john, the worry we should have as an international community, and by the way i think the administration has tried to get nuclear countries to reduce, et cetera but the real worry that i have is the export of nuclear materials, enriched-uranium. i recall being in north korea at a time there was suspicion of

the tie with syria, and i think with burma too and i said to the north, i said, you're not exporting your nuclear materials, are you? that is crazy. why are you doing that? they said, you know -- i said are you doing it? and the answer was maybe. i said, what do you mean? so you're doing it? he says, we have no foreign exchange. i said that is not a good way to get foreign exchange. and then they shot back, we're sanctioned by everybody. not justifying it but, that nuclear materials, you know, to ban it to international outlaws to the al qaedas of the world, you get these guys out on the black market, trying to get some foreign exchange. so, just, that's another reason, i should have put it in why is this important to reduce tension? you don't want that happening. it's not good. whether it is pakistan. whether it's north korea, whether it's anybody.

>> speaking to don's point though, do you worry that this country is not well-understood by people at top. it is not certainly well-understood by the rest of us and the same is true in reverse. and actually what more can we do? because in a way china 30 years ago, 40 years ago was not well-understood either but we now all better understand china because there are thousands of chinese students coming to study in the united states or in the united kingdom. thousands of tourists come. we're not getting any north korean tourists anytime soon but what ways can we do to break down the mistrust and to aid the knowledge and the understanding of mutual understanding? >> it has to come through human contact. i mean you can't do it in the abstract. i remember in my first visit to

north korea 11 years ago. they, they were aware of a lousy book by tom clancy called, "ops center," where the chief figure was a man named gregory donald. and my name is donald gregg. that man had been chief of station in seoul and then ambassador to seoul. i said, how in the world did you come up with that? and kim said, don't assume that we know as little about you as you know about us. >> right. >> and i think that's, i think they know much more about us. i think they're much more acquainted with what makes us tick than we are in terms of what makes them tick. you don't get to know that in the abstract. you get to know that by working with them and that's what we've been unwilling to do and there's, you know, in 2000 two i

hand-carried a message to the white house that he had come directly from kim jong-il offering to open up talks if we would treat them with respect. i took it directly to the white house. i got in to see steve hadley. he read it. he said no, we don't talk to them. that would be rewarding bad behavior. i was in and out of the white house in 20 minutes. not a single question was asked of my trip, who i had seen, how i had gotten the message, why they sent it and that kind of behavior on our part is just not going to get us anywhere with north korea. >> let's go right to the back. right to the back beside the camera. >> hi. my name is elory gordon. i spent a lot of time trading with china early on and my question really is, nobody really addressed the trade

issue. why aren't we going to them with some apartheid trade representative? we had something called 807, though you would probably know about that. we traded with mexico. we cut fabric in the united states and allowed duty at this preference to products that came in from mexico. why can't we do something tripart tied with south korea, north korea and united states opening to markets to goods manufactured under those circumstances? >> you know the reason is, sanctions don't permit it. what you're saying we unload these sanctions in this limited area? is that what you're advocating? trade, people to people stuff, he mentioned they brought the philharmonic here. they thought that was a big deal

they didn't once say to me, can i bring michael jordan? there is no secret. kim jong-il like western movies. sometimes i get whispered, bring some videos, old cds, i bring "butch cassidy & the sundance kid" and i know it was well-received. it didn't necessarily bring peace but i recall in this last trip, and i wish, i know you invited eric schmidt to come, the google guy but he had real interaction with north korean students at this high-tech school, this computer school. they were crowding him. they treated him like a rock star. and i didn't see any hostility there. i ventured over the years, i ventured into weddings, outdoor weddings in north korea, restaurants, the subway. i love the subways there. just get in there, i never

detected any hostility, not that i, there were language barriers but i would have some interpreters. i'm an american here. i think there's a people to people potential that we can work together. the hostility, yeah, it's at the government level, the military, i'm sure towards us but people to people, i never detected that negativity. >> i've got to say i did not take the philharmonic there. it went and i happened to be there at the same time. but one of the great things about it was the master classes afterwards. i went around and there were individual musicians from the symphony who were giving lessons, individual north koreans and both sides were astonished by it. the americans were astonished how good the north koreans were and the north koreans were astonished that we were willing to do it and it was a great thing but you give me infinitely

