these things. i think ultimately future generations pay that price. >> host: finally matt kibbe your second book is coming at april 15 i think you said 2014. what is the title and what's it about? >> guest: the title is don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. i'm trying to get at those basic values that i think connect a new generation of americans who want to see less centralization in washington d.c. and less outsourcing to third powerful parties and just get back to those basic american principles. >> host: matt kibbe freedom works president and ceo of freedom works.org is the web site. thank you for your time.

that's former secretary of state hillary clinton discusses recent international affairs including china and the syrian civil war. she spoke with chatham director robin niblett and was awarded the 2013 chatham house price for her contribution to international diplomacy and her work on gender equality. from london, this is about an hour. [applause] [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen welcome to chatham house. thank you very much for joining us today. before anything else as i said secretary clinton please make sure you have your phones on. it would be ashamed to be

peeping through this and it would be a shame also for you to interfere with the microphones to please make sure you have them switched off. i don't usually say it but -- >> please don't walk out on me. [laughter] >> he will be spotted if that is donegal. now let me say it's my great honor to welcome hillary rodham clinton to chatham house. welcome to institute. it's a pleasure to welcome you here not just have a conversation with us but as winner of the chatham house price 2013. [applause] >> thank you very much. i just want to say what i like about our prize even though airport gets sometimes a little nervous is that it is from a selection of candidates nominated by her research programs and presidents and their members vote. the members are here so it makes it a very special prize.

as you know it was given to you for your great significant contributions to diplomacy but also in this is important to you as well your role on women and girls and equal opportunities for them in the world. this evening we want to celebrate the award of the prize in a formal event which lets us have an informal conversation today and i'm just very glad you are so kind in an off the record format at chatham house to have this conversation today. we can go anywhere so what i'm going to do is start off by just kicking off with a few questions that i will ask. hopefully i will leave a whole bunch of things out. people are argued putting their hands up. this is a very bad sign. [laughter] hang onto for 20 minutes or so. we have got time. i probably won't take more than 20 minutes. hopefully i won't take up all of your questions and i will do a fair amount of filibustering so the cameras will be required as well.

we can go in many directions not the least because they think you kind of played two very fundamental roles as secretary of state. strategically and i think the the rebalanced let's use that phrase for american foreign policy the middle east in particular to the asian-pacific was clearly one of the strategic calling cards of your tenure as secretary but you are also involved very much in the trenches and having to make last-minute calls, tough calls to the process which is the job of the secretary of state but to a blended those two things that we can therefore in our conversation talk about grand strategy with u.n. could end up talking about some of those tough calls you had to make as we go along and i hope we we can drop the insights of your experience for the future and not just for how things went during that time. we will kick off their fur were the big question. when you took up your position as secretary of state and this is one of your calling cards

that phrase you used that there were questions about the future of america's global leadership in you wanted to be able to renew the commitment to the tools of diplomacy and engage with allies etc.. today if i look at the world i would say america powerful country easily the most powerful shale gas military bases all over the world strong alliances and allies. at the same time we have shut down. we have got the nearly but not the serious vote. i would say fears outside of the u.s. of a near isolationist instinct creeping into the body politic and you feel america still plays by its own rules. the prism intelligence gathering was in conferences keeps coming up in america's role. with that is the setup do you think america has the capacity and cannot play a leadership role when he took office four years ago?

the first robin let me thank you and thank the members of chatham house for this very moving award. i am a fan of your work and i appreciate greatly the float of the membership on my behalf and i think the question is one that has a very simple answer can't go yes. america's leadership remains not only preeminent but necessary that the world in which we live poses new challenges to all of us on an ongoing basis. that requires a level of strategic thinking and execution that starts first and foremost back in the democracies that we represent. so i would never criticize my country out of my country but let me say that it is distressing at any point to see

a political system that has weathered so many crises over centuries now being caught up in what are very unfortunate partisan disputes. however underlying them are questions about america's direction at home and abroad and i am confident that we will work our way through this latest challenge as we did that during my husband's administration in 1995 and early 1996 but i think there is an underlying concern and it's not only in our country because we didn't take a vote that you did that raises issues about what are our responsibilities? how do we project power in the

21st century century which is both traditional forms as well as new so-called soft or what i like to call smart power cliques those are the base of society says they have not just inside the government offices. i'm looking forward to talking and specifics with you but i think it's too fair -- fair to say that the concerns that we have to be aware of when we look at the international position of the united states has to really come from a wellspring of effective decision-making at home and that's economic and social growing inequality, the sense that in the united states and in europe there is an ongoing debate about how we continue to provide the best services at the most affordable cost to our

citizens because that after all is really the core of what we can do around the world. i am confident that i think the debate we are having is one that requires very serious analysis and thought. >> doesn't cramp the style of the secretary of state the fact that this domestic dimension is so powerful today. we have got publics being battered by a global financial crisis by at least not good handling of key crises in iraq and afghanistan how they are managed. therefore the room for scope for leadership is minimal. presidents or prime ministers find that they want to take the lead. the role of the secretary of state has been quite a difficult one in terms of being able to follow through. how do you find that role as a secretary of state in particular? p. i didn't find it difficult. i found it very challenging

because of course i took office with president obama -- when president obama was sworn in the myths of the economic crisis and i think it's easy for many to forget how close the world came to a much more serious long-lasting economic recession even depression. i think it was something that required american leadership. i'm certainly aware that some of the reasons for it lay in american financial decision-making and perhaps lack of regulatory oversight but the fact is that when i came into the position the president and i talked very openly with each other about how important it was for me to get out around the world at that moment making it clear that we have confidence and we were going to recover while the president had to deal with the congress and the immediate effects of the

economic crisis. that is basically what i did for much of of the first-year starting as you say by going to asia which was unusual if not unprecedented for the american secretary of state but it was an important message to send in part because china which to this day has heavily invested in american debt was raising questions and wondering about the decisions that would be made by the new administration. there was a feeling that because of the war in iraq and the aftermath of 9/11 and then of course afghanistan the united states had shifted attention away from asia and that was of concern to a lot of our allies. and in europe there was also a worry that the contagion of the

economic crisis plus what was felt to be a less than ongoing level of attention from the prior demonstration. i went to asia and i came to europe and came in part to consult and hear out what people had to say but also to convey a message that we were looking at the entire world. of course we will always be concerned about the middle east. we had a war in a wind-down and we had a war to try to resolve. that was very much on the forefront of the national security agenda. we wanted to get back into a more cooperative consultative role with our allies and partners and partnering to send messages to others. >> is pointed out the trip to asia and the world that you played in the rebalancing of the foreign-policy in balance

towards the asia-pacific. you mention china and pushing its strategic and economic dialogue and had a strategic partner that that which was important at the same time you were forceful advocate for your ac on allies in southeast asia and the philippines singapore etc. in and other countries there. how do you balance the positive message to ozzy on allies to china but who has seen the morrissey -- area. did you feel this with the chinese leader's? b. there were concerns on the part of the chinese over what this meant. but when i planned that first trip and presented the strategy to the white house i wanted to

