>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome aipac chairman of the board michael kaplan and members of the aipac national board of directors. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we are honored to be joined

this morning by the prime minister of israel, b#

of terrorism and radical islam please join me in welcoming benjamin netanyahu and first lady, sarah netayahu. [applause] >> mr. prime minister. today's key american pro-israel community is gathered, 14,000 strong, to send a clear message to the people of israel, those of us in this room, and millions more support israel's struggle for peace and security. thank you for your leadership and thank you for being with us today. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to welcome the prime minister of the state of israel, benjamin netanyahu. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you very much. thank you.

thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. i bring you greetings from jerusalem. the e eternal, undivided capital of israel and the jewish people. [applause] >> i want to thank all of you for working so tirelessly to strengthen the alliance between israel and america. americans support for israel,

for that alliance, is at an all-time high and i can tell you there is no country on earth that is more pro-american than israel. [applause] >> i want to thank the leaders of aipac. the officers of aipac, the 14,000 delegates of aipac and members of congress, members of the israeli government and the deputy minister, members of the knesset and our two able ambassadors, the ambassador of israel to the united states and the ambassador of the united states to israel, dan shapiro and our you and ambassador, everyone, and i want to thank you all for safeguarding and nurturing the most precious alliance in the world, the

alliance between israel and the united states of america. [applause] >> i have come here to draw a clear line. you know that i like to draw lines, especially red ones. but the line i want to draw today is the line between life and death, between right and wrong, between the blessings of a brilliant future and the curses of a dark past. i stood very close to that dividing line two weeks ago.

i visited and is really a army field hospital in the golan heights. that field hospital wasn't set up for is release. it was set up for syrians. [applause] >> israel has treated nearly a thousand wounded syrians, men, women and a lot of children. offering their near-death, and on my of visit i met two such syrians. a shellshocked father and his badly wounded 5-year-old boy. a few days earlier, at his wife and daughter were blown to bits

by iranian bombs dropped by a a assad the air force. the grieving father was holding the little boy in his arms and israeli doctors were struggling to save the boy's life. i heard from them and from the other patients what all the syrians who come to be treated in israel say that all tell the same story. they say all these years assad has lied to was, he told us that iran was our friend and israel was our enemy but iran is killing us and israel, israel is saving us.

those syrians discovered what you have always known to be true. in the middle east bludgeoned by butchery and barbarism, israel is humane. israel is compassionate. israel is a force for good. [applause] that border that runs 100 yards from the field hospital. the dividing line between decency and depravity, compassion and cruelty. on one side stands is real animated by the values we cherish. values that move us to treat

sick palestinians, thousands of them from gaza. they come to our hospitals, we treat them despite the fact that terrorists from gaza throw thousands of rockets at our cities. the shared values that inspire is really medics and rescuers to rush to the victims of natural disasters across the world. ..

to murder, maim, and menace the innocent. [applause] and what the, what the iranian people, or rather what the iranian regime does abroad is just as, is similar to what they do to their own people. they execute hundreds of political prisoners. they throw thousands more into their jails and they repress millions in a brutal theocracy. if you want to understand the moral divide that separates israel from its enemies just listen to nasrallah, the head of hezbollah, iran's terror proxy

in lebanon. he said this. he said, iran and hezbollah love death and israel loves life and that's why he said iran and hezbollah will win and israel will lose. well, he is right about the first point, they do glorify death and we do sankfy life -- sanctify life, but he is dead wrong on the second point. it is precisely because we love life that israel shall win. [applause] in the past year iran's radical

regime has tried to blur this moral divide. it wields out its smiling president and smooth-talking foreign minister. but if you listen to their words, their soothing words, they don't square with iran's aggressive actions. iran says, it only wants a peaceful nuclear program so why is it building a heavy water reactor? which has no purpose in a peaceful nuclear program. iran says, it has nothing to hide so why does it ban inspectors from its secret military sites? why doesn't it divulge its military, secrets of its military nuclear activities? they absolutely refuse to say a word about that. iran says it is not building nuclear weapons. so why does it continue to build

icbms, intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads? see unlike scud missiles that are limited to a range of a few hundred miles, icbms can cross vast oceans and they can strike, right now, or very soon the eastern seaboard of the united states, washington, and very soon after that, everywhere else in the united states, up to -- and the important point to make is this. iran's missiles can already reach israel. so those icbms that they're building, they're not intended for us. you remember that beer commercial? this bud's for you? well, when you see iran building icbms, just remember, america, that scud's for you. [applause] now it's not only that, only the

americans got that joke. [laughing] it is not only that iran doesn't walk the walk. in the last few weeks they don't even bother to talk the talk. iran's leaders say they won't dismantle a single centrifuge. they won't discuss their ballistic missile program, and guess what tune they're singing in tehran? it is not god bless america. it is death to america. and they chant this as brazenly as ever. some charm offensive. and here's my point, iran continues to stand unabashedly on the wrong side of the moral divide and that's why we must continue to stand, unequivocally, on the right side of that divide.

we must oppose iran and stand up for what is right. [applause] my friends, yesterday i met with president obama, with vice president biden, with secretary kerry and with the leaders of the u.s. congress. we had very good meetings. i thank them for their strong support for israel. [applause] for our security, including in the vital area of missile defense. i said that the greatest threat to our common security is that of a nuclear-armed iran. we must prevent iran from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons. and i want to reiterate that

point, not just, to prevent them from having the weapon, but to prevent them from having the capacity to make the weapon. [applause] that means we must dismantle iran's heavy water reactor and its underground enrichment facilities. we must get rid of iran's centrifuges and its stockpiles of enriched-uranium and we must that iran fully divulge the military dimensions of its nuclear program. now 17 countries around the world have peaceful nuclear energy programs. they're doing this without spinning centrifuges, without enriching uranium, without operating heavy water facilities, and without conducting military nuclear research. you know why iran insists on

doing all of these things that the other peaceful countries don't do? it's because iran doesn't want a peaceful nuclear program. iran wants a military nuclear program. i said it here once. i will say it here again. if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? well, it ain't a chicken. and it certainly not a dove. it is still a nuclear duck. [applause] unfortunatelily the leading powers of the world are talking about leading iran with the capability to enrich uranium. i hope they don't do that because that would be a grave

error. it would leave iran as a threshold nuclear power. it would enable iran to rapidly develop nuclear weapons, at a time when the world's attention is focused elsewhere. and we see, as we speak, that that could happen. in one part of the world today, tomorrow in another part, maybe north korea. so, just remember what he wrote a few years ago. he wrote this in a rare moment of candor. he said, if a country can enrich uranium, even to a low level, it can effectively produce nuclear weapons. precisely. and leaving iran as a threshold nuclear power would deliver a death blow to non-proliferation.

iran is an outlaw state. it is violated multiple u.n. security council resolutions prohibiting enrichment. if we allow this outlaw terrorist state to enrich uranium how can we seriously demand that any other country, not enrich uranium? my friends, i believe letting iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates, it would really open up a pandora's box of nuclear proliferation in the middle east and around the world. that must not happen. and we will make sure it does not happen. [applause] because letting the worst terrorist regime on the planet get atomic bombs would endanger everyone. and it certainly would endanger israel since iran openly calls

for our destruction. 70 years ago our people, the jewish people, were left for dead. we came back to life. we will never be brought to the brink of extinction again! [applause] as prime minister of israel, i will do whatever i must do to defend the jewish state of israel. [applause]

you know i'm often asked whether israel truly wants diplomacy to succeed and my answer is, of course we want diplomacy to succeed because no country has a greater interest in the peaceful elimination of the iranian nuclear threat but this threat, this threat will not be eliminated by just any agreement. only by an agreement which requires iran to fully dismantle its military nuclear capability. [applause] now you know how you get that agreement with iran? not by relieving pressure but by adding pressure. [applause]

pressure is what brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place and only more pressure will get them to abandon their nuclear weapons program. greater pressure on iran will not make war more likely, it will make war less likely. [applause] because the greater the pressure on iran, the greater the pressure on iran, and the more credible the threat of force on iran, the smaller the chance that force will ever have to be used. ladies and gentlemen, peace is israel's highest aspiration. i'm prepared to make a historic peace with our palestinian neighbors. [applause] a peace that would end a century of conflict and bloodshed. peace would be good for us.