more credit than i deserve. >> yes just in the second row here. >> ambassador richardson, you started off saying you were taking some pause from a bit of the hardening of attitudes in north korea and then you, toward the end of your remarks you also said glints of promise. and i wonder if both are two sides of the same coin in that there, what he is doing now, the new leader is take the hardening stance to win the credibility at home to offer an olive branch to outside of this country and to us and perhaps to other western powers and maybe those signals that we should be reading to give us some hope we can deal with this new leader? >> well i love you for being an optimist and i will say that's my hope. although it is like 95-5 on the

hostility side. that 5%, and i read their diatribes, they have cooled down a lot and i see their diplomats running around. i saw kim, i don't know where he was, don, in china recently -- >> in russia. >> some dialogue. i see kim jong-un not, i think the 60th anniversary thaw mentioned, that's going to be a big show. i know a lot of media is being invited. did you get invited? >> don't tell anybody. >> okay. so it could be that that a big signal may emerge there. i hope it's a good signal. not, oh, god, we're going to decapitate the u.s. and south korea and everybody. that is my hope. they love these big occasions.

birthdays. accession to power. anniversaries. funeral dates. you kind of worry with them that they have so many of them but, those are signals that might emerge. >> next question. there's a guy, a blue shirt, is it? about the fourth row back? you, yep. yep. forgive me. the lights are blaring. so sorry. >> i have a question for governor richardson and that is, if you could advise the secretary-general who to suggest appointment, somebody the north koreans would appreciate and the the south koreans would appreciate is there anyone you suggest? i have a question for ambassador gregg. the north koreans just had a press conference at the u.n.

asking for the dissolution of the u.n. command which has nothing to do with u.n. i would wonder what your responses to that? we have the 60th anniversary coming up. is there any advice you could give about this, the conflict over the u.s. calling its activity, the u.n. command? >> all right. on the special envoy i would recommend a nordic, a norwegian, a swede or a or, those are always the good guys in the world. but you know what? they have lots of money, the norwegians and they give a lot of humanitarian aid. would i probably, i would even narrow it down to the norwegians because they always know how to move the oslo accords, peacekeeping. that would be useful. the question is whether the north koreans would accept. i think maurice strong did a good job. i don't think he is there

anymore or there is an envoy. so, yeah, i think as many entities engaged that are outside the major powers. plus the major powers combined, maybe they come up with something. you know, there's other issues besides the nuclear issue. there's sanctions. ending the, the state of war. there's issues relating to banking. you mentioned trade initiatives other tools of better understanding. by the way i'm also going to say something about, i don't want you all to forget about kenneth bey, an american, he is there. he is a prisoner. you know who i think is the only person that get him out? >> michael jordan. >> dennis rodman. no, i'm serious. as a gesture to him. now, maybe jordan would, but i think, it's not going to be, and

the north koreans made it clear, it will not be okay, you sent clinton, carter, i'm the c-team, i'm gone. so i think it will be something unorthodox but hopefully it will be resolved because this man desevens to come home. on the u.n. -- >> on the u.n., it is a highly-charged symbolic issue. i think there are, when i was there, i don't know, there were less than a dozen u.n. troops but it's, it's symbolism. the u.n. intervened militarily. it was the only time they were able to do so because the soviets were boycotting the security council. so the u.n. is a very stronger negative historic symbol as far as the north koreans are concerned and it is an interesting sort of new request they would make. the symbol system tremendously high and powerful. i'm not sure that we would

consider it but it's interesting that you picked up on it. >> question just there, the white shirt. yeah. >> hing from korea. when john talked about north and south korea have two main actors and they have to be more active. when you hint at that you surmised in the question, just disappeared. so you can you comment on to what degree those in south korea, both countries are active on the scene and the activity outside powers have to influence on the matter? >> can i frame it slightly did, well, all the people, both north and south who are heavily invested in the status quote, and it's not in their interests

for things to move because there's a whole business and industry being set up in the sense, keeping countries apart. >> i was always said, i was. [closing bell ringing] to kim jung. a lot of my friend i met in the '70s thought he was a secret economist and they -- communist. and they never got over that they thought the election was to save them from a return to the sunshine policy mafia as it were and distinction of thought in south korea towards the north seem to be age based. i don't think foreigners can really get at that.

