leadership coming to the front to thaek their position and carry from the previous military leadership. you saw a decision was made going to geneva which was not a easy decision which we had to discuss and fight for it and convince our friends in the coalition to go alongwith it. we respected the decision of a few of our friend within the coalition to resign temporarily as they stated. down the road when they saw we did the right decision, is theirtheir duty to come back and join to us work together. so we're doing our best now to correct our own path with our politically, military side and same way to have a better command-and-control on the military field. this we need it as syrian and we need it to improve the work of

the performance of the military side. but also we take out some excuses from our friend who are not supplying specific arms because they say what guaranty we have what control you have? can you guaranty these weapons will not go to extremist groups? so they need to see us first being responsible ourselves. after we are being responsible for ourselves, then we can ask and tell them, this is what we need from you. this is the system we have. this is the control which we have. whether they use it as an excuse and not, we'll see in the future but these steps we need them as syrians regardless of our friend and how they act toward us. second question, when bashir will leave? i have to be honest. nobody knows.

but it is our duty to maximize our performance as i said on both fields. bashir will not leave free of charge. we're not dreaming that. we go to geneva and we sit on the table, okay, we will discuss with you, this is nice, this is good. okay. this is the -- good-bye. it is not like this. we need to create first enough political pressure, serious political pressures through mon power of the world and mainly through two main battles of the regime. one is bashir and one which is iran. if you put them in order his number one ally is iran. it is the main supporter of the regime. second place comes russia. this is one side. second side is military. if he doesn't feel there is a real threat on him, he will not move. so you have either to create

enough political pressure or enough military pressure or a combination of both. what we can promise is promise to perform to our capability and be united and we go all into achieving our arms and target. the rest, it depend on whatever conditions will be created in the future. third question, regarding the third round for geneva, as you know, in geneva ii, the last session, there were, mr. brahimi proposed a agenda for discussion which has four items in it. the first item he proposed putting an end to violence and counterterrorism. second item was about political power transition and the making the tgp, which is the

transitional governing body. third was about the state institution between don't newt and change. and forth, -- fourth, about public dialogue and national reconciliation. both parties agreed on -- there were some comments about wording in them which we worked out. but the regime was insisting that they want to discuss each item separate, which means, they, we start about talking about putting an end to violence and counter terrorism after we finish completely the subject, they move into the second item which is the power transition and the tgb. for us our argument was you can not discuss the first item first alone by itself because even if you discuss it, you will reach a point in order to resolve this,

you have to establish the tgb. because we don't have any common understanding, or description, both of us, for them they consider us as terrorists. for them we consider them using state terrorism. we consider hezbollah and the militias as terrorist organizations. they considered them as being their allies and they're fighting for their benefit. so there is no way to reach mutual understanding. and clearly, the security council resolution 2118, 22118, letter for geneva conference it was stated that international conference, they're negotiating starting with political transition and establishment of

tgb. with geneva, communique, you read the terms of it, you find the item talking about violence. it says all parties has to cooperate with the tg in order to put an end to violence. which means it. gp has to be condition before having it put an end to violence. it is not about we are, i mean hungry or we want to replace the regime. it is about practicality and having a successful negotiating strategy and policy. the regime insisted no way to discuss this. we insisted, no, we have to discuss this. so mr. brahimi reached, he made a compromise. and he said, okay, we agree, i propose we discuss both of them in parallel. which means we have a session today on subject one, next day, on the second subject. for us we've been positive.

we agreed on this compromise. the regime refused. so brahimi found himself dead then. he said, well, now, i can not call for date for a third session and i will go back to report to the security council and both of you, you go rethink your strategy and i will contact you again. yesterday they were meeting, in the past two days in the security council where mr. brahimi submitted his report and his report was very clear. in his meetings he was very clear, pinpointing that the government delegation is the one refusing to discuss these items and refusing to accept his, i mean, proposal. and, also he noted that opposition delegation has acted

postively and very productive while the other delegation will not and they're not serious about the whole issue. and he asked for the security council to issue a statement or take action in his support. the english, british representative and other representatives prepared a press statement which calls for support of brahimi and calls on the syrian government to accept what his proposal. unfortunately russia blocked issuing the statement. and here we are talking about the press statement. no action. just words. russia block as press statement, what can you expect of any type of action of this council?

so the question comes now, where brahimi wants to go? we had a meeting with him yesterday and he was straightforward in saying that he will not, he is for the continuity of the process. he is ready to put all most effort for its success but he can not continue unless the government agrees on discussing both subjecting in the same time. he feels that iran is the main power player so he decided he will go to iran today and he will come back on the 19th with the hope that iran will play a positive role and press on the syrian government with russia, both of them. so there is no answer the 20th or end this month to know if he will be successful or not.

>> we have time for one more question. and i saw -- the hand. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> yes. thank you. so your question two part. but we don't represent anyone.

my answer, clearly you are wrong. because first, when we were in geneva, they were with us, factions and the main fact shuns of the free syrian army. we did not announce this from the start because we knew that the regime may resolve into saying these guys are terrorists and not sit with us and so we decided to keep them hidden in the back and it was a committee of main leaders of the free syrian army and also we have representative of other political forces within the our delegation officially. the official delegation. and the back delegation. and the guards and committees who are preparing for the

negotiation -- board and committees. also you're wrong, we are, there is continuing cooperation and between the higher military council and leadership of the coalition itself. if you heard in the last month, within two weeks i think, before two weeks. there were new orders and changes in the higher military council. they changed leadership. they made a very promising plan for restructuring the free syrian army. restructuring the command and center and operations center. now you have leaders in the syrian army who are leaders on the ground, living inside syria. the head of smc, the head of

operations for the military is general abdul bashir. who will control and operate the region and he is fighting daily but against the regime who lost his son fighting these weapons. he is ex-syrian army general which means he knows about military operations and you have his deputy, also an ex-general, from the syrian army. and also his commander on the ground in the area. and he commands, commanded in the free syrian army three thousand soldiers. he is the first to fight them and kick them out. these guys, they have, we met with them. we saw their plans. we know they are doing things right, and correct and we should support them in order for them

to restructure and have organized military operations in syria, not to go back to the way that it was managed in chaotic way, unorganized way, modern coordinated way. this is,. >> i would like to add one thing about the representativeness of the coalition and delegation to geneva because it was raised only by the regime and by russia in particular. yes, i think modestly we could say, you can't talk about your representativeness without having elections and a founding member of the coalition i could say that it came after a series of attempts to create a body that represent the syrian revolution and embody its principles and fight for its ideals. i think you could ask under the circumstance that is we live under, to which extent they are in fact doing that or not.