peace would be good for the palestinians but peace would also open up the possibility of establishing formal ties between israel and leading countries in the arab world. many arab leaders, and believe me, this is a fact, not hypothesis, it's a fact, many arab leaders today already realize that israel is not their enemy but peace with the palestinians would turn our relations with them and with many arab countries into open and thriving relationships. [applause] the combination of israeli innovation, and gulf entrepeneurship to take one example, i think this combination could catapult the entire region forward. i believe that together we can

resolve, actually solve the region's water and energy problems. you know israel has half the rainfall we had 65 years ago? we have 10 times the population. our gdp has shot up, thank god. gdp per capita up. so we have half the rainfall, 10 times the population and our water use goes up. which country in the world doesn't have water problems? yep. of israel. why? because of technology, of innovation, systems. [applause] we could make that available to our arab neighbors throughout the region. that is not exactly blessed with water. we could solve the water problems. we could solve the energy problems. we could improve education with e-learning, health, diagnostics on the internet. all of that is possible. we could better of the lives of hundreds of millions. we all have so much to gain from

peace. that's why i want to thank the indomitable john kerry, you know, new york, and tel aviv. they are the city that is never sleep. john kerry is definitely the secretary of state who never sleeps. and -- [applause] and i've got the bags under my eyes to prove it. we're working together literally day and night to seek a durable peace. a peace anchored at solid security arrangements and the mutual recognition of two nation states. [applause] israel, israel is the nation-state of the jewish people with the civil rights of all citizens. jews and non-jews alike are guaranteed. the land of israel is the place where the identity of the jewish

people was forged. it was in hebron that abraham bought the cave of the patriarchs and the matriarchs. it was in bethel that jacob dreamed his dreams. it was in jerusalem that david ruled his kingdom. we never forget that but it's time the palestinians stop denying history. [applause] just as israel is prepared to recognize a palestinian state, the palestinians must be prepared to recognize a jewish state. [applause] president abbas recognized the

jewish state and in doing so, you would be telling your people, the palestinians, that while we might have a territorial dispute, the right of the jewish people to a state of their own is beyond dispute. [applause] you would be telling palestinians to abandon the fantasy of flooding israel with refugees or amputating parts of the negev and the galaly, in recognizing the jewish state, you would finally make clear that you are truly prepared to end the conflict. so recognize the jewish state. no excuses, no delays, it's time. [applause]

my friends, it may take years, it may take decades for this formal acceptance of israel to filter down to all layers of palestinian society. so if this peace is to be more than a brief interlewd between wars, israel needs long-term security arrangements on the ground to protect the peace, and to protect israel if the peace unravels. you see those security arrangements would always be important but the they're even more important and critical today when the entire middle east is unraveling. three years ago our region was a very different place. can anyone sitting here, anyone listening to us, can anyone tell

me and be sure what the will look like five, 10, 20 years from now? we can not bet the security of israel on our fondest hopes and on the middle east that is usually a losing bet. we should always hope for the best but in the middle east we have to be prepared for the worst. and despite the best of hopes, international peacekeeping forces sent to lebanon, gaza, sinai, the golan heights, they didn't prevent those areas from becoming armed strongholds against israel. if we reach an agreement as i hope with the palestinians, i don't delude myself. that peace will most certainly come under attack, constant

attack, by hezbollah, hamas, al qaeda and others. and experience has shown that foreign peacekeepers, foreign peacekeeping forces while they keep the peace only when there is peace but when they're subjected to repeated attacks, those forces eventually go home. so as long as the peace is under assault, the only force that can be relied on to defend the peace and defend israel is the force defending its own home, the israeli army, the brave soldiers of the idf.

i'm going to reveal to you a secret. this position may not win me universal praise. that is occasionally happens when i stake out positions. but i'm charged with protecting the security of my people, the people of israel and i will never gamble with the security of the one and only jewish state. [applause] so as we work in the coming days, the coming weeks, to forge a durable peace, i hope that the palestinian leadership will stand with israel and the united states on the right side of the moral divide, the side of peace,

reconciliation, and hope. well you can clap. you want to encourage them to do that. i do. and i know you do too. [applause] thank you. my friend, one movement that's definitely on the wrong side of the moral divide is the movement to boycott israel, so-called bbs. [applause] that movement will fail. [applause] let me tell you why. [applause] i want to explain to you why. beyond our traditional trading partners, countries throughout

asia, africa, latin america, where i will soon be going to, these countries are flocking to israel. they're knot coming to israel. they're flocking to israel. they want israeli technology to help transform their countries as it has ours. and it's not just the small country that is are coming to israel. it is also the superpowers. you know, the other superpowers, apple, google. microsoft, intel, facebook, yahoo! they come because they want to benefit from israel's unique ingenuity, dynamism and innovation and i can tell you that the bds boycott movement is not going to stop that, anymore than the arab boycott movement could stop israel from becoming a global technological power. they are going to fail. [applause]

and in the knowledge-based century, the knowledge-based economy, israel's best economic days are ahead of it, mark my words. [applause] now wait. i don't want you to get complacent. because the fact that they're going to fail doesn't mean that the bds movement shouldn't be vigorously opposed. they should be opposed because they're bad for peace, and because bds just plain wrong. [applause] . .

but i think these are all important points, but not the critical points. the critical is that bds is morally wrong. it turns morality on its head. this is the main point, and i can tell you, it's not in israel like all states, is not the only criticism. we have a boisterous democracy

where everyone has an opinion. and believe me, no one in israel is shy about expressing it, about anything. in israel, self-criticism is on steroids. but the bds movement is not about legitimate criticism. it's about making israel illegitimate. it presents a distorted and implicit picture of israel to the naïve and to the ignorant. bds is nothing but a farce. here's why. in dozens of countries, academics are imprisoned for their beliefs. so the universities of which country does bds want to sanction and boycott? israel. the one country in the middle east where professors can say right, and teach what they want. throughout the middle east,

christians are fleeing for their lives. so which country does bds want churches to divest from? you got it, israel. the one country in the middle east that protects christians and protects the right of worship for everyone throughout the middle east -- [applause] throughout the middle east, general's -- journalists are jailed, gays are hanged and women are denied their most basic right. so which country does bds want to sanction? take a guess. israel. the only country in the region with a free press, a progressive gay-rights record, and where women have presided over each of the three branches of government. [applause] when you hear this, and anybody can verify this, so you have to

wonder, how could anyone fall for the bs in bds? how can they fall for this? [applause] well, you shouldn't be surprised. throughout history, people believe the most outrageously absurd things about the jews, that we were using the blood of children to bake, we're spreading the plague throughout europe, that we were plotting to take over the world. yeah, but you can say, how can educated people, how could educated people today believe the nonsense spewed by bds about israel? well, that shouldn't surprise you either. some of history's most influential figures and writers, both here, t.s. eliot, and many,