integrate what were different strands of our environment. there is a very strong argument that a rising china has to be the central focus of american foreign policy in the asia-pacific and increasingly even globally. the hope being that do that kind of involvement as bob zoellick said we could move towards china becoming a responsible stakeholder. there were traditional allies. we have treaty alliances with japan and south korea and thailand south korea and australia and there was a feeling on their part that we needed to be much clearer about what american interests will be in the 21st century that we were a resident specific power that we have obligations and we needed to more forcefully present those. and then there were the asean

countries some of whom he had alliances with but which was a much larger group that was looking to try to figure out how to do their own balancing. what i said was i didn't think you could pick among those choices. you have a more comprehensive approach partly because we have existing obligations but also because it seemed to me as we charted our course forward with china we wanted china to realize that we were in the pacific to stay. the rate they are not as an interloper but as a participant. therefore we wanted to become more involved in the regional organizations on that first trip. i went to jakarta and signed a memorandum saying that the united states would move toward the treaty of amity and cooperation, something we, something we have ever done but something that was very important to the asean nations and indeed in china began what

was a very candid conversation and i think there were certainly some areas of disagreement. we know about china's historical interest taiwan and tibet which they race with the united states their sensitivity that human rights all of which were on the agenda. but then we were looking through this new vehicle that the strategic and economic dialogue to take what hank paulson had done on the economic side with tim guyton or and i working together to expand the discussion because i think the chinese would have been very happy to stay focused on the economic issues and early 09. part of that was you were going to get your house in order argue to make sure our investments in your dad are good ones but also we wanted to bring investor t. chick.

there's a long list claims of the south china sea and claims of the east china sea. the complex that have occurred over assets and potential resources with vietnam and with the philippines and the back-and-forth arguing with japan. the continuing threat posed by north korea which is a very much of a chinese problem. and potential -- potentially a solution so we wanted to broaden the aperture so we were just talking about current evaluation. we wanted to have a broader discussion and we wanted it made clear that the united states was was there to stay. >> there was a moment that you must have wondered if this would hang together. it struck me as remarkable moments as secretary of state was china there was a few moments in 2012 when device may or gave himself up to the u.s.

embassy in beijing which had to handle in a particular way in three or four months later cheng kuan shang had to be rescued and that was just before your next strategic economic dialogue. can you give us a feel if you can for how you managed to approach this? the well it's always a challenge when things that are totally unexpected happened. i like to have these virtual inboxes in my head. the immediate screaming crisis, the brewing crisis in the long-term crisis. i also try to keep a big box of opportunities. it is a great example of the way i think the expanded strategic and economic dialogue helps us resolve to very difficult issues. because what i try to do in the

dialogue was to really embed in the governments of both of our country's issues so that there was a lot more interchange. i came to believe that the chinese for their own reasons and because of there own way of governing believed that somewhere in washington there is a master plan about what we intend to do to try to control their rise. i see my friend kevin sitting in the front row. he and i have talked about that endlessly. they really do because they have plans and they have all kinds of processes and they have never understood that just like quality of american government and democracy. [laughter] so you know what i try to do was begin to strip away some of the misconceptions. we do have views. we have interest and we have values that we are not opaque.

we want to share with you and we want you to begin to share more with us. when as you say the right-hand police chief showed up in in the consulate conquered not in the embassy competition is up at the consulate asking for asylum because his story which was quite dramatic about him knowing that he had killed one of your countrymen, he did not fit any of the categories for the united states giving him asylum. he had a record of corruption of thuggishness brutality. he was an enforcer for bushy live. they may have had a falling out and now he was trying to somehow get his way to a place of safety but on the other hand the consulate was quickly encircled by other police who were either

subordinate to bushy live or are looking to curry favor. it was becoming a very dangerous situation. what we did was to tell him that we did not move into the consulate and there was no grounds on which we could offer that to him but he kept saying he wanted to give the truth to beijing. he wanted the government in beijing to know what was happening so we said we could arrange that. indeed that is what we did and we were very discreet about it and did not try to embarrass anybody involved in it. but try to handle it in a very professional manner which i think we accomplished. fast-forward -- i get called late one night about chen who has escaped from house arrest quite remarkably

since he is blind. had broken his foot in the escape had been picked up and was seeking asylum in our embassy in beijing and was on his way there. of course we knew of his courageous history of dissident activity and we knew he was a self-taught lawyer who had very bravely taken on the one-child policy of china suing local officials and others for their behavior. it was as you say a week before annual strategic and economic dialogue meeting this time in beijing. i was very well aware that this would be an issue in the relationship but i also believe that this was an example of american values, that this was a man who yester served american

support and attention and protection. so lots of back-and-forth as you can imagine and then i finally made the call and they said we are going to send their people out to go and pick him up. there was a rendezvous. we got him into the embassy got him medical treatment for some of his injuries and you know then had to tell the chinese government that you know we were offering hospitality to one of their citizens and would love to talk to them about it. campbell who was my assistant secretary for asian and pacific affairs immediately got on a plane. we were fortunate that herald company the head of my legal department compound and incredible international lawyer with his own history of dissidents. his father was unable to return

home from his position at the u.n. because of the coup in korea so he had a feel for this. we tracked him down. he was one of our strategic economic dialogue working group so we got people to the embassy and they began talking with mr. chen and then they began negotiating with their chinese counterparts. this is a long story and i don't want to take all of our time but it was a very touching touch and go situation. we were able to negotiate with the chinese. safe passage for his family. he hadn't seen one of those children in quite some time to beijing. we were able to negotiate an agreement that he could attend college something he really wanted to do and he didn't want to leave china. he loves china and the also very much believes that if he could just get his story to the upper

echelon of the chinese government they would agree with him because so much of the mistreatment he experienced was at the hands of local and regional officials. our team did a great job to go shooting this. he needed further treatment so he left her embassy totally voluntarily. he called me from the van on the way to the hospital and said if i were there and it would kiss you and i said i'm very happy you are so happy. >> that's a tactful answer. >> so we got into the hospital and his family showed up. rightfully they were saying are you sure you can trust the chinese government and are you sure they are not going to throw you in prison? this was a man who had been under a lot of stress and he began saying i'm not sure, i'm not sure. he tells us i don't think that's a good deal make you negotiated.

yes, i know. i said excuse me? i mean really. so what would you like? he said i like to go to america. okay. after saying no, no. so we worked out an arrangement that he could go to new york university to study assuming we could get a second agreement with the chinese. this is where i think all the work we put into this, all of the incredible planning and one-on-one meetings and very candid conversations that i gave jen with my counterparts and others did with tears because i had to go to the counselor and i have to say this is in your interest in this is in our interest and there has to be a way we can work this out. his first responses we never want to talk about this man again with anybody and we can't go back into negotiations. i said we have to.