but we can't claim that we represent syria or we represent the ground or we represent all of it. but i think as founding members we tried very hard. it included predecessor to the coalition, syrian national council in its various formation which is by itself a coalition, wider coalition of political groups, activists. i think the new addition to those groups was creating the local councils which they are present in every town and province in syria with differing degree of reach. some of them are trying to have elections. in fact in the suburb of damascus, both places conducted elections which very, very under very, very difficult circumstances as you know. then there were political figures forced to leave syria. some of them were active since the damascus declaration days and peaceful activists were part of it. as well as the free syrian army. so that's, i think the largest,

widest, body you could create from politically, militarily active groups on the ground. we for sure don't represent everybody on the ground and i think we need to improve that representative nature of the coalition. i think what is important for those of you who are active in the revolution to act which extent the coalition is doing a good job. to which extent is embodying the ideals of the revolution and fighting for them. that is the point. when the delegation went to geneva i think they were very clear upholding those self-ideals. they receive a lloyd of impact from every syrians who wanted a way out, the way out of violence and put syria on a path of political transition that leaves no room for assad. those are the coalitions we need. the coalition got international recognition which we need to uphold and we need to strengthen because that will give us some support. there will not be a political solution in syria unless it's a forced political solution.

like the question of chemical weapons. it had to be enforced. we have to tip the balance militarily on the ground and call on friend and supporters worldwide to increase their support and apply pressure, including in this country. i think a lot of work you are doing in this country, you must pressure the white house to stand up to its responsibility in protecting syrians and enforcing a humanitarian and political solution. that is the way to do it. i think the coalition will continue to improve its performance but we will never be representative unless we reach that point of democratic and free and fair elections. >> i -- round of applause. [applause] i personally would like to that thank them for coming out and joining us today. there are also members that are here and the in the d.c. offices here. now you know their faces. you see them around. you have questions. he will not be very happy about me saying this. you can approach him certainly and continue the conversation off-line. i'm just teasing. of course you will be happy to.

of course we'll move on to our next panel. our next opinion neal of -- panel of experts, if i could get mr. hooper and dr. made demand and tabler to join usp here. s i'm going to start the introductions from my left. i met dr. heydeman in, this panel is an honor, honor to have them here with us. these are from the policy community and what we call friend of the syrian peep. they have been friend ever the syrian people since the beginning of the revolution. so to my left -- [applause] thank you. i first met dr. heydemann in

beryl lynn. he was involved initially in the day after project. he was vice president of research and conflict at u.s. institute of peace. he is a political scientist who specializes in comparative politics and political economy of the middle east with a particular focus on syria. his interests include authoritarian governance, economic development, social policy, split and economic reform in civil society. we have to his left, mr. jim hooper a former u.s. diplomat. he is managing director for pilpg, a public interest international law and policy group. former director of the washington office of the icg, the international crisis group. he has been extremely engaged on syria and he is also done some work advising the itlf. at the end of the table is mr. andrew tabler and i like andrew, because he says it like it is.

yeah, he is a senior fellow in the program on arrow politics at washington institute and focuses on syrian policy in the levant former cofounder and editor in chief of syria today the first private english language magazine. he had unparalleled access to bashir in syria. so he has prerevolution experience with syria and leveraged his contact with the syrian opposition to i think to offer a unique vision. and the reason, i'm going to be brief but the reason i like engaging this panel's experts because sometimes i feel like as syrian-americans we have conversations amongst ourselves and hard to see it from the outside while this is a well-informed group and, they, they will share with us how they see it from the inside. we're going to begin with mr. hooper, presenting first and then dr. heydemann, then andrew tabler.

thank you. >> could i ask everyone to stand please for a moment of silence. in respect for the suffering that the syrian people are enduring in this terrible war. [moment of silence] >> thank you very much. on behalf of the three of us, steve, andrew, and i, we would all like to thank the coalition for democratic syria for arranging this and for inviting us to speak to you. you've, you've all seen this democratic cause and this movement through, i think some very dark days in syria's current history. and, i have a lot of respect for what you have gone through, what you are going through, and what

you, you and your relatives and friend in syria will continue to go through until this war is over. on the basis of what, if i could say something, i was, and this was not planned, but it's a result of the questions and answers, if i may. i will make this very brief. it is an unpaid announcement as well, shall we say. i was at geneva and i can, and i genuinely assure you that your negotiators negotiated with honor, with dignity, with respect, for the goals of the revolution, and with a toughness and a wisdom that i think should make you proud, if you were there i think you would have been, they made you proud.

[applause] no one in the world seriously doubt that is russian president vladmir putin will succeed with the seizure of ukrainian territory come what may. no one in the world seriously believes that president barack obama will act decisively against president bashar al-assad of syria come what may. this is not a non-second wit tore, and there by hangs a tale. in the ukrainian crisis, putin saw an opportunity and he seized it. in the syria crisis when assad used chemical weapons against, against his own people, president obama saw his responsibility and flinched. in the age of putin the belief

in russian power, purpose, and resolve is secure and growing. in the age of obama a man who i voted for twice i should say, the belief in american power, purpose, and resolve is fragile and ebbing. putin and assad are two sides of the same coin, each presenting a challenge to american leadership, both working in parallel to undermine american interests in europe and the middle east. once again the global chessboard is back in play. and this presents opportunities for you. very important opportunities. the beginning of policy-making wisdom is to link the crisis in ukraine to the crisis in sire. >> -- syria. because the west lacks the means to challenge putin militarily along the expanding russian periphery in ukraine, does not mean that the u.s. lacks the

means to challenge putin elsewhere. thereby inflicting serious damage on russian interests, and sinning a firm message about the price russia will pay for its aggression in europe and support of assad's brutality in syria. defeating bashar al-assad militarily and politically would cast a large shadow overputin's leadership. syria is the jewel of russia's middle east crown and has been since moscow's close relationship with egypt was upended during the sadat era. the assads are the strongest allies of russia in the region, now as a result of the revolution, the most vulnerable. by defeating assad in syria the u.s. can end both large-scale killing by the regime and drive up the costs considerably in the russian calculus about ukraine. defeating assad would demonstrate to the world that the russian arms used by their syrian allies were not a match

for u.s. arms and political will. further undermining moskow's global standing. moreover, in a direct repost for the seizure of black seaport of sevastipole in crimea, ending russian influence in syria by removing assad would remove access from their sole mediterranean port. i urge you not to be shy in emphasizing your point in your advocacy, once you're in town and when you leave here. the downfall of assad would strike at the centerpiece of russian, syrian, hezbollah, iranian alliance. a not inconsiderable achievement itself a alliance congealed in victory and flounders in defeat. the u.s. still has allies left among the syrian opposition and could have many more. so it is yet possible for the u.s. to embark on a policy of arm and strike.

arm the opposition free syrian army to defeat assad's forces and extremist and at this assad jihadi groups on the ground while a u.s. levels the playing field by striking syrian military targets from the air rather than sending in ground troops. no one is advocating a u.s. replay of iraq in syria. this will not come to pass until the administration starts viewing the syrian opposition as a strategic prize rather than a nuisance and a distraction for the u.s. in the region. a useful beginning would be for the administration to negotiate a strategic understanding with the opposition including commitments about the syrian russian relationship and in a post-assad syria. setting back putin by defeating assad is less difficult than skeptics might assume. syria is boarded by -- bordered by three close u.s. allies.