many others spread the most preposterous lies about the jewish people. it's hard to shed prejudices that have been ingrained in consciousness over millennia. from antiquity to the middle ages to modern times, jews were boycotted, discriminated against, and singled out. today, the singling out of the jewish people has turned into the singling out of the jewish state. so you see, attest to boycotting, the vest and sanction israel, the most threatened democracy on earth, are simply the latest chapters in the long and dark history of anti-semitism. those who wear -- [applause] those who wear the bds label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-semite or big it. they should be exposed and

condemned. [applause] the boycotters should be boycotted. [applause] and everyone should know what the letters bds really stand for. bigotry, dishonesty and shame. [applause] and those who oppose bds, like scholar johansson, they should be applauded. [applause]

scarlet, i have one thing to say to you. frankly, my dear, i do give a damn. and i know all of you give a damn, as do decent people everywhere who reject hypocrisy and lies, and cherish integrity and truth. my friends, on behalf of the people of israel, i bring you a message from jerusalem. the trail of our common civilization, the crucible of our shared values, it's a message from the bible. [speaking in native tongue] i have put before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. choose life so that you and your

offspring may live. ladies and gentlemen, my friends, never forget, america and israel stand for life. we stand together on the right side of the moral divide. we stand together on the right side of history. so stand tall. stand strong. stand proud. [applause] >> thank you. thank you.

thank you very much. thank you all. keep doing a great job. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all the work you do, and for being with us. have good meetings, a safe journey home, and we will see you next year. thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu wrapping up this years aipac conference but if you missed any of today's speeches you can see those as well as all of the apex digital recovered the past couple days on our website, go to c-span.org. aipac represents will head to capitol hill to lobby members of congress on this day that the presence 2015 budget is being delivered to lawmakers. pictures of that taking place or we are today. the associate press writing the

president is unwrapping a nearly $4 trillion budget to give democrats an election-year playbook to fortify in the economy and bolstering americans incomes. he also underscores a pressure has faded to launch bold, new attacks on federal deficits. the president's fiscal blueprint expected to include proposals to upgrade aging highways and railroads, finance more prekindergarten programs and enhanced job training. the white house said it would also enlarge the current income tax credit to cover 13.5 million low aren't workers without children, expand the childcare tax credit for some parents, and make it easier for workers to contribute to individual retirement accounts. >> president obama will talk about his budget proposal to an elementary school here in

washington, d.c. we'll bring you his remarks live at 11:30 eastern on our companion network c-span and we invite you to weigh in on your thoughts on the president's proposal at facebook and twitter using #cspanchat. later the white house budget office will hold a briefing with budget director sylvia mathews burwell and policy advisers. live at 12:45 p.m. eastern also on c-span. here on c-span2 we will go live to the heritage foundation for discussion of the future of ukraine. this the second of state has arrived in the ukrainian capital to show support for the country's government. secretary kerry touchdown in kiev as the u.s. announced a $1 billion aid package to ukraine amid worries that moscow would extend its military reach past the pro-russian ukraine region of crimea. respected him more about secretary kerry's visit at this heritage foundation event set for noon eastern here on c-spa

c-span2. >> the new c-span.org website gives you access to an incredible library of political events with more added each day through c-span's nonstop coverage of national politics, history, and nonfiction books. find c-span daily coverage of official washington, or access more than 200,000 hours of archived c-span video. everything ceased been discovered since 1987. and our video is all searchable and viewable on your desktop computer, tablet or smartphone. just look for the prominent search bar at the top of each page. the new c-span.org makes it easy to watch what's happening today in washington, and find people and events from the past 25 years. it's the most comprehensive video library in politics. >> last week the u.s. institute of peace in washington hosted a

discussion on the future of afghanistan, a portion of the to include a panel discussion assessing u.s.-afghanistan relations. speakers include former special representative for afghanistan marc grossman along with former deputy assistant defense secretary for afghanistan, pakistan and central asia david sedney. >> i would also like to thank all of you for coming, thinking artist in which guests, ambassador dobbins in particular. would also our panelists for this first panel which is titled the united states and afghanistan, the longview. i think it's only in a town like d.c. that we can talk about looking beyond 2014 that is a long view. but given the tendency to have a quite our reactive u.s.-afghanistan policy and relation certainly of late, there's lots of focus indeed on the security transition in the upcoming political transition in 2014 in particular. i do think in terms of the

current discourse in washington, talking about life beyond 2014 in afghanistan is taking a long view. i think one of the objectives in this for today is really to try to look at the future relations between u.s. and pakistan beyond 2014. that there is a longer-term interest in this relationship. i think it's also important that we have a balanced and realistic view in this relationship and i think that was very conscious we heard from ambassador dobbins but i think talking about many of the games but also belching that there's very real challenges, i'm hoping that all the media here today do not just focus on the challenges also focus on some of the tremendous gains. because i think that is one of the real challenges, and i remember working in afghanistan in 2002-2005 heading a policy

research organization, the afghanistan research and evaluation you know, and in those days i would come to gatherings like this in washington and talk about research findings which tend to suggest that everything wasn't going as mrs. are quite as well as some of the public narrative was. after all, afghanistan was the good war, and i was legally labeled the naysayer. that said, i now find myself somewhat in the opposite camp. where everyone else is talking said the steady drip, drip of negative news coming out of afghanistan, trying to highlight the tremendous gains that have taken place. and i think we have seen some of those in the video this morning. i think ambassador dobbins gave a long list of the incredible achievements that have taken place. and having worked in afghanistan in the 1980s, 1990s, it is to meet incredible what has been achieved. and i will take today's problems

over those problems any day. so i think, i'm hoping that does come out loud and clear in today's discussion. i do think that a lot of the negativity of late in particular does stem from the very difficult and tortured the sa negotiation that has taken place. and i think that has been again once dominated a lot of the press coverage and a lot of the discouragement. i think they've been particularly frustrated, frustrating discussions, precisely as ambassador dobbins noted, because the vast majority of international experts in afghanistan, officials working on afghanistan that i know, certainly think the bilateral security agreement is really in the interest of afghanistan as those the interest of the u.s. and the international community, that it is essential for increasing the prospects for

stable and peaceful future. but equally, the vast majority of afghans i know also feel that, and so i do think i'm hoping that some of the discussion today highlights, not just focus on the bsa but the importance of the relationship beyond bsa. we are fortunate to have a very distinguished panel of experts with us today. we deliberately decided to choose prominent american and international officials and experts working on afghanistan to talk about the importance, again, the challenges but also the opportunities and the importance of a longer-term engagement in afghanistan with the hopes that some of us will be transmitted. we have lots of media here today. i know voice of america is also plenty of some of the coverage from today to also be broadcast back into afghanistan. so the afghans to hear that there are prominent voices speaking on behalf of the importance of a more enduring

partnership and engagement in afghanistan. so with that, let me quickly introduce our panel as. i think there's more detailed bio data outside so i won't go into great detail, but we're going to start off with the fortune of having ambassador marc grossman, who is truly the vice chairman of the cohen group. ambassador grossman had a very distinguished 20 year career in the state department which included serving as the u.s. ambassador to turkey, assistant secretary of state for european affairs. then from 2001 until his retirement in 2005, he served as the under-secretary of state for political affairs which is the state department's third highest position. ambassador grossman was encouraged to come back out of retirement to take on the assignment of the u.s. special representative are afghanistan and pakistan from 2011-2012. our second panels is clare

lockhart, the director and founder of institute for state effectiveness. clare also set a long engagement with afghanistan. in 2001 she was in and of the u.n. negotiation team for the bonn agreement on afghanistan. she went on to spencer leaders living in afghanistan as an adviser to the u.n. and the afghan government where she worked on numerous initiatives, including the afghanistan development forum, national development framework and the national solidarity program. she is the co-author, fixing failed states can which is published by oxford university press in 2008. our third panelist is david sedney who's had a long and distinguished career serving the u.s. government with most of his assignment since 2002 also focusing on afghanistan. from 2009-2013, david served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for afghanistan, pakistan and central asia in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for asia

and pacific security affairs. prior to this he was deputy assistant secretary of defense for east asia, and then he also served as the dcm at the u.s. embassy in beijing, and prior to that as the deputy chief at the u.s. embassy in kabul in 2002 as was in 2003 and 2004. and then last but not least, it's a pleasure to welcome back to usip an old friend and for miyazaki college, alex thier. alex is currently usip's assistant to the ministry for policy planning and learning. from june 2010 to june 2013, alex served as assistant administrator for afghanistan and pakistan affairs overseeing usaid's two largest nations in the world. before joining usaid he served here at usip as a senior rule of law adviser and director for afghanistan and pakistan from 2005-2010 until he convinced me to come take his job here.