we need to start now and we need to get this resolved by the end of our meetings. we did it in a way that really i think the allocated the kind of arrangement and they almost daily work that went into it. the final thing i would say about it which was very touching to me -- this was really touching. one of the things that i was asked to do because i still had meetings on my agenda agenda with president who gentile and premier wen jimbo and they said please don't mention this and we will try to work this out. so i did and then we had very formal predictable kinds of meetings and then we were having an offense of our people-to-people exchanges. again i know a lot of foreign-policy experts say really? that's like frosting on the cake and what difference does it make? put on your formal to the

meetings. i can tell you at at that the people-to-people you sent there was a young american man who was studying in china and a young chinese woman who was studying in the united states and we have picked them out to speak to the group she in english and he and mandarin about their experiences in each other's country. i am convinced that helps to convince the chinese government that we would do this deal. i said in my prepared remarks this is what the future should be about, young people like us working together understanding each other better visiting and finding common ground. that is what we should be looking for. and so later that afternoon we were able to make the deal and mr. chen and his family were able to leave but i think it was part of a broader story not just a one-off. >> i think the story which is fascinating is as you said an

absolute example of that thickening of relationships and what diplomacy is about. diplomacy is to get to them you have to go through such a process of confidence building. >> we are such an impatient people these days. this seems like it's just you know a comment about politics. but dole slow boring. it seems like it just goes on and on and the tenth meeting and the 18th dinner and in a way i think it's more important to show up today than it used to be because everybody knows you can communicate via technology without showing up. people would say to me all the time what are you traveling all over the place for? part of it was we had repair work to do to be very blunt that part of it was we had some relationships to build and they are worth investing in because you never know what might come

from them or what you might stop coming from them. yet i think in part because of the feeling and i will speak for my own country this is frosting on the cake. fine if you can do it but not necessary and i think it's baked into the cake so to speak. if you don't do it you will not really understand what is possible in such a complex fast changing world like the one we have. >> in the u.k. there has been a rediscovery of the importance of the human component of diplomacy alongside something you've pushed as well the social media and the connectivity. if you don't do some of that it becomes difficult to deal with crises which is a core part of the job. i have the bunch of questions on the middle east which i'm not going to tackle right now. members will have a chance to ask questions. as i sat down i will have to take this question first but i

will take hands and i will try to do my best. i will get to everyone. i will do my best but maybe we'll do one of the time and i would use my discretion. just a quick point. [inaudible] bleak face instability in the pre-election time. thanks to your huge efforts and president of, we managed to overcome these obstacles. since this time there have been huge crimes in previous regime's highest officials. [inaudible]

not to be blamed for the political persecution. >> question? >> the question is at the same time the government -- for the sake of democracy and rule of law those responsible need to be brought to justice. madam you are greatly appreciated and respected and i would be really grateful if you could tell us your views how we should tackle these obstacles that clearly are a way to building a healthier democracy or xp what you take that one straight up if you wish. >> i think you have got a very challenging dilemma facing georgia and you have summarized it well because the progress that georgia has made in the last now nearly 20 years is

quite remarkable and many of the people who contributed to that progress are currently out of office and you have a new government that understandably wants to continue the progress and figure out the best way to do that. i can't give you the kind of easy answer that would say x or wimax because there is so much writing on how you navigate through these next months in terms of your stability, in terms of whether or not you can as you say protect the rule of law without undermining a lot of the progress that has been made. that takes a lot of very careful thought that has to be depersonalized. you have to think not of the

people who you believe may have broken laws but think about the positions that are currently being held by the new government and whether pursuing prior officeholders is going to consolidate democracy or rip the country into a lot of pieces. you know what i would ask you to do is to try to avoid personalizing it and instead try to in effect analyze what would be in the best interest of georgia in five years, 10 years, 15 years because for every person you say wants you to do something there is a person who thinks it would be very unfortunate if you did and you have to sort that out.

there is truth and reconciliation commission models. there are other kinds of inquiries that could make things public so that it would serve the purpose of transparency but not create the kind of instability and maybe even complex that could undermine the democratic project in georgia. >> i've got about 12 people. >> hello madam secretary. hughes spoke nicely about the jazz quality of american foreign policy and in syria one would think a bit more as a 12 tone scale. i wondered if you thought that the deal however it was reached on chemical weapons was irrelevant to the real problem which is the civil war or

whether you think it actually can be a step towards resolving its? thank you. >> i think at this point it can be and should be a step forward in resolving it. and i do think it on its own has merits, or routing or at least fully a knowledge in and trying to contain serious -- syria's is important for the ongoing civil war but also the potential dangers to neighbors that can be put into the category of a positive outcome of the ongoing negotiations. now series is in part such a dilemma because there have not yet been a willingness on the part of the russians to really push the saudi regime, that the

iranians to reign in their own support for the syrian military, the opposition to organize itself sufficiently to present a united front that would provide negotiators on the syrian side so the fact that russia and the united states and the rest of the world have cooperated on this chemical weapons in denver i think is a plus for beating in the geneva ii negotiations. i negotiated geneva one and it was a roadmap for a transition. sarah sarah j. laff ruff was there and he agreed to it. i know he left the room and made a secure phonecall to the authorized to agree to it and it was our understanding that he would take that inhabits somehow blessed by the security council

so that it would have been an premature to start of the syrian groups which included members of the security council but the broader community. and that did not happen and it didn't happen in part because i think that the russians were not yet ready and assad was not ready to make that kind of commitment to a process and the process would be a transition process away from him. but you know time has passed. more terrible things have happened. the refugee numbers are skyrocketing. jordan is under tremendous pressure. turkey is doing an excellent but strange job trying to deal with all of those refugees. you have iraq playing a role on the side of iran and assad that is quite troubling. lebanon has all kinds of challenges so you go around the region in d.c. that we are not

in a stable situation. we are in a continually deteriorating situation. so i think that this level of cooperation actually just wanted nobel prize so obviously people see it as something worthwhile but it can lead to a better outcome at geneva ii which might lead to a political resolution. you have two big problems. problems. used alone have an opposition that controls very much and you have these increasingly well-armed militancy that answers to others of the syrian people which will be the spoilers unless they are reined in. we are a long way from seeing some kind of positive outcome but i think the chemical weapons piece is a big step. >> can you have a credible part of your position which you will need for negotiation without that credible part continuing to

be better armed? you that a year plus ago general dempsey. that was then and people are saying now is now. we have lost the momentum. can you actually have a credible positive situation without backing them? well look its public information that i pushed very hard to have a mission on the part of the united states and others to try to work with credible opposition to help them gain some credibility with the other rebels and you know that did not happen. i still think there is an

opportunity to do that and there is some work publicly known that this proceeding but what is missing is a leadership to rally around and then to really work in a concerted way to support both their political track and their military track. if i were in syria and leaving some small group from my village and three others i would want to follow someone who yet had a vision for a syria that would be appealing to me post assad but i wouldn't trust that leadership if there weren't some guys with weapons that would back it up because there are a lot of other guys they are with those assets. i think you have to have an opposition that is not just talking but have some strength behind their position. >> okay.

