what if kids got to do that from the elementary school? we sometimes think of moonshot -- a huge problem in the world. a breakthrough that might make radical solutions possible like the self driving car. we have safety issues. we waste a lot of gas. billions of people waste so much time driving and now we have a text in epidemic.

how can we use the recent sensors and mapping and technologies that are available in robotics to have the car drive itself? that is moonshot thinking. maybe you can't get their right away. you have a mercury mission and then jim and i and apollo. it's about a year. this is the prototype, isabel for the glass designer. by the way for the prototype, the first prototype they built they did it not in a month but a year-and-a-half they put it together. why couldn't school be like that, but set apart and do the design thinking then we start projects and businesses? we think 10x better, not 10%. when we are working with something two-thirds what can i do to move forward in what is the critique? a third, yes. this is a place we just wanted

people to celebrate moonshot thinking. also looking more historical yet who already made it but let's celebrate the people taking decrease the risk. hear the proposals and help them to try to move the world for word and moonshot radical proposals. last i guess i would end on - it's so important to help kids find their passion. what is their x? my friend that works at usa said instead of asking kids their major in class and school and college, he said ask their problem. what are you solving, what are you researching and trying to figure out in the world? finding that, i was lucky to take acoustics from the professor, he is an amazing teacher, and he always said you have high performance that you have to find your passion. if you find your passion you will be unstoppable. so that's why encourage us to do. use these technologies. i call them model a.

you know, they need a lot more work. all this stuff needs work but it's going to take all of us so let's take two-thirds yes and and one after the yes but. thank you. [applause] >> if you have any questions could you write them down and pass them to the side. [inaudible] if you want you can actually come up. >> hello. i am anne. thank you for that. i love your ideas but i also come from the classroom. how do you implement this what's

your passion and getting kids to the pure problem based learning in all sorts of stuff and the current culture of testing and testing on math and reading? >> i totally agree with you. it's a nightmare and it's a mistake. it's interesting. one of our introduces came back from vietnam and he is a great blog up. they are teaching science in second grade in a lot of the class is, he went into and 11th grade class and the kids were working on a problem. he went back and asked one of the google engineers what level do you think this is? he said level one. half of the kids in the 11th grade were getting the problem. other people are giving this. we just need to do it. we need to do a few things i think. one is the people who know best are the teachers. and we need to put ourselves into a position to listen to the teachers and help them help us

solve the problem. like every industry. because they have the solutions it's almost like instead of more research and work we need to be journalists and go and find the best teachers. i met with the governor recently and he had an interesting program around learning circles for teachers to help them learn together. it reminded me a little bit about the circle within the landing circles for impoverished people doing well collaborating to get there. i thought that was good. but you're point is completely the issue. and it is amazing to me we are just so stuck in a way we are doing things. i think it's between 15 and 40% of the top university graduates that tried last year. at stillman i think it was up 30% and dartmouth were up 15%, harvard was 20-something. maybe there is a way to get that to help the master teachers to

the i don't know what the solution is but we need to think 2/3 yes and and get the teachers to do it. one thing we actually survey ourselves every year to see what's going well and what isn't. i would like to see this. what's working, what's not working, what does the community think and want to do? >> we are leaving this program you can watch any time on c-span.org and we go now to the national press club in washington, d.c. for a panel discussion on egypt political future and its relationship with the united states. monica coleman is the host. >> there will be approximately an hour. each speaker will talk for five to ten minutes and then there will be q&a. they are limited to the members of the credential press. when you are called upon, please

state your question. we will be repeating a year of the microphone for our television audience. also, state your name and affiliation and keep your questions please, please. we want to get as many questions as possible. so again. this is the national press club newsmaker even on the crisis in egypt. the world has been looking as it seems egypt's democracy is unraveling. what we are seeing today isn't unlike what we saw in 2011 with violence and bloodshed, which ousted the current president them, hosni mubarak. what happens now seems to be similar with violence and bloodshed and once again, under heavy protest the new president, president mohammed morsi has also been ousted coming and he is also a member of the muslim

brotherhood. so what will happen in egypt now? will they be able to capture their democracy? should the u.s. be involved and if so, how? today we are honored to have special speakers with us who are well renowned in the area in egypt and the middle east. our first speaker to my right is stephen mcinerney. the executive director of the project on middle east democracy he has a master's from stanford and he also has graduate studies in middle east politics history and the arabic language from the american university in beirut and the american university in cairo. his work can be found among many publications including foreign policy, the new republic, foreign affairs and the washington post. his work can also be seen on the bbc, msnbc, al jazeera and cbs.

the second speaker on my right is tamara cofman wittes she is a fellow and director of the saban middle east policy at the brookings institution. her work is the deputy assistant secretary of state for the near eastern affairs from november, 2006 -- i'm sorry, november, 2009 to january, 2012. she coordinated the u.s. policies on democracy and on human rights in the middle east for the u.s. state department. she has also overseen the middle east partnership initiative and

was assigned the deputy special coordinator for middle east transitions. the author of freedom on steady, the america's response and the role in every democracy. the third speaker at the end is michele dunne and she is vice president at the atlantic council and is there a director of the atlantic council rfik hariri center for middle east. her prior work also includes being the associate at the carnegie endowment for international peace, a visiting assistant professor at georgetown and the middle east

specialist at the united states state department. while the state department she assumed many roles and assignments including the director of middle east and africa, the u.s. embassy and egypt and the national security staff. she was also the u.s. secretary of state policy planning staff member, the u.s. consulate general in jerusalem, and she was also with the bureau of intelligence and research. as you can see we have a wonderful team of experts who are going to answer the questions and on what is happening in egypt. so if you could help me warm them. [applause]

>> thanks, monica. i'm going to start with a few brief thoughts about where we are today and about what we might expect in the weeks and months ahead. to begin with in terms of where we are now in egypt. we are witnessing what seems to be the return to authoritarian as some and the right of the old state dominated by egypt's military security and intelligence apparatus that reigned for decades in putting under the rule of hosni mubarak. for many of us that open in 2011 that the uprising in the revolution in egypt and january february of that year would lead to a transition to democracy to accountable government respected and respects the right to the citizens that's been deeply disappointing. i will briefly sort of describe the current theme with what we might see in the time ahead. the analysis of egypt the past

few years described the main groups of political actors in egypt and along with of the military regime and the national democratic party and the second group being the islamists led by the muslim brotherhood and the more secular political forces. this group has included both political parties as well as the ngos and civil society organizations including rights organizations and perhaps most importantly on the liberal and secular glock have been sort of more grassroots movement such as the april 16th movement, the tamara campaign which we are playing leading roles and organizing street protests in 2011 and emerged this spring and opposition to president mohammed morsi and his government and the sort of leading driving force behind the protest that began on june 30th that forced morsi from

power. what we have also seen and a lot of the analysis that have been described days when two of the three blocks of the sort of military and the old regime, the islamists and the liberals and secular we've seen several occasions where they joined forces and effectively force their will to some degree on the third block. and we can cite three or four instances of this. you can describe the revolution in 2011 as a sort of the liberal forces joining with the islamists and the brotherhood and were able to force mubarak from power. soon after years of the military establishment and the armed forces aligned itself with of the brotherhood and the islamists and were able to sort of ignore a lot of the demand of the liberals. you can to some degree describe the presidential election in june of 2012. they were not unified enough of them were joining forces and

supporting mohammed morsi during the second round of presidential elections choosing the liberals that were skeptical in the brotherhood nonetheless chosen to support him over the old regime and the military. we have seen the latest configuration of the joint force for the liberal and secular forces to oust morsi from the presidency pitting it i think a lot of what we are seeing right now, the military seized the opportunity to regain power and it seems to be taking steps to ensure that the other two groups that can no longer certify aligned themselves against the military again and sort of force it from the power or force its hand as it was done in 2011. so the first and most obviously the military has been cracking down viciously against the muslim brotherhood. the immediately following the coup on july 3rd, they arrested many of the leading sort of

leaders of the brotherhood movement and brought charges against them. the viciously attacked the supporters of mohammed morsi and the brotherhood in the streets killing -- leading to violence more than a thousand people killed and more than 600 on august 14th alone. about 4,000 were wounded that same day. and we have also seen vicious campaigns of propaganda including using the state media against the brotherhood and its supporters detaining them as traitors treaters. we've also seen the defamation campaign and about targeting by the military moved beyond the brotherhood and their supporters and to start to also attacked some of the liberal and secular forces the military may see as a threat. we've seen several examples of

this, and i think what we are seeing is the military targeting actors that the military intelligence apparatus have seen as troubles on either currently war in the past few years and decided you examples mohammed most prominent liberal politician that backed the military on july 3rd. he then resigned following the massacre on august 14th and he was immediately attacked viciously in the media and by the military and the former regime and charges have now been brought against him for breaching the national trust. and he's waiting, he's now in austria and outside of egypt to avoid prosecution. the april 16th movement which i mentioned has long been seen as a sort of threat by the military. they were seen as instrumental in the 2011 revolution and also some of the leadership of this movement in recent weeks has been critical of the military including the violence that we've seen in the last couple

weeks. just a few days ago we saw the public prosecutor of egypt announced the two high-profile activists associated in the movement were under investigation of charges of espionage for receiving foreign funding for their activism. this is of note not only because it's showing the military attacking its critics, but actually both of these young women had actually been supported by the action in the past couple months including supporting the coup, but nonetheless i think that we are seeing the preemptive action by the military in a sort of the old regime apparatus not only taking on its current credit, but any that it feared they may be willing to stand against it moving forward. in addition, there's sort of the community of the ngos including the human rights organizations in europe, and just in the last three or four days we have seen the egyptian

police visit the office of several international ngos in egypt and putting a human rights organizations to apparently sort of intimate a those organizations and intimidate their staff to read these have been included organizations that have been willing to write and speak critically of the military in recent weeks. we've also seen several newspapers, sorry, articles in the egyptian press including today on the state newspaper describing conspiracies in which the united states government and including the ambassador patterson was working with the brotherhood in order to smuggle terrorists and extremists into egypt from gaza and working with ngos to make this happen. and this is sort of a representative of the widespread sort of disinformation campaign that's very troubling because the implication of the egyptian

ngos has a heightened sense of xenophobia and anti-americanism and i think this is a fear to be a sort of precursor to a widespread crackdown on the community including any ngos the military establishment feels may be critical of them in the months ahead. one final piece i would mention is the labor movement as well. the labor movement's and the sort of social protest movements were also seen as instrumental in the 2011 revolution and the social protest movement have continued in recent weeks and we have seen quite recently some efforts that crack down upon these movements and also to the same these movements and tools are instruments in the muslim brotherhood when in reality the brotherhood has very little reach over the influence in the labor movement and we have seen several instances of protest, social protest and labor movements coming under attack

and then articles in the press and the statements by the minister of labour but checking these movements and the tools of the brotherhood to undermine the state. i'm going to leave my remarks on the current scene and i will briefly just mentioned we now see a process under way for amending the constitution. the constitution that was ratified in december and passed by the referendum written by the largely predominantly islamist constituent assembly. we've just seen the release of the recommendations of the ten person committee that was selected to make proposed amendments to the constitution. and i would say that these amendments are not encouraging for those that wish to see democracy in egypt and rather than addressing some of the of

flaws it reinforces and has some sort of troubling proposals including some troubling status such leave writing the handset moving back towards the old regime including removing the constitution that forbid the senior members of the old ruling party from participating in politics for ten years. they are recommending them be removed and there is also some reef riding of the language in the constitution about the sort of heroic marvers of the january 25th revolution and january 5th has been omitted as the revolution and there is a question now whether they are trying to read right and look at june 30th and the heroic revolutionary egypt. i think a major question moving forward will be how long the

general and the military are able to retain their current popularity. it does seem they've been extremely effective up until now using the state media and information to become extremely popular in the country and in the general public. how long they will be able to hold together the coalition of the support they currently enjoy i would say that the offer the sort of survived to defense some have predicted first being a large scale protestors and many predicted that if they used serious violence against the citizens and the supporters of mohammed morsi that a lot of the supporters would have strode away from them. we saw mohammed away but few figures have left the government or spun their coalition. many predicted the release of the former president hosni

mubarak from prison. he was released last week and i think that has had as of now less of an effect than the expected. we would see in the weeks and the months ahead it's possible that he may be clear of the charges including four killing protestors in 2011 and that might spark more. the major challenge will be to respond to economic pressures. the rising discontent against morsi and the government came in large part from the government's inability to address the economic role. i think egypt's military role as we have seen those signs they are ready to undertake a serious economic reform to be counting on the largess of the gulf states namely saudi arabia and the united arab emirates to help them sort of hold egypt economy together. i will leave it to tamara to talk about the regional

dimensions to the it >> well good morning, everyone and thanks for coming i will take just a few minutes to talk about the regional politics and the regional dynamics surrounding evens and egypt and how the positioning of different regional actors may affect the trajectory there. let me start by giving you a little context which is that for decades under sadat, egypt has played and will play a regional role in the security. of course it is a very geostrategic location sitting on top of the suez canal which carries every year about 7% of the world's oil and about 13% of the natural gas. the camp david treaty of course was a historic event and an anchor of the arab-israeli peacemaking and has prevented ever since any major interstate air of israeli war --

arab-israeli war. the government in the middle east feel the major stake just as the united states does. mubarak also had close national ties to the leaders in the states of the of arabian peninsula, especially king abdullah of saudi arabia. and mubarak was a key diplomatic partner for those arab states and for the united states, who in the years prior to the arab awakening presented a sort of coalition on behalf of the current balance of power in the middle east and mubarak was the linchpin of that diplomatic effort. so it is fair to say that the monarchies of the gulf were never reconciled to the fall. and generally, they are nottablf democracy in their neighborhood.

but they had good ties with the e egyptian military. and they have sustained those since january, 2011. the rise of the muslim brotherhood, however, troubled these states deeply for a few key reasons. mainly the muslim brotherhood was seen as a threat to this regional order that the arab governments have built because of its ideology. but the brotherhood was also seen as a threat because over the years the brotherhood itself, which some of you may know is an organization that has national branches but a shared ideology if you well across the national brotherhood groups. and it has produced offshoots some of which have been quite violent including hamas and over the years in egypt and number of splinter groups of the brotherhood have become

significantly troublesome terrorist organizations. the brotherhood of ideologically and politically also has the effect of challenging golf markey in their claim to the islamic legitimacy for their rule. and that's one of the reasons why these countries find the brotherhood so threatening. just to give you an example, since 2011 you have seen in the united arab emirates the arrest and the trial of many people who were named as members of the brotherhood on charges of incitement, undermining national security and so on. morsi's behavior as the president of egypt made these arab states even more anxious i think. his visit to iran which i think was the first visit as president. the talk of normalizing relationships with iran. his support for hamas especially

relative to the support for mahmoud abbas and the palestinian authority in ramallah. to egypt under morsi as steve noted was a real problem. but economic mismanagement in egypt because it is so large and because it has been a commercial center and a banking center for the middle east for a long time, the manufacturing hub and the distribution hub where a lot of businesses that sell it around the region. the economic situation of egypt has significant implications for the rest of the region. michele list telling me that morsi's first visit was to egypt, not saudi arabia. and then of course, morsi's relationship in the egyptian military as we saw in also reporting that come out since july florida grew more and more tense. so the gulf monarchies cheered on the military on mubarak and

rewarded with a good deal of the financial assistance to the it's important to recognize that financial assistance is and all catch up the egyptian government could spend. they represent tiberi deposits in the egyptian central bank which are important in helping egypt to send the value of the currency that funded the importation like flour and energy. but this isn't all money the egyptian government can then spend for the national development. let me spend a few minutes on israel and then i want to leave you with too broad points. i think many of the attitudes that i described as holding might be shared by a number of israelis but i think the primary characteristic that you can see in the israeli government in its approach to egypt since the 2011 revolution is ambivalence.