then from 2002-2004, he was legal adviser to afghanistan's constitutional and judicial reform commission in kabul, and also in the 1990s works in afghanistan for the u.n. and various ngos from 1993-1996. so with that i will turn it over to you, ambassador grossman. each of our speakers will speak for about eight to 10 minutes, and then we'll have some time for question and answer and discussion afterwards. thank you. >> andrew, thank you very much. let me first of all say thanks to all the organizers at this event and what an honor it is to be on this bill. alex is kind of to say that you have experts year, not me but the other three people really are and it's an honor to be with all of you. let me just say if i could if you allow me one personal note, and that is to pay tribute to ambassador dobbins and his team. having served as special rhetoric gets in pakistan i know this is about. if you allow me just to honor the people from the united

states, from international forces military, civilian and, of course, our afghan colleagues that continue despite every day, jim, thank you very much. alex and i were saying he gave his keynote address and a what are the rest of us supposed to say? andrew asked if i would talk about reconciliation, elections and a very important topic i think, the politics of the future relationship of between afghanistan and pakistan. i would be pleased to do that but before i do, i just wanted to step back just for a moment really and make three points and asked one question. i think it's relevant to the entire conversation we're going to have today. first point, that's the one that has been emphasized here both in the fields that we saw previously and ambassador dobbins speech and the points that intimate. it's really important it seems to me when we talk about afghanistan to stop just for a moment and recognize what has been achieved. not just what has been achieved

but what has been achieved at such great cost on the part of afghans, part of the united states military and civilian, and, of course, our international partners as well. so it's a matter first of all as ambassador dobbins said, not just about highlighting and not forgetting what has been achieved, but very importantly by the three organizations that organize this conference, the alliance in support of the afghan people, the voa and also the usip, is to try as ambassador dobbins had to put back on the consciousness of the american people. i know when i signed up to support the asap that's what interested me. how do we keep this on the agenda? because it's part of the international debate and certainly ought to be. second point i think that's important, and that is there's a larger context here as we talk about afghanistan. i think one of the things that we forget sometimes but also ought to remain on the gin is the fact that afghanistan sits in this extremely important

region. so when the administration talks about a secure, stable and prosperous afghanistan inside of a secure, stable and prosperous region, that's a really important thing. .. that is the questions of the economy, elections, politics and the media and afghans will fight for these things and i think that's one of the reasons as the

ambassador said you see success now increasingly on the part of the ansf and i'm sure david sedney will have more to say about that. i think afghans will fight and this leads to the question and that is do we have the patience and the courage to support them in their fight? it is not our fight but it's their fight and i say that understanding completely the frustrations that i am sure ambassador davos and others have with the challenge right now with president karzai not signing the bsa but i think the position of the administration has taken which is really twofold to be clear the bsa needs to be signed. it needs to be signed as quickly as possible but there is patience to wait and see if in the future there might be a signature and i can see that clearly also in the conclusions that the nato defense ministers yesterday and today. that's about the best position we can be and so there remains a possibility of american and international forces in afghanistan by january 1, 2015.

because we ought to have the patience and the courage to support afghans in their fight. i would talk a moment about reconciliation and ambassador davos and i share this responsibility. the job i was given for the two years that i was a special representative and it continues i am sure is to see if it were possible or the united states of america to open the door for afghans to talk to other at ganz about the future of afghanistan. so when i think about reconciliation today i come back to two principles. principle number one is the one that i just outlined which there is only one reason for the united states of america to be involved in out and that is to open the door for afghans to discuss with other afghans the future of their own country. i am sure that remains and efforts of the special representative of afghanistan and pakistan in the effort to move this peace process forward remains extremely important. i think as secretary clinton,

secretary kerry and the president of the united states has seven so many locations that this war is an going to end militarily and there's political into this conflict. there ought to be some way to see if reconciliation is possible. but there is a second principle as well which is i always felt in the time that i had this responsibility this kind of diplomacy ought to be backed by force and it doesn't necessarily have to be backed by american force that this idea is if you're in favor of reconciliation is another reason to be in favor of the bsa and another reason to be in favor of american and international forces in afghanistan on january 1, 2015 and it's a very important reason to be in favor of continued support for the afghan national security forces. it seems to me the taliban is watching very carefully how we work our way through these next few months to decide whether

there will be any pressure on them to make this step towards reconciliation. so the effective military efforn is still really important. the third seems to me on reconciliation as you look back it certainly makes you think about it very carefully in watching the film on women and women's rights. what is this reconciliation all about are still hugely important and that's about an afghanistan that lives with the rule of law and an afghanistan that supports the rights and responsibilities of all citizens and particularly women. andrew your question of reconciliation is still high on the administration's agenda but i think the principles remain very much the same. the second you asked me to talk a little bit about elections and i think ambassador davos has done a wonderful job with that. i would say two things that are really important to me. one is the outcome is an election seen by most afghans's

legitimate and their next leader is someone that they can say yes here is someone that we can support going forward and secondly to emphasize the point ambassador dobbins made very important to keep repeating that the united states of america has no favorites and there are no candidates in this. the afghan election is purely solely and wholly a matter for the people of that and the standard they will choose their future leaders. a final point in a very good question that andrea asked, what about the policies and the future relations with afghanistan? and again if you consider this from an american perspective and i will leave afghans to speak for themselves, i think there needs now to be a lot of thinking about how to structure the future in this relationship and i will give you four thoughts. first of all as i think ambassador dobbins said in the number of people have said earlier today and that is the first really important thing and that is the message that comes from afghanistan about the

willingness of the afghans to have her relationship with the united states and also to recognize the sacrifices that americans have made in our international allies and partners and friends have made over these past 12 years in afghanistan. right now if you speak of afghanistan around the country one of the things that you hear is you know we would like to have somebody say thank you to us for what has happened in afghanistan. i think for afghans that's something i hope they will provide on their checklist to make a contribution to this future relationship. second, i go back to the question of the region. i think for americans to continue to be interested in afghanistan is to put it into the regional context. this isn't only just about afghanistan but a central asia in pakistan, india and the whole area so that's important as well. third i come to a point that often i think it's overlooked but ambassador dobbins made a

very important point in his keynote address and that is to keep focused on the economic aspects of the future of this relationship. foreign direct investment and these connections between central and southeastern economies and some of the important resources that are there to work with afghans to bring to world markets. so that you can ask whether it's the new silk road whether it's fdi or promoting afghan businesses is something i think americans will continue to be interested in this future relationship and finally something i don't think there needs to be much detail and that is to be focused on counterextremism not just counterterrorism but counterextremism and afghanistan is still an important part of that area as well. so the region, economic issues and counterextremism seems to me