>> jeremy green stuck chairman of -- madam secretary. thank you for the frankness of which you are talking this afternoon. i wanted to ask you about the international institutions and whether you feel that strong enough for strategic purposes and global cooperation. do you worry that international diplomacy is becoming too ad hoc >> i do think part of the reason international diplomacy is ad hoc to a certain degree is because the international institutions have difficulty moving quickly on a number of strategic fronts. and i am one who thinks that if we didn't have the united nations we would have to invent

it. we need the role that the united nations place which is absolutely critically important for all the obvious reasons but it is difficult to get controversial action done quickly within the security council and that is why people go ad hoc. eventually they try to circle back and that's what happened with chemical weapons. couldn't get a security council resolution on tougher singh shuns, on the assad regime and possible article vii actions in the absence of pulling back and from all the rest you know so well that that's in everybody's interest. if if you are russia or china or the united states you don't want syria to have a big chemical weapons stockpile.

so you seize this opportunity and they agree and we go forward. i think that everyone that i have spoken to about the international organizations know there have to be reforms and know that there has to be kind of a new global social contract for the 21st century but it's difficult to actually put that into operation. so you have the imf and you have the chi 20. you have got the united nations and regional organizations so it looks like an alphabet soup but properly managed there are benefits to each of those but nothing will replace a more global framework. it would be to everyone's benefit if we could put our heads together and go back to bretton woods to figure out what does it look like for the 21st century and go back to san francisco and say what does the

u.n. look like for the 21st century? i don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon but it's something we should definitely consider. >> i'm trying to move around the room a little bit as well. >> thank you madam secretary for joining us. i want to take you back to leadership. there is a lot of conversations i have had -- our allies are nervous about a weaker america and perhaps take it vanish up what they see as a weaker america -- america. perhaps to use the terminology a leading leaving from behind our meeting together more of a multilateral type of leadership. i'd be interested in your views on a new strategic vision?

is this a new type of leadership that obama is trying to achieve? is it a little bit more of a haphazard ad hoc -- >> at deafness he thanked both president bomb and myself believe that there should be responsibility and more multilateral meeting on a range of issues. that is certainly been an approach that is deployed in several instances. but i don't think that means that we don't recognize and accept our primary responsibility in any of those settings. libya is an example. europeans came to the united states and said we have to do something about this. the arab league came to the united states and said we have to do something about the seminar were sponsors while what

he going to do about a? we are here to ask you what you are going to do in our responses we want to know what you are going to do. you know that sounds funny but the first time there has been any kind of partnership between nato and air countries. and it was the first time where the united states said we have certain assets that are uniquely ours and we will to play those. you have assets that you should deploy. i thought that was an appropriate way to respond to a problem that was certainly important to us but critically important to a lot of our allies. i think we can look at the kind of leadership in a way that is described as network which i like for a lot of reasons including anne-marie slaughter

it was my director of policy and planning wrote a very influential article about the move towards leadership in the world. it's one of the reasons i asked her to join me at the state department because it's not only round of the usual suspects. there are other organizations and entities that have responsibility and that's true not only in foreign policy but it's true and development policy where what we are doing now is trying to put together networks and partnerships to solve problems that government alone and even international organizations alone would not be as effective in doing so. i just came out of the clinton global initiative in new york which was really born out of my husband's insight when he left the white house. they were so many different players now in in the world you you who had a role that could contribute to solving primarily

development problems that we needed a vehicle to get them together to make commitments to do so. i think the same is true on the security side as well. we are never going to deal with the problem of cybersecurity and lessers of partnership between governments and we are never going to be able to deal with a lot of the trendline problems compound whether it's terrorism or poaching for human trafficking without having a broader network of invested players and leaders. so i don't know that it's some kind of a new philosophy. it's more a recognition that is the way the world is evolving. if we want to stop elephant poaching and murdering and africa you have to use social media to inform patients that the elephant has to be killed in

order to get it so you begin to engage citizens as themselves a chance as well as principles principles in making these decisions. >> i'm going to start grouping questions a little bit because i've a number of people waiting. i haven't gotten to the back of the room so let me take the lady at the checkered skirt -- checkered shirt and a gentleman sitting next to her next. go ahead company you first. >> i'm from the guardian. do you think that's right that there is a proper debate about the oversight of the u.s. and u.k. intelligence agencies? speeches so we know where we are. the lady next to him. >> madam secretary amy kellogg from "fox news." i'm curious to know what you think --

>> it's a well-known new station. [laughter] c. i love the idea that the guardian -- i'm just having a moment here. i am curious to know what you think about the new momentum in terms of the u.s. and iran and these moves that happening day by day and the developments that look like there could be some kind of -- possibly in the not-too-distant future? >> these are both very important questions and robin says i need to talk quickly. [laughter] on the intelligence issue look we are democracies thank goodness both the u.s. and the u.k. and we need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done and how to do it in a way

that is as transparent as a candy with as much oversight and citizen understanding as can be. and i think that has to be you know the sort of framework because within that framework there are some things that i know from my own experience as a senator and as a secretary of state that are critical ingredients in our homeland security and in helping to protect people in other countries as well. and i also know that at least speaking of the united states much more personal information about many more americans held by dissidents in the united states and by your government so how do we -- [inaudible] this is a new problem. it's a problem that's a little more than a decade over the capacities have corresponded with increasing our reach to consumers on the business side

and increasing concern about security on the government side. people need to be better informed but i think you know it would be going down a wrong path if we were to somehow reject the importance of the debate and the kind of intelligence activities that genuinely keep us safer so i am all for opening up a more vigorous discussion about it. with respect to iran i think it's too soon to tell that there has been no change in policy. there has been no response to the outstanding offer by the p5+1 two years ago now so when kathy ashton brings together the p5+1 negotiating group in geneva next week i will be most interested in hearing if the iranians are putting any meat on

the bones of their hope that there can be a negotiation that leads to a resolution that is satisfying to them and acceptable to us. i think we don't have anyway of knowing that yet. >> coming down to the front now. two questions. would you come upfront please? >> madam madam secretary a presenter with bbc news. can i ask you to reflect on the changing leadership particularly the new vulnerabilities and i go back to what you mentioned in geneva in february 2011 about the new nervousness the fact that the level of connectivity and no one can hide now. whether you are democratically-elected country or elsewhere and you mentioned the work he was doing with the state department.

there are enormous changes happening to incredibly quickly including disruption of leaders believe leadership should be enacted. what are your reflections now? >> that's a fabulous question and it deserves a chatham house process. you know one of the things that i have learned over the years is watch the headlines and keep your eye on the trendlines decodes the trendlines are often much more important and the inner interconnectivity along with the interdependence is very much on my mind because the benefits are quite remarkable but so are the dangers and how we balance that is one of the challenges of leadership. more transparency can help to fight corruption, can make information more readily available to people.

