to the situation what we need to do to bolster the partnership of the region. we can't carry the burden and there is more we should be doing in the area of foreign military sales and foreign military financing and training in those kinds of things and they are an exceptional tool to do a couple things there are partnerships and allies so that they can be more supportive in the security environment so we have training,

with a position that we have sure schools are common experiences and all of those kinds of things. >> we have training components were military officers come here for training and is that an aspect that takes place in the pacific theater? >> yes it is and in our

partners direction we have a list of going in their direction and that last for years and it builds an inherent ability into the security environment. and it makes a difference when we have to deal with crisis. >> would we provide the capabilities that we need or will gaps be created by the

retirement? and what do you think of what is going on in your region? >> first of all, i understand the air force's need in those platforms. as the operational commander in korea youtube provides a unique capability that presently not everything will provide. it's very important for educators. >> we have so rapidly configure that this is of the utmost importance. >> yes, it is. i've looked for persistence because of this.

>> on the question really briefly, air force also request reduction for combat air patrol from 65 to 55. is that a problem? why don't you tackle that. >> well and we have an air of superiority and what we have to have is a survival. and the reduction in those platforms is less important to

us. >> he gives me the conditions and the high-intensity potential. we would have to work in a before we employ those. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ayotte? >> i want to thank both of you for your service and leadership. >> you are an advocate for greater capabilities and that is right. and there is an importance of

the virginia class submarine particularly with our capability and one question i wanted to ask you and what provisions are being met? >> and terms of the combatant requirement request for tax summaries, i would appreciate an update on that but my sense is that it's probably not much better and may not be better but will lower. so i look forward to those numbers. then we have this retiring in coming years and we have these

attacks the marines in 2013 compared to if we go forward with a low of 42 in 2029. so we are seeing a diminishing trajectory despite the fact that i'm very glad that there was the inclusion of two virginia class submarines. and there are current predictions for tax summaries. if we are rebalancing to the asia pacific region as we have heard today, it is an environment dominated by that

maritime presence. and then china has creasing capability that has continued to invest in their submarine fleet. can you help me with that? >> i think you've accurately represented what the future will be based upon this and he is a guy who has to manage putting other requirements into the fix line. so comes down to the managing rest in finding where we can absorb the rest inside and the budget that were forgiven.

and that's the best that they been able to do with what you just outlined. >> thank you. i just think that the people need to understand that this is going to be a significant decrease if we stay where we are with regard to how we are resourcing the overall defense budget and also our submarine fleet and they are making greater investment and where the value of our submarine fleet is paramount and so i think that this is an issue that we have to pay careful attention to it. it maintains those workforces that has the type of expertise and background and this is

something that is a treasure that we need to continue to invest in if we have that capacity going forward. i wanted to ask you about something in your testimony and we talked about missile defense in terms of your responsibilities and what is it and what your concerns are? >> first of all we have development of ballistic missiles and we continue the pace of that. and the big concern that i have in terms of the alliance and the developing along with the republic of korea with a missile defense system that has the right components and also has sufficient ammunition and i have

made specific requirements known. >> it seems to me that this is an important investment with missile defense in particular for protecting south korea and our troops that are there and i look forward to working with you on this issue because i think that this is critical that the threats we face in the region and what we have seen with troubling actions in terms of proliferation of weapons. and that is the system is to defeat the airborne threat and i

wanted to ask you about the fact that combatant commands, four of them have expressed an interest in the capability provided. part of it helps to provide her control requirements to better provide missile defense and deployed so right now in utah not being deployed, can you help me understand why that is?

>> you've accurately per trade and i have asked by a simple letter to the secretary asked me for the capabilities but this system would provide in relation to the sophisticated missile defense scenarios that we face. and we can't have them overnight properly integrating it. and i think the decision was made by a joint force because of the capabilities of the system and the other regions of the world. and i think that it probably was

probably two of the system in the world is pretty dynamic keeping one in reserve. >> there are comments recognizing the dedication of the men and women i also want to commend you on releasing the energy security strategy and it is a concise clear eyed assessment of the challenges and opportunities and this includes our energy sources is a key part of security in the region.

and we are talking about this. and we have partners that are part of the alliances. ..

westerlies assisted bill within these areas their beneficial to our national security interest also. with the rebalance of asia-pacific theater i am having a bit of trouble understanding the new air force plan which

would move for air force kc-135 tankers from joint harbor had come to the mainland. given the space and time to my keeping the tankers for deployed in hawaii would make the most sense. would you like to share some of your perspective on this? >> well, i have not yet seen no formal proposal by the air force. as you know the proposal would have to come through me further my comments. the decision to move any forces that are cocom to pay, or under my command would have to be -- would have to be authorized by secretary hegel. there will be a dialogue about this. i don't think there will be a lot of perspectives as we look at it. i believe those four airplanes are a result of a braque initiative. what i understand is that there

are some maintenance deficiencies that as we look at across service efficiencies that are being forced on us by the -- that we are being driven to because of the fiscal realities we are in that this is probably the reason that the air force is pursuing the consolidation of these assets. but we have not made a decision yet. >> i would have an expectation that the national guard airforce, and you would be very much engaged. of course i want to be in touch also. the department has proposed a 36% reduction in funds for fiscal year 15. it is my understanding that these cuts were made to help operations and readiness accounts because of the impact of sequester. how will these budget changes affect your ability to carry out

your missions both from the milk on an operation and readiness ten. >> well in general slowing the we had anticipated to this degree 36 percent will impact the service's ability throughout the world but in particular to be able to move forward with some of their initiatives. for instance in hawaii i think there has been a reduction. we are moving the 22 is there, new cobras new apache helicopters and those type of things. and so it will slow the pace at which we are able to integrate these forces into the alar.