people close enough to the horrors of the korean war. there is a new book out called the brothers of war that is the best new book of korea that i have seen and gets into that. but that is very tough issue thaw raise. >> question just here? you have spoken? forgive me. >> i'm a journalist and i report for southeast asian publications. you, ambassador, you spoke about out-of-box diplomacy. have you tried to get the asians into the dialogue with north korea? because north korea has been sending feelers to some of the

asean member-states for greater trade and economic interaction? >> it may make sense to do that because you're right, north korea stands some of those assy one meetings. with burma a major actor there. yeah, we need some new players. i think the six-party countries, they have run out of gas. that doesn't mean one by one you don't take it seriously. south korea can be a major player. united states can be a major player. china can be a major player. russia they're not participating. i think now, i think there is something to this china-russia relationship that's a little bit troubling to me because those are two big, big countries. i don't want them ganging up on us. but yeah, new players, could be,

but north korea has not had relationships with many countries. i don't want a new player. i know want -- don't want syria involved. i don't want to have a relationship with them. it has to be people in the region. as don and i said, eventually, here's my last point. the united states, everyone in a once in a while or occasionally in the press they dump on us. i go to conferences. they dump on us, other countries but at end of the conference they say, okay, america, what are you going to do? they want to you lead. you screwed up but you still lead. even china said that to us. conferences. not official. i'm not saying i think it is our burden. let's pay attention. we can't just think of one

country, syria? i'm a big latin america. i think we're neglecting latin america. look what is happening there with snowden. we would probably lose an oas vote in latin america. this is a region very close to us. >> one other thing i would say as we draw to a close, mention what is going on at syracuse university, the maxwell school for 10 years, they approached me more than 10 years ago, saying we took information technology into the soviet union and china and by so doing we feel that we hastened the change in those two countries. can we do it in north korea? and they are doing it in north korea. there's a twin labs relationship between the maxwell school and kim university in pyongyang. we have trained north koreans in i.t. techniques in beijing. they're almost as good as it as

the south koreans are and why do we do it? we do it because we feel the more information that comes into north korea, the more easily they will adapt to the fact that they have to join the family of the world and begin to treat their own people with respect that they deserve. >> that's very good. i'm afraid we run out of time. we could spend all evening talking about this fascinating subject but governor bill richardson, ambassador don gregg, thank you very much indeed. [applause] >> thank you.

>> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. at night watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest non-fiction authors and books on "book tv." get our past programs and get our skied us at our website. and join in the conversation on social media sites. >> a couple of live events to tell you about this morning on our companion network, c-span 3. the senate foreign relations committee will look at diplomatic and embassy security and including security that would fund programs recommended by an independent panel that investigated the 2012 benghazi attack. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 5:00 p.m. eastern the house rules committee considers two bills aimed at delaying until 2015 the employer and individual health insurance mandates in the health care law.

new york city democrats on monday call on the justice department to launch a civil rights investigation surrounding the death of trayvon martin. the justice department suspended its investigation during the trial but now federal prosecutors are examining the evidence to decide whether to move forward. this is a half hour. >> good afternoon. thank you for your presence here do. my name a hakeem jeffries. it is my honor and privilege to represent the 8th congressional district in brooklyn and parts of queens. i'm joined today by congressman charles wrangle and congressman gregory meeks who together convened this press conference to talk about this case and the way forward and we're pleased

that we've also been joined by two additional distinguished members of the new york congressional delegation, congress member, jerry nadler and congress member jose serrano. let me first express our heartfelt thoughts and prayers as they continue to be with the family of trayvon martin and note that they have conducted themselves with tremendous dignity. and we appreciate the lead that people from all over the country have followed. we respect the jury's verdict. but the state prosecutorial chapter has now been closed. and a new federal chapter has been opened. and it's at least my hope that that chapter will result in a consideration by a grand jury as to whether george zimmerman violated our nation's civil