they've been very ambivalent about changing egypt. but at the bottom they had very close and cooperative relationships with the egyptian military and the intelligence services, and hosni mubarak was an interlocutor the new. there was a degree of predictability and reliability in the relationship although it was never worn. the ties between the egyptian security apparatus and the israeli security apparatus have been sustained since the revolution and in many ways i think they are stronger than they have ever been. they were quite strong even under president morsi. the government sought closer diplomatic and political ties with president morsi with a were robust. despite that they were a little but reassured by morsi's behavior in november of 2012 when he made himself and his

government the guarantor of the cease-fire between israel and hamas that ended that crisis. i think today, however, israel looks at the change of government in cairo and says this is a group of people we know and we can work with. to block plans to leave you with. the first is that i think the sentiments that i'm describing among the governments around the region with respect to what's happened in egypt said just a real divergence and the policy of the administration and it's a divergence that goes beyond egypt itself to get it's a divergence and analysis of the region, what has happened in the region over the last two years and what has been the source of instability. the united states, as president obama said in may, 2011, seems that there have been undermining

social and economic changes in the arab world that have led to demands for more responsive, more accountable and transparent government. the president and many senior officials have said they don't believe stability will return to the middle east until the governments are more transparent, responsible, responsive, accountable and more democratic. the government - talking about see things differently. they see the demand for the democratization coming below in the arab world as a source of instability. it has made them wary about taking even limited steps towards the domestic reform themselves for the year if you give people an inch they would demand a mile. this is presenting an increasing challenge for the united states and its diplomacy in the region. the last point i want to leave you with is about sinai. i think this is the space to watch. when you look at the potential regional threats that could

emerge from the e cents today in egypt, syenite is where you are going to see it manifest. now, as i said, the egyptian cooperation is very strong the the security situation in sinai has deteriorated markedly since 2011. it's deteriorated because at first that the egyptian police were some simply absent from the scene in the wake of the revolution. and then because, frankly, the egyptian military during its period of direct rule and again now since july 3rd has become -- has been required to focus so many of its resources and so much of its attention on domestic order that it doesn't have the same level of resources and attention devoted to maintaining security in sinai. the chehab groups in the sinai have grown bolder and they are working i think very hard to

grow e egyptian and israeli forces into some kind of a direct confrontation to drive the israeli forces across the border into sinai. this is an incredibly complex and combustible situation. my own view is well launder the current political crisis in egypt goes on, the longer egypt finds the domestic situation destabilized by this standoff. the more we will see those kind of jihadi groups and others taking advantage and the more egypt stability in the region. thanks very much. >> good morning. i am michele dunne from the atlantic council. i have four points i would like to make that are about u.s.

policy towards egypt at this juncture. the first point is the need to look at this in the proper context. you know, the united states was passive during the morsi presidency. morsi was a very unsuccessful president, a bad president. he refused to build consensus and he took several undemocratic actions and notably passing the last constitution, the 2012 constitution over the objections of many e egyptians. and of the united states said and did very little. throughout years of u.s. policy, with the united states has done is to simply stay close to whoever it was in power in egypt at the time. mubarak when he was there, the supreme council of armed forces when he was there, morsi and his

advisers when he was they're coming and now once again, the military-backed government. and this has led the united states into a problem regarding exhort and influence in egypt. as we know, in early july at the time of the military coup against morsi, the united states urged correctly in my view that the egyptian government and then he egyptian military to solve what had become a serious political problem. a problem of political paralysis and an inability to address the serious economic issues in the country. the united states urged egypt to address this in a space manner and to play out the political game towards the early elections and so forth. that wasn't advice that they took. they brought things to a conclusion very quickly with the military coup.

the united states i think believe the kind of zero some politics that we have seen in egypt are very destabilizing and will leak in the country. the idea during morsi iraq he wouldn't work with other political forces and would try to run the country with the brotherhood alone which as we see is a failure and the idea now that the brotherhood will be crushed and excluded and so forth. i think the claims we here in egypt that the united states is trying to weaken egypt. steve made reference in a way to some of the conspiracies and so forth that are circulating on actually the opposite of what is true. the united states fears what is happening in egypt now and the zero some politics and the use of a great deal of repression is what is going to weaken egypt. so that is just sort of the

context. but the united states is in a difficult position because it failed to exert what influence it could during their earlier eras. now one fortunately trying to step forward this is causing a lot of confusion in egypt and it leaves the united states open to the charges of hypocrisy and so forth. - if we look at the question of u.s. influence we need to understand it in its right context and right size the u.s. influence in egypt. what is at? it's not the case that we can expect threats of cutting off assistance whether it is a relatively small amount of economic assistance or the larger military assistance to cause the egyptian government now to reverse course and change its calculations regarding

domestic politics. that's probably not going to happen and that is especially true because the united states made what i believe is a huge mistake not to observe the wall and suspend assistance at that time of the true. i think if the united states had done that in a very simple way the united states would now be in a stronger position. we would be discussing the conditions for resuming aid and we are in a situation now the united states didn't respect its own hall so that diminishes respect for the united states. i don't think just cutting off a little bit of aid here or there is going to fundamentally change the calculations and egypt and these discussions are not incredible because the united states didn't suspend aid at the moment it should have.

my third point devotees i think as we try to understand the u.s. influence correctly a lot of people are going to the opposite conclusion which is that the united states has no influence at all which i also think is incorrect. tamara mengin for instance gulf assistance and a lot of people said well what difference does it make if the united states would suspend military assistance to egypt when the gulf countries are coming with billions in assistance and so forth? this is a very superficial understanding of the whole assistance question. egypt has been a country over of the last decade that has had very deep security relationships with the united states. this isn't just about dollars and cents.

this is about cooperation and shared technology. it's about shared military exercises, the doctrine. they made a profound shift in the 70's from eastern bloc's to western blocs and primarily american doctrine weapons etc. so the security relationship and united states and what means is much bigger than just the dollars and cents. with the gulf countries can give coming yes they can easily get more than $1.3 billion in aid. they cannot replace with that military relationship with the united states offers to egypt militarily and strategically. this is also true economically. egypt has been a country that has a great deal of trade primarily with europe and also the united states and a great deal of tourism from the west, from europe primarily.

for egypt to shift from a country that has had a security relationship and an economic relationship with the west to a country that no longer has that but it is merely living on the largesse of the gulf countries, you know, it would be a huge shift for egypt. it's not the dollars and cents from the gulf can simply replace these things that egypt has had. so if we are looking at influence, western influence, american and european influence in egypt, it has to do with a much larger relationship and not with how many dollars are going, and you know, being appropriated by the congress and going to egypt. so we need to understand. and my fourth point is how do we think about it now? i think it has become clear the egyptian government and military has launched on this course the zeros some politics of the

brotherhood exclusion. and so forth. a very unfortunate course. and a course that will promise much instability in egypt which will then in turn make it impossible to address the economic problems because you cannot bring tourism and investment back to the country in an atmosphere of instability. that will lead to more stability. we have seen several terms with the egyptian public opinion against the mubarak regime and in favor of the scath getting the brotherhood the chance, against the brotherhood, in favor of the military. who would bet this is the last turn of the wheel that public opinion is going to stay where it is now. i wouldn't bet on that. it has been a very unstable situation in egypt in terms of public sentiment, and will continue to be so. so there's going to be more change in egypt. how do we think about u.s.

policy now? i think president obama in his remarks to cnn on august 23rd has started to take this in the right direction. first of all, as you are aware, there is now under way a review of u.s. assistance to egypt, an internal review in the egyptian government. this is long overdue. but programs are being looked at, and as i assure you are aware, many of the programs are in effect suspended. although there is no announcement of a sustention to aid. i think the united states is now, as it should be, pausing. a couple things president obama said august 3rd weekend return to business as usual given what's happened. he's referring to the august august 14th massacre and the use of a great deal of force t

august 14th massacre and the use of a great deal of force to clear the force is in cairo. he said the aid may not reverse the interim government does, but i think what most americans would say is we have to be very careful about being seen as aiding and abetting actions that we think work on the contrary to our values and ideals ..

>> thank you to all our speakers. with wonderful information. it for a open up the floor for questions, i would like to get each speaker the opportunity to respond to what the other speakers have said. steve, would you like to start? >> sure. i agree with much of what was said. i would just to pick up from sort of michele's last closing points there, that first, we have to expect further changes in egypt. we can't exactly know how and when things will continue to change, but it would be unrealistic and kind of foolish after the last few years to assume that the sort of change is now is done and we can focus on sort of our relationship, the actors that are now in charge which is essentially of mistake

i think the united states has made repeatedly, as michele hit on. also, i would just add that the united states policy in egypt must really fundamentally shift. i would, michele was just quoting from president obama's remarks last week. and i would agree with her that his remarks reflect a positive shift if they're implemented. but i would also add that we have seen remarks from the president and from other high right to use officials in the past that would've suggested a shift in u.s. policy that i think would've been the right shifts. tamara referenced the president's speech in may 2011. in that speech the president sort of boldly declared that support for democratic principles in the middle east and north africa when no longer be a secondary priority of the

united states it would be a top rarity, supported by all of the political and strategic and economic tools available to the united states. i think that was exactly the right shifts that was needed in the spring of 2011. i think, sadly, we haven't seen that reflected at all in u.s. policy since been. and i would fear that the remarks last week by president obama might be only sort of repetition of the administration and the president saying the right thing but really being unwilling to back this up by subsequent policy change. and so i think u.s. policy towards egypt will continue to fail, as it has up to now. >> thanks. i'll be very brief because i don't have any areas of disagreement with either of my two colleagues here. i'll just say, i think we have to remember as we talk about u.s. policy, policy of other regional actors toward egypt, that there's an underlying social reality here that drove the revolution of 2011.

it's about demographics. it's about economics. it's about technology. these are transmitted been building up over years. they are not going away, and there's something that all governments in the region and beyond the region have to take account of and adapt to. some of the adaptation process may be very disorderly, but i think it's important that those looking at the situation not misdiagnose the root of that disorder. it's not the demand for democracy that is creating disorder. it's the need for institutions, especially government institutions, to adapt to this new social reality. and the quicker that they recognize that, the quicker they make those adjustments. in other words, open up and give people a voice, i think the sooner the region will stabilize. that fundamental recognition i

think is what president obama articulated in may 2011, and i think stephen fry, that that the administration has not done a great job of holding fast to that recommendation and putting out policy instruments to help drive the u.s. in the right direction. but i think the same could very much be true, could be said to be true of governments in the region, many times over. so just what that note, a brother content, and i will turn it over. >> thanks. i wanted to add one point to what steve was saying about come in his initial remarks, about the scene inside egypt today. and you were talking about the military being behind a number of thanks. i wanted to bring out the dimension also of the internal security services and intelligence services, because

they were very much on the defensive for the past couple of years, right after, after the fall of the mubarak, the police and the security services, state securities, the intelligence services were harshly criticized by the public. and they were sort of in retreat. they were sort of cowed, they were taken a low profile and in some cases with regular place not even showing up for the job and so forth. so they were coming under harsh public criticism for past human rights abuses and intrusions into public freedoms and civic freedoms and so forth. they are now back, and the interior minister came right out and announced it a few weeks ago, we are back, and we're back into political affairs, religious affairs, et cetera.

unfortunately, there was no security sector reform during the first couple of years following the egyptian, initial egyptian revolution in general 2011 when there was an opportunity to do so. there was, the interior minister, was tried and so forth but there was very little, there was no reform of the security services. it was just about no accountability for abuses that they carried out under the revolution or before that. and so, because of that, and the situation we now see the military and the internal security services, which had been kind of ribald during the mubarak era, -- rifle, why bring very, very closely. and trying to really reconstruct something very, very much like the mubarak regime now. this is not unusual.

in many countries around the world where there are revolutions, that are eventually counter revolutions and so forth. and that is not to diminish, as i said, what an unsuccessful and that president mohammad marcie was, how badly, how much the muslim brotherhood overreached -- mohammed morsi. and how much public opposition there was toward the muslim brotherhood, all of that true. but what i'm saying is i think that the military and the internal security services are taking advantage of all of that to try to come back to the kind of roles that they have and the kind of intrusive roles that they had in the egyptian life come including political life and so forth. and kind of human rights abuses that they carried out during the mubarak era. the question is, will a chechen's acceptance? right, at the moment we see a lot of merril tilly and the people -- pro military. i want you to keep in mind the

megatrends that tamara mentioned but those are still there. the youth bulge, the unemployment, and also i think this sense of greater individual empowerment, less fear of the state, more demands for human rights and democracy and so forth. i think these things will not go away, and that's why probably this attempt to reconstruct a mubarak type stage will only last a certain period. i don't know how long that will be. also, i do agree with steve that the real intention of u.s. policy that we saw in president obama's remarks might not be lasting. it is, you know, unfortunately true that we often see the administration take sort of a half step in the right direction and then back away from that when the going gets rough. so i would agree with you, that even the president obama says some of the right things, and i

think in terms of the reviews that are going on, these are the right things. i'm not sure that we will see a more principled u.s. policy towards egypt on an ongoing basis. >> thank you. will now open up the questions to the floor. i will remind you that if you can limit it to members of national press club and credentialed press, please make your questions concise and to the point come and save them loudly along with your name and affiliation. as the moderator i do have the privilege of asking the first question and the first follow-up, so i will do that now. michele, you had mentioned a lot of u.s. foreign aid important to the joint military efforts we have, can you address president obama's decision recently to cancel a joint military exercise, not only on the message we're sending to egypt, but also to the further arab

nations, middle east, where we don't have a stable relationship? and then my follow-up question, steve, you talked about how there are attacks on ngos and labor markets. we are at the national press club, and i would be remiss if i didn't ask you to address the problems the press is expensive but and is there something that the u.s. can do to help solve the problem? -- experiencing. >> so, the united states has taken several steps. it suspended the delivery of f-16 aircraft to egypt, and canceled a very large joint military exercise, the bright start exercise that would've taken place at the end of september. and there may be other military purchases and so forth under review. i mean, the apache helicopters and so forth, particularly

anything i think that could be used in an internal repression will be under review. look, the signal here is simple. i think there are, you know, i think there are two symbols in a way. one signal is we are concerned about the civility of egypt. and we are concerned about having a security partner that we think is going down a road that will lead to instability in the country and in the region. and the second signal is that we can't associate ourselves with some of the actions from the egyptian government, and that we don't want to be seen as complicit, particularly if specific comment, equipment that may be commercial purchases and so forth under review as well, things like teargas canisters and so forth.