alec roth is my ally in promoting internet freedom which we believe is the speaker's corner in hyde park something that just has to be embedded in the global consciousness that we have also seen more sophisticated use of government power to interrupt internet usage to target dissidents and opposition figures so we are in a formative period the outcome of which is not yet clear. i think it's imperative that government democracy and governments who value free speech and open debate really unite in trying to protect the underlying values and that is going to be one of the most difficult questions that will

face leaders in the next few years because of a concerted effort by a more closed more controlling societies. when you talk about leadership i think it's a great device for learning more about what's going on but it also can be a device that interferes with making tough decisions. you know if you are only watching how many followers you have on twitter or whether people who are responding like you or not that could very much creates static in the decision-making process. we have got to get back to really looking clearly has the underlying values that undergird our societies and our government and not get diverted by the

constant back-and-forth of the debate. use it for informing people and informing yourself but don't use it as an excuse not to make hard decisions. >> i'm going to take -- i'm going to ask three people. he will take them as you can based on time and i'm going to apologize. this gentleman here has been waiting patiently. >> rush just arrested. [inaudible] what would you advise them to try to get them released? >> i will he reflect on that for a second. i don't offer to screaming or a

loudly screaming one. [laughter] see madam former secretary at him no-caps is born london as it is today. [inaudible] do you think turkey and erdogan himself as prime minister is being kicked off sides? >> the young lady has been waiting here. come to the front. let me say quickly i apologize. >> i would like to ask you there are many women in saudi arabia arabia -- what would you like to save them

and you think what these women are doing would lead to a change? [applause] >> we have got that in the last question. >> on the piracy issue there should be a much greater international outcry over the russian arrest and charging the greenpeace activists with piracy. this is both on the merits an issue that needs to be resolved. i know a lot of governments are intervening and speaking out. ..

i participated in the arctic counsel which is three nations and we began working on agreements, like and search rescue in the arctic, oil spill recovery. this is one these issues that is -- people are going wake up in a couple of years and there's going to be all kind ever things going on. people are going to say, why didn't we do something about this? and the fact is, yes, countries have jurisdictions in their coastal waters, and they ask enforce their laws. there needs to be more work done

on the riewlts of the road -- rules of the road, to speak, in the rules of the arctic. with the changes in the environment, it's going, an increasingly trafficked part of the world. we had a great agreement in the 1950 on the antiarctic which preserved different issues in the arctic. i think there needs to be go back to the u.n. question. there needs to be an more intense effort to support the arctic council and international bodies in helping to make the rules. >> okay. i think that prime minister was a very strong supporter of the syrian uprising, but as i'm sure you know he had other challenges at home that he had to deal with. but among them were his ongoing efforts with the kurds inside turkey, and some of the activities of kurds in syria began to complicate that. and there's also, as you know, a

large alawite population in southwestern turkey. that began to complicate it. everybody has politics. [laughter] it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. his politics became much more challenging for him. i think he remains a strong voice for the humane treatment of refugee. i think what turkey has done in receiving so many syrian refugees and putting them in conditions that were above what might have been expected for refugees had renounce his credit. i think he's got to sort out a lot of different challenges. he i think remains committed but without a water-base on which to operate, i don't think you're going see him doing more than he's doing right now. and i think that that is unfortunate. i think if there were more

movement at the same time a greater international effort he might have been to be participate and lead more effectively. on the saudi women driving. i'm all for it. [laughter] and i think that, you know, it is an issue that is symbolic, as you know very well. it is also, from my friends, who have lived in the kingdom saudi, nonsaw did i alike. it's a major hassle not to be able to go anywhere. to go shopping, to see your mother, drive your kids somewhere. just imagine. you can't do anything without having a driver -- assuming you can afford a driver or having a male relative who has to be around to drive you places. in today's world it's just hard to even rash lose. i'm hoping there will be a decision made to begin to let

women drive, and, you know, if there has to be some kind of phasing in of women drivers, you know, some sort of face-saving way neighbor could be -- neighbor can be worked out. it needs to be happen. it would be an important step for the people not just women, saudi arabia becoming more exeat five -- competitive and integrate to the modern world. >> again, my apology for the people's questions i didn't take. i looked you in the eye. i know, that. and i didn't get there. we got -- if i may say so. ic a mast -- [inaudible] that's fantastic. both conceptual and practical. and -- [inaudible] as well.

i think from my opinion it makes you -- [inaudible] [laughter] thank you very much for coming. for asking great questions. for those i didn't get to, please stay in their seat. i was told i would be in big trouble if i went over. and i did. please, secretary clinton. [applause] former speaker of house died today after serving 30 years in the house. including more than five as speaker. he also served as u.s. ambassador to japan. former president george george h.w. bush said in a statement, quote, he always fought for his principles. he was well-informed and well-reasoned. tom never got personal or burned bridges. former speaker of the house tom foley was 84. grncht for guys like us in the game far long time. we know there are land mines out there. you have to be careful about how you manage your way through

these things. issues to deal with the abortion issue in the united states. guns, race, arab/israeli relations. they had their own right lanes they have to be aware of. and also, i guess, what a cartoonist can get away with in san francisco might be different than part of alabama. i think there are fewer conservatives in journalism period. i think that's reflected among cartoonist as well. it's just generally not a conservative thing. journalism tends to draw, i think, to be fair to say people who are more lib liberal. >> they say bad news is good for cartoonist. it gives us a lot of stuff. i would rather work harder and have less bad news and know we were going in a right direction. i think we're kind of -- we're not going in a right direction right now. i feel very -- i feel very like it's a calling

for me to get my opinions out there. this weekend on c-span, it's not all fun and games for editorial cartoonists. hear why. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span2 booktv, gardener on the life of outlaw jesse james and the infamous gang. saturday evening at 7:45. and on c-span 3's american history tv, four decades after watergate, a look back at nixon and the saturday night massacre. sunday afternoon at 1:00. now a senior member of the syrian opposition discusses the country's civil war, u.s. aid, and struggle between islamist and secular groups. he's a special representative to the united states for the national coalition of syrian revolution and opposition forces inspect is an hour and fifteen minutes.