rights laws. trayvon martin did not have a gun. he did not have a knife. he did not have a weapon. all trayvon martin had was a package of skittles and as a result of him going to the store to get some skittles it set in motion a chain of events that resulted in him being shot dead in cold blood. that should not happen in america. and that's why there needs to be some accountability. there's reason to believe that this justice department investigation should proceed in a manner that results in

grand jury consideration as it relates to the violation of trayvon martin's civil rights. at least in my view george zimmerman identified trayvon martin as a potential criminal because he was black. he followed trayvon martin because he was black. he called the police on trayvon martin because he was black. profiled trayvon martin because he was black. a grand jury should ultimately determine whether he shot trayvon martin because he was black in violation of our nation's civil rights laws.

in closing, a grand jury would not be unprecedented, and neither would a subsequent federal prosecution. in 1991 rodney king was beaten by multiple members of the los angeles police department. a state prosecution was commenced, and four white officers were acquitted at the state level. the federal government then stepped in and moved forward with a prosecution charging the officers with violating our nation's civil rights laws and a conviction was subsequently obtained. in 1994 anthony baez in the

bronx was choked to death by francis lavo it e, a member of the new york police department. he was indicted under state law, tried in a bronx county court. he was acquitted under state law. the federal government then stepped in with a grand jury and subsequent indictment and right in this courthouse behind us francis lavote was convicted of violating anthony baez's civil rights. across the river in the district represented by jerry nadler, myself, and nydia velazquez, nelson stabbed yankel rosenbaum, an hasidic man in crown heights during the 1991 disturbances.

nelson was indicted under state law. he was tried, and he was acquitted. the federal government then stepped in, with a grand jury and a subsequent indictment. prosecuted limerick nelson under our nation's civil rights laws and he was convicted. i'm pleased that an investigation has been commenced i'm hopeful that as in those other cases and many others it will result in grand jury consideration as to whether george zimmerman violated trayvon martin's civil rights when he shot him to death in cold blood. i'm pleased that we've been joined by the dean of of the congressional delegation, a legendary figure in the congress, a fighter for civil rights over his four plus decades of service, congress

member charles wrangle. >> thank you so much congressman jeffries, and congressman greg meeks for organizing this press conference. we're joined now by congresswoman nydia velazquez and i think we all agree that we pray for the mother and the father and the family of trayvon. and we respect the dignity in which they have accepted the tragic loss of their son. but that down mean that justice was done by a long shot and i don't think hardly anyone believes that had the roles been reversed, that the black attacker who suspected a white

person with a hood would have been arrested, locked up and been in jail. so the legal moral of the story is that, if you really want to get by with a self-defense acquittal, you have to kill the victim and have no one to challenge your creation of what happened. having said that, this is not the first time that civil rights has had a tremendous setback. we lost a whole lot in the recent civil rights and voting rights decisions by the united states supreme court. and we do have these setbacks in this the greatest country in the world but it is made better by people who don't give up. that they don't give out and

they continue to struggle for justice for all of our people. so we can say that to fathers, like i, who have a younger son, that are part of being a good american, a part of what you are entitled to, it is to be able to walk the streets of this great country and not have someone predetermine your propensity to commit a crime and to shoot and to kill you and to think that ends the story. no, my friend, this is the beginning of the story. race will no longer be a word that we feel awkward in talking about and we can not give up. we can not give out and we can not give in merely because of this tragedy. the family should know that

while they have lost their dear son, that they have gained a groundswell of americans who merely want us to do the right thing by trayvon. the person who called me about this meet being -- meeting was gregory meeks. gregory comes from harlem. was raised in queens and yet no matter how hard he tries to get away from the streets of lennox avenue, there's no place that a young black male can go without carrying the additional burden, burden, of being a black male. he has been a prosecutor but he also has been better known for defending the rights of those people that are vulnerable and i want to thank you for your call yesterday and giving us an opportunity in the house of representatives, in the congress, and others who are not here, to make our case to the

justice department and the attorney general. gregory meeks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to first thank hakeem jeffries who has come to congress and he stated early on that we needed to do this and talking to mr. wrangle of course, he joined us, yes, we have to do this. i want to give my heart-felt sorrow to the family of mr. martin for the way they have carried themselves in dignity and asking people to march but in dignity. i want to give my heartfelt thanks to the protesters all over america, black, white, asian, hispanic, all over america.