you know, it's very embarrassing to the united states went equipment like that is used to repress demonstrations and so forth. so that's the message here. these are attempts by the administration to send signals without going as far as to cut off all military assistance, as we see with u.s. policy towards syria as well, specifically the style of this administration should try to do things. >> thanks for your question on the press and action on freedom of expression, the other, you know, violations of civil rights. certainly we've seen that. we've seen immediately following the coup on july 3 we saw -- resign many immediate outlets for supporting mohammed morsi and the most brotherhood shut

down. of violence in the last several weeks it has included violence against journalists, including the deaf of some situation passionate egyptian journalist and at least one foreign journalist killed in egypt. we've also seen lots of threats against other journalists made by secretive forces and police. we have seen lots of journalists have their cameras and equipment and things seized and not returned. and so we've seen in general intimidation of the press, and we have seen pretty quickly most of the domestic media that so operating inside egypt to sort of fall in line and generally, you know, been largely supportive of the military's actions and the interim government that is now in place. as of yet, as i mentioned, there's been some attacks against foreign journalists. we haven't seen sort of an

escalation to as foreign journalists continue to report and be critical of actions inside egypt, we haven't seen yet things rise to the level instantly where sort of foreign journalists are completely expelled from the country or not able to report. but it's a very troubling seeing, particularly for domestic media. >> now we'll open it up to the floor. please stand, stage reservation as loudly, and your question. >> [inaudible] chechen extremists coming back from iraq passionate egyptian extremists, a large stockpile of arms in libya. so there's a likelihood of civil war in egypt. so how do you think about that? >> what is the likelihood of

civil war in egypt, and how do you address that? >> thank you. you know, i have to start by noting that the security challenges that you just pointed to, the desire of the jihadi groups to infiltrate back into the country, the arms flows out of libya, due to insecurity there, those predated the military to. there have been problems for quite a while. and i think they presented challenges to the egyptian government both before and after the events of this summer. i think what we have now, however, that's exacerbated the situation can and let me say, i don't believe in egypt is heading towards civil war. i don't believe it will become a failed state. i think the military and intro security services have significant capacity as steve described. sometimes they deploy that capacity and very inappropriate ways. they have plenty of capacity to

deal with domestic security threats, and we're seeing that. but i think that the political confrontation is having a few affects. number one, there is a number, there's a segment of the egyptian population who are members of the most brotherhood, who now feel under siege and under threat. some supporters and members of the brotherhood have clearly employed violence, both against government buildings and government security forces, but also against regular egyptian citizens. and this is reprehensible and it's unacceptable. but it does not about at this point to eating like and insurgency. they need a response that is rooted in the rule of law and the fact the government has a

monopoly on the use of force, but he needs to use the force responsibly. however, what you have, unit, ma president kennedy once said, if you make peaceful change impossible, you make violent change inevitable. to a lease a certain extent you have to see that that is taking place in egypt today. not all of those brotherhood supporters are going to turn to violence, but some of them well. not all the jihadi groups in the region are going to flock to egypt, but some of them well. and so i think there's no question that the political crisis and confrontation in cairo between the military, the old state, a liberal and secular politicians and the islamist politicians, these forces did was describing, that competition is having ripple effects that are generating more violence and more security threats to average egyptians. and average egyptians will pay the price. the longer that confrontation goes on.

and, unfortunately, the most long marble will pay the biggest price. and i think we sit particularly among egypt's christian community. on -- we see that particularly among egypt's christian community. >> [inaudible] the need for institutions. so simply, do you think there is a chance for democracy, or will these be ongoing issues for the foreseeable future? if there is a chance for democracy, when will we see at? >> is there a chance for democracy? >> we knew when egyptians carried out their first revolution, right come in january 2011, that if egypt was

going to make this transition from authoritarianism to democracy, which is what egyptians said they wanted to do, then it would be long and hard. and that he would not be something that would emerge in a year or two or three, and that they would probably be many setbacks and so forth on the way. you know, if they would eventually get there. so i would say it's still possible for egypt to become a democracy. i see what has happened as having been setbacks. you know, on the other hand, if mohammed morsi as a very unsuccessful president has lost an election, i think that would have been a step forward for egypt's democracy, right, for him to be unsuccessful and exclusionary and so forth in office, and then to be voted out in a regular election. or even if it held an early election. that would've been a message that there is accountability to

citizens and so forth through the ballot box but, unfortunately, a military coup didn't send that message but that doesn't seem that it's over. we can't just give up on egypt. egypt is a very important country, very large country in the most populace country in the middle east. and i do believe that these megatrends that. >> host: mention, the youth bulge, individual empowerment, citizens demand for a government that is accountable and that provide services and so forth are not going away. saw think there will be more phases in egypt and that it is still possible that communism in the course of the coming years that egypt can become a democracy. >> we have time for two more questions. >> [inaudible] egyptian daily

newspaper. regarding the review, i don't have time to argue with your evaluation and what is the point on egypt or what was done in egypt. regarding the review, what, all of you, what do you expect from the outcome of the review of the policy, u.s. policy towards egypt, especially regarding democracy more stability or security? second, in one moment do you have any regret in your understanding or appeasing or an appealing islam, democratization of brotherhood? >> what do you expect from u.s. and helping democracy a long, and do you have any expectation for the muslim brotherhood? >> thomas, thanks. let me make a brief point,

response to each of your questions and then i will turn it over to my colleagues do because i'm sure they will want to comment as well. on the review, i think the fundamental underlying premise of american policy, since the revolution in 2011, has been that stability requires as much because these are not dichotomous alternatives. and i would argue that stability in sinai has suffered from the rockingest and the mistakes of the egyptian political transition. i think it's actually hard to argue otherwise, based on the facts. so how will this review go? i don't know, but it's very difficult for me to imagine that the u.s. government will not have that premise firmly in mind as it goes through its review. now, ultimately the outcome of the review is going to be heavily depend on what happens on the ground in cairo and the

decisions of the egyptian government. if the egyptian government, particularly the military and security services, continue down a path that involves the excessive use of force, clampdowns on individual liberties on basic political freedoms, no prospect, therefore, of a political process that will stabilize the country, then the united states was egypt as a messy place that is getting messier. and setting aside the policy considerations from a political perspective in america today, the american public does not want to touch that kind of mess in the middle east. so i think that's just the political context and the reality the white house is dealing with. now, you asked whether anybody has regressed regard our support for democracy in the muslim brotherhood? let me be very clear, and i know you know this, thomas. the three people sitting up here today have, each of us, been

very clear eyed and very critical of what we saw as action by the muslim brotherhood and by president morsi that were undermining a democratic prospect in egypt. president morsi issued a decree that that his actions above judicial review. he ran through a constitution that was exclusionary, and did not contain core rights protections for a sustainable democracy. he and his party were pushing a law that would have eviscerated the judiciary, a law that would've clampdowns public protests, a law that would've essentially nationalized civil society organizations in the country. i don't think any of us had any illusion about the trajectory that he was on. and we all voiced those concerns. that is in no way i think to say that i'm easy or relaxed about the outcome in egypt. and i think that what happened on july 3 have said they country

further down the path toward instability, taking us farther away from democracy. thank you. >> yeah, i agree with tamara. ilogistics been a little bit. i mean, i think -- it certainly gives over the past year, myself and our organization consistently urged the u.s. government, including ambassador patterson, to be much more forceful and apply much more pressure on the muslim brotherhood in response to the democratic action they were taking. having said that, certainly we have been and will continue to be supportive of what we see as democratization in egypt. and i think in no way where we are, really in actors in washington, supportive of the brotherhood in the sense of supporting them over other

glucose trends or movement. we were supportive of the rights of all parties to purchase the in the political process in egypt, including the brotherhood. we were very concerned about antidemocratic measures that were taken during the 17, 18 months of the supreme councils of the armed forces were in charge. we were concerned by actions taken by mohammed morsi and his government, but i don't believe that the exclusion from the brotherhood from the process at an earlier stage would have put it on the right trajectory i don't believe that their exclusion that will allow genuine democracy to emerge in egypt. >> unfortunately that was a long question, and we are out of time. so i'm sure you would like to join me in thanking stephen mcinerney, tamara wittes for joining us today and just most

important information about the crisis in egypt. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> that wraps up our live program here on c-span2 for the day. over on c-span we will be live at 3:15 p.m. eastern with another program related to the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. the national alliance of faith and justice is hosting an event looking at youth mentoring. later today we'll have another statement from washington journals spotlight on magazine series. former u.s. senator jim webb recently joined us to talk about an article he wrote about his time in government. watch that at 7:10 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and booktv is live today as

well. it focuses on women and politics. watch that online starting at 7 p.m. eastern at booktv.org. >> an update on syria to associated press reports the u.s. is expected to formally state today whether theory used chemical weapons and an announcement out how president barack obama will respond could follow. defense secretary chuck hagel says u.s. forces are now ready to act on any order my president obama to strike syria. the u.s. navy has four destroys any issue mediterranean sea within range of targets inside syria, and the u.s. also has warplanes in that region. secretary hagel spoke during his visit to asia. british prime mr. david cameron is recalling parliament for discussion on the possibility of a military response to the alleged chemical attack in

syria. minister cameron said the crisis session will be held thursday. and lawmakers you are starting to react but according to ap, republican lawmaker is rallying support to pressure president obama into seeking congressional authorization or a military strike against syria. representative scott -- signed a letter to obama that urges him to reconvene congress and seek approval for any military action. he says that engaging the u.s. military in syria and the absence of a direct threat to the united states and without prior congressional authorization would violate the cost additional separations of power. >> in our original series first ladies, influence and image, we look at the public and private lives of the women who serve as first lady strength nation's first 112 years. now as a move into the modern era we will feature the first ladies in their own words.

>> the building of human rights would be one of the foundations on which we would build in the world and atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house completely belonged to one person. it belongs to the people of america. and i think whoever lives in it should preserve its traditions and enhance it, leave something spring 21st ladies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present live monday night including your calls, facebook comments and tweets starting september 9 at 9 eastern on c-span. >> next, remarks from brad roberts, former deputy assistant defense secretary with the obama administration on extended nuclear deterrence and u.s. defense strategies towards northeast asia. he also talked about the north korean nuclear threat, china's modernization of its arsenal,

and the u.s. nuclear deterrent policy among its allies in the region, specifically with japan. brad roberts was a leading figure in developing the 22 nuclear posture review for the obama administration. the stimson center posted this 90 minute event. >> good morning, everyone. i'm delighted to welcome you to this event this monday morning, in late august. we're delighted to see all of you for discussion on a very important international security topic, extended deterrence and strategic stability in east asia. we are really delighted to welcome brad roberts was recently finished a long tour of the defense department working on these issues as deputy assistant secretary of defense and to his just back from a long visit in japan, talking in particular with japanese about

their views of extended deterrence. and another his remarks today will be focused in part on his research in japan but also more broadly how the u.s. looks at these issues for all of its presence and engages in northeast asia. i'm happy to return the baton over to our lead japan expert at stimson of part or east asia program. so i hope wil we'll have a discussion that will eliminate some of the issues on the minds of our japanese allies, and more broadly, think about american and asian interest on these topics. so welcome, brent. thanks for coming. >> good morning, everyone, and thanks again for coming to it stems and for this first thing on a monday morning event. you all will be very interested in the topic, which is extended deterrence in northeast asia. i think doctor roberts was indeed in japan very important

pe of time. as many of you may know japan is in the middle of revising its program data which is a five year one of the core defense policy documents that they renewed every five years or so. and just when he was in japan, i think minister of defense was finishing up its interim report. so i don't know if he has any of the interim report's content that went in there, but i'm sure he provoked a lot of thinking on the policy makers and minister of defense, who are thinking through these issues. dr. roberts don't be too much of an introduction. you all have come you'l you have program here but very quickly, he just came back from six week assignment as a visiting fellow at the national institute of defense studies which is a fully with the ministry of japan in the spring 2013. and from 2009 to early 2013 dr.

roberts served on the obama administration as debbie assist sector of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy. and at the end, at the conclusion of his fellowship as national institute of defense studies he wrote the paper -- u.s. extended deterrence in the content. many of you might have already picked up a copy up front when you signed in. for those of you who don't, for those of you who don't have copies, we will put up the link to his paper shortly after this event, along with the summary and the videos of this event. dr. roberts will speak, how long, i will live to dr. robert. he can take as many times or brief time as he wants to take on this topic. and following that i will open the floor of the questions and answers. so with that, brad. >> thank you very much, yuki. thank you for the opportunity to

be here, thank you for all of you for making a time on an august monday morning to be here for the discussion. i will try and set out remarks and 25 personal minutes to get the conversation going. i would like to make it clear, i speak for myself but i don't represent the administration any longer. i'm not to speak for the government of japan. the ideas are my own. the views are my own. i will try not to activities to others that i don't have a good basis for attributing. this story really begins from an administration perspective with the nuclear posture review in 2009. when we receive clear guidance from the president to highlight issues to begin deterrence and assurance and our overall analysis, and when we began the review with extensive international consultations, we actually begin the npr with the consideration of lessons learned from prior in the yard, and one of them was that there been too little opportunity for

international stakeholders in america nuclear strategy to express their views to the prior administrations. so we can post a team from jointly led by the office of secretary of defense and the state department to conduct consultations on npr issues and, indeed, we conducted nearly 60 such consultations in that first year. this directly informed analysis of the npr in many useful ways, highlighted the fact that we, the united states, have a number of allies who are anxious about the kinds of decisions the united states makes any area of nuclear policy and capabilities. and one of the countries most eager to seize this opportunity was japan. and japan came early and often to the state dot process, into my office, and this was

pathbreaking kind of activity from the perspective of both countries. it had been a long time since the united states has spoken with its allies outside of europe about these issues. and in follow-up to the nuclear posture review, we, i can't say that anymore. they, the obama administration, began sustained dialogue with a number of allies in order to carry on the spirit of dialogue that had begun in npr. we established, well, within the european context we then took on the deterrence and defense posture review. in the persian gulf area we took on a number of bilateral issues and existing dialogue processes. but in northeast asia we recognize the need to institutionalize some new processes. and so with republic of korea,

for example, we institutionalize the extent policy committee. and with japan we extended deterrence dialogue. and these are official dialogues that are live at -- on the u.s. side. and acer three primary functions. the first is to ensure the need of transparency about policy, and the thinking behind it. as it develops in both countries. a second purpose is to think through together some common emerging challenges of deterrence. and a third purpose is to give our allies the opportunity for firsthand hands-on experience of the deterrence capabilities that the united states contribute to their defense. so for example, in the context of the extent of the deterrence dialogue am of the united states and japan, the team has visited

strategic command, look at the planning capabilities, visited an air base, visited a naval base where ballistic missile sub brains are located. and this has been highly informative to the japanese side to understand the kinds of capabilities and the kind of investment the united states has made to japan's security in this regard. the president also put a high level focus on strategic stability. and we were asked to carry out the npr with an eye to enhancing strategic stability even as we take steps to roll a number of nuclear weapons. this present one set of challenges in the u.s.-russian and those transatlantic context. and another set of challenges in the u.s.-china and hence transpacific context. and in both cases we have generally seen the possible for

the united states and its allies to partner to develop to prove capabilities for the extended deterrence challenge in a manner that doesn't jeopardize strategic stability with russia and china. and this is because in particular the ballistic missile defense is relevant to the regional challenge don't jeopardize the strategic deterrence of russia and china. with china, we proposed a dialogue on strategic stability, and that has not happened. so far. a very important point to make as an opening point, because it's sensitive in the u.s.-japan relationship but it's sensitive and every single relationship with allies, as it is domestically in the united states. and the point is, if we're putting all of this emphasis on an extended deterrence, assurance of allies, and strategic stability with major