[inaudible conversations] and the scholar at the middle east institute. it's a particular pleasure to welcome him this morning, -- who is the representative -- coalition opposition. it's a short name most of russ using for it these days in the united states. he comes with an impeccable pedigree of support for

democracy in syria, pedigree that include the imprisonment of friends, immigration to the united states to avoid his own imprisonment. getting his masters in ph.d. at city university of new york. becoming a visitor professor and now associate professor at the university of arkansas teaching middle east politic but also engagement in the damascus spring and each and every one of the many syrian efforts to transition the country from what has been a brutal and long listing dpik they -- dictatorship to something more worthy of the syrian citizens. it's with particular pleasure i welcome him. he'll speak for maybe 15

minutes, then we'll go q & a. >> good morning. thank you so much. thank you for the opportunity to address you about i think one of the most important political issue of the time. that is syria. and again, i'll try to take about 15 minutes to present some points and use these points for an opportunity to hear from you and engage in a discussion. the -- let me start by maybe introducing the syria coalition. some of you who are not familiar with it. and talk about challenges facing the coalition. highlighting maybe three specific challenges and conclude with the coalitions vision of how to end the conflict.

it was second maybe wave of the organization by the syrian opposition to create a voice for the syrian revolution. to create an institution that can in fact speak for the syrians who change in syria. as for the name the coalition i.t. is made of several groups. some of them political group with long history like the muslim brotherhood others like the damascus declaration movement. it was the home grown movement from 2005 to 2008. most of the individuals were arrested, spent years in prison and eventually many of them had to leave the country after the revolution. and there were individual

activists like myself but i think we decided to have a better connection with the inside as a situation was developing in syria. so we included groups like the local administrative counsel. a group created shortly before. the coalition went through now i would say the second and third phase. it had the first president a kind of charismatic figure who served the first term. then we have a second president who was elected last summer. and we went through an expansion of the coalition. the idea of the coalition was supposed to be kind like a log gistic body that could create an executive branch which would handle the challenges of the ref luges -- revolution and can, in fact,

provide governing body for the area. in addition the coalition envisioned maybe improving the contact and the coordination -- known as the supreme military counsel, which was headed to general who would become the head of the moderate forces within the free syrian army. later on with the expansion, in fact the army would be represented in the expansion with 15-members. so again, this is just a brief history of the coalition in term of the structure and the vision -- of course the vision is similar to all of those previous creations. the opposition like the syrian national counsel and that is to move syria to the multiparty system from the state of -- to state ruled by law to ab

inclusive three democratic syria. that's the simple. but in addition to that, i think it's a good idea and we were talking about some work that many of us have been doing in the meantime since the revolution began in march of 2011. that is we thought hard about issue of transsuggestion. how to deal with maintaining law and order in the post assad era. how to think about transitional. we have two projects. one of them i was personally involved in called the day after which provided a detailed vision in automatic of those areas. and all of those programs have been, in fact, endorsed, embraced by the coalition. now, just some specific changes facing the coalition and with how the coalition envision an toantd conflict.

one of the first challenges facing the coalition is the cat fear in syria. this is something we were faced with with the syrian national counsel. many of us are in fact political activists, human rights activist and we find ourselves that is always spending a lot of times and energy dealing with the human situation. just if you haven't followed the latest figure on that, we have more than 2.5 million refugees syrian refugee since the beginning of the conflict. but the most syria's figure is the internally displaced syria. it passed the 5 million mark. as you could imagine with all of the assistance we're getting from the international community, from the neighboring countries, from syrian communities, everywhere those efforts not, in fact, been able to match the need of those. at one point, i think i heard a

figure from the head at the u.n. saying only 11% of those needs have been addressed by all of this assistance. so this is continued to be a serious, serious challenge facing us. i know, for instance, the first money we received in the coalition. 3eu89% of that figure went for human assistance. that's always been a very, very urgent matter we have to face with. i could just give you the latest problem we have in the area. it's the welcome area of the -- same area which the regime used chemical weapons, i guess. you have about 19.8 million syrians trapped and continue have access to food or medicine. they have been appealing to us to the international commune toy do something. they have been reports about people eating leaves. there was this -- i saw somewhere that there was a

religious kind of ruling that people could eat dogs and cats and, i mean, it's really terrible, terrible situation. one of the things we have been, you know, kind -- contacting the international community. the u.n., our friends, everybody is to allow immediate access to the areas. and i think this is something been going on for the last two or three weeks. that's challenge number one. challenge number two is the challenge of radicalization in syria and the rise of extremist groups. and maybe this aspect has much more attention in the media than what it is. it is a concern to us. it's a serious challenge. you know, to understand the conflict -- i think we need remind everyone. began peaceful. it lasted six to seven months. but what really lead to the militarization of the revolution was the fact that the regime

never, never for a day, stopped killing of these peaceful protesters. first it was using snipers and assassination, and the regime tried to keep the tab, you know, below 20. on friday the figure would go up. it was the dpex of officers and soldiers from the army, young people had enough and they decided to carry out, you know, carry weapons and self-defense and defending their communities. that lead to the mill tarrization of the revolution. early -- were mostly the by-product of the syrian army. the syrian state. and so there were very much, again, supporting the idea of the revolution of a democratic. i think there was always a, you know, missed opportunity for the syrian revolution. the international community, especially did not step up their support of that modern force. and that is created a jobbing yum in which we started to see

the inflow of extremists. they came from neighboring countries. they came from everywhere. and if you remember, again, last year, last -- a year ago there were a few of those extremists. but now they are growing in number. the reason for that, i think, has to do with the perception among many syrians that the international community has not really been supportive enough of the moderates. the continued brew tamty -- brutality of the regime. which is unbelievable. they played it from artillery to tanks to missiles to air force. and using these barrel bombs that is, you know, from world war ii to bomb civilian areas. that create that kind of extremism. a lot of people turn -- i think what lead to the further radicalization is some of the

groups came. they were well organized. they were effective and attracted young syrians. that was a group -- now of course we have the more extremist group -- not to be confused. with the islamic state of iraq. and this group is definitely close to -- the threat is very serious. we take, you know, again, seriously. that's why we believe it can stop the trend, number one, to find quick political solution which would end the killing. and number two, to move on in to the creation and strengthening of the moderate forces within the free syrian army. the third challenge, i'll end here -- a has to do with providing gofns

for deliberated areas. as you know, large part the coalition before that syrian national council could not provide serious service to the area. that created -- sometimes by the free syrian army to provide some security. inspect some cases it was provided by activists and the peaceful activist who started. they created local councils. local council vary in term of the experience, ability to reach to the communities from one area to another. but they are trying to fill that vacuum. in the coalition, we felt that the creation of an interim government, not to be confused with the transitional government that is geneva mentioned. is necessary. and we went through, in fact, first a nominating person for that job. and that didn't really work

through. but lately, again, another person was nominated an activist by inside who was part of the damascus situation movement. was in prison, highly respected to form that interim government, which service-oriented small executive bodies. i don't want to say the word ministries. maybe ministry with a small m would work better. in order to go that. i think in the next meeting of the coalition it would be presented. we hope that these individuals would move to the deliberated area. these are tech karat able to provide basic services to deliberated areas. last point, i'll end here.

we endoters area when the arab league and observers. we supported that when the u.s. spent observers. we supported that. the arab league solution was presented to the u.n. and veto by russia, unfortunately. but i think all the political continue to try present some form for transition. and that's with the communique of 2012 comes in. we believe at the time that geneva communique had some positive elements and then when mr. kerry met last may and they decided to hold a geneva con friday. we thought it's could present an opportunity to end the conflict. a couple of point and i'll stop here.