a important for the future of afghanistan in the united states. i think the organizers for this opportunity and i look forward to the rest of the panel and comments and questions. >> thank you. clare it. >> thank you and i would like to start a thanking the organizers for this for all that they do on afghanistan in the region and for this timely discussion. i have been asked to focus my remarks on governance and i would like to look back over the last decade and forward to the years ahead into a few lessons. shortly after the tragedy of 9/11 a few miles from here, a few days after 9/11 lakhdar brahimi conformed a small group and he reflected it was likely there would be an invasion and the u.s. would use military force. it was likely that the existing government would fully and collapse and he said the key question was going to be, how do

afghan individuals and groups agree on the rules of the game by which they were -- will govern their society and it seems that was the right question to ask them and perhaps it's the right question to ask today. the process that he facilitated put the question at its heart in that process has been no has had many flaws but to the extent that it worked i think it was because it constructed a process for building a consensus between afghans on this question and there were successes and failures along the way. i would like to highlight some of those successes in this spirit that we focus and have done far too much in the past focusing on the problems and not on the real achievements that afghans themselves have made. many would argue and have argued that in fact there was a political settlement in the political settlement was on the rules of the game in the constitution and the laws that fall under that constitution. that was a result of a very inclusive process as many in

this room will no of bringing together afghan citizens from around the country, a let the delegates to the first emergency loya jirga and commissions and prominent in working on it in this room. and while i think today the significant debate about there might be changes needed to the constitution, by and large it remains documented that most afghans believe it's the right framework for how their country should be governed and in fact many of the amendments i think people do seek are already in the constitution. it's a matter of implementation of the constitution. for example the constitution itself mandates election of mayors at the city level and that hasn't taken place yet but it's in the constitution. the second feature of the last decade that many reforms were completed and not only that afghanistan had a considerable basis of governance capability in place. when i arrived in the country in

the early days in 2002 i was astonished to find especially since i've been reading in the u.n. and world bank documents that there was nothing there and there was no capacity, completely the reverse with 240,000 civil servants in place around the country at the district level. yes by then already more than two decades of war and there were constrainconstrain ts and so on but the capacity was there. in the last decade the number of reforms were completed but i don't think the issue is one of capacity and capability. what had been the successes has been well-documented so i won't go in depth into them but the finance ministry, the telecoms and the health program, the national solidarity program and the government stability level and one comment here governance isn't something abstract. it's about how its channel for public purpose so how is the health system doing and how is the education system built? those are the questions of governance and getting those

policy frameworks i think there's a good new story here and it's all credit to the afghans. i think sometimes international organizations have helped and sometimes they have stood in the way but overall the story is one of success. afghanistan has come the furthest of any country in the world over the last decade and human development which is a remarkable achievement in the polls like the asia foundation poll and a new poll launch this week by atr 80% of the country believe there government is in control of their area and they trust particularly the ansf remains extraordinarily high. when we look at what works and launching a study of what works and more detail will be coming in the coming months but i think even now we can look at some of the -- it was evenhandedness and treatment of groups across the country. space for communities to be

involved, space and the private sector to be involved. governance is not about building the state from the top down only. it's just as much about creating policy framework so the communities in private sector can be involved. having said that there were successes and there were also many mistakes and there were some flaws in to some extent it was a large measure of one of the most tragic flaws was parts of the population began to lose trust in the process. from my perspective that happened around 2004 to 2005. there were many reasons for that in stories were debated over time. mine is only one of those but internally certain segments of the population began to feel right or wrong but feel that they had been treated unfairly and so they began to look to other means to protect themselves or to realize their interests. externally some of the neighbors signed the declaration shortly after the bond process.

they pledged not to underpin the politics and pledge to support afghanistan's process. they began to turn also two other enemies to protect their interests and we sought unraveling between states and nations and between the peoples. so what does this tell us looking forward and i agree with the keynote speaker and my other panelists that an enormous achievement and especially and who would have thought we would now be heading to an election that looks to be on time and the basic rules of the game are going to be respected. but looking beyond that i think we know democracy is not just about one day of the elections but it about the days in the years between elections. it's not just about one leader. it's about a team of leaders and as we look at those countries around the world that have transitioned successfully from conflict and difficult regimes to better governance, they have all been delivered by a group of leaders and i had the pleasure to introduce some of them around

the world. sometimes a great man, sometimes a great woman that is always a team across geographic boundaries and ethnic and religious boundaries so one of the key questions is going to be will that be an inclusive politics, can there be a mandate to governing that all groups can agree upon and a team of leaders that can deliver upon this and can there be a national discussion our national dialogue with the citizens agree on. i noticed we talked about the need for national dialogue and we are already having a national dialogue. we are having one every day. i couldn't agree more with ambassador grossman and ambassador dobbins that the region is so important. it's as much going to be about the regional politics so countries leading the afghans have a chance at holding the future that they have so

desperately worked for and need. so the question of how are the rules of the game and the reality of noninterference in afghanistan come to be? at the heart of this is going to be the foreign-policy, the next afghan administration towards its neighbors. so i think together these internal consensus building process and the regional process of agreement probably are the keys to the peace and stability and perhaps then we can make an adjustment in the way we conceptualize the way we see of the peace process. it not just be big deal, the cutting of the deal. it isn't that will lead to peace and stability in afghanistan. it will be those processes of building this consensus and trust between countries, the returning peoples and within the country that will deliver the enduring peace and stability of the country so desperately needs and then i agree very much that the rules of the game the

governance of the economy that's going to be so important. taxpayers in the u.s. and europe are feeling the contributions that they gave to the region an enormous amount of resources have been spent on the country. many of them as well but i think going forward those resources are going to be at the lower level so the sooner afghanistan can generate the resources, the revenue to underwrite its own stability the better of the shorter the bridge that will be needed from an external commitments to sustain that so it is a question of what the ifc in the world bank called the enabling environment essentially the trust of businesses and there's not a shortage of money. there are enormously wealthy afghans in regional investors who would like to put money in but the question is can they trust in the rule of law to do that? the rules that govern the extract is section particularly.

there will not be a magic bullet that the oil and gas resources being discovered recently are quite immense and it's not inconceivable that in 10 to 15 years they can more than underwrite the cost of sustaining stability and services within the country. so in conclusion i think let's move from looking for quick fixes and magic olefson understanding peace and stability and governance will be a key part of the stability and rather than a victory or deal that will deliver for afghans and the question can the politics deliver that 90% of afghans who believe and law and order and what that future can realize. >> david. >> thank you very much and it's a great pleasure to be here. i join you and others in

thanking usip, voa and usip for sponsoring this. it's a little bit calm link sitting up here with the three people that i used to work with ambassador grossman, ambassador dobbins and steve hadley all had to suffer through having to have me as part of their team. when i first one out of afghanistan in 2002 to be deputy chief in charge at the ministry fair ambassador dobbins told me would be different from anything else i had done in my life. he was 100% it continues to be so. yell so told me it would be different from what anybody thought it was going to be and i think that was prescience as well. i also need to thank ambassador grossman for mentioning the sacrifices that have been made during my time particularly at the department of defense where i met so many americans who had served in afghanistan at the behest of their country and some of them believed in what they

were doing and others didn't but they all believed in their country and they all had done a great job for which their nation should be very proud. that is what i would like to start to speak on afghan security forces but i want to start off a little more broadly. earlier people talked about the fact the recent polling shows two-thirds of the american people think going into afghanistan was a mistake. interestingly enough i would say two-thirds of the afghan people think that they u.s. effort to help them has been a great success and that is something the american people should be proud of. something that has been lost and all the frothing about the bsa and president karzai saying this and the back-and-forth like that are the fundamental successes and a lot of those have played out here by others who have been speaking. i want to stress particularly on the military side. the building of the afghan army, the police and the f. and intelligence agencies has been a tremendous success and area of the world where building any institution is a huge challenge,