powers, how in our nuclear policy, how can we possibly also the fulfilling our commitment to strengthen nonproliferation and take practical steps towards the long-term goal of disarmament? and in a case of east asia, the answer is very simple. if we were to fail as a project, we, the united states, were to fail at the project of assuring our allies and deterring north korea, then surely there would be new proliferation pressure to there wouldn't be further progress towards disarmament. there would be progress or steps away from disarmament. and similarly if we were to fail as a project of strategic stability with china, we are not going to china sooner or later, join in the reductions process, and greater stability in the u.s.-china relationship, and greater cooperation on nonproliferation, but we would have something going in the other direction. this is a view strongly held in

the japanese community that thinks about nuclear issues, that the credibility of extended deterrence and the effectiveness of strategic stability are essential to creating conditions that allow us to make further progress in a practical way towards long-term goals. .. >> the paper's principle purpose was to shift the thinking of the u.s. and japanese exhumes working op these questions on to

the next set of questions. after four years of dialogue between us at the official level there was a desire to bring greater clarity to the emerging analytic agenda in a way to motivate additional research and analysis from the analytic community, additional transpacific debate and addition nag discussion at the 1.5 level with china and the rok and other stake holders in these issues. the paper begins with a reflection of the view that emerged -- perhaps i should speak only for myself here -- the security environment as a result of changing factors. the changing factors are simply two. the fact that north korea is making steady progress towards

developing and deploying the capabilities that could deliver nuclear weapons on to u.s. allies in the region and ultimately on to the united states as well. this raises a series of familiar to those who studied the cold war, a study of familiar questions about coupling and decoupleing and will america be there in a time of crisis. the other question is the wholesale change in china's military posture and what the pentagon shorthanded as the development of antiaccess aerial denial capabilities, but ad -- but a modernization component in china is changing the overall balance the force in the western pacific and raising questions, again, about, is america going to be there or be blackmailed away president i risks it runs

by defending japan in the time of crisis. in my analysis, this brings three 21st century deterrence challenges set out in the paper, but the first is the very highest challenge of detouring nuclear attack on the united states or an ally. second, at the opposite end of the conflict spectrum, the lowest end, what the japanese defense paper refers to gray zone conflicts, think coercion, think implicit threats, but not hot war. the third is in the middle here of the conflict spectrum, a new challenge -- well, not so much a new challenge, but taking new shape, of in time of war, north

korea, perhaps china, trying to determine how much leverage has gotten 90 of -- gotten out of the new capabilities and coercing us making explicit nuclear threats and perhaps taking action that it calculates fall beneath our nuclear response threshold. these are three kinds of deterrence challenges. the high end one is the most familiar to people who thought about nuclear deterrence for a long time. the two lower end ones are largely incognito to a lot of people, and that's an opportunity rich no homework opportunities. the paper goes on to set out the strategy that the administration has and to emphasize the point that i think this is the strategy that enjoys bipartisan support and has since the early 1990s, and it's a strategy to strengthen extended deterrence

with states like north korea and iran, by diversifying the tool kit to add all the things that add deterrence value that supplement the nuclear component. missile defenses, conventional strike capabilities, advanced isr capabilities, resilience in cyber and space, and there's a comprehensive strategy for dealing with these deterrence challenges in the regions that would be silly and perhaps unwise, but certainly politically impossible to rely simply on u.s. nuclear threats to deal with the emerging deterrence challenges, so we, the administration, tried to pursue a broad, comprehensive approach, and if you take that view of your response to the emerging deterrence challenges, then this is a strategy that provides many opportunities for allies to contribute meaningful to extend deterrence and

meaningfully to the deterrence of u.s. commitment, and the paper sets out a number of arguments about how and where japan is contributing. looking ahead, which the core issue of the paper, i highlight four issues a subject of continuing discussion within japan and the united states and between us and among all of the other stake holders, meaning south korea, china, and perhaps, on some of the issues, russia. first, strategy for japan. our strategy talks about introducing prompt, conventional strike capabilities as a supplement to our nuclear strike capabilities as a way to add

credibility to our threats to strike preemptively, raises a logical question. what do allies contribute to conventional strike capabilities? it's not obvious to u.s. governments regimely that allies should always contribute something to strike, conventional strike. the united states has approximately 40 allies, and of those, approximately a dozen have strike capabilities, longer range cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles of some kind, so the majority do not. japan be in that category or not? this is many close followers of japan a new issue raised by the new leadership. this is not a new issue in japan. japan has been debating adding conventional strike capabilities of some new kind since the

1950s, and, of course, there would be significant negative political repercussions from some of its neighbors. there would be a significant domestic political debate about how consistent this is with the spirit and letter of the constitution, and there should also be a debate about what this would and would not contribute to the deterrence. i'm not here to stake a position or on any four issue, but it's an issue coming on the agenda that we have to debate in a serious and thoughtful way based on good, supporting analysis. second topic, missile defense. how much is enough for japan? japan is the most important missile defense partner of the united states. we have important partners in europe, in the middle east, and with japan, and the course of my

time it was a great joy to sit after four years of thinking about nothing for longer than 30 minutes in the pentagon because that's the way life is, to actually sit and read things and reflect on them and one of the interesting reports i came across was from a prominent american think tank, not the simpson center, that in 2000 projected it would be, quote, decades for japan got seriously in the missile defense business. well, a decade later, we, the united states and japan, are jointly operating nuclear defense capabilities, jointly developing an advanced intercepter, a close, productive, and important relationship from, certainly, from the u.s. perspective. we, the obama administration, tried to set out arguments about how much missile defense is enough for america instead of arguments about how much is enough for homeland defense, for regional defense, and japan has

no such initial set of analytic answers, and partially that's because the next set of questions involve is the missile defense about china or not, a much more sensitive question, obviously, from whether or not the missile defense is adequately composed to deal with the north korean threat. this is not an issue requiring an urgent answer. the ndpg will take on a number of questions in this area whether japan should consider some middle tier capabilities, whether it considers some shore capabilities like the united states deploying, and whether it's nato allies or europe, and there are important questions embedded in the current process, but the advanced intercepter does not become available until late in the decade, so there is time to work these questions.

third topic, which i shorthand as is more nuclear tailoring required of the united states in northeast asia. now, let me set the context for that a little bit. in the strategy to strengthen deterrence architectures with all the different elements, we, the administration, argued that there will always remain a nuclear component as long as there's a nuclear threat we're trying to detour, but as the npr argued, we tailor that component to the particular requirements of the individual regions where we extend nuclear guarantees on behalf of allies because what makes -- what might make sense in the european context is not the same thing that might make sense somewhere else so the approach needs to be tailored, and we, the administration,

tailored nuclear declaratory policy and nuclear posture capabilities following very close consultations with the government of japan, long others, and i can review in the q&a discussion what those adaptations were that followed in the tailoring, but the very high level strategic question is, is that enough tailoring, or do we neat more? there are analysts in japan who have various ideas about how to strengthen the credibility of the u.s. nuclear commitment, and, of course, there are some individuals advocating for japan acquiring capabilities of its own, and my way to organize the discussion and conceptually is to say there's four simple models that we, u.s. and japan,

should talk through to talk about the weaknesses in perspective of japan's security. the first is the current model which is based on the commitment of the united states to apply strategic forces whenever a need arises and the need to deploy nonstrategic nuclear weapons -- well, all nuclear weapons are stray strategic, but a weapon with a nondelivery strategic system. not deployed the capability in the time of crisis as a way to signal the resolve of to stand up to nuclear bullying. second model, that's to go back to the cold war, east asian

model, and there's a lot of u.s. nuclear weapons in east asia, deployed on the ground in south korea, aboard vessels and sub ray means. in the cold war, the nuclear initiatives of the 1990s, they were withdrawn and mostly retired and dismantled, and one option would be to go back to that forced pos a third would be to adopt the current nato posture which is socially rf reliance on the u.s. triad, but the british and french strategic deterrence to contribute to nato's overall nuclear deterrent posture, and the unique nato nuclear sharing arrangements where a handful of allies participate in the united states in preparing for the

possible employment of nuclear weapons by stationing on their territories aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons and stationing the weapons themselves. that model, because these would be joint operations conducted by nato, is supported by a joint planning process and a ministerial level body calling the nuclear planning group, and today, the nuclear planning group has one function to enable nato to have a discussion of nuclear policy without the french minister. [laughter] because when france rejoined nato, they did not rejoin the nuclear part of nato, and so it has -- and this model has a lot of appeal in japan, and, frankly, south korea as well. of course, it's natural that america's allies want to know if there were ever a moment when

the american president were considering nuclear employment on their what was. they want to know. where is my seat at the table? what's the process to allow me to somehow shape this big decision? the nato model looks alluring from afar, but then what's the analog to the french minister in the u.s.-japan relationship? who is the party that has to be excused? why do you need a special mechanism for that? defense ministers in the u.s.-japan context can talk about any issue that's on the bilateral agenda, and so that's the third model, and the fourth model is one where the u.s. is the model that's presented by the independent national deterrence of the united kingdom and france, which is not a model of the u.s. extending deterrence

to them. it's a different model, but it's also, as a model, got some clear distinctions from the current practice, obviously, and so my case was, i think, rather than trying to debate individual proposals for taking this stuff to strengthen deterrence or that role, let's talk together as allies about the two models, four models, sorry. fourth and final issue, looking forward, is strategic stability with china, what does that mean, how do we get did? the obama administration set out a commitment to strategic stability in the u.s.-china relationship without adding any content to what that might require. this was the calculated decision intended to create an insentive for china to finally join in official dialogue with the

united states on issues, nuclear deterrence and strategy. we came into the administration keenly aware of a long track record here of essentially each of the three proceeding presidents of the united states having achieved agreement with our chinese counterpart to initiate a dialogue on nuclear weapons res, -- weapons issues, and then essentially nothing happened, and this is an unsatisfying answer politically, particularly if you're ambition as the president is to continue nuclear reduction, and if your ambition as an ally is to try to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, china needs to be a part of processes, not a bystander, and not a party that is building up

and increasing the role of nuclear weapons while everybody else is building down. china asked, oh, by the way, what do you mean by strategic stability? do you mean what you've met it historically in the u.s.-russia relationship? which is to say that in the u.s.-russian relationship, we have accepted that mutual vulnerability is the basis of the strategic relationship. we are not contesting the credibility of russia's deterrent, have seen no strategic value to the united states and our allies in doing so since maybe the 1950s, and the government of china would like to hear the united states say that it accepts mutual vulnerability as the basis of the strategic relationship. that's not something japan wants to hear. go back to my -- the earlier point about the coupling and

decoupling and the cold war thinking about how alliances work. the problem is it's not relevant to the cold war, but the 21st century, and that's to say that if america were to say we accept mutual vulnerable with china as the basis of the strategic relationship, what some in japan hear is, okay, then when there's a conflict and china's issuing threats, america's going to stand down from the defense of japan. how could america accept mutual form of vulnerability as the basis of the relationship? this is a short description of the fact that the three key stake holders in the discussion have different starting points for the discussion, and we all believe in the value of strategic stability. we all think that it should be

possible to sustain and deepen the condition of strategic stability with china, but how requires a lot more work, and it requires a lot more than simply the united states saying we accept mutual vulnerability which we're not going to say. with that, let me say, reiterate views expressed here are my personal views trying to attribute views to the administration or the government of japan only when i think they are very broadly held. i'm not here to defend any particular answer to any of these four questions. this was an analytic activity intended to kind of shift the focus on to the things that i think, personally, we, as allies, should be talking about, and i don't think this is a discussion just for the u.s. and japan. these are all questions in which south korea has a stake, and we

can't possibly have a strong extended deterrence posture and strategic stability in noter east asia without a greater convergence of thinking within the united states, japan, and south korea. south korea cannot be set aside in the discussion. similarly, china's a stake holder with many shared interests with us in finding politically acceptable stray strategically acceptable answers to the questions. as i say, i think russia has some stake in some of these things as well. with that, let me thank you for your attention and let me hope i have thrown fuel on the fire to keep monday morning discussion going, and turn it back over to you. >> thank you. i think you all agree that brad has been intensely thinking about the issue for a long time, and he really has been. floor's open to y'all to answer questions, and wait for the

microphone, and identify yourself, and please, do keep your comments and questions short so i can accommodate as many questions as possible. with that, second row, gentleman? >> thank you for your presentation, and my question has -- >> identify yourself, first. >> justin anderson, strategic stability, as discussed with russia in the presentation, has a long lineage in thought going all the way back to the late 40s and early 50s, and, of course, at the center of that is the question of mutual vulnerability, and so if strategic ability with russia is the core mutual vulnerability, but strategic stability with china does not, what's the alternate basis for strategic stability purely in terms of an analytic exercise that the u.s. and china would have? >> that's a great question. i wish i knew the answer. [laughter]

it is a great question. it is something you should all work on. there was an effort by a group of analysts from the army war college that produced an edited volume that came out in the spring on strategic stability. the introduction written by thomas shelling, still writing at the age of 90, and he says that it took us 12 years to figure out strategic stability. when it was two countries with roughly comparable capabilities in a largely bipolar world.

now we're in a much more multidimensional world, and we call it multipolar, a misleading, but the elements of strategic blansz are more numerous than before. to me, how could we accept mutual vulnerability in the nuclear domain and reject it in cyber and space? how would that work? cyber and space have to be a part of this discussion. moreover, i think we have models of strategic relationships among countries that are capable of destroying each other, but we don't worry about it. we have a relationship of mutual as a rule nermt with the united kingdom, and no one gives it thought because we don't see the

potential pathway to conflict. could we make mutual vulnerability with the united kingdom go away? well, we could, but that would be a huge project and foolish. maybe there is a model that includes an element of as a rule nermt in it, but we don't call that the cornerstone of strategic stability. the foundation of strategic stability is something else. i do think our vocabulary of strategic stability predates shelling's 12-year phase. there was a long history of thinking about strategic stability among major powers before that, and it would do us well to look into some of the historical foundations pre-1945. >> gill rossman, preachesly at princeton.