turkey with nato bases, jordan an israel. the med train i can't is a an american lake patrolled by the sixth fleet and bringing u.s. force to bear in ukraine presents far more difficult challenges and higher risks of escalation then does forceful u.s. action in syria. i acknowledge though that less difficult than assumed is not the same thing as easy. the lives of our countrymen and women in the military will be on the line. retaliation by assad and his allies is to be expected in ways not entirely predictable. there will be financial and other costs. and putin himself might not sit on his hand watching his ally go down to defeat. the mantle of leadership is not easily earned by an american president. with you that is also -- [applause] but that is also the point. if restoring the belief in american leadership, firmness and constantsy is an intended

by-product of linking the ukraine and syrian crises, u.s. leaders must demonstrate the capacity to master strategic and tactical problems that come their way. as another liberal democratic president said in 1962 about a softer projection of american power, we do these things, quote, not because they are easy but because they are hard. that is what americans do. it is what the syrian people have already undertaken against assad. it is late but not too late to act resolutely in syria. the rationale for doing so which has been there since assad declared war on a his countrymen, use chemical weapons against them and generate a massive humanitarian crisis is even more compelling for geostrategic reasons since his allies seizure of crimea. putin will still have crimea but he will no longer have syria.

and will be put on notice that if he contemplates further aggression or destablizing actions in europe, the west has a range of damaging options to employ. and the syrian people will be rid of assads, free to confront challenges after postassad syria. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] . .

from our very distinctive perspectives about some of the elements of u.s. policy. we are honored to be here with you and we appreciate the opportunity given to us to do so. [applause] i'm going to focus on the policy of the obama administration towards syria. i suspect a good question. the question was do they have one. i suspect that within this room there are some of you with our own little bit frustrated with how the white house has handled at the obama administration. [laughter] i suspect -- they say that syrians have a hard time reaching agreements. not true. i suspect there's some of you that maybe more than frustrated. you may be upset, angry about how the administration has handled the policy towards syria. i want to confess to you i don't know if this offers you very

much consolation, but you're not alone. for those of us who follow the theory in crisis or a closely, for those of us who watch how the obama administration is managing its handling of the crisis, one of the most extraordinary puzzles and challenges that we deal with concerns the incredible risk aversion of the obama administration with respect to its engagement with syria, and even more so it's incredible reluctance to change course even after it has pursued for three years a policy that has failed. the white house knows that its policy has failed. the president himself has said the policy has failed. in fact, more than that, the white house acknowledges that

there policies have not been able to prevent every single outcome they hoped would not occur from happening. every single one of them has happened. radicalization, the transformation of serious into a home for extremists islamists terrorist groups. regional instability and a spillover from conflict into every one of the neighboring states. the possibility that syria could conflict continues produce balkanization for the partition of syria and has lived as we know to the most devastating humanitarian crisis that the world has seen since rwanda in

1994. a statement from antonio gutierrez for refugees. you might think that given his failure, the white house might be prepared to enter the possibility that it needs to make a shift in its policies, but this has not happened. the question is why hasn't it happened? the bigger question is whether there are additional steps that the white house can take that might give it a stronger possibility of achieving the objectives it set for itself in syria. how did the administration explain its willingness to change course? we hear about the risks associated with military intervention. jim mentioned some of those even though it was presented in a way that is very disingenuous. president obama, ambassador power, national secretary have

all used the phrase boots on the ground. we know that the boots on the ground have never been under discussion. it emphasizes the risk attached to military intervention. we hear there aren't any good options. they might not be able to do very much that would have a positive impact on the course of the syrian conflict deputy security adviser ben road a couple months ago made it to be an extraordinary statement about the u.s. policy. he said the u.s. does and have the tools to deal with the kind of complex crises like syria. the u.s. does not have the troops. is it really the case that the u.s. doesn't have the tools? of the questions i ask when i hear that is why not? this is an administration that

has been in power now for a number of years. they've had some time to say several months ago that they don't have tools quite extraordinary. but what i would like to suggest is that even if we concede to the white house that military options are risky, even if we concede to the white house that americans do not want to direct military intervention in syria, even if we concede that the military has an impulse control problem you ar that even providg small amounts of aid would lead to a cascade of intervention that might spin out of control i would like to suggest that there is a broad range of options available to the white house that it could apply if it wishes to do so and what i would like to suggest in particular is that it's time for the white house to play what i would call the sovereignty card and i want to

say just a bit about what i mean by that and why i think it could make an important difference. as you know, the white house said the regime is illegitimate and that he must go. the fact is the u.s. continues to recognize the sovereignty of the regime and it has in fact defined as a red wine the idea that it might withdraw its recognition of the sovereignty of the saudi regime. you may not be aware of the activities of the state department i in this area are constrained with engaging in military actors. why? because legal advisers at the white house have concluded that it's against american law to support anyone that advocates the overthrow of the regime.

it's the sovereignty of the regime, and the concern about playing the sovereignty card partly reflects the issues that were discussed a moment ago. uncertainty about the credibility of the opposition. more than that it reflects the concern if they were to withdraw the recognition of the sovereignty of the regime it would set a terrible precedent. there are insurgencies how would we be able to tell which ones deserve that kind of support from the u.s. and which one did not. but what i would like to suggest is this concern abou concerned e precedent is unrealistic and exaggerated and that challenging the regime's sovereignty is not only feasible but could have a significant positive impact on the confidence of the asad regime shaking the confidence of

the regime and shaping the confidence of the russian allies. the way that it would affect the strategic asad regime and perhaps bring us closer to an opportunity for the meaningful negotiations for the russians in particular the sovereignty is the single most important justification that they use for their support for the asad regime. it is seen as legalizing and legitimating almost any action that the asad regime takes. it's seen as signaling very clearly that whatever the stated objectives of the white house might be with respect to syria at the end of the day it is unwilling to take steps that would fundamentally challenge the position of the regime. there is a great deal to be gained by making it clear to the

regime that by its supporters sovereignty isn't a blank check undertaken by the head of state in particular when those actions include crime against humanity is and violations of international human rights law. i would argue us while it doesn't requir require immediatd complete recognition of the legitimacy or sovereignty. it is entirely possible for the u.s. administration to extend conditional and partial recognition to the interim government in particular. that is a move that would not only boost the credibility of the interim government that would give access to the resources and support that are essential to meet basic concerns about the governance of the areas outside of the regime

control where there is no overriding authority of the moment. as the u.s. continues in the wake to struggle for ways to find leverage over the regime to affect its confidence in its strategic calculus, to perhaps present meaningful regime is to negotiate at playing the sovereignty card could have significant positive effects. a signal from the u.s. that it's prepared to withdraw the recognition of the sovereign status could be a very powerful tool. i also want to add one last thing before i close. this is exactly the moment to be pushing this point for all of you. as you hold your meetings with officials and policymakers in washington over the coming few days. why? because our colleagues and friends and incredible advocates on behalf of syria, people like