from our point of view, number one, there is -- there should be, in fact, the clarity about the expected outcome of this process and for us is a transition to democracy. we're not going talk about power sharing. we're not going talk about rehabilitatings the asham regime. we are talking about democratic that's the essence of communique of georgia geneva. it talk about the transition of the -- including military security all those that existed and then leading in to democratic and transitional period and election. second point from our point of view, we believe that we need the support of key countries in the region. we want their endorsement. that's why during the meetings the leadership had in new york with the member of the international community including our friends.

we insisted countries like turkey, saudi arabia, all of those countries would in fact support our going to georgia geneva. we wanted the u.n. eventually to provide some kind of a guarantee that they will be implementation of any arrangement. including maybe the need for some peace keeping forces. i think from all our point of view. we go with an understanding not a precondition. my last point. when we assad should not be part of the process. that's not a precondition. that's our understanding of the literal warning of the geneva communique. believe any political solution must begin with assad stepping down. i think this is how that could open the door for again syria moving in to a democracy. i'll stop here and be glad to take any questions.

e the question on a conflict management guy's mind is if you went to georgia geneva. it if you got what you're asking for out of geneva, which is a democratic transition, would you be able to deliver on what you need to deliver on. do you have the kind of control of the situation that would enable you to be what the regime will certainly be looking for, which is an -- [inaudible conversations] >> this is definitely a

difficult task ahead of us. knowing the structure of the free syrian army. ic what we're doing even before going to georgia geneva is to consolidate or restructure the free syrian a army a way that strengthen and create more of a professional institution that is believes in protecting the country rather than being loyal to one entity. i think the change would be the inability to control the extremist groups. like and the -- [inaudible] those groups don't plich it. we don't recognize it or work with them. i think all the effort should be between now and then is to weaken and isolate these groups nap is what in fact we have been doing in coordination. we believe that the -- it's difficult because those guys, i mean, have been in fact engaged now in a war against the free sir yab army.

they have been assassinating leaders and taking over areas. in a way, we believe, you know, we don't believe that this is isolated from the regime. many of the individuals who are trained by the syrian regime to kill americans in iraq. it's the genesis of it. but i think it would require a regional effort, an international effort. i think even some of the army would require maybe the support and the pressure from, you know, the neighboring countries. and then if you it can happen. but it's not going to be 100% full control. i i think if we are able to control most. then you are able to deliver at least. and then, you know, the rest can be isolated. question? >> please stand up. the problem is the recording. if you could -- [inaudible] thank you.

i should have noted that before. if people can go to the microphone who want to ask questions. please, introdrug-- introduce yourself, first. [inaudible] thank you. >> it's an easy one. it's a project called the day after. it's availableon line. if you search it you'll be able to find the whole document. but, again, a few words about it, it's a project that lasted eight or nine months with a -- from inside outside. divided in to working groups address areas like law and order, sec -- institutional design. social economic policy.

and it's provides recommendation for now during the transition and after the transition. out of that project that in fact trying to implement the recommendations. i work for reuters news agency. concerning the conference, i think it was yesterday or the day before the syrian deputy prime minister said it was his understanding that the next peace conference would be the georgia geneva conference would be on november 23rd and 24th. i wondered if you had been informed that would be the date. and a couple of other questions about that.

i think george from the syrian national counsel said recently that the counsel would not be going. i wondered if you think people from the coalition will attend the conference. and are the americans pressuring grow go? thank you. first part of the question is the 2th and the 25th. it okay. yeah. i think i saw something like this. no, i don't think that is been agreed upon. we haven't received the letter of invitation from the team yet. i think it should be the first step.

one important component of the coalition said they would not take part in the georgia geneva based on their understanding of the balance of power on the ground and their field their there isn't enough support coming from our friends and supported in allies. and that is a perspective, i mean, you have to understand and respect. it may be an opportunity bring the question of the chemical weapons use, which i wanted to address and maybe say a few words about it. when assad used chemical weapons that killed more than 1400 people including more than 400 children. a lot of syrians felt that this is an opportunity for the international community to present a credible and swift response to that act.

and we know how the obama administration reacted. it made the case that the aside used it about u.n. commission did provide some sport to that extent. the president put the credible use of force on the table. then, of course, by taking it to country it was obviously it was not going to pass. and the deal with the russia came to dismantle the chemical weapons. i think there was a strong sense of dwoiment among all syrian. and the source of that disappointment has to do with two points. number one, they felt there was no accountability for the use of that, you know, chemical weapon that. they called it crime again humanitarian. another crime to be added to the record. there was a grouch brie gades of the free syrian army saying we

-- this is how bad the situation was. the second government which we felt in the coalition we felt that opportunity in fact should have been used 98 percent more than 700,000 syrians were killed by conventional weapons. that's where the sense of frustration is expressed. but the -- to go back to a question. we have not made a decision in the coalition about question agree on a certain --

an opportunity especially if framed in the right way. if the conditions we want to move to a transition. we have a lot of discussions with them. if may to say the word judging

from long experience in the american diplomatic corp., the notion that this is a two-day event surprises me. and a notion that longer than two-day event could be convened a few days before thanksgiving. even more surprising. some of you remember the talks they ended whether they did because of thanksgiving. [inaudible] i would like to return to two of the challenges you mentioned radicalization and goafns -- [inaudible] legal training, correction training to the --

[inaudible] at least as far as i know. and in the current setting, i understand is not interesting in undertaking new training and equip programming because they had a fear of -- [inaudible] i would like to know what you see happen in term of capacity building now for the local administrative counsel and mediating that -- [inaudible] through the body that you're trying to form. but then is there any perspective it would be acted upon before there's a peace agreement? in other words we leave it open until slightly some -- [inaudible] the difficulty of providing training and providing the

areas. i mentioned that and i understand it. i believe that there must be pressure, that's my point about putting the question of pressure on the regime to stop using heavy weapons against the areas. in order to do anything. i think it's been one of the main problems. to everyone. they are still doing that. unless the country including the u.s. and maybe russia. if russia want to be constructive in the process. apply the kind of pressure, i mean, it's going difficult. i think the question of training can be one of those areas that the u.s. can take seriously. to provide mass training. a small number of it's a secret

-- should be given to the pentagon and i think this is needed not only for the transitional period but post assad. thing is one of the wries that the cuss be very effective in shaping, in fact, the post assad sort. we want and need and -- i think the good news there are a lot of countries willing to do more in the region. i think if you read the report by the international crisis group that came out yesterday, it came with really good recommendations, you know, it mentioned -- they need to get the act together and have better coordination. you need the u.s. leadership, which has been lacking.