my question is about the coordination in this thinking that between japan and south korea, since so much here is affecting south korea too, and you have not said much about it, particularly to the extent that china comes into the picture. are we finding that these kinds of -- that as you argue, been in japan, you heard what they are saying, and do you see them taking the right kinds of steps to try to bring south korea to the picture or narrow the difference, or is there more concern that the gap is widening between japan and south korea and how to deal with extended deterrence? >> well, that's an excellent question, and i think there are few government officials who express satisfaction with the

state of cooperation between the states and south korea, and among the three of us. that said, it -- while there are periodic or constant troubles at the high political level, there are important things that happen at the working level, and i think there has been a lot of convergence in the thinking of the three allies about these issues, not enough convergence. i'm not really sure this is something that can be accomplished in the manner that's needed at the official level, and that this is an

opportunity for tract one and 2 # -- 1.5 and bring the track 1 community to come along when they have reasons to find that difficult. i don't want to pass judgment on all the policy, but i was very impressed by the degree of the depth -- the depth of thinking on china, and the depth of thinking of japan on america's china policy, and the the misalignment as perceived between japan's existing age deepening vulnerability to conventional, not nuclear,

conventional co pla we tend to see that china conventional military problem is over the horizon out there time-wise. for japan, it's here and now. the defense white paper of three years ago said the problem is, quote, creeping international expansionism, and the most recent says, no, chie succeeded in using force to change the stay taws quo. this captures a significant hardening of thinking, and it's not just because of a change of government in japan, but accumulation of experience. while there are elements of japan's-china policies that i might not fully agree with, i

think the depth of their work on this is born of their own experience. that allows me to make one related point which i neglected to make at the start, and that is one thing that really strikes me being in tokyo is that the government's of japan is probably the most deterrent fluent government of any american ally. the extended deterrence dialogue created an alumni group. they had toured. they had table top exercises. they had pentagon policy powerpoint briefings, you know, blah, blah, blah, but they have not gone into retirement. they've all rotated up. this is at a time when the issues are very prominent in

their view of the security environment, very prominent in their view of the relationship with the united states, and also at a time when japan is moving to create its own national security council structure. the people who are going to be leading that activity and staffing it are basically edd veterans, and this is different. this is not the character of dialogue that the united states has had with japan, and this is app extension of the china discussion because their china discussion emerges from the community. it's very broad and deep. ours tends to come out of our china watching community, our china policy community, and the -- so we now have a partner who's ready to exert a lot of intellectual and policy

leadership in this area, and this casts a new obligation on us to react, interact with them in a way that's suited to this new relationship and not the practice of the past, which was to sort of hand along policy on deterrence and nuclear strategy rather than interact in its development. >> thank you. i think the second row here, and i'll get to you, sir, next. >> thank you. josh pollack. during your talk, you mentioned the question of tailoring capabilities and posture in the region, and invited us to ask about how you think it's been done. i'm asking, how has that been done? >> thank you, josh, you're a good straight man. so this is tailoring the nuclear piece. there's also the missile defense piece. there's the conventional strike piece, but the myth -- the

nuclear piece, i sort of foreshadowed in the characterization of the four models of tailored approaches. the current adaptations that were made in u.s. nuclear policy and posture as a result of not solely as a result of consultations with northeast asian allies, but were made in follow-up are of two kinds, and declaratory policy and posture, and, of course, we adapted the negative security assurance, the strategic posture commission which the commission that had advised the incoming administration on the topic of declaratory policy said fix the

problem without specifying how, and the problem in declaratory policy was that essentially for decades, the united states has spoken out of two sides of its mouth saying on the one hand we promise not to use nuclear weapons against states, party, but, by the way, saddam, here's a letter saying, watch out, and we were advised by the posture commission to sort out the inconsistency without being told how, and the answer was adding a security provision essentially saying you're a beneficiary of the insurance as long as you're in good standing with the nuclear nonproliferation obligation standards. consideration of that declaratory policy included a discussion of was it a good time to move towards declaratory policy to say it's not only the fundamental purpose, but the sole purpose of u.s. nuclear

weapons to detour attack on the united states or its allies. many of our allies had strong views on the topic, some in favor, some opposed, and we came out where we did. which was in rejection of soul purpose. on posture, as opposed to declaratory policy, the adaptation we made was to -- this bears on the question of how do you forward deploy some part of the deterned to support an ally in a time of crisis? following the presidential nuclear initiatives of the early 1990s when the united states retired everything it forward deployeded, the two nuclear policy reviews that followed highlighted the remaining role

of nuclear tomahawk, so of an attack sub marine deliverable nuclear cruise missile, and in europe, we maintained a different posture. we, the united states, described no role to nuclear tomahawk in defense of the nuclear commitments in europe. rather there, we pursued the unique nato sharing arrangement, which i described, the dual capable fighter bombs and bombs. the policy question was do you need to keep both approaches? do you need either approach? is there a better approach to consider?

in the assessment of the administration -- well, what was -- the analytic question was, how do we strengthen extended deterrence? that's what the president asked us to do? how do we strengthen that? what needs to be strengthed? what is it we would be detouring? if you take my little three-part model, the high end, the gray zone, and the red zone in the middle, it's the red zone in the middle that needs help. where we've focused our policy and strategy to strengthen capabilities we bring to the problem, and what -- again, what was the red zone? that was you're actually in a war, and the enemy is taking steps right at your nuclear declaratory policy testing your resolve and your resolve, who is the "your" in the sentence?

not just the united states, the resolve of the ally too. the clear objective of those who contemplate possibility of war against the united states and allies is to separate the united states from its allies to isolate the united states making it difficult for us to bring power to bear. tomahawk or dual capable aircraft, which is better for that problem? which is better for signaling the resolve of an ally or of the shared commitment of allies opposed to just the united states alone? our conclusion was dual capable aircraft which can be operated from the territory of an ally or near the territory of an ally, but are visible signals of deployment and not simply the employment of strategic systems from the american homeland. this is 5 way to signal resolve.

we took the steps following dialogue with many different allies to retire the tomahawk nuclear cruise missile and ensure the fleet of dual capable aircraft and associated nuclear bombs with them are capable of being globally deployed in a time of crisis. >> thank you, sir? >> ken. as i understand it, it was left murk ky under the terms of the mutual defense pack with japan so it seems like we could have told the japanese we don't take a position over the sovereignty, you have to work that out with the chinese. instead, we gave the japanese an implicit guarantee, and is this comparable to the british guarantee to poland late after world war ii? in other words, as the world war ii line, to die for dancing,

superseded the line to die? >> well, one of the benefits of being a nuclear guy working the u.s. japan relationship is i don't know everything. i'm not steeped in every element of the relationship, so i'm not really prepared to comment on the nature of our commitment on this, but what i'm prepared to commitment on is the -- the distinction i encountered -- i had a lot of good help from japanese colleagues in writing my paper who points out many opportunities for improvement, and one of the most interesting points of dialogue is in an early draft of the paper trying to explain purposes of the u.s. nuclear umbrella, i said that

it's to impart assure allies that the united states is prepared to assist in their defense and even the most dire circumstances, and this produced a strong reaction from a couple japanese saying that nato language, come to the assistance of an ally. that's knew toe language. you have a specific treaty obligation to defend japan in specific circumstances, and we have limited rolls because of the nature of the constitution we have and the way we interpreted it, and if you're expecting us to take a role in the commentators, seems like it falls in your job box, not our job box. oh, that's another expectation. that's different. that seems to fall outside of the traditional interpretation of the two roles of the two allies in this relationship. i'm not steeped in the issues,

but it did highlight the different expectations we seem to have about the role of the united states in the defense of japan. >> over here and then -- bill from sgi. i have to questions. is an implicit presumption that north korea will become a nuclear weapons country? i just want to make sure we got that. number one, and number two, are there chinese point of view tremendous down sides to a missile defense system which russians interpret in a negative way, and as an effort to gain a first strike capability? first part of the second

question was chinese and south koreans' use -- >> that the north koreans and chinese would view the missile defense system as -- and because the north koreans are the north creeps, that they could view it as going towards a first strike? so on the first question north korea is a state with an existing nuclear capability. the status of the capability to deliver nuclear weapons on the united states is uncertain. if north korea were to choose to renounce nuclear weapons and long range missiles, this regional deterrence architecture, the parts of it tailored on them could disappear tomorrow. that's not the comment on how

much progress was made on miniaturizing, don't know, and that's sort of in the ten-year time frame i'm trying to look at. i'm just depositing what they continue to make progress, that's an -- if they don't, and if they choose to stop, all the better. north korea understands -- well, i don't know what north korea understands. [laughter] as a matter of policy now for two decades, it's been the policy of the united states to negate north korea's ability to coerce others with missiles. our -- the intention of the policy is clear, and whether they understand it, i don't know. the chinese -- to me, a reminder of how world we are of the fact that today that many analysts

comment on the fact that china has not talked about missing defense because in parts like this for ten years until 2001, we heard them say nothing but missile defense is bad news for china, don't do it, watch out, don't leave the treaty, and when the bush administration withdrew from the treaty, they basically said, fine. okay. that's the route you're going? we'll make sure our deterrent is credible in the face of that. no administration articulated a policy of so composing a missile defense that it could negate china's strategic deterrent. we, as an administration, articulated a statement that we were strengthening regional defense against all threats, whatever the source, including all threats in east asia, so a

mixed message to china this is another topic where we,ed as an administration, have been prepared to have a sub substantial dialogue with both russia and china, and neither has wanted to dialogue, so if they are not taking the opportunity, but they have all the complaints, what's that tell us? something interesting. >> i'm from the japanese embassy, and first of all, thank you so much for the resources you put into the process comes to you. and we have two processes, but you lifted us up, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> my question to you, today, actually about the situation in

syria, and i ask because, you know, the how the united states reacts to the use or use of, you know, chemical weapons in the region, and, also, it's an interesting case of what kind of message that the u.s. might want to send. on the one hand, you want to send a deterrence message to dissuade the syria government not to use weapons, but on the other hand, if that message is too strong, then the government maybe further into corner. there's some delicate balancing on what messaging to send. i want to hear your comments on this issue, thanks. >> thank you, ken. anyone with questions about what firsthand life in the edd has been like, ken can offer you a private view.

first of all, your point is a broader point i tried to bring through in the paper, which is that we, united states, when we think about the extended deterrence issues, think mostly about yiewmp -- europe and not much about the other two regions and think not at all about the cross connections across the reames. that's not the way it looks from the regions. you can find plenty of japanese analysts writing about natos, policy decisions on extended deterrence, and you can find fewer, but some european analysts writing about the extent of the di terrence dialogue and decisions made in northeast asia, and there is a lot of watching and learn going on that we americans have been blind to, and one of the most

important functions of japanese diplomacy in the deterrence and arms control business is to remind nato of the way in which decisions made in the euroatlantic security can impact other environments. case in point, nato set out to take steps to work with russia to reduce number of nuclear weapons in the environment with the eye to the ultimately elimination, and this might include as initial steps transparency measures and relocations. relocations? any of you, again, to think again about the age differences in the room, those around for modernization debatings and decision of the early 1980s recall there was a moment when the united states and russia and the soviet union seemedded to

agree to an arms control deal that would have begin the soviets the right and the responsibility to move ss20s out of europe and within range of japan. japan quickly said, please rethink, and japan has had to say, please, rethink again. you, as a nato alliance, focused just on what's happening in your security environment and have not taken a global view of the problem, and astute and entirely appropriate critique of our policy. your question is -- i'm going to beat around the -- because i'm not -- i'm not involved in the syria policy development at this time. this is a particular sensitive time, of course, from the perspective of what the administration now chooses to do in the light that was clearly

stepping across the red line that the president set out, what's done effectively at this point, and i know that to somewhat contradict the argument i made the administration, they are attuned to the fact that any message is received by a cast of thousands, and when you say something like the red line, and then the decisions you make from how you follow up on that are decisions that will be closely watched in tokyo, seoul, beijing, cambra, i mean, the list goes on. i think the white house is clearly aware of these the presidential context now, and i can't predict the outcome because it's obvious there's no

simple military act to take, and today's washington post includes -- what's the formulation? somebody's got an op-ed, but about something like a feel-good strike to make good on our threat that it's not actually going to accomplish something. if we're going to use force, it should accomplish something other than demonstrating resolve to demonstrate resolve, but i don't know the answer, ken, i'm sorry. >> i've been taking questions from this side. all the way to the back, the back row. >> fellow loc alum with brad. >> another old guy. >> yep. i catch in the background of this there lurks, you know, the history of the korean war, that's why we are so concerned about north korea doing

something really crazy, but inn kim didn't attack until he got the approval of both china and the soviet union who show up in the memoirs discussing stalin's approval of the request to attack. if we're talking about any major north korean use of military force, that would seem to us make some assumptions about the russian and chinese positions. it's not just about us, is it? our extended deterrence, but some implicit assumption about them. can we imagine that they would sign off on such an attack the way they did in 1950? if not, could north korean's regime be so irrational and so totally out of touch to do something in the teeth of opposition of both russia or china or either one p --

one of them? what are the discussions regarding russia and china? >> well, that's an excellent question, stanley. thank you for posing it. i -- i hope that conventional wisdom is true, and that those are constraints that will be meaningful if ever the moment comes whenever the new leader seriously contemplates action if that moment comes. i'm weiry of conventional wisdom, and, particularly, in this area. we have -- it's plausible to me. we have now a young man in power in pyongyang who might be in

power longer than castro. maybe his ambition is to play the status quo game, bringsmanship, keep regimes going, and enrich himself and his family let the state and society fester along as they do. maybe that's the limit of his ambition. maybe he believes that he needs to be deferential to the preferences of beijing and moscow. maybe not. to me, it's sort of implausible that his vision for a castro-like tenure would be to preserve this very ugly status

quo, and i'm equally concerned with the possibility he might have the ambition to fulfill unfinished work of his prez sees sores, father and grandfather, and i think it's plausible that with nuclear weapons in hand and missiles capable of reaching the united states that he would conclude he does not need to account for the preferences of moscow and beijing, and i think that it's plausible that he would think that he could blackmail the united states out of the game. i think this would be a series of strategic miscalculations of a grand order. i don't think we would be blackmailed out of the game. i think we would discover, if we didn't already perceive them,

that we would discover vital interests about not being coerced in that fashion and not abandoning an ally under a nuclear threat, so i think these would be strategic miscalculations of the first order. i think we have plenty evidence to think they are capable of strategic calculations in pyongyang, plenty of evidence from the experience of saddam to understand how regimes of that type miscalculate. i'm not predicting war at all, but i think the conventional wisdom that these capabilities are for the purpose of essentially the porky pine state, don't mess with me, leave me alone, i'm fine. i'm worried of those conventional wisdoms, and i think japan and south korea are more than weary, but deeply

anxious and wonder how we are. are we as americans discounting the possibility of these weapons being used? they're, after all, understood to be very powerful instruments for shaping outcomes, these new capabilities, are they going to sit on the shelf as if they are not -- as if the people who work so hard to get them are not going to use them to try to change something? i hope that it works the way history suggests, but i think that there's good reason to be concerned it might not, and hence my interest in strengthening extended deterrence. >> right up front. >> good morning, sir, thank you. i'm commander dan, the japan joint staff. ..