mohammed has achieved an extraordinary success. [applause] on a friday, two very influential congressmen with the congressman who was the house chair and elliott wrangle that you'll byou will be hearing fror today i hope that for a house resolution 520, which among other things calls on the obama administration to withdraw its recognition of the regime's sovereignty. [applause] and so, we have an opportunity now all of us have an opportunity now to use this as a means for pushing back against the argument that there are no good options for pushing back

against the argument that the only options are military options and for putting pressure on the white house to take a step that could in my view have a significant positive impact on the trajectory of the syrian conflict. thank you. [applause] >> to give us some perspective i would say last but not least >> integrates to google last because especially with really well accomplished people like jim who i've come to know them -- i've come to know over the course of the conflict i've known him going back a number of years it's been about six years since i had to leave syria.

i don't know if most of you you noticed i had to leave syria. i'd us used to work for one of e charities in syria. the reason why i had to leave is the magazine that we helped found began to write about the opposition in syria and it was a very sensitive subject i'd already been writing behind the end it was interesting to me how sensitive it was about any kind of dissent. and it is now clear to us what end they would go to to enforce the rule overseer he and i think there should be no mistake about that. at the absolute violence that has led to a perfect whole. millions displaced and the largest humanitarian catastrophe in a generation is hard to stomach.

it's something i dream about. it's something that bothers me very deeply. and i know others appear in the panel as well. and i also want to add for as much as i think steve's criticism in particular president obama's policy in the white house policy is indeed merited on a number of levels and this is in the first time you will be hearing many in government support your cause and we should know that and i think that you know there are many other parts of the bureaucracy. also i think it's very important to note that there have been some pretty strong rejections in the messages coming out a couple of weeks ago. a senior official was on meet the press and said what is going on in syri syria is into genocid there's been a strong pushback in particular some comments yesterday issued by the holocaust museum.

they are recognizing the level of destruction not just the physical description of the human destruction and how difficult this would be to fix. the accomplishment of the coalition in geneva i described as a tactical diplomatic victory. they did a very admirable job and the united states government works very closely with the coalition as part of that process. from the regime side, they intended to talk but did not give way at least as of now on the transitioning governing body inside of the country and we've already discussed in depth. with the president i think most of you have in mind is what i described in some of the more recent writings as a force to solution.

for the president a transition in syria is his third as the president of the country. as someone who has personally witnessed a number of elections i can't point out to you my level of disgust at this approach but let me assure you it is when he is trying to sell and i want to make no mistake about it the last election he won by 97.62% of the vote. and i wrote about this in my book because it was such a specter i had never really seen a fourth pole to that degree. i still remember visiting a station there were some lebane

lebanese. the young woman she says it's okay it's no problem and then she said i will show you how and she pricked her thumb with blood and voted now. i was just stunned and it's something that fits with me and it was my birthday and it wasn't the first time i thought okay i have to get out of syria, but it certainly showed me all of the hopes that we have for change were not going to happen and that is why the solution he has in mind and you have seen the comments in the last few days and other government officials will not lead to a transition in serious and this is where i agree it will perpetuate the conflict for another seven years

that will lead to the partition of the country. the question is i run out of recommendations in the government because i've made so many of them i don't know what else to say. i think what i can only offer to you at this point is to give you a little bit of advice because a lot of this now it's up to you and all of the friends you have gained here in washington and elsewhere but only in the west but in the middle east as well. i realize this is a general comment and it's one that's very easy to set up here and talk to you. you should come together and what i mean by that is i

expected large opposition to come together both the armed groups and the civilian groups in the horrible bloodshed that actually hasn't had happened. there have been certain groups and others but it largely hasn't happened. we have to be honest about that. the specter of the bloodshed, the view from the battle often bring people together. that is the specter of defeat and i think in the solution that is something you are looking at and by the way, these days especially in syria i don't think it's clear it's not like all of a sudden the forces are going to be running all over the country or all of a sudden will be departing anytime soon. i think unfortunately it is going to look like the long-term partition of your homeland in two different areas and i don't really know what to say or think

that is immediately in the cards. but i see a lot of people in the region in particular that have an interest who were happy to fight each other to the last and i don't want to fight back. and a negotiated solution and the efforts that we have started but will probably not end there. >> it's also important to note something that americans learned long ago was the basis of success of the revolution althougrevolutionalthough i'm ng because i know the two are the same though one gives you power. you have to take it. [applause] no one is going to come to your

rescue. you have to rescue your selves and you are capable of doing so. [applause] that starts with consolidating elites but it doesn't end there and i think that you will find in doing that in working together and working against the solution i think you have the chance to be victorious in this area and bring about the negotiated solution that we all need. in the immediate term the obvious is for this group to fight. militarily, diplomatically, economically in every way is the way to make choices. no one has to choose and change unless they have to. at the same time i would urge you as a part of the effort to combat extremism in all its forms. it's a very active effort to do that under way in the region and with the western countries.

i realize the regime works with organizations like others but we also have to realize that they are a part of the opposition as well and we need to isolate and eliminate it over time. they do not have your best interest at heart. they are not a serious organization and i think you know that from the level of applause so enough said on that. in terms of change with president obama i also believe nobody changes unless they have to and i think the question with the white house in particular is to think very closely what is it that will make that happen, that will make president obama change

due to the domestic considerations into international considerations? steven outlines some very heavy international considerations and they did a very good job of it but domestically as well. it is hard and real change is a culmination of very small thin things. he wasn't get concerned about domestic affairs. [applause] let's be fair. he's a worried president. we accept that. he has major problems on health care. he also has growing problems in the international realm as well. on the syrian crisis it is a culmination of many things including what's going on in ukraine they could tip the balance in the immediate term we have the midterm elections in congress. the democratic party is very worried about losing and i would urge you to look at the

political landscape and how you could become more active in terms of your own representatives in terms of lobbying and so on and to watch as more and more groups like the holocaust museum and others begin to see actually what's going on in syria is a genocide and its shameful children have to eat bark and grass into so many people are slaughtered. you can share your concerns with other groups domestically and your adversaries if you can find allies in the strangest places. i can tell you that they are there and they are watching it very closely watching what's going on next door. you can help the community not because they love you because they are serious but because they benefit from working with you in the order of the

long-term. i would like to thank the organizers for this wonderful event and i would like to salute all of you and the opposition by heart and prayers are with you and if you would like to talk about this in more depth feel free to reach out at any time. [applause] the expert panel can address them. >> thank you. i'm willini am willing to be the administration [inaudible]

[laughter] >> thank you very much. i have a couple questions quickly. as the crisis is making this better or worse off. it's a complicated file between the u.s. and russia or it could be part of a package deal. i got comments from this because it played a bad role to support

the president's opposition [inaudible] and my comment, the final one is about the work together the ambassador looks like opposition is going to be in the worst position on the geneva talks and more is getting worse. there's not a lot of leadership and in saudi arabia we are paying a heavy price for that.