making any progress is a huge challenge even if things are going well and even if there is peace and sufficient resources. even if there is cooperation among regional countries. doing such a task would be hard and andrew wilder mentioned in his talk when it was in kabul in 2002 and alex thier but i was on the other side. it's interesting that 12 years later here we are actually i think taking many ways the same view that we have made a lot of progress. the progress has been worth the investment we have made and that's a very serious statement to make a visit means is worth the cost of the thousands of american lives and to set up the process up here and say that it's not saying something very important that i think is missed by the dialogue and discourse by the american people. recently the diplomatic editor of the british broadcasting

corp. john simpson who has been covering afghanistan for over 30 years, went back to afghanistan into the story and he looked and what he found he said was 180 degrees different from what people in washington and london think is the case. in fact afghanistan is succeeding and afghans believe they are succeeding. ambassador grossman mentioned thank yous. i was in afghanistan two months ago in december and i met scores of afghan young people under the age of 30, brilliant people who are they are preparing to live the rest of their lives and their country. they were universal and giving thanks to united states in their international partners. they recognized how lucky they are and the benefits they have gotten from the sacrifices and they are prepared as ambassador grossman said to fight whether the military and fighting for their country or whether they are in civil society, whether they are building businesses and they are waiting to sacrifice.

many of these people could be someplace else besides afghanistan but they are still there and they are there because of the sacrifices an effort because of the united states and our allies and partners. one of the topics i was asked to address was about her security agreement and i will take a moment here to pay tribute to those who worked on that and we have one of them here. we have several of them here and fact but particularly ambassador hakimi the ambassador to the united states. he led the afghan people in negotiating the bsa. i would say those negotiations were very collegial and very professional and they resulted what i think and i believe everyone is looking to agreement including the afghan representatives of the loya jirga. i think it's an agreement that was posed in the best interest of the afghan people and government of the united states. thank you ambassador hakimi. please give ambassador hakimi a

round of applause. [applause] i will also mention jim warlick ambassador who did a great job. we have great agreement in place. what is the future with that agreement? it's going to be difficult. afghanistan faces challenges and all of us are aware of those challenges but i think the odds are very much in favor of success with the bsa in place. will it be in place? the afghan people have spoken and the afghan presidential candidates and number who i spoke with in kabul when i was there aren't favor of signing the bsa so i think it's a virtual certainty that the bsa will be signed. the issue whether president karzai signs it or not in my view is irrelevant. we need to make sure we plan effectively for him signing in moving forward. i truly hope any of the cost ambassador dobbins mentioned if

there is delay are mitigated effectively by the planning capacity that our military and state department and agencies have. i personally don't believe there's any need or any particular cost as long as we keep our eye on the long game as is the topic of this panel. turning to the topic of the afghan security forces which i don't claim to be an expert. i have visited afghanistan 20 or 30 times and lived there for a couple of years so when andrew and alex and i were in afghanistan in an earlier decade the afghan security forces had done a tremendous job. a year ago we turned over the lead security responsibility to the afghan security forces. at that time people outside of afghanistan in the u.s. governments, u.s. government intelligence agencies for example predicted that would not be a great success in the afghans would lose significant amounts of territory and district centers would be

overrun and capitals may be threatened. none of that happened. the taliban did not gain any ground during the last 12 months. in fact they lost ground in some areas. no district centers were lost, no provincials capitals were even threatened. the taliban inflicted serious damage on the afghan people and they have continued to do so. taliban attacks have killed hundreds of thousands of afghan citizens primarily noncombatants they have also targeted officials including some of the female police officers that you saw in the video earlier. they have targeted farmers and they have targeted afghan officials throughout the country that is going to continue as long as the taliban continues until there is a peace agreement as ambassador grossman repeated before. however in order for the country to stay in one piece, in order for the country to move forward

with elections the way they are as ambassador dobbins described in an order for the economy to continue to prosper as it has despite predictions it was going to crash, it hasn't crashed and is continuing to move forward the basic security efforts of the afghan army police and intelligence agencies are going to carry forward and needs to be successful. all the indications are that it will. unfortunately because of the continuing ability of the taliban to inflict violence there will be many casualties. the afghan police particularly but also the army have suffered high casualties and continued to do so. nevertheless in the story that was rarely understood are told here afghans continue to flock to those services even though the danger is high. people in afghanistan are willing to sign up to be in the police, to be in the army and the intelligence services to serve their country. they don't do so because they think afghanistan is going to fail. they do so because they think

it's going to secede. they do so not just because of the money they receive although they believe is essential but they do so out of a sense that afghanistan is needing to be protected. the fact that the united states particular the u.s. military and our partners and allies have helped build institutions to allow the country and the people of that country to move forward with what they want which in many cases is exactly what we in the united states and our partners want for the future of afghanistan is a great tribute to those afghans but also to those who have supported and with that i will close and turn it over to the next speaker. >> thank you david. alex. >> thank you. i first of all want to start out again by thanking the organizers for this event. the common thread that runs through the images up there is that they are both institutions and individuals who have demonstrated just an incredible

amount of devotion to what we are here assembled to talk about today, and that is incredibly important not only for afghans but for the united states that we have institutions that carry these burdens. i also really want to say how honored i am to be sitting up here with everybody. i served in one way or another with everybody here. in fact when i first went to pakistan in 1993 i was given the name andrew wilder to look up as one of the few people who really knew what was going on at the time and although there are more people now that know what's going on andrew remains about the best. >> i am more confused than ever. >> i also want to acknowledge the incredible work of ambassadors jawad and hakimi. you have both been stalwarts for your nation and you sit here not only representing yourselves but the incredible work in partnership that we have had with the afghan government so

it's great to see you. and i also want to acknowledge three folks here. steve hadley, congratulations on taking over the chairmanship. i know that those of us who have worked here and love in their product this institution are thrilled with you stepping up to do that and jim dobbins is someone who has taught us all now going on and i won't say how long but at least about 15 years about how we need to think about peace and security in the u.s. involvement. so the fact that you have stepped back into this role, there couldn't be a better person and a better present the the -- perspective. bill is also, i met bill in afghanistan in 2002 and he remains to me one of the best examples of a diplomat and it was that i have ever had. ..

and conflict is much more efficient, and it costs actually a lot less to perpetrate. decades of understanding that were built up between communities in afghanistan, for example, in the 50 years preceding the soviet invasion, and the gradual emergence of democratic politics were

undermined severely and rapidly but a few massacres that we are still talking about today. electricity grids that took years and billions of dollars to build undermined by cutting down a few lines, knocking down goals. -- polls. but paradoxically conflict imposes a far, far greater cost. if we had not seen the lost 30 years of development in afghanistan, imagine where we would be today. afghanistan's gross domestic product today stands at about $20 billion, and the incredible story we've heard over and over again this morning is that it grows fourfold just in the last nine years, which is an incredible change. so that's $15 billion a year of

economic activity. when you multiply that over decades and you think about the cost, they are far, far greater than any amount of investment that we have made on the civilian side. so conflict costs less much to perpetrate and as a far, far greater cost to our own society and to afghanistan. even greater than those numbers though are the loss generations of afghans who have not had the opportunity to enjoy the basic tenets of human dignity, peace and security, efficient food -- sufficient food, access to education and healthier. afghanistan, until a decade ago, was basically accepted from the wave of globalization that has brought hundreds of millions of people from extreme poverty and

into the global economy, that is brought in to enjoy greater rights and the opportunities that democracy affords. my current job as the head of policy planning and learning for usaid causes me to look across country to see what's working and what's not working. and i'm going to repeat a few of the things you've already heard, because i think they are so fundamentally important. when we look at the losses that afghanistan has suffered over this period of time, the first question that appears all of us that is income of them and get and keep answering is, can actually do something about it? 10 instruments we have as the united states government, as an international community, as an afghan government, can we change some of these conditions? can we write some of these wrongs? andy investment in a fragile place like afghanistan actually yield results?