so, just, wonder about your thoughts on that? >> i don't think japan's current interest in acquiring some conventional strike capabilities of its own, current discussion of it, i mean there is no policy

to do so. its current discussion of this, i don't think it's driven by doubts what the united states would or would not do and i think japan is concerned about signaling that's the motivator here because it is not the motivator. we've now spent four years talking about how to strengthen extended deterrents and how to strengthen the regional deterrents architecture and we've spoken clearly and closely as allies about the role of nuclear weapons and what they're credible for and what they're not credible for. the nuclear umbrella is not credible as deterrent to own conflicts. if we can't don't mess with us or we'll nuke you, that is not credible. to have a discussion, a detailed discussion of the circumstances in which nuclear threats are credible and not leads you to an awful lot of interest in what

else you can do to strengthen deterrents. and the driver i believe in japan is a perception that the requirement for extended, for, the requirement for a credible regional deterrents architecture is rising because of developments in the security environment. it's development in north korea's military posture. the ability to deliver nuclear weapons by missiles. the posturing to do so and the development in china's conventional power projection capability and regional nuclear capability. the drive the question of what's the appropriate response. how do we, if we just tread water while these developments happen are our security

interests going to be safeguarded in the long term? we don't need to compete in every area but where should we compete? what advantages of ours should we secure? this is an appropriate discussion to have. so, not because of doubts about the united states. it's because of changes in the security environment that drive a rising appetite for a discussion about strengthening, just the discussion, practical steps to strengthen the regional deterrents architecture. >> any other question? >> my -- >> ian reinhardt, congressional news service. i want to ask a question about it. md. you mentioned china's response is engaged in quiet arms race versus our increasing number of interceptors. at this point we is don't have the capability of intercepting

an icbm sent from china. but technology is progressing. maybe beyond the 10-year dialogue with china looks like? what is reaction, dynamic as capability much our interceptors improve and is there a way that we can talk with china to keep strategic stability without causing them to to ever higher and more sophisticated in their nuclear capability? >> well i hope there is but it takes two to dialogue. and china has a long track record of resisting american and its own leadership commitments to dialogue in this area. let me be clear. my personal assessment is not that china's involved in, you had a good modifier and i have forgotten, almost an arms race

or an arms race-like response. i -- china is, recall 10 years ago secretary of defense rumsfeld articulate ad concern. he was defending the number of nuclear weapons under the moscow treaty, the strategic offensive reductions treaty. he was defending that number is the right number in part because it dealt with a quote, potential sprint to parody by china. we're 10 years later. there was no sprint and there's no pair parity. in my assessment china is modifying and diversifying its strategic nuclear forces. it is nuclear forces, strategic is a term we use to associate with long-range intercontinental and they, that is a misleading term. so they're modernizing and

diversifying in order to respond to multiple changes in their security environment of which developments in the u.s. and japanese missile defense posture are both one or two. and the, the effect, the nature of the ballistic missile defense the united states is now pursuing is such that it, maybe i can get away with a flat statement. it will never be capable against six, seven 7th and 8th generation missiles and weapons such as, big, modern states are going to have for the long term. this is the business of counter measures and decoys and the speed of these things. we have designed a ballistic

missile defense within a very specific box of capabilities and it can get better in that box but it is fundamentally what it is and unless we were to go away from hit to kill and to back to nuclear-tipped ballistic missile defense which is utterly implausible, or forward to directed energy-based which, is a long way away, we're going to be working within that box and the united states is not going to have the ability, even if it set itself as a goal, the ability to negate, to eliminate completely, to withstand fully a russian and chinese first strike, that is simply beyond our technology and beyond our

money. and the repercussions then we would have action reaction cycle that would fit the arms race characterization. of course the russians and chinese don't really worry. they don't really apparently contemplate that kind of big, bold, out of the blue, wake up angry and think it's a good day to wipe out america. their strategies seem to be, i mean china's strategy is, counter deterrents, doctrine of the second artillery is to absorb the first blow, counterattack and reattack as directed by political authorities. that's not firing everything all at once. and so, when we, the usa, we're never going to have a missile defense big enough to deal with russia and china, but they saying if our strategy is to fire one, two or three you are, you already do but not against long-range, fast-burning

icbms. there is i think actually a lot to talk with china about. there is a lot of technical analysis we could be doing together that would help them to fully understand the attributes of our system as it would influence their interests or not. and i would say that fundamentally for china, as for russia, the issue is not the operational character i can of the defense. it's the political impact of the defense. china's long-term ambition for the region is that american alliance structures will attenuate and finally disappear and the more we integrate operationally and take on new common projects together the less likely that becomes. just as for russia, one of the really core points of opposition to missile defense is that this is business we're doing with their former allies and in the territory of countries where we said if they come into nato we're not going to deploy

nuclear weapons there and we're not but the russians want us to not deploy anything strategic in those countries, and there isn't really the possibility of having a technical discussion to diswages the fundamental political objection they have to missile defense. >> the last question goes to the edge, the man in the middle of the room. >> thank you, mr. roberts. my name is kobyashi with japan. i have a question about the missile defense. i need to ask you, a series of recent failures on the interceptor test, ground-based interceptor test do you think, how do you think the events could affect the overall deterrents policy in the u.s. in particular do you think, do you expect the events could

encourage the united states to try to make japan play a more role in a sea-based interceptor system? thank you. >> some excellent question. the, so, for those who don't, who aren't steeped in the missile defense topic, i guess to really go back one step, so the bush administration in 2001, assessed that it was possible that by 2005 north korea could, could deploy a nuclear-tipped icbm and if it were deploying one, it could deploy more. if it were deploying them it might sell them to anybody. so by 2005 america needed to have some missile defense in the

ground, and so over 4:00 years 4:00 years -- four years, america produced and deployed but didn't test, or really develop the initial set of interceptors, the first group of ground-based interseparatetores. -- interceptors. these are different from the regional defense interceptors. these are kind of small icbm-sized interceptors. they were originally conceived that they were going to go and the one abm-compliant based in, minnesota? north dakota, thank you. and be capable of going long distances any direction to intercept something coming in. and that's different from the regional systems which basically go on the front of naval

vessels, much smaller, capable of going much shorter distances and go much more slowly. and 2005 the bush administration got to declare there was an initial operational capability in being. they achieved their goal. kudos to them and continued to put more of these ground-based interceptors into silos in alaska and four in vandenberg. and then to try and make them work. because, they were in a rush to get this work done. and so these gbis have been in, essentially in development while they have been in operational status. and, this is part of the reason that secretary gaetz and in april of 2009 decided to pause

in the deployment of further gbis. on the one hand here we were 2009 and there was no north korean nuclear-tipped icbm nor an iranian one. and we were at the point of having 30, ratio 30 to zero, interceptors to threat missiles. advantageous position to stop and try to fix some of these problems. now there are actually two batches of gbis. one batch has a lot of problems. one doesn't. and, the president in march, i believe it was, late march, made the decision to proceed so the ballistic missile defense review of 2010 reflected the commitment of the administration to be prepared to continue to grow the homeland defense posture over the longer term if we got clear

evidence that the threat from north korea or iran or somewhere else was emergeing. and, if it didn't really begin to emerge until the 2020 time frame, then we would try and thicken the defense of the homeland with the advanced interceptor or the sm, the beyond the one that we are jointly developing with japan, the sm-32-b. we would do that principally in europe with european phase adaptive approach, fourth phase. and that would, that would have the benefit of giving us the ability to see something coming from the middle east, shoot at it once, figure out if you intercepted it or not and shoot at it again with something from the homeland. and well the evidence came along, didn't it? that north korea has been making progress and iran has been making progress as well and the sm-32-b the congress declined the funding every year we, the

administration requested it. so its availability was receding out somewhere into the far future. so that, we had also in 2010 said that if we need to in the interim, between being paused at 30 and after 2020 growing with the 2-b, if we need more in the middle, well, we're going to finish the 14 silos that secretary rumsfeld. so to go from secretary rumsfeld's plan to 44 ground-based interceptors as the initial commitment. we paused at 30. we said, let's finish those silos just in case. so the decision the president made in march was to go ahead and finish the deployment of ground-based interceptors to bring the number from 30 to 44. on the understanding that the

test program will show that we have fixed the technical problems with the gbis and unfortunately in a, not only flat but declining budget environment the money needed to pay for that needed to come from somewhere inside the missile defense budget, so it came out of the 2-b. so that's a long answer, that's a long bit of context, to answer your question which is, it's difficult to see that there's something that japan could do in the way of deploying interceptors that would substitute for something the united states isn't prepared to do for itself at this time. the, the important footnote to that conversation is about sensors as opposed to interceptors. the more attack pathways,

trajectories, the more trajectories there are for missiles that come out of east asia and strike the united states, the more need there is for radars that can see all these different trajectories. so japan and the united states made a decision to work together to deploy, this is public fact, to deploy a second radar to the region that will supplement the performance of the first and contribute to both the defense of japan and the defense of the american homeland. so i wouldn't rule out additional cooperation in that area, not that i envision any particular kind but i don't think there's something more that japan would need to be doing, other than the legal kind of, let me close here, this is, this is a significant ongoing issue in japan's discussion of constitutional reform. which is to say, japan does not interpret its constitution as allowing it to participate in

collective defense activities. so this means that as an ally of the united states, according to the current interpretation of japan's constitution, if it were to watch a missile launched from north korea and headed a the american homeland, it would not be constitutional for japan to conduct an intercept or even perhaps to support with sensors an american intercept of that missile. reinterpretation of the right to collective defense would help in this regard. this would be a very significant political change that would enhance the credibility of the alliance in meeting these deterrence challenges. thank you for your question. >> well, with that i'd like to close this event. let me, i would ask you to join me in thanking dr. roberts and his very frank answers to all

your questions and also with his initial remarks. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> here's what's ahead today on c-span2. next, a discussion on race in america. then remarks from energy secretary ernest moniz. immigration town hall meeting with democratic congressman louis gutierrez.

we'll be live at 3:15:00 p.m. eastern with another program related to the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. an event looking at youth mentoring. that starts 3:15:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. later today another "washington journal"'s spotlight on magazines series. a former u.s. senator, jim webb, recently joined us to talk about an article he wrote about his time in government. you can watch that at 7:10:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 2. booktv is live today as well. author rebecca seib will talk about her book, every day is election day. it focuses on women in politics. you can watch that starting 7:00 p.m. eastern at booktv.org. defense secretary chuck hagel says the u.s. military stand ready to strike syria at once if president barack obama gives the order. associated press reports that the u.s. is expected to formally

state today whether syria used chemical weapons and announcement how president obama will respond could follow. a republican lawmaker israeliing support to pressure president obama into seeking congressional authorization for military strikes against syria. representative scott rigel of virginia is asking colleagues to sign a letter to president obama that urges him to reconvene congress and seek approval for any military action. british prime minister david cameron is recalling parliament from its summer break on a discussion of a possible military response to the alleged chemical attack in syria. minister cameron says the crisis session will be held on thursday. >> the building of human rights would be one of the foundations

stones on which we would build in the world an atmosphere in which peace could grow. >> i don't think the white house can completely belong to one person. it belongs to the people of america. and i think whoever lives in it the first lady should preserve its traditions and enhance it and make something of it there. >> naacp president president says the nation is on verge of having one political party fighting for civil rights. he was one of several civil rights leaders who participated in a panel discussion on race to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march on washington monday at the

newseum. other participants included former deputy assistant housing secretary for native-american programs. the w.k. kellogg foundation hosted the two hour and 10 minute discussion. >> food morning. -- good morning. thank you for saying good morning in a way that i would hear and receive that energy. i'm going to try it one more time. good morning. >> good morning. >> thank you all. this is such a joy to be here in this historic week to celebrate our history and to envision and move forward toward creating the future that we all want and

certainly the future that our children deserve. i am gail christopher, vice president for program strategy of the w.k. kellogg foundation and i bring you greetings on behalf of our board of directors, our president, sterling spiran, our staff and our community of grantees who are all over this nation and many other parts of the world. we stand in solidarity behind this idea that no lie can live forever and that we must heal america for our children's sake. when mr. kellogg created the foundation he said, do what you will with the money, so long as it helps children, and during his lifetime, he worked to help vulnerable children. when we stood back and looked at the changing demographics of this country and we realized that most of the children born today are children of color, and

most of those children are growing up in low-income or impoverished situations, we knew that we had to embed a focus on achieving racial equity into our program strategy and that is why the w.k. kellogg foundation, one of the largest philanthropies in the world, has made this a primary focus. but we had to figure out how, how on earth do we address a topic, a topic about which most people are uncomfortable and certainly most people are in denial. so fast forward. we launched this work in 2010, and here we are today, on the anniversary of what is perhaps the most historic, galvanizing of human will, to eradicate racism in this country.

dr. king not only held a vision and a dream for us, but we believe in his remarks made in montgomery on the capitol steps, when asked when would freedom come, and he responded, not long, no lie can live forever, we believe he also gave us the essence of the work to be done which is that we have to eradicate the absurd notion of the hierarchy of the human family. that is the notion that undergirded or gave permission for the enslavement of millions. and that notion, that belief, it's antiquated, it's absurd. it came about in the 1700s. it came about at the time when the printing press came about.

so it proliferated throughout the world. it is embedded in all our systems, that somehow there is a hierarchy of value and it was emanuel cont said people that look like him should be at the top of that hierarchy, and that would be whites and that it would descend in value through all these different groups based on superficial characteristics. now that belief was a function of the understanding and indeed the ignorance of those times. we have fought to eradicate racism but we've concentrated on the effects of racism. we fought a civil war but imagine if we or, if the abolitionist had shared that belief instead of the blood of hundreds of thousands of people? imagine how the world would be if there had been a concerted effort to set things right and assert truly the equality of humankind.

so we would submit to you that the work of the 21st century is that work. and we have new tools that we didn't have in the 20th century. we understand how the brain works now. we understand how ideas get embedded into the unconscious. we can also understand how to up root those ideas. we have technologies at our disposal that weren't even dreamt of 50 years ago. it is time to mobilize those very technologies to change the fundamental construct upon which our nation was built. we asserted equality but we built a nation on the fallacy of inequality. and so as we go forward into the 21st century, we ask, at the kellogg foundation, that we take this moment to move beyond rhetoric and indeed beyond

denial. there was a poll released by the pew center last week that would suggest that we are, contrary to a very few years ago when people were touting us as a post-racial america, that less than one in three and less than half, less than one in three african-americans and less than half of whites actually believe we've made a lost progress towards realizing his dream. so if that few people believe we made progress toward realizing the dream, that means some of us are moving past denial of the work that remains to be done. a lost us are moving past denial. so once we past denial of fact we must move past denial of the consequences. we must move past denial of the implications and then finally we must move past denial of the feelings. i'm going to tell you a very brief story. when i was about 13, which is

how old i was when dr. king made his speech, i went off to a summer program in an area that was all white and they brought urban kid in from all over the country and it was my first exposure, really, to people of other races on an intimate basis. we had to have roommates in fact. my roommate was another young woman from my town, cleveland. and we got along famously, all summer. and then at the end of the summer i came home to our house and there was an ambulance in front of the door. and they brought her out on a stretcher. they were taking her to the hospital because she had attempted to commit suicide. then they showed me the letter she had written. it was almost time for to us go home and she was afraid to go home. her father had so convinced and indoctrinated her as to the inhumanity of blacks that she

should hate black people. . . >> every time you turn on the television and see another story that dehumanizes and devalues people of color, say no. that's perpetuating the false belief in human hierarchy.

our panelists here today represent amazing organizations that represent millions of people all over the country who have been working to eradicate the scourge of the belief in human hierarchy, the consequences of that belief, and to make right and bring justice to this work. they also are part of a larger network of hundreds of community-based organizations all over this nation that the wk kellogg foundation has funded to do this work. they are going to share with you their perceptions of what to do to bring about change. they reflect the incollusion and power that is embodied in the charge that we have to work together as a nation to heal this nation.