>> i want to address only the issue of why not what is the concern about weapons? i don't know enough about the roles of individuals and decision-making in the white house to feel comfortable commenting on that. i believe that our panel will be followed by some government officials who i know will be candid and transparent about the working of policy in the u.s. government. [applause] you know, there has been i think a rolling set of justifications about why it would be inappropriate to provide arms to the opposition.

and it seems to me that in expressing these objections eventually focus back on an interest in preserving the peaceful motion and oppose the militarization for the time that had already become the dominant trend within the revolution because the u.s. argued that it would be opposition squarely on the oppositio opposition to thef the regime i'm not entirely sure that it's wrong but nonetheless it was underway and in order to express the resistance to that trend, the u.s. prefer to avoid a decision to arm at the time what was moderate rebel groups. as they consolidated their began to be a growing concern about what might happen to the weapons. there began to be growing

concern about introducing the new weapons would escalate conflict and there began to be concerns about whether in fact the u.s. could provide weapons on the scale that would make a positive difference in the conflict. my own feeling and this is very much my own feeling is that we have seen that the failure to act as an fact contributed to the outcomes that of the administration was hoping to avoid and the warnings he heard in 2012 about the consequences of the failure to arm of the moderate opposition groups in particular the radicalization of the opposition have come true, and so it seems to me that if this policy has turned out to have a wide range of negative consequences both with respect to implementing the code abilities and also with respect to the trajectory of events on the ground to become engaged in

the armed opposition i do not think it is too late. i continue to believe that there are possibilities to have a positive impact by increasing the support that we provided to the armed opposition. not least it is not elements of the armed opposition today that are engaged in the active counterterrorism efforts in serious. no one else is doing it as far as i can tell. but beyond that i think we have to recognize that much of the support the groups of attenuated over the last several years is because they can provide fighters with weapons and salaries within the admission and with the equipment they need to fight. in other words i think that the loyalty of many participants and these extremist groups is not ideological.

i think it is instrumental in the support were to be provided to some of the more moderate groups, it would be possible to shift the tide on the ground among the levels of support between these different groups and to do so indirections that we would find more appropriate from u.s. policy perspectives. one last thing in february 2012 and i say this not to call attention to something i did but i published a piece in foreign policy called managing militarization which talked about developing the strategy for providing weapons to the armed opposition that would bolster the legitimacy and credible that the civilian opposition that would prevent them from falling into the hands of extremists and here we are two years later and we are still having the same arguments and the absence of an effective policy on the issue i think has imposed a terrible cost.

we should continue to push for the shift on policy. >> there is an unprecedented happening now and for those of you that have looked at the history when bosnia went for its independence in the early 1990s of serbia attacked syria to end posted the arms embargo on the bosnian muslims. they provided no shortage of weapons to belgrade to serbia. i am not here to fight that war but you see the arguments that i heard back then when i was in the department working on these issues and i spoke with you and

i spoke with every official to try to change the policy and virtually completely failed by the way. but again there were the officers whose bosnian situation was seen as such a serious breach as american policy as a result of this and there was a turbulence in the foreign service and the department of state so day after week after month after year he was shelled and leveled by the surrounding troops. and i see the arms embargo post now on the opposition constant with weeks and promises and yet it hasn't happened.

you name it in particular they have been under siege. much of them have been the strike. the fight continues. i have seen a lot of this before. and again many of the arguments that the united states uses now. then under the first president george bush and president clinton. this change is not only because. it's to keep the issue on the front pages and off the evening news. that was their sole focus. they wanted to bury the issue. the media was very good, and i must say that as the killing went on, people got angrier and angrier in the united states. now, alternately with turned the tide is that finally there were

enough votes in the senate to override the administration veto so it wasn't anyone's persuasion but it was the raw political power in congress who override the veto. they knew that if they didn't act they would have to provide arms and they were better off so they did. we ended up at a peace agreement and so forth. now on ukraine that i was trying to say about ukraine is think geostrategic lay. it is possible in this crisis but a moment may come when for all that you've done and no matter what you do it will be something out of your control that will change the course of history and what happens in this area and my guess is that is coming and that it will be

driven by ukraine. at the moment bu what they have done is it has allowed the administration don't like to use this term, but to bury this eerie and issue. they pushed it not from the front page to the back pages and out of much of the televised news they pushed it out of the newspapers and i give credit to nbc nightly news and the today show for the series the children of syria. it's been a very moving experience and i think that has helped move the needle a bit. but you will find that if they be you just have to be ready it may be -- and i think this will happen on ukraine they have only begun to play themselves out. what's going to happen is the administration will be forced by events in europe to take a fresh look at serious and act in a way that it wouldn't do for the

reasons alone. they will do it for geostrategic reasons. >> i think the ukraine crisis -- i would agree it's pushed syria out of the headlines in terms of the media bandwidth so to speak but it's part of a larger problem and it's the whit whitee overall approach to the foreign policy it's a lack of assertiveness as the best way to explain it as the reason why you could explain it in loose terms is now a would become a political issue. i think jim is right when it's faced with action by the hill the president stepping aside on the statement, why did those go into place in july and august of 2011? because the senate already had a

doll that was ready to go. it's a different political landscape of them in the '90s and the role of isolationism. i don't think the ambassador is the reason that it wasn't armed but i'm going to let the ambassador speak for himself. and he will be speaking shortly in the public. and in terms of what you mentioned about saudi arabia, they take advantage of the division inside of your group. nobody messes with you unless you let them. it's very easy for me to say. [applause] right? i'm calling out on myself.

it's easy to say that when they are facing this in the country and the adversaries in the gulf monarchies show up and take you have to do the following were you aren't going to give you the arms. i recognize that. but again, talk with your allies in the gulf and in the region. have to get around this. it's been present in the region if you have to deal with it and your experts already. the regime is well over two and a half months behind schedule and it's not on the 12 sites. it's unclear what are they've decided to or not. it's important to watch. the chemical weapons destruction are in the same resolution of 2118 coupled together for a reason. so if one goes bad idea for one will go bad and i think there's a lot of pressure on the obama

administration to do more in the unlikely event that the president drips out the chemical weapons and precursors. and it uses tha uses the tool o. so i would urge you to press on that and others in the community are doing so also. >> i would like to thank the panel. we appreciate your perspective and your time. >> 150,000 people have died in serious is the start of the protest against bush are all a solid's government. coming up next a negotiator with the opposition talks up the conflict. but even also featured u.s. diplomat james hopper who called on the obama administration to arm the opposition and conduct airstrikes. okay. so, i just wanted to say i go back and forth of the border

into turkey and the southern border with syria and i come back and i've often seen the gentlemen both here in washington and their underground doing really tireless work and amazing work in terms of trying to push for as much as is possible for this eerie and people directly on the inside and although there are different frustrations and there is many people in the government and in the state department are also pushing the envelope in the right direction and abou a senir advisor on the assistance to see react. he spends much of his time working in southern turkey with his team of people that worked day and night to help facilitate all types of aid and reach across the border to our brothers and sisters in serious without further ado i would like to address you to come and give us a few words. [applause]