they are walking together as one to say, though we are a country of laws, although we know the jury has made a decision, we don't have to agree with that decision. and we're going to speak out to say that we do not. and so it makes me feel heartfelt that americans are coming together to say, we're going to speak out. for clearly in my estimations, as congressman jeffries hasn't indicated, the investigation of the justice department has begun, must be completed, and it is clear that, you know, some have asked me previously, is this trying the case all over again? the answer is, absolutely not because we're talking about mr. martin's civil rights violations.

now it was clear in the trial, and i, as mr. wrangle has said used to be a prosecutor and i'm not here to criticize or to play second-guessing on how the prosecutor tried the case but one thing that was clear that was not done in this case, in fact, everybody went out of their way to say that race wasn't a factor. that race didn't matter. when all of us really knew that race is a factor, and was a factor, and what we're asking the justice department now to do is to look at the race issue. because every piece of testimony that i heard, and every sentence that mr. zimmerman said to the police said that he acted the way he did because of race. so race matters. and clearly for those who think that we should not go forward, race not taken into consideration in this trial. so now it should be.

as in other cases, as congressman jeffries hasn't indicated, as the president said it. so justice has not been had because mr. martin's race has not been considered. and what we need to make sure that all americans, and this is why i'm so proud of all americans, that have stood up and are marching together, because if we want to show that, in this society, that we can and we will and we have become a better union when we're united. and that is what is happening here. we're united. and that's why i'm so glad when hakeem called me and i called charlie wrangle, that my colleagues, who saw the news release, that we were going to do something, called us and said, look, i want to be there. i want to stand up and i want to

have a voice. i want people to know how i feel. i want to make sure that we're joining with you so that they understand it is not just the black caucus or the black members of the congressional black caucus, it is all of us. i'm delighted, jerry nadler, who sits on the judiciary committee said he wanted to be here. and jose serrano, who sits on the appropriations committee, said he wanted to be here and nydia velasquez, ranking member on the small business committee said she wanted to be here. i see my councilman behind me. members of congress said we know that you and congressman jeffries and congressman wrangle have called a press conference but we wanted to be there i'm pleased to bring up my friend and colleague, jerry nadler. >> thank you very much, greg. i think congressman jeffries for calling this press conference at this time.

as the ranking member of the constitution and civil justice subcommittee, the judiciary committee of the house, like many americans, i watched the trial, the aftermath of trayvon martin's senseless death with very closely and with a deep abiding sadness. several things are very clear. first, it is clear that trayvon martin would be alive today if george zimmerman were not deeply prejudiced and did not perceive a young, black kid walking through a neighborhood as a threat. a threat simply because he was black and young and walking through maybe the wrong neighborhood, as mr. zimmerman perceived it. trayvon martin would still be alive today if george zimmerman had followed the advice of the police. oh. george zimmerman would be, i'm sorry, trayvon martin would be alive today if george zimmerman had followed the advice of the

police and had left well enough alone. but he didn't. he began the altercation that resulted in trayvon martin's death. so it's his fault. the second thing that's clear is that the civil rights laws were passed by the federal congress. we have federal civil rights laws precisely for the purpose of dealing with situations where the states have shown themselves incapable of meting out justice. congressman jeffries gave as you number of examples where that is the case. the federal government steps in and uses federal civil rights laws after the states failed to do justice. the state of florida failed to do justice and that is clear. whose fault that is a different question. so i am pleased that the justice department has announced that it will revive its ongoing

investigation to determine whether federal, separate federal civil rights action should be instituted against george zimmerman for violating civil rights laws. i believe that such an investigation into federal criminal civil rights violations is well-warranted. i urge the justice department to move forward expeditiously and thoroughly and to take the actions that are indicated. i thank you. >> jose serrano. >> thank you so much. first of all thank you to my colleagues for putting this press conference together. if this was the only time, or the first time that something like this had happened, perhaps you wouldn't see the outpouring of emotion that you see not only at this press conference but throughout our nation. but it happens too often. it happens too often where people that look like us are stopped and asked questions. and it doesn't matter whether