the astonishing fact that we've come to learn in the last few years is that not only were able to move the needle in afghanistan collectively, but we been able to fundamentally change a lot of the basic conditions in that country. ambassador dobbins spoke about the fact, which i still find phenomenal, that the human development report last year found that afghanistan has made more progress than any country on earth in the last decade. now granted that's going from some of the lowest bass lines, but that progress was not inevitable. i and many of you have heard that, i love the story about what happened in public health in afghanistan because it's remarkable in a few ways. afghans did not have access to health care in 2002 to 6% of afghans could walk within an hour to basic health care.

we're not talking about the mayo clinic. we are talking about doctors and nurses who, with minimal training, for things that are literally pennies take your make a difference between life and death for a mother and child, or a child under the age of five. by changing that rate of access from 6% to over 60%, and by making the decision to invest through afghan government institutions, not by creating parallel systems but working together with the afghan government to create a health network that could reach over 60% of its people in a country where it's hard to reach people, the change has been phenomenal. afghanistan's life expectancy went from 45 years to over 60 years in less than a decade. that sort of progress is almost

unprecedented, but it's also explainable because of the steps that we took to choose a sick services over extensive services, to choose going to the afghan government rather than setting up parallel systems, to choose focusing on mothers and children where lives could be saved. and the impact will resonate throughout afghanistan for years to come. a similar story in education. we made a decision to focus on basic education, one that's often been criticized because you to look at long-term education needs as well but the fact of the matter is that there were only 900,000 afghans, almost all boys, in school in 2002. 8 million short today, 40% of them are girls. literacy rates since 2005 have risen 50% for both boys and girls. and again these are long-term development investments. they are not things that change the economy overnight.

they are not things that change the political system overnight. but by having, by having chosen to invest in those things over the long term, we have an afghanistan today in 2014 that is fundamentally changed. the last story i want to tell on that note is about revenue because i think it's so important. the afghan government needs to be able to pay for itself increasingly and the services that it delivers over time. it can't do it today. but since 2004, the afghan government revenue collection has gone up 1000%. afghanistan, last year, surpassed the 2 billion-dollar mark in terms of revenue raised excellent means they're not raising more of their own revenues than the united states

government is supplying in a system, which is a fantastic watershed for them to have passed through. all of these stories, however, are not just about those particular gains. they are about something that i think is even more deeply important, which is about the development of afghan institutions. afghanistan's future rests on afghans shoulders. we can and must and will continue to support afghanistan through this transitional process, but it will be increasingly afghans, increasingly afghan revenues, and afghan institutions that will carry this burden. there's no greater example of this at the moment in my opinion than looking at afghanistan's electoral institution. if you have followed afghan elections since the first one, their electrical institutions and some of the great things that ambassador dobbins laid out about the complaints and where they are and how many people have been registered for the

election, these elections are being run by afghans, almost entirely this time around. and that is a great sign. but afghanistan does remain among one of the poorest countries in the world, and i think what everybody is trying to understand is what comes next. first of all, many of our colleagues have set up here, i can't emphasize fundamental importance of a peaceful and successful transition this year. all development progress in afghanistan fundamentally rests upon the success of this transition. second, while there are many uncertainties facing afghanistan, there are a few things that we know. first of all, afghanistan has fundamentally changed. when you look at its youth, it's education, it's access to information, mobile phones, a

taste of them hocrisy. women in the economy, women in the political arena. i believe firmly having watched afghanistan so intensively over the last 20 years, that those are all powerful genie said going to be really, really hard to put back into the bottle. and like one, somebody said on this panel, i think was ambassador grossman, i believe that afghans will fight for what they have earned this decade. because they have to. ultimately, it is their lives, not ours, that hang in the balance. and i think that the transition in many ways represent the afghans truly take responsibility for so many of these things. and what i think you will see is that there are millions of afghans, any of them were not alive, most of them in fact were not alive in 1991 when the last transition occurred. who see a different future for themselves for their country and

for the region. another thing has changed that i believe that we know that has been proven by all of these statistics that i and others have laid out is that we know that we and the afghan government and afghan institutions can successfully deliver in this environment. i think there are a lot of concerns about whether our assistance is still going to be accountable going forward, whether we will really be able to track the dollars and measure results and have impact. but i think that that is already been demonstrated. so much of the work that we do today is directly through afghan institution. most of her initial partners relied most on afghans for their staffing. when we talk about the great agricultural programs that we have and helmand, that isn't americans running around planting seeds. it's afghans working for international and local or positions worked with afghan

farmers and afghan government to make these changes happen. so i think we've already been able to deliver a critical evidence of success that can carry forward. the final thing that we know, and no one i think more than jeff dobbins is responsible for us knowing this, is that rapid withdrawal of american support in this time will be one of the most critical factors in afghanistan's failure. if afghanistan does not maintain some degree, strong degree of international support through this transitional period, the increased and likely that afghanistan will become more fragile, more conflict, more unstable goes up dramatically. so that leads me to my final point which is that, amazingly,

i think an afghanistan and the incredible work that has been done to put in a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan and the united states come to negotiate the bsa, and the incredible display of international commitment that was demonstrated in chicago and in tokyo in the summer, and in istanbul, in the summer of 2012 when the entire world stood together after a decade of incredible investment and said, we believe in afghanistan, and we are going to keep going because this investment is making a difference, and it's that important to the world. we can't lose sight of the fact if we are taking the long view that we often get that wrong. we often don't make a long-term commitment once the cameras turn away. we often wait for an election and then look elsewhere.

and it takes me back to 1991 and 1992 when america had one of its most amazing foreign policy victories of the cold war and entering the post cold war world. and instead of seizing that success and building on it, not that we were solely responsible for anything in that period, but we failed to act. and that action has cost us nearly. it has cost all of us dearly. and so i believe that the investments that we have planned to continue building afghanistan's economy, to continue building its capacity of its people and to continue to set it on a path for its own self sustainability is a critical opportunity that now more than ever we have to recommit too. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you all. we're trying to pack a lot in today's we don't have much time for question and answer, but i think we have about 15 minutes where we can take some questions from the audience. we have microphones that can be handed out, if you identify yourself. i would make a plea to keep your questions or comments short so that we have a time for as many people to ask questions as possible. so please identify yourself. we will start there, close to the microphone. >> i think probably afghanistan is the only democracy where there are no mainstream political parties which are so crucial for any democracy. so why it didn't happen when the world community led by the u.s. was helping afghanistan in several factors. why didn't they help them to mainstream political parties? >> thank you. we will take three or four questions and then come back to the panel. in the very back.