>> thanks very much. he's right. i spend my time in southeastern turkey for the most part and other countries around syria. very soon the third anniversary of this eerie and revolution nobody knows better than you but bush are always odd has refused to keep the call to step aside. he makes the poor against his own people and something i work on a lot and created the most humanitarian catastrophe of the century for his own and. and then exacerbating the conflict and this brutality has

invited an influx many of them via once extremists who threaten the communities that we are trying to help by a imposing the divisive ideology through a press of tactics. so the united states government and the state department i work for in my team working around the borders of syria honor the courage of those people inside who stood up three years ago against the brutality and continue to stand up as best they can and were reminded this week of how much more there is to do two and this devastating conflict. now look at me. i've been inside for an service working on disasters and conflicts for about 120 years and it shows.

i can tell you with great sincerity it has been an honor to work with this eerie and people day in and day out. [applause] and while i was happy to extend my stay today to talk to all of you i'm itching to return tomorrow, which i will. i know some of you are not 100% in agreement with our policies on syria. i picked up a little of that in the last presentation i want to tell you about what we are doing to provide assistance to the people inside serious and refugees outside of syria because i think you might actually be kind of proud of what we are doing. you hear the numbers because we

talk about them a lot. $2 billion in assistance for syria. and i will describe to you the three lines of effort that make up the 2 billion. believe it or not one of the three lines of effort is supporting the army. and i will talk about that. the reason i want to go into this in a little bit of detail is because we don't talk about it very much. and there is a reason why we don't talk about it very much and it goes back to that brutal regime. there are very brave international workers right now deliberating and inside syria who don't want us to talk about what they are doing because they are afraid of being targeted by a regime that has targeted medical personnel and medical

facilities. but it's important for you, the community and north america that's supporting us out there. i'm going to give you that overview now. let's begin with the largest line of effort by far and that's the humanitarian effort. the united states may be the largest contributor of humanitarian assistance for syria. i say maybe because turkey is doing a tremendous amount on their side of the border with their guests in the camp and outside. [applause] i made the comments to a journalist a couple of weeks ago and i referred to by 120 years in the foreign service working on conflicts. i will say that enough times is at the end of my remarks you will believe me. and i said in my career i wish more international disasters

have occurred next to turkey. the support we get from the government, from those people is remarkable and we couldn't succeed as much as we have without them. but let me give you a couple of examples of the success that we have had in the humanitarian aid that you may not have heard about. a polio campaign to immunize children under five in the liberated provinces of serious in the middle of the conflict it sounds on impossible how can you deal with the conflict and the violence and the access that are so necessary for polio immunization clinics and we are with a little help from the

assistance coordination unit. they are leading a task force that's working with un agencies come international ngos and immunizing the under five we finished round number two. while you cannot be 100% sure what percentage of the target number of children we have reached we are pretty sure ladies and gentlemen it is around 90%. in the middle of the conflict that is something to be very proud of. >> ' when the regime puts the flower and the power in the bakeries around, we stepped in. international ngos i wish i could tell you their name and someday we will tell you their name. but they are concerned about the security working inside providing enough power on a

daily basis in a weekly basis and a monthly basis to many bakeries to feed 300,000 people regularly now. and as you know, from the south, the un agencies are also providing tremendous amount of food probably feeding more than 2 million people. winter they be ending, but we were very active in winter and we think we've reached with simple things, very important things like blankets and space heaters and mattresses we think we reached probably something like 3.5 million people inside syria this past winter. i think the area that we can feel particularly proud of that i have had the opportunity to

witness firsthand the couple of times about the world is the work that we are giving to provide the acute medical care. you know how the regime targeted the medical personnel and medical facilities. it's hard to fathom but it is a fact. yet very brave and daring ngos funded by the united states and others are providing surgeries to the rebel soldiers, families caught in the crossfire, families injured by picture basement in damaged buildings where we have established hospitals, mobile hospitals because they have to move around when the regime finds out where they are. and in these facilities come in these very dangerous buildings that have been bombed, they have

performed so far -- i have the number here 253,000 surgeries so far. in the middle of a war zone, again, these are the brave humanitarian ngos that are in there with the funding and funding from others. and when finally the help that we are giving to what we call the refugees they called and their guests but not just in turkey that in the countries surrounding syria. as many of you know and have seen it has established 22 camps on its border and they are terrific camps. but the influx because of things like the bombing is driving more

and more people north to the turkish border. and we now probably have two of the more as many syrians living in urban communities and not in the camps of turkey. imagine what that would be like in your community if hundreds of thousands of people were to arrive. it puts a strain on the municipal services that the government of turkey and its cities can offer so we, the united states and others are trying to help the cities cope particularly with healthcare and schools and school i see a lot of parents in the room. school is incredibly important when children have been out of school as long as they have, obviously you care about their education. but it's more than that in the middle of a crisis. many have been uprooted from

their homes an and they have to live with violence in their homes and they made that trip to the border and they set up a home in a strange environment where they speak another language giving children some routine back into their lives with school is very important. there are a lot of cerium teachers that have also come and we are trying and other countries and the turkish government are trying to set up as many schools as we can in turkish cities with us. teachers and textbooks so that the children particularly can get back to school and have some routine in their lives. now you've heard from others about the importance of the political transition that's underway. and of course the united states very much supports that

political solution to the crisis. we also support -- this is the second line of effort leading the humanitarians, talking for a minute about what the united states is doing to support not just about delegation that went to geneva but also may be they would agree with me maybe even more import and supporting the local council inside of serious who are trying to keep the lights on and the garbage picked up into the clinic again and trying to keep the school open. [applause] those local councils are brave and standing up to the regime and extremists and we are going to help them. let me give you a couple of quick examples of how we are. we all know about the terrible destruction. we are working very hard to

provide the best civil defense equipment and training that we possibly can. it started with training and was passed with civil defense equipment and now ladies and gentlemen we are providing firetrucks and big trucks that can carry away and soon we will be sending trucks with big cranes. this is a priority for us and the trucks have just arrived in the last ten days. [applause] there's too many and i know we don't have all the time that how we are particularly helping local councils. it's very difficult sometimes to get a equipment across the border because of the violence inside or because the turkish authorities to close the border temporarily. you read about this. so very often we rely on cash.