not for those people or those people, but for all of us. if we just raise the average, if we just raise the income of people of color to the average income of whites, we would increase our gdp by $1.8 trillion, and that would translate into billions of dollars in corporate revenues. the blessings that would flow into this country will flow into this country when we have eradicated racism. those blessings are immeasurable, and that's where our focus has to be. the experiment, and that's what democracy is, it's a great experiment, it is a great experiment in human empowerment, but that experiment cannot survive without human equality and human equity in terms of opportunity, and so this is our

work, the works that we must do, and like the work of the civil rights movement, that work will be looked upon and emulated and embraced by other countries throughout the world if we heal our legacy of racial division, and message what that means for the rest of the world. we're very, very lucky to have an esteemed journalist and television news anchor, caroline sawyer who moderate the panel, and she's no stranger to our community of america healing, and she works with us in the past, and we're happy she agreed to join us, and i use the word "moderate" with courage and trepidation because it's going

to take energy in moderating this panel, but join me, please, in welcoming caroline sawyer. [applause] >> thank you so much, dr. christopher, an honor to be here in this initiative, important work, and we hope as i became familiar with the organization earlier this year, you, too, will become addicted to the mission and do whatever you can to make this world we live in a better world. i have a challenge here today. i have a distinguished panel, and about an hour and ten minutes to cover a large topic. we're looking at the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, but let me enter deuce -- introduce you to the panel, their names, organizations, and you'll hear about their work and mission as we continue this discussion, but let me start on the right, please welcome this morning miles rapport, the president of demos, a network

for ideases and action. next is the president and executive director of the applieded research center. and next to her is the co-director for the advancement project, and welcome, mark, the president of the national urban league incorporated, and welcome next to mark, the senior vice president for programs with the national council, and welcome ralph eve represent, the chief executive officer for joint center of prelim and economic studies incorporated, and sitting to my left is the president and chief executive officer of the asian and pacific islander american health forum. sitting next to her, welcome gordon whitman, who is the director of policy for the pico national network, and next to him is phillip, the executive director of the poverty and race

research action council. welcome. next to him is benjamin jealous, the chief executive officer of naacp. last, but not least, welcome to the panel, the national congress of american indian, yes, executive director, and we welcome you to the discussion as well. welcome to all panelists and to the audience, and we'll begin discussions, obviously, coming off a big weekend here in washington, d.c., and a historic follow to the anniversary of the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, and i know some were there, and we talked about it, but for those there, share with us your reflections from the weekend. you were there as well, mark. >> it was a great crowd, a glorious, beautiful day with a tremendous amount of energy. those of us from the beginning involved in the mobilization were grounded in a couple ideas.

number of one, 19633 was a collaborative effort by civil rights, labor, and faith organizations who came together under the leadership of a. philip randolph for that mobilization. this year, the mobilization, in fact, was a collaborative effort, and i think what you saw speaking from the lincoln memorial was a broad array of people there -- from all walks of life with focus on new america, on the new civil rights movement, on the framing of equity in the current context, and i think we're all keen to the frame against the backdrop of the supreme court's horrendous decision on section 4 of the voting rights act, and for many of us, the justice system's insufficiencies and disparities and need for reform laid bear --

bare by the trayvon martin case. i had a powerful day. what i was struck by was the number of young people, even children, and struck by the fact everyone was taking pictures because everyone has a phone and camera. [laughter] they'll be an ample record of this, and it's a game changer, for those of us here on stage, it's a time for us to use the energy created by the historic 50th anniversary to think ahead and not to simply be nostalgic, but we have to be inspired by that, but move ahead. a number of us released an agenda friday that frames some of what i call the go forward issues, and it's the beginning of what i hope is a broader, broader agenda. a powerful day, a wonderful day, and i feel privileged that the

national urban league, which was there in 63 was there in 2013. >> quickly. >> well, i, too, like marc, was struck by the energy that existed on saturday, and i -- it was a time for me, for reflection, having grown up in south carolina, and 12 at the time of the march, and remembering how far we've come, but what i was reminded of in this march with the energy in the young folks is how much work we still had to do, but i was -- it was really felt very good about the diversity of the crowd, number of people there, and two, that march, marched with young folks and babies pushed in strollers. it gave me new hope that the new generation will be able to

tackle all the problems we have existing. >> benjamin? >> sure. we were really pushed. the crowd that day was pushed. there were two court decisions in recent weeks. first being the u.s. supreme sue supreme court's decision knocking a hole in the voting rights act, and second was the decision in florida in the george zimmerman case, but also, there was in the context of rights attacked across the country, and the diversity of the crowd was reflected in the diversity of the speakers. it will be one of the most diverse marchs for freedom ever, and that diversity itself is reflective of there's decisions made over the past several years that the tea party rose up and governments become more aggressively, extremely conservative of all of us in

labor, civil rights, labor community, women's community, and so many other communities with attacks, and all houses lit on fire, we come together to adopt the motto of the three muse -- musketeers and be one for all. that's why north of here, in one year, the marriage equality act passed, dream act, extended voting rights, passed gun safety reforms, and abolished the death penalty. the state that is as drenched in the legacy of slavery and racial impression as in, a state that tubman escaped from that would have been the 18 # state in the confederacy if president lincoln had not taken extreme action to prevent that from happening.

that state, i think, and what the civil rights and human rights community has been able to achieve there in the last year should be a beacon for what's possible in the form of confederacy and, indeed, in the entire country as we move deeper into the century when it's not just people's colors demographic getting larger, but young people of all color rising up, rising into power, who are just more inclusive in the orientation than any generation we've seen before. >> let me bounce back to this side, a couple folks to jump in. >> sure. the hispanic community was engauged in the 1963 march in ways we don't even think about. chavez was galvanized to do all he did to support the his panic community because of the march because of martin luther king. our long time leader was a medic at the march in 196 p #, -- 1963, and he went on to do great things no doubt inspiredded by that day.

that march was about march in freedom, and today's march was about justice in jobs, i think, we have a lot to do in the area of justice, voting rights, immigration rights, work for the young people, wealth building for the communities. what struck me about the march was how all communities came together. mark, you talked about a new america, totally reflected in the march, giving us great hope as we look at the young people, and as we look at the demographics of today, about going forward together and changing this country for the better. >> one thing that i will remember from this march, definitely, is that women were on the stage. >> uh-huh. >> and speaking. this is women's equality day, folks should know, and, you know, i remember being in a planning meeting for this march, and i remember marc looking at the sisters in the room and saying, sisters will be on the stage this time.

that's important because women played such an important role in the movement, continue to play an important role, and i think of the women who just were phenomenal women, phenomenal sisters committed to the movement, but it was great to see the spectrum of women, young sisters, latina sisters, just, you know, we really did have the mix of women who are representing and doing hard work, rolling up sleeves for the movement, but the young people, young people were there because they know that what has happened to trayvon has happened to them. nay all know a trayvon, and so from this, we had a lot of

progress, but young people are ready for more. that's where the energy is now. this has been the summer of discontent, and people are ready to move for something bigger to be aggressive at it, and for us, we work to advance the project, and they were there in numbers, folks from florida that took over the state capitol in florida, and those young people are saying there's a different america coming, and we are going to make that happen. >> a couple moments really stood out for me speaking of women, one of the favorite moments was walking past the planned parenthood banner, i tweeted most of the march, and i was walking past the planned parenthood, and overhearing a couple women behind me, and one of the women, talked about the banner, and one of the women said to the other, she said, girl, you know they try to take away our birth control. [laughter] clearly, on the agenda for this

march, as any other time, and then the other thing, i did interviews with a lot of people, and one of the questions i asked them was when do you think we are going to achieve racial justice in this country, and when is that going to happen? there were three responses i got that really ran the spectrum. one was, i don't think we'll achieve fully, but we have to work towards it. the second was, i think that we'll only achieve it after more time has passed after slavery than we spent in slavery, so another 250 to 3300 years or so, and then the third response was sooner than a lot of people think because there's a pair dime shifting. it's important to hold reality. it's never going to come fully

and will take hundreds of years because we spent hundreds of years having slavery will the main show of american history, not a side show, but the main event, and that it's going to come tomorrow because we're working on making it come tomorrow, and we are making progress, winning things in new york, where i'm from, we're on the verge of ending the city's stop and frisk practice. it's going to happen no matter how much mayor bloomberg and commissioner keel diversity defend it, so holding on to our birth control and having the women's agenda being part of the agenda, the women's liberation agenda, and preparing for racial justice to be here tomorrow and for it to never to be here at the same time. >> yeah, so speaking to the diversity of the march and really the purpose of the american healing program, we've

really seen the growth in the diversity of the population, especially with immigrant communities expanding the population in the united states as a last 30 years and 50 years, and, really, the 2012 elections were, in many ways, a wakeup call to both parties, overwhelming response to both communities for how the election went, the president, a wakeup call about how important immigrant rights are and how much this group has certainly worked together around immigrant rights, around justice, language rights, and issues important to the country, and we hope unity shown not only through the march, but in the work we've been doing over the last many years will really see some immigration reform very soon. >> early on, marc pointed out the voting rights is a key issue

on the minds of so many people that, of course, this weekend, and we have seen the question put out there is, where do we go next based on this ruling? what is next? ben? >> well, folks right now are, you know, focused on three or four big things; right? get comprehensive immigration reform through. we have to get section 4 of the voting rights act restored, raise the minimum wage and perhaps higher than we have before. folks are focused on stand your ground laws, racial profiling, and the agenda that comes from the tragedies, and those are four big ones that seem to be in the front of most folks at that march yesterday, but, of course, there's a wider range of issues that we're continuing to support various movements in pushing

forward. i think we should have hope that we are -- we will, within our lifetime, see a real renaissance as far as power of movement from coast to coast. we're seeing it in various places, and we're winning more state battles to expand voting rights than losing them to constrict rights. we're winning in states we win and lose in states we lose, so the challenge, ultimately, is to get the entire country to the same place. >> ben started, and i want to go back and forth and hear each perspective from each organization. give me one or two key points on what's next now that we've seen the supreme court rulings on voters rights? >> two things. one, i mean, thing we have to really aggressively fight back against the negative things happening in the stream court cases and also in some states like north carolina. you know, awful things are happening, and at the same time, there's an incredible opportunity, you know, 50 years of advancement advanced us to

open up the voting process and get millions and millions of people register whether it's through state changes like same day registration, early voting, or through battles in the court to expand or utilizing tools that we have like the registration strags act. i'm with ben. there's a real opportunity over the next not so many years to expand the level of voting and change the character of the elector rats for good. >> briefly, you shared this morning another tactic in terms of utilizing the affordable health care act getting people registered. speak to that briefly. >> sure, the affordable care agent gives people public benefits, not just health care insurance, but also medicaid and children's health care is covered under the registration act and therefore all 68 million people who go through those exchanges over the next four or five years are required to be asked whether they want to vote,

and if the 68 million people take the opportunity, it's a huge seat change in what's possible. this is an opportunity not to be missed. >> you got two states committed to fully engage in the process? >> three states, actually. california, vermont, and maryland, and we were talking about maryland, all said that our exchanges will, in fact, register voters when they come to get their health benefits. it's a big deal. >> there's a three step process. one is legalization ragization for our immigrants who have been here for many years. after that, and hand in hand with that is voter registration, getting hispanics registered to goat, and finally, getting hispanics who are registered to vote to vote in off year elections and change the congress. if we achieve those three steps, this country will be a changed place. >> we saw in less than 30 days

what we predicted if the supreme court ruled away what happened. the attorney general of texas did not take time to read the decision before he announced he would implement legislation that had been declared discriminatory by a three judge panel of the federal courts. we saw north carolina move swiftly in order to pass draconian retrodepressive antidemocratic legislation. here is what is good. attorney general holder acted swiftly too. @ing resolve and resolve of the justice department to use remaining provisions of the vote rights act to protect democracy, and then private counsel like the advancement project and many, many others already mobilizing to use state

constitutional provisions, federal provisions, voting rights act to protect democracy. we need new strengthened armies of lawyers, new strengthened armies of activists, and we have to elevate the idea that we cannot allow the clock not turned back to ' 63, but this is a turn back to the old grandfather clause, and the old literacy test, a turn back to the kind of provision that happened in the post reconstruction period the late 1890s constitutional convention. we have to elevate that, a nation, which is involve the in democracy protection in the middle east. involved in democracy protection in places like afghanistan or

building in afghanistan, cannot be allowed to shore more responsibility to protect democracy at home. we have to say it in those terms. we got to elevate the conversation that it's not just a narrow question of what the law is. it's a bigger question of what democracy means in the # 1st century, and i think it's one of the issues where we have to draw a line in the sand, and we have to ask all to account on where stay stand. it's that important. these retrogreat depressions happen in a drip, drip, drip, there's a supreme court decision here. there's three states with bad laws there. there's another decision of another court here, and soon, you look up, and you lost tremendous ground. we have got to fight back now. >> getting kathleen in, and then back to you issue everybody will be in. i got you too, absolutely.

>> i just want to underscore what was said because if you think of those uninsured, people on medicaid, this is really an opportunity to get to communities that are traditional unfranchised, disenfranchised to get the vote and really act on the national voter registration act to be able to really shift, you know, according to what marc is saying to really shift the electorat and include more of our population that have been disenfranchised to experiencing economic injustices as well. >> let me get -- i'll come back to you, promise. >> great, thank you. >> no problem. >> i want to talk about to piece because i come from alaska, one of those states where we have challenges. in fact, they were looking forward to the supreme court decision so they could move forwardment since that time, they made decisions about eliminating voting places, you know, and they don't have early voting in the villages. 20% of the population is alaska

native, and 0% -- 20% turn a vote. that's from the rural communities, but rivers are not froze p enough to travel and you can't travel to those places and early voting is prohibited from them, all the sudden, that 20% is marginalized so we are, other than the hispanics, we're the only other population where the primary language is indigenous language, and without voting right protections in place, it substantially impacts american indians and alaska native whether it's in north dakota, south dakota, alaska, or many other places where we filed suit. those things are really important for us, particularly because of res like protecting our indian child welfare. we have a lot of particular unique laws that is through indian people, and we're having

the baby veronica case determined on the same day as the voting right supreme court case was the -- what we call the child back to the south carolina court and then south carolina court was out having any due process in place, and the south carolina court didn't even this the right of the child hearing to take place, and best interest of the child asked for the child to return from her father, her cherokee father to an adoptive parent. >> i followed that one as well. >> the shelby county case clearly opened the flood gates to what we see as a really aggressive role back of voting rights. ..