i think that's been one of the weaknesses, you know, the other side had fewer friends but those friends are much more effective in providing everything that the assad, you know, needs, weapon, money, political support. we -- million giving -- saying the right thing. but you need that coalition to become effective and the core group of the countries must do more including areas like arming, training, intelligence chair -- sharing. if the u.s. decide it's time for assad to go. there are many ways to do this. i think one that decision is made, i think it's the end of the conflict. >> kelly flanagan. >> please speak up. >> former student. i was just wondering how you

describe the spop already sport of the people, the citizen i are and the brigade and battalion of the syrian national coalition. >> i have to tell you that kelly knows more than the -- having written a good paper about it. [laughter] >> she's asking about the popular support. it's hard to gauge that popular support. i think, again, the crcial crisis group reports, you know, -- it was formed by mostly some of us living abroad. the regime never allowed indigenous leaders to emerge. t the nature of repressive regime. eventually much our colleagues were inside had to leave and

fled the country. the few occasions where people inside syria don't peacefully demonstrate they carry signs, you know, and coalition in some areas. and but, again, it's like any governing body, you know, including a democratic country. if you are able to provide, you'll get support. i mean, you know, if you have failed government, and you shut down the government like what happened here, i mean, see the rating of congress in this country. i know. i think the same situation, you know, really the popularity of the coalition has to do the ability to address the challenges i mentioned. to provide --

and deliver on its stated objective which is overthrow the regime and create that. it i would say that would go up-and-down. in some cases when they're able to do deliver i would say yes. , you have support. sometimes when you don't, people again come and say why should i support you? so far i don't think anybody is calling for the creation of an alternative institution. i would say again immediately if we're able to improve the question of in celebrated areas that should reflect positively on the -- popularity. i want to touch on some things on that you alluded to earlier. i was wondering for you could dig a little deeper to concrete

measures that you might be taking. there's been a recent wave of pub anones enunciation -- including some previously affiliated. it's not clear if they still maintain that afghanistan. i was wondering what steps have been taken to address the concerns. since the -- announcement of that communique -- there's a leader i think -- we decided to cut his visit and go back to address that situation. it's been acting on the own.

there were others in between. the same for the political leadership of the coalition. since it happened, they went back. they have been meeting with a lot of leaders on the ground and there are more serious effort to restructure the whole. to my knowledge. i strong a lot of details here. there a lot of discussions underway as we sleep it's a sign that there was -- among these brie gades. these groups. a since of frustration. it's a background context. the feeling we need to rely more

on our own resources and really again -- u.s. and russia whether it's -- some of the background. that is why going back to address the questions whether the u.s. is serious about, you know, taking step to end the killing, to move to a political solution opportunity have a place for assad. i think they would give more trust and credibility that the

president should step down and there should be a transition. why do you think he would do this? that's my first question e e ask -- question to you. have you heard the possibility that assad may organize the election -- majt the room. we filled with worried member of the community. and you referred in an earlier question to your website, could you make it real for the community? what is a real vision that syria after so much -- that this community would be safe for example look at iraq

has a institution. which has a constitution that was negotiated and approved. look al the violation that takes place there. look at the difficult in egypt that doesn't have secretary division. how could you cons convinced them to buy to your vision they'll be stiff ya in which they play a prominent role. thank you very much. >> thank you. an important question. talk about election and assad's term expires next spring, supposedly. he talked about -- the referendum and came to power. we know how we came to power. his power was not -- elected president to start with. there's no base for that, you

know, and the question of election as a way out is a nonstarter for most syrians. i can assure you of that. when people say why should he step down. what is the big deal. you know, we live in a world today where if so you a responsible leader and some places so you a train accident the government resign. this president has called the killing of more than 100,000. the displacement of more than 8 million syrians. destruction of 35% of the -- you want him to continue? and on what basis and logic? on what, you know, idea here? he already served 14 years.

he had enough. as i said, syria was a continuation of the arab spring. if you noticed in both tunisia, egypt, yemen, and libya. all of the cases the head of the state departed one way or the other. early on the revolution started. we were appealing to leave the process. we were willing to see a role for him personally. as more killings took place and more crimes committed he is designated as a war criminal by the u.s. might be concerned about the safety. that is really not acceptable. believe me. it's the majority. i would address the other community and the other side. and say bashar is a liability.

there are sunnies and we envision a program as transitional justice as part of the future. i would say don't take my word for it. there should be in fact measures. including open to the idea of, you know, peace keeping forces to be part of the transitional period. to have ideas for maybe that protect the community. one of the reason we felt good about the idea of a strike against assad. we felt it could encourage

member leading of the commune toy maybe force aside out of power. they could be our negotiating parter in and partners to to build the future of syria. we don't want to go to the direction. only those committed crime against humanitarian should be held accountable. we don't speak a secretary

language. i think that's encouraging so far. in some -- there is so many, again, maybe more to be done. i agree that maybe there a lot of, you know, fear and concerns among the al wait community. the good news syria is questioning -- they suffered a lot. don't forget there are a lot of killings among the young who are forced go and be part of the killing machine. i'm concerned about the killing by the other side. but they are not concerned about the killing from our side. i think that's the different. that's why we reject the moral equivalence. we are not. and i think going back by taking out few individuals. let's call him the criminal elite out of the equation.

you are able to create the kind of -- can you talk more to the mic. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> no we will not agree to the two-year extension or any of that. the purpose of the georgia knee stray conference is transition to democracy and creation of a transitional government. if that's the purpose of that. that's what we're doing to do. otherwise, i think we're not going to move on this. i agree with you that the presence of the extremist group is going to be -- and ask the question early on. a challenge for both sides. and definitely for even the international regional players as well. that's why i think step must be taken now to start to isolate these groups. start to freeze their source of funding and start to engage i

think there's a difference [inaudible] this is part of the problem that faces all of these countries. and it's required comprehensive strategy not just one thing. but from all of point of view we are addressing that. we trying to strengthen it. we are trying to make the sources of funding and coming through that the process. i think that would isolate many of the groups. eventually start finding

incentives. we don't need them. but speaking of the groups i would mention two other terrorist groups that are present in syria. hezbollah and the -- i'm sorry we don't talk about them. they are part of the fighting and the killing. they must be addressed and part of georgia geneva. ish would like to be invited they would withdrawal and leave. they are, again, you know, entities that in fact they more organized and larger in numbers sometimes. it they have done more killing in syria than some of the extremist groups. so again, that's out at that to the difficulties. syria is no longer a -- it's a regional and international issue. [inaudible] i was interested because --

[inaudible] he was ?il power. but we knew he was on the way out. and i -- [inaudible] there was a window of opportunity because the in my mind, from my understanding was open to the -- he brought internet -- [inaudible] >> you need to be closer to the microphone phone. >> i'm sorry. have you not heard -- >> just the last part. i'm wondering for we miss a window of opportunity welcome syria, and with bashar as the leader, who obviously wasn't the planned leader. his brother, you know, originally. but i thought that bashar was open to the west. very open to internet in to, you know, many things that we're now seeing very close to --

.. this is a legitimate president. he inherited the presidency against the republican principles but let's give them a chance and if you are to become a legitimate president he needs to free political prisoners and emergency law introduce some basic freedoms to the country and maybe