the united states government doesn't like to give cash because it is hard to account for and it could be spent on the wrong things but we realized that very often that is the best solution in a conflict and we are trusting local councils inside this area to stand hundreds of thousands of dollars each for these kind of projects for the city council that went out and about basi bought basics in the midst of the siege with the cash that we provided. they used the cash we gave them to provide bread to their communities. the city local council restored telephone service by hiring experts to reconnect with the cash that we provided and electrical lines.

and maybe more just a couple more schools that are very important so we are providing the cash that we provided some of the local councils that have enabled them to rio tha reoffene latest count over 90 schools which is getting 30,000 children back to the school. another thing we are doing to support the local council and this is only getting started but it has a lot of promise and that is supporting local police. securitsecurity into communities terribly important. and so, training for the police, a quick death for the police and yes even police cars and salaries is also something that the united states is supporting today starting and soon. [applause] ..

priceless information for a family that's trying to survive in aleppo tanks to these journalists that were very proud to help them. [applause] and then finally, let me tell you about the work my team has done to support the free theory and army, our third lineup after. a lot and more to calm. so far, we have provided the

commanders of the snc over half a million meals that we provide to our own soldiers. we caught them at murray's. 1500 medical kids. 1000 tens, but there's, dozens of trucks, communications equipment, internet systems, laptops, generators. and ladies and gentlemen, there's more to calm. we are looking now in the neighboring countries around syria to put together what we call food baskets to the soldiers inside of the staples that they need to sustain themselves on the battlefield. there is more coming. the dispute was in the snc right now is causing us some -- slowing us down a little bit, but we will keep going because we know which commanders we work with in the past and we can continue to trust and we will deliver to them.

in fact, we have some deliveries planned for this coming week. let me just conclude by asking you for three things. i'm not in a position to ask you for anything, cheap and nice enough to give me the floor, so i will go ahead. number one, please, ladies and gentlemen, keep paying your taxes. [laughter] [applause] number two, i said at the outset, we don't tell the story as well because we are concerned about safety of the brave ngos. many in the people who work for them, we want to protect them. we don't want them targeted at the regime. so if you've learned anything today, if i gave you the sense that maybe we are doing something inside, please help us

tell the story. go back to your communities. talk about this. yes, use the political process to change the policy you don't like, but also tell your communities but we are doing because we really do need your continued support because there's a lot more to be done. and finally number three, this is one that i always say when i look at the guide and then see the demographics of the audience. if you don't like our policies, young people in around, raise your hand if you are under 30 and not letting your current job. you're a little bit discontent. combine. some of the older ones, too. but it's how you, those of us in the foreign service, some of us need to retire.

the foreign service is a great opportunity for young americans like many of you to step in and change the policies you don't like or how black people get more assistance across the border in the face of very committed a terrible loss. i encourage young people who think about public service to think about the foreign service, coming to the state department, usaid and helpless. thank you very, very much. >> we are running short on time. as a matter of fact, it was very keen to wanting to answer many questions. i will allow one question and that's it. >> and you get the question.

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [applause]

>> there's a lot of confusion about where the u.n. is, where the u.n. isn't an maybe they can speak to this. they are bound by their rules to deal with the regime. so wfp is working from damascus. but i mean, it is a fact. the united states -- the people of the regime controlled areas that need the help. in the united states -- yes, there are people in the regime that need help. maybe not as many as in the liberated areas. so what are we doing? knowing that the u.n. agencies are not working in the liberated areas, we are funding ngos to do what wfp would do. when i talked about the bakeries in and around aleppo, those

provided fire and fueled by ngos. now you may hear from your friends in aleppo. we don't see any american for all the reasons he talked about. nobody knows it's from us. we are supporting about 90 bakeries regularly supplying them around aleppo. that is not wfp. we all look forward to the day in the new u.n. security council resolution will be the key we've been looking for that the u.n. agencies can start working cross-border, including wfp. i think i have to go. anyway, thank you, everybody. [applause] [chanting] >> renate govan --

[inaudible] >> we are going to be extending the session for a little bit. we have some act is better going to share their stories. the first, before we do that, if we could sort of get everybody's attention, i introduced a one half phenomenon and that was our political director nbc and the honduran and they are going to be introducing and giving the award to congressman eliot engel. >> please join us at recognizing congressman eliot engel. [applause] >> congressman eliot engel is no introduction. he has a long record of

commitment to human rights and democracy. the congressman was a leader in the west to end the ethnic cleansing in kosovo. he worked to end child labor throughout west asia and he has supported the democratic aspiration of the peep hole of the middle east. congressman engel has also been committed to standing up to the assad regime. in 2003, when not many here in washington were talking about the assad regime or syria, the congressman, congressman engel offered the syria accountability and lebanese sovereignty restoration act, which in those penalties and restrictions on the assad government, aimed at forcing their withdraw from lebanon. over the past three years of

conflict, congressman engel has never shied away from taking the responsibility for the united states to protect the people of syria. i'll call upon the president to do more every single time. in 2013, the congressmen introduced the free syria at in the house of representatives. the aim of which was to substantially increase the united states supported the humanitarian and military needs of the syrian people. were so thrilled to announce that this week, congressman eliot engel, the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee and chairman edwards made clear that they will be introducing new legislation to address the humanitarian needs of the syrian people and hold that regime accountable. [applause] as a result of congressman engel commitment to the democratic aspirations of the syrian people as well as the people around the world, the coalition for democratic syria would like to present congressman engel with a

token of gratitude. i just went to mention, we are very honored that is congressman engel is here with us tonight, chairman edwards has with his constituents from this community in california, talking about this bill. and so, please join me in welcoming a true friend of the syrian people, congressman eliot engel. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. well, thank you very much for that really nice, nice welcome and good afternoon to all of you. one day we are going to meet together in a free and independent syria. [cheers and applause] just yesterday, congressman ruiz with the chairman of the foreign affairs committee and i am

ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. he is a republican. i'm a democrat. we had together for a free and independent syria. we introduced this bill. i just want to read you a title of the bill. the bill says a resolution calling for an end to attacks on syrian civilians and expanded humanitarian access. and we hope to get strong bipartisan support for it. back in 2003, we were lucky not the assad. you know, when the father ruled syria with an iron fist and finally he was gone and many of us thought things would change a little bit for the better. after all, he was western educated and people thought he was not as autocratic or wouldn't be as autocratic as his father was. unfortunately, what's turned out he sees worst and his father.

not only because he can't stand on its own two feet and has bugs all around backing him up, but he can't seem to make a decision any concert they never make the right decision. the truth of the matter is he would not be the ruler even part of syria today unfortunately if it wasn't for the russians and a rainy and to back hezbollah and all these outside forces coming in to this hearing people. i'm here to tell you that will not stand. [applause] in 2003 and 2004, when i wrote a free syria act, i said right then and there that the united states congress in the united states government would have to take a strong stand. people said to me come you can never pass the bill.