north carolina front and center. branches of the naacp and we're working very closely with folks there because north carolina was one of the places where it really has progressive voting loss and it was because there had been a movement there for years and they're able to secure really what was free, fair and accessible elections. but because now that state has been becoming progressive, this is the theory, north carolina is

a sign for the rest of the south. and if north carolina can become a progressive state with the rising demographics and a rising electorate, the rest of the south will go. so they passed legislation that would cut early voting. 70% of african-americans voted by early voting in 2012 elections. they have cut, they've also got same-day registration during the early voting period. already will be in place. the cutbacks the students. we have seen this happen, they're moving polling places, closing polling places where democratic voters were. and so we need to understand that this is the real fight, you know. it is, the voting booth is the one place where we are all people. on election day you walk into the voting booth. it doesn't matter if you're black, white, rich, poor, doesn't matter your race, sexual orientation. we are all equal. doesn't matter how much money. so that is what they're trying to make a difference to be able

to win. >> i want to thank you for getting some specific examples because i heard a national the l television host claim that he didn't understand what the -- [inaudible] was about having identification of polling places. i need to get -- [laughter] >> gordon philip, and then i welcome back to you. >> i'm going to echo what judy said what we saw last year that the effort to make it harder for people to vote, backfired. it helped motivate incredible turnout at incredible civic and gauge the. but. i'm thinking about a pastor in philadelphia, mark tyler, who did not hold his service on a sunday and sent people out to register people to vote. and only because pennsylvania had attempted and incredibly restrictive effort to restrict the vote. and i think we are in a huge fight. we have to be on the offense on a. we're very happy and pico is

working with advancement project and other groups on florida -- in florida on other efforts to re- franchise their estimate of 1.4 million formerly incarcerated men and women who were disenfranchised in florida, as well as many other states. we need to go on the offense. what's exciting about that is it's led by people who are directly affected. i think what we have an opportunity to do over the next few years, it's not just weekend, it's really, we're going to be celebrating incredible string of social accomplishments on both health care arena, medicaid, medicare, civil rights, to remind ourselves that change happen. and people most effectively directed online stand up, take the risk and lead. and it's combining that work local communities with the

national infrastructure. i'm thinking about john perez who led an effort, 19 year-old young man formerly incarcerated, 11 effort as part of a project in tampa bay -- california to convince his county not to expand their jail, even though they had a state funds to do that. take that money and put it into prevention, job training, job access. and when the newspaper story about that effort was written, johnny, 19 come if you told me that a year ago i would have, when i was sitting in jail in martinez that i would be outside leading an effort to prevent -- i would have said you're crazy. the district attorney said, i'm disappointed that there won't be

150 more beds that we have plan. so i think if the local work tied to the incredible infrastructure that really is going to get us a string of victories on voting rights, on jobs, on citizenship for everyone in this country. so i think we have a remarkable opportunity, but we do have a kind -- a ton of work to do. >> i love hearing your optimism. let me say since the people in the audience, i want to hear from them as well. we have invited him to fill out the cards and provide questions. my colleagues well actually sure those questions with the audience. i know he is on twitter, too. i'm not turning to you, philip. >> maybe for the last voting rights, the next word, one thing i was really proud about last year being part of this group in the largest civil rights community was the litigation that went on in the courts or the civil rights movement has

always been at its best moments about community engagement in the courts and the lawyers working together. and you know, i think that the pushback that we saw at the voter suppression last year was, to a large degree a function of some very exciting litigation brought by the advancement project, the naacp legal defense fund, the lawyers committee and others all across the south to pushback. and that was hand in hand with community engagement and mobilization. that's really often the path we've seen, litigation and the judicial system driving values and helping us to find balance and mobilizing the community. and actually think, you know, the shelby case was a disaster. the voting rights act took a big hit, but section two of the voting rights act is still alive and well, at least for now. i think what huge opportunity here while we're waiting for congress to act, to bring a

whole new wave of cases. i know it's already starting, judith. and i think that showed the best tradition of the movement with lawyers working together with the kennedy in that kind of two-way reciprocal relationship. and i'm looking forward to i think, i think the soothing -- silver lining in shelby, i don't want to go too far with that idea. >> there is? >> yes. >> hold that thought them. ralph, i promised we would come back. >> i will be brief. we are nonpartisan research organization, and one of the things we will do is provide the research and data on all the things that have been talked about to our state legislators to enable them to make the right decisions are things going forward. as i said, the voting rights is just so fundamental to all the things that we have been discussing here in terms of

making changes and making things happen. when the joint center for start in 1970, there were less than 1500 african-americans have been elected to any office. that number today is over 11,500, and that's in part, directly related to the voting rights at. as i said i grew up in south carolina and i had folks who died in order to get the vote. so what's going on now just hurts me very much, and i think we have to work very hard to make sure that people continue to have the right to vote. >> so, since i saw you all in asheville, north carolina, at the american healing conference can we have the verdict out of florida with trayvon martin. and folks have to wonder, what does it mean in terms of justice for trayvon? >> we had marches after that. what does that mean and how have you all individually or

collectively, organizations, look to i guess maybe the question has changed the outcome for black boys and young men as well as others. >> so, i think this moment really, for many of us personally, was a very difficult moment, when i'm sure many people can remember exactly where they were when they heard that there was an acquittal. and many of us have to support one another through hard moment, but now we've got to move to changing the outcome. and the outcome is not just about that case but it's not individualized outcome. it's about what happens for children of color generally in this country. and so i think we are seeing is a young people are galvanized around here and that is, there's so much duty in that because when you think by the civil rights movement and the role that young people played, the

role that snake played. the role those colors to display, even younger than that, those young people are galvanized. they are ready to move. so what we've seen, for example, the dream defenders in florida who right after, actually right after the killing took over the police department in sanford because days had passed and there was no arrest. and so after getting the unrest, they then moved onto the after the acquittal taking over the state capitol in florida. so what we've been doing is, over 31 days, young people stayed there. i had an opportunity to spend the night with them in the state capitol in florida and really start strategizing about what's next. let's turn this anger into a movement. and so what we've been doing is working with them and with the naacp in drafting what is trayvon's law. and it's got three components of it in florida. one of which is the repeal of

stand your ground. the second is, and which is really super, to end racial profiling in schools and on the street. and that means to stop what is happening in terms of suspension comfort things that really are about racial profiling. we have people who think like a george zimmerman in the hallways and classrooms of our schools, who are taking away opportunities to learn. so we want to change that. and lastly, how law enforcement acts with the guardian people. i think we're going to see this movement growing. it's not going to be just florida but it's pretty vision people have decided that this is their issue, that they're going to take it on. but what is important is that we give them the space to actually be able to do that. because their voices have to be heard. >> when i heard about the trayvon martin decision, as i was driving i picked up my cell phone, and i was stopped by the police. for using my cell phone.

with my children in the car. but i agree with everything judith has shared. i think, you know, many of us immediately, immediately asked the justice department to revise its investigation as to whether any federal laws were violated. the family certainly has civil remedies. we've got to galvanize, but i've seen ms. fulton on a number of occasions. and while she's conducted herself with a great deal of dignity, and strength and has made the rounds throughout the nation, and opportunity and on television, i see this mother in pain. and i see her in the other mothers paying around the nation, who have lost loved ones due to senseless violence. and i think the conversation has to include, not only the idea of

what we do to push comprehensive reform with the criminal justice system, stop and frisk, racial profiling, stand your ground, unfair sentencing processes and procedures, inadequately financed public defenders in the criminal justice system. but i also think that it's got to include a more candid conversation about what was referred to on saturday, violence in the community, where we have to assert ourselves because too many young people have died each and every day. that includes gun legislation. we've got to seize the moral ground on this issue, because we are losing more people to gun violence every year than we have lost in iraq, afghanistan. the numbers of young people who die right here in this country,

and the number of people who die, tell us what we lose in foreign engagements. it's a challenge and a problem. so i hope this is common these, whether it's voting rights are trayvon/george zimmerman, it's a time to wake up. it's a time, it's a wakeup call for all of us and a wakeup call for the nation. >> so, i think that's one thing is an inverted gave us a chance to talk about is how to define racism today as opposed to how we had defined it 50 years ago even. and i think that americans still think of all racism as being individual, overt, and intentional. so if it isn't a news hanging, or if george zimmerman didn't actually use the n-word when he was saying, oh, these people, they always get away, then many

people in the american public cannot recognize that activity, the shooting, the way that the police behaved in the aftermath of the shooting, what evidence they collected, what they didn't, the lack of interest. they don't recognize that as racism and lets someone said very explicitly racist hateful things. and what we need to pay a little more attention to in our fight is the notion of implicit bias, so it's really unconscious bias, unconscious racism, which is, which lives in the individual but also gets codified in our institutions through the practices, the things that we don't write down what are the unwritten rules, as was through the policies. and i think if we can take the opportunity to talk with our fellow and sister citizens and residents of the u.s. about how racism actually works, and that

it can be president even among -- present among good people. i'm guessing there are a lot of good people in the zimmerman situation, but even among good people and people who think of themselves as good people. we can cause a lot of racial harm. and we need to focus then on how to undo, how to interrupt those implicit biases and not just the very explicit kind, and how to create the kinds of protocols and practices and tools that get people to actually stop and think, not to go on the first assumption but to ask themselves a set of questions. whether it's in police departments are in hospitals or in schools that start to disrupt these biases that mostly were not aware of, but that do terrible damage, nonetheless.

>> working my way to ben, but you've got to jump in and talk about the implicit biases, talked briefly about it this morning. >> i don't want to get in the way of ben, but space i will get to him, i promise. >> in terms of rinku is put under how long will it take until we get to a better place, i think we have to look at the structure to see if we are reproducing disparity, intimidation and in this case implicit bias. one of the key structures we look out over and over again is racial and economic segregation and separation. and i think, you know, looking at the demand must solicit to mention the march 50 years ago, it wasn't just about jobs and freedom. it was about integration. why would the leaders of the march, racial integration, it wasn't just about -- it was

about ask says to opportunity but even more important, dr. king talked repeatedly about the way segregation led to implicit bias. it leads to racial stereotyping, misunderstanding, distrust, all the kinds of racial intolerance that tries what happened in florida. and so common there are many structures and policies that we have to look at that reproduce inequality and racial disparities that i think segregation is one of the key influences. we have more people living in concentrated poverty now than we did 30 or 40 years ago. it's increasingly a condition that we impose on black and latino families and children. and our schools are more segregated now than they were at the height of the desegregation movement. these are things that are coming in, we have a lot of faith in our young people. the march was very diverse.

america doesn't look like the march. we are still separated. priscilla policies that are separating people and leaving to distrust. the next generation coming up will be much more enlightened than we were as kids but they are still living in systems and structures that are going to lead to impose a bias and reproduce the same patterns we see. it's an inconvenient thing to talk about but i think it still has to be on the agenda like it was 50 years ago. >> ben, i told you i was going to get to you. as judith outlined the trayvon project and the initiative with three points. my question is, while you attack on a national level or would you have to attack it state by state such as repealing the stand your ground? what's the approach? >> it's a state-by-state. it's county by county, city by city. our job at the naacp is to build movements from the ground up. we are active online, active on

mobile. this afternoon i'l i'll turn in 1.7 million signatures to the u.s. department of justice calling for them to file civil charges against george zimmerman for filing trayvon martin's civil rights, which he certainly did. almost half a million signatures came in on cell phones, on mobile phones, young people primarily organized on their smartphones. since this tragedy we have played a decisive role in removing the chief of police in sanford, florida, and replacing them with someone who is the interest of the entire community. at heart, and he would be very strategic about getting that community back together. since the verdict, since the verdict we have played a critical role in delivering -- to outlaw racial profiling.

in the city and also put in place in the inspector general for the first time from the nypd. the only agency in new york city that had no inspector general. perhaps viewing major police department in the country that did not have one. and so we stay focused on wanting victories at a very pragmatic reforms that have a real impact on people's lives on the ground. trayvon's law, there will be a federal version to be sure. with this congress it would probably go about as far as the racial profiling act. so we will be focus on action to winning in the states where we can win. and quite frankly pushing in state even when we may not be able to win now, but we can, we will be able to win in the future. i think in that respect we have to take a cue from the voter id movement. base one for 1 10 years and in a tea party showed up and they started hitting homeruns.

in that respect we need to understand that after 30 years or so of devolution of power to the state, that in this century passing state legislation and again sometime county legislation will be as important as passing federal legislation. we are active in every state capital. we even have two branches in the state of alaska. and i think the most important thing for all of us, for all our neighbors, all the communities is to get organized. i tell people, i don't care whether someone she joined the naacp or some other group. you better join something because the reality is, in a democracy, there are two types of power. organize people in organized money. organized money only wins when people are not organized. >> organize people, they are not

the money part. i mean, one thing i just want to add is i think that this moment that we are in after the cinnamon verdict is we are in credulous. our communities are in crisis but our babies are being killed. you know, it's trayvon but it's jordan davis. i had an opportunity -- for those who don't know jordan davis star, he was the young men in the car who was playing his music apparently too loud for a white man. and the white man allegedly pulled out a gun, well, he did do that part, and killed him. eight shots for a young teenager in florida. and so for music i was being played too loud, he said he thought he saw again. and this -- saw a gun. when young black man can be shot

dead because their music was too loud. you know, i mean, this is the emmett till moment. and so for us we've got, as a committee, and it's not just young black men. it's a young black girls are being treated. it's not young people of color are being treated as a predator in our country. we have gotten away from the idea that they are our babies. and so if we don't know that this is, this is the 911 call, write, that we have to organize around, if we miss this moment, we can forget it. the racial justice moment will not come. because if we can't fight for our babies, have just for babies and allow them to live and to be treated as human beings, then what are we doing? and so i think this is the time when we've got to make the call. where people have got to do the organizing, and getting back to the old school organizing of the naacp, a sncc, of the farm labor

movement. we've got to get back to it. >> i totally agree. and it happened at the county level, city, county level, state level, federal level, and to hearts and minds because requires our culture to be engaged because we will have to connect the heart and mind. i was in oakland and went to see -- the oscar grant case which really pulled together the community in oakland in a way that we haven't seen in a long time. and that really spoke to the institutions and the systems that occurred that allow something like that to happen. and so you really did see, i appreciated the film makers work where he was saying that it wasn't about that he had a statement to make. he just was telling his story. but he told in a way that is really sensitive to the diversity in oakland, the way the community comes together and

the need for organizing, and how important that organizing is. because really is the life of our children and the lives of our families. and so, on all those levels, organizing, at the various levels, but also really nothing hearts and minds is such an important piece. >> i think what ryan did with this movie to really humanize oscar grant as a full person, as a human being, and all the complexity and how we honor trayvon martin. and that the challenge on us is to bring about thousands and thousands of conversations that are multiracial, that occur in local communities, where people talk about their own experience, where we have some on his conversations about who counts, what it's like to grow up and not be valued, and what the opportunity structures are.

and if that american conversation, which has to happen, and it has to get connected to what ben is talking about, really concrete changes in public policy, we've got to create political wills, public wheels. there's no reason why so many young people should be killed in cities across the country but it's not so many cities. most of the gun violence deaths are happening in 50 cities. and you know, we saw the sandy hook discussion opened up some conversation about violence, not because it wasn't racialized, because it didn't come with understanding of implicit bias in the way in which, we have to learn how to talk about race and how it works in our society, and would have to build political will to bring down levels of violence. we know how to bring down levels of urban gun violence. it's not hard. it just takes a lot of work and effort. we've got to put the wheel into

the. i think we do have an opportunity but we can't squander it. and it really starts with these conversations that lead to organizing, lead to change the local level state and ultimate with some big national policy changes we've got to bring about. >> and this is a fine step that the kellogg foundation is taking terms of starting this dialogue and conversation among all these groups. for so long so made journalists, to have your collectively to have this discussion, jacqueline, i know you want to get them. ralph, you would like the lady to go first. [laughter] >> i just wanted to say i think we learned a lot of lessons with a violence against women. we came together from all not that different communities, and we came together, you know, based upon the backgrounds on the issues but the conversation happened in our community, amongst and women come in the groups. we were organized and we had a message and were able to

accomplish it. even though we got a violence against women act reauthorized, that the conversations having ended. we've learned a lot from each other. i think we should look at that as a lesson. and i think also another event not too long ago where some of us were in switzerland. ..