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,