you're a democrat. the republican president has bush at the time. a republican majority in congress, republican majority in the senate. you never get the bill passed. it took me two years. a person to to person to person by the time we were ready to vote on the bill, we passed the senate and house the house of representatives on the bill. it was signed into effect and that is part of the basis for the sanctions that the united states has slapped on the assad regime. [applause] about a year and a half ago, when i saw that the free syria army was floundering and could not get the help they deserved, i offered a bill to call on the united states to arm the free syria army. [applause] i really believe that if we had passed that bill, which it didn't, it seems to be different

in theory it now. we would have been free syria army much stronger and would establish what they need. after all, they were acting and continue to act as features for their country. they want a change of government in the area. not to be replaced by a government just as bad or even worse, but to replaced by a democracy so this hearing people can decide for themselves what kind of leaders they should have. they should be something for the serious leaders to decide. not for a rant, not for assad, not for hezbollah, not for anyone that wants this hearing people, but this must be done by the theory of people and fairly. [applause] so i want to just make a pledge to you that i am going to continue to be a very strong voice on the foreign affairs

committee to talk about the syrian people. i had the honor about three weeks ago sitting down with king abdullah of jordan who spoke to me about the terrible humanitarian crisis right now in jordan and it only gets worse and worse. mr. ward is a hero in the ngo are heroes and is feeding a lot of people in syria and a lot of people don't even realize it. but it's not enough in my opinion to just give humanitarian aid, although that's important because we need to keep people alive. what's also important seeking plans for the next step so syria can be truly independent and free. believe me, go absolutely calm so they will not and should not be allowed to stand. [applause]

so i just want to make a pledge to you this afternoon to tell you that there are many people, like myself, who will not abandon the syrian people, who continue to speak out and act out and talk about it. would you take out a regime that uses starvation that uses all kinds of people get nails and all kinds of things and then as a tool for head start's children as a tool for comment that does all kinds of things to people who are innocent, caught in the middle, not political people, just people who want to live the everyday lives like even he is the way we want to live our lives, to raise our children in safety. we are not going to have been in those people.

[applause] [inaudible] will present their award -- [inaudible] [chanting] >> thank you. [applause] >> let me just finish because

these people yelling no-fly zone, you know, i am for a no-fly zone. [cheers and applause] >> microsoft cofounder bill gates talks about the work of his donation in the belief that by the year 2035 there'll be fewer than 10 poor countries

because of expanding prosperity. mr. gates was interviewed this month at the american enterprise institute where he talked about poverty, global health issues in the u.s. education system. here is a portion of that event. >> you offer an incredibly bold prediction. you say that there will be almost no poor countries remaining by the year 2035. what do you mean by that? >> well, the primary measure, which has all sorts of challenges in bp per person, but it's still, we don't have a substitute. if you take that world bank clarifies countries with over 1200 per person per year as moving up into a middle income bracket. moving low income to middle income. and we have today 45 countries that are still not low in category. but i'd say units by 2035, there

should be less than 10 and mostly be places like north korea where you have a political system that is sickly craze property or their landlocked countries where the geography, the deceased person, disparate ethnicities mean they haven't been able to bring together a government in terms of education, infrastructure, even the most minimum things. so on this side if not recognize. it's overwhelming how prosperity is spread around the world safe from 1960 where there were very few countries in a gigantic number of poor countries. most countries are middle income countries and poor countries are much smaller. not just saying that the love of

a pass that threshold doesn't mean they don't have poor people within our countries come a distant state governments will be fantastic. but it will be a lot better on average than it is today. >> defense secretary chuck hagel would top ranking officials held a ceremony for the 24 army veterans awarded the medal of honor. the group of recipients marks the single largest group since world war ii. many were initially passed over due to racial or ethnic bias. the group is honored for their combat operations in world war ii, the korean and vietnam wars. oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,

o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that ourroof through the night that our flag was still there. oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

spurs preheated behalf of everyone today. let us pray. almighty father whose commanders over and whose and whose love never fails, let us be aware of your presence and obedient to your will. we acknowledge will be the achieved this done for you is because of you. we acknowledge also what we've accomplished is to to those we place around us in support of inspiration. and the sacred moment of recognition of courage and humility, we thank you for those who have shared their love of their nation and the courage preserve it. we also acknowledge our debt to those who have stood beside us in battle to have given their lives for their country, for freedom, justice and liberty. may we never forget the values of their sacrifice or her age or tenacity of endurance cost of

purchase for us peace, liberty and pursuit of happiness. now, god, help us to price and keep this heritage that we may be true as they were true, loyal as they were loyal, courageous as they were courageous, grant unto us the wisdom to weigh and evaluate the greater issues of life and forever live, fight and die for these great causes. help me pray for peace, not only among nations, and among and within ourselves. amen. >> please be seated. ladies and gentlemen, the secretary of defense. >> good morning. secretary mchugh, secretary said

do, mrs. odierno, congressman deutsch, congressman collins, ladies and gentlemen, we are here this morning to celebrate the heroism of 24 selfless individuals. 24 soldiers whose acts of gallantry in battle meritor highest recognition. we are also here to correct an injustice of history, to help write 24 wrongs that should never have occurred. before we do, i want to recognize another soldier here today, a man who president obama acknowledged and commended yesterday. his name is mitch liebman. he was the driving force behind this effort to award the medal of honor to jewish and hispanic servicemembers who had earned at, but i've never received it because of racial or religious discrimination. when the the shout out his

childhood friend had been denied the medal of honor, he decided to do what was necessary to wreck site. he never gave up and though it took a long time, too long, he was able to see the record set straight not only for his friend, but for 20 other soldiers. some of these soldiers gave their lives in service to this nation. others have passed away. but we are honored to have three of those recipients here with us today. mitch, on behalf of everyone in this auditorium in this country, thank you. we are grateful for your hard work and your persistence. for also grateful for the tireless work of united states army and many others who helped identify and verify every heroic need we honor today. thank you all for making this happen. today would not only recognize the heroism of these 24 brave americans, we also recognize the

significance of the medal of honor, our nation's highest honor for valor. the names that grace the walls at the pentagon hollinger is going to soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who represent the essence, the finest, the best of military service. the essence, the willingness to sacrifice your life for the lives of those around you. nearly 70 years ago jewish chaplain who had just lived through the carnage at iwo jima but his fellow marines and damaged by trade and a army. they were burying friends and comrades. men of all religions, all races, all creeds and warning them, he observed. here lies officers and men of all colors, rich men and poor men altogether. protestants, catholics and jewish, together.

here, no man prefers another because of his faith or despisers or not they are because of their color. here there are no quotas of how money from each group are admitted or allowed. thus do we memorialize those who having ceased living with us now live with the nice. just delete consecrate ourselves to carry on the struggle. too much blood has gone into the soil for less to a related pair down. too much pain and heartache of fertilize the earth on which we stand. we hear solemnly swear they shall not be in vain. today on the doorstep of our nations capital, we honor 24 heroes with the same solemn pledge that was given on the island of iwo