>> i had a question about the cut in humanitarian and afghan national security forces eight. i know there's a lot of aid moved around between accounts and so forth but what impact you think it will have in practical terms and also as messaging? thanks. >> thank you. now up in the front. >> alex, i really appreciated your comments on development, and i wonder if you could follow that thought through, the importance of development in afghanistan in terms of the regional context and the security considerations? >> okay. may be time for one more in the back.

right there. >> thank you. [inaudible] my question will be for the panel, whoever can respond to what is your input on peace building efforts in afghanistan, and how do you assess the current on and off peace talks? do you think people. these peace talks, which the role of u.s. in the peace talks and how they can continue their involvement in the talks? thank you. >> okay, i think why do we come back to the panel, political parties, peace talks, the cuts in assistance, development questions. alex, start with you. >> i think that there are three major areas that are going to boost afghanistan in terms of employment generation, in terms of income and regional development.

the first is agriculture. agriculture is enormously important to afghanistan. it is by far the greatest generator of employment. it is fundamental in afghanistan, which has been traditionally one of the most food insecure countries in the world. but afghanistan's agricultural potential is so untapped. this is one of the reasons why usaid in the last couple of years has invested so heavily in that, but part of afghanistan's agricultural potential is also about trade and export. and so when i think about the regional development context, afghanistan as a trading partner for the region and as a place where the region can trade with each other is fundamentally important. there have been some huge advances in this both in terms of infrastructure but also customs revenue. when i talked about afghan government revenue, its customs which has been the fastest

growing sector for the afghan government in terms of revenue. we all know that the region that afghanistan fits in is one of the most economic frustrated in the world. the great dream of trade between south asia and central asia, and then eventually through and up into europe and beyond is growing. but still remains stalled. the opportunity to open up those trade pathways will be, i believe, fundamentally transformative for afghanistan and the region. the last thing i wanted to say which is not related to the regional thing but it's so fundamental, one of the things usaid has been investing so heavily is getting afghan women into the economy. that is half of the people of afghanistan who have not been economic factors. women have great potential in afghanistan, particularly also

in terms of the agricultural economy and diversifying the agricultural economy. i think some of the greatest growth potential that afghanistan is going to see is actually by generating meaningful economic opportunity for women in afghanistan. >> i'll say a couple words about cuts, those cuts in assistance and military and civilian. people who have used euphemisms, cost and risk. let me put a face him with the cost and risk of those cuts in assistance mean that more people are going to die, and particularly more afghans. i was in afghanistan a short while ago and i visited a hospital and saw a two year old whose foot, a two year old girl, whose the same age as my two year old grandson here in the u.s., her foot had been blown off by an ied. her parents were despairing about a future because the future of a handicapped person in afghanistan is difficult. there will be more children's

feet blown off. there will be more afghan please been an soldiers killed because of those cuts in assistance. when we do our systems -- assistance less effectively, that makes the ability of the people we are assisting more susceptible to death and to injury. it means more people on the civilian side, as alex pointed out, were able to deliver assistance more effectively. the achievements in public health alex talk about our tremendous. going from six to 60% of people who are within an hour of health care is a tremendous accomplishment, but to continue that kind of improvement needs the continued resources that the u.s. and other countries have pledged in afghanistan. so these cuts that bring our ability to carry out the pledges we've already made a series question, bring our ability to support the afghan security forces to be effective our leading to hardship, pain, suffering and death right now. >> so one comment on the

question of cuts in the system. i think it's both the question of the reality of what money can buy as david explain and its the question of the message of commitment that was sent into the afghans, as all discussed. the afghans have us and we're asking the afghans to assume an enormous burden of responsibility for the sovereignty of their own country. but the question is whether their partners are going to continue to send a message of commitment and confidence. on the question of regional economic cooperation, the secretary has announced the new silk road. secretaries endorsed it and create a new office default is a. i think it's an incredibly important initiative. europe after world war ii found a way for the countries within europe to cooperate with each other at the heart of that was cooperation between france and germany. i think one of the questions for the central, south asia region is what is there equivalents.

one of them is as alex has its point is trade and transportation which be critical getting goods from china to go through to europe. but they're also others and wanted to highlight i think is the question of energy and power. there were meetings where in regional, political and business leaders came together and what they got reall really excited at was when he discovered that some of the central asian republics are producing power and can sell it between two and 6 cents a kilo of our india and pakistan are buying 13 or 16 cents per kilowatt hour. that shows enormous opportunity for trade. energy and power is another, and there are others i think increasingly are being discovered but in the search for regional cooperation is what will help create incentives for peace and stability. >> thank you very much. let me see if i could just adjust the question of the peace process such as it is, i talked

about this album before the session. i would make four points if i could. one is i think it's really important to start as david sedney talked in his intervention to start and remember that you are fighting hear the taliban to continue to attack and attack at attack, as david did, mostly noncombatants but also terrible attacks on afghan national security forces and the continued effort to kill and maim american forces and international forces as well. this is an enemy that is still out there fighting, i think any consideration of peace process is got to begin with the question of whether they are interested in doing some kind of arrangement and making reconciliation work with the people of afghanistan. secondly, i think it's also worth saying out loud that i can understand, everyone should understand, why afghans and especially i think afghan women or young people or entrepreneurs, worry about the peace process. because they worry that people are going to make decisions

above their heads or over them to have a reconciliation process which might chip away at some of the important progress that's made over the last 12 or 13 years. that's why it's extremely important it seems to me that this be a conversation, afghans about what they want in terms of reconciliation. if i could put a parentheses here, i think as alex said and also clare noted, it's extreme important that women make their progress inside of this increase in import and afghan economy. it seems one of the natural barriers towards going backward in a reconciliation process is to have powerful woman in a powerful economic interests in afghanistan so that they can speak for themselves about what their future will be like. and fourth point, just to keep going back and back and back to the point about what is the role for the international community, and particularly for the united

states, and that is a clear one. that is to open the doors, maybe make it possible for afghans to talk to other afghans about the future of afghanistan. reconciliation is not about the united states or the international community making some arrangements on behalf of the afghan people. it's about afghans making arrangements that they wish to see. since you have to make your own decision, but it does strike me as right that this is a conflict that isn't going to in militarily. there will be some political end to this that reconciliation therefore among afghans is important. secondly, as i said in my intervention, it's the reason to be in favor of assigned bsa. reconciliation is a reason to be in favor of america national forces in afghanistan after january 1, 2015, because the taliban is watching what it is we are going to do. they're not going to rise at this voluntarily. there still has to be some effort made to fight this

terrorist group. and, finally, is the question of the in the condition, to make sure that there is the break with al-qaeda, that there is an in thing of this against the afghan people, and also that there is a reconciliation that supports the kinds of governance and constitution and effort that are printed were talking about, especially protecting the role of women in society. i think there is a role for this. a huge number of questions obviously, but the very important thing i think it is for foreign voices to say, like so much of what we said on this panel this morning, this is an afghan responsibility we have the privilege to support. >> let me briefly try to tackle the political party question because i think it's an excellent question, a very important one. certainly in the future if i think parliamentary democracy is going to function effectively in afghanistan, you do need at some point to get political parties

stronger and upgrading more effectively in terms of this aggregating and organizing interest to make parliament function. i think the original sin from my perspective goes back to 2004 when the voting system that was selected, not to go to much into the weeds, but the single non-transferable vote, one of our first, one of the first publications back there was on the voting system as highly critical about choosing that voting system precisely because it works against the interests of political parties and works in the interests of independent candidates. i think that was a deliberate choice, if you want to keep the executive strong and powerful in parliament we can -- >> we will be the last couple of minutes of this program to give the it in its entirety at our website, c-span.org. we will go live to the heritage foundation for discussion on the future of ukraine. sector if state john kerry is in

kiev today to support the country's government. this is just getting underway. >> last thursday check that your cell phone has been turned off. of course, we will post the program on heritage website for your future reference under outside visitors, online communications are welcome to send questions or comments throughout the program simply by any of us at speaker@heritage.org. hosting our discussion this afternoon is dr. james jay carafano, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies. he is our richardson fell and also directs the kathryn and shelby david institute for international study. he also serves as a senior fellow at the george washington university homeland security policy institute, serves on the board of trustees for the marine corps university foundation, on the advisory board for the west point center of or history, the