>> my hope is also that the deferred items will be restored as we go along and assess the needs the you have in this area. you mentioned the cyber threat the impacts alar and with the ever increasing number of cyber attacks everywhere. frankly, let's focus on your alar. would you support a strong cyber team that is made up of active guard and reserve personnel? >> well generally speaking the more cyber experts we have the better. but i would recommend that deferred that over to us cyber command to take a look at how those forces would be integrated into the overall plan. they guard as we have seen the last number of years in times of crisis goes forward in many

cases. we have to understand how they would be manned and trained and maintained when they showed up with the active forces in a contingency. >> it is clear that we ought to be working in parallel course right hand left and by should be working together. that is where i am going settling at advocating that everybody does their wrong thing in this area because it is complicated by realized. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you senator. >> thanks you mr. chairman. thank both of you for your service. general, is it a fair statement that north korea is one of the most unstable nation states in the world today? >> yes sir. i would agree. >> within the top two or three. >> yes sir. >> in terms of their missile program by 2024 do you expect that they will have ballistic missile capability that could effectively reach our home land?

>> yes sir. on the pace pteron yes, sir. >> to you expect by 2020 for that they will have plutonium weapons, not just uranium based nuclear bombs? >> is, sir. >> admiral, by 2024 if china continues on their present pace of building up their military what will the balance of power be between china and the united states in your command? >> well, i think in the region the balance of power will continue to shift in that direction that the chinese dependent on how much more investors to make independent on what our forces look like ford. so it will continue to shift. >> well we are uncertain as to what china will do but it seems like they are intent on building

of the military. is that a fair statement? >> over 12%. that is a fair statement craigslist look at the pace there on a wall happen to us by 2024. if sequestration is fully implemented how much longer realistically do you have in this command? a couple of years? what is the normal to work? >> it about -- it is about three years. >> as we look for do will probably have two or three commanders but 2024 at least. looking down the road what kind of -- if sequestration is fully implemented what will that mean in terms of the ability to defend this region and have a deterring presence? would it be sequestration mild medium or severe effect on future commanders to be able to represent our interests in your area?

>> well i think assuming that the world other than the asia-pacific will not be peaceful and 2024 sequestration will have a severe effect on our abilities. >> okay. now, general the transition of leaders in north korea is a stabilizing or is it still bought out? do we know who is in charge of the country? >> senator, we do know who is in charge. i think recently it has stabilized somewhat. he is displaying a normal routine at this point and purposefully so, i think, for his regime. but we don't know yet the stability within his clothes regime. significant change recently. >> do we have any real leverage

to stop their nuclear program from developing? >> well, i think the sanctions that we have used to this point have not had the impact in that regard. >> okay. south korea are they seeking to enrich uranium? >> as you know, there is discussion with civil nuclear capability. >> is it our position to oppose enrichment by the south koreans for civilian purposes? >> senator, i don't know. >> general -- excuse me, admiral you have all of the world to be responsible for. our military budgets will be at 2% of gdp. do you know last time america spend 2 percent of gdp on defense in the modern era?

>> i could not accurately say. >> okay. isn't this dangerous, we are doing? >> well, i think that we have to a you know the real question as we talk about it here today is how the weight what appears to be the looming threat to the u.s. economy. >> well let's say if you eliminated the department of defense in perpetuity would it remotely move us toward balancing the budget? >> from what i can see it would not. >> okay. if we assume that is fairly accurate the path we have taken as a nation in terms of our defense capabilities would you say it is alarming?

>> i would say that it bears serious watching. >> what would you say general? >> sir, i would say that i am very concerned about it. >> from our enemies point of view do you see it likely that china will have a confrontation with japan over the islands that are in question? admiral. >> well, i think the potential for miscalculation if they don't manage it between themselves properly could be high and it could be very dangerous. that said i don't see in the near-term that they are heading in the direction of confrontation. >> when you talk to our allies do they seem concerned about the direction we are heading as a nation? the united states in terms of our defense capability? some of the things that have

happened in the mideast has that affected at all those you of american reliability in your area of operation? >> well i think the whole world watches what we do militarily. you know, for a long time we have been the single guarantor of security around the world. >> beginning to hedge their bets >> at think they are starting to look at it and they're asking the question of our staying power globally, not just in my region. >> thank you both. >> thank you senator gramm. senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman. to our witnesses think you for your services, testimony this morning. i don't think anyone has mentioned yet but we should applaud the work of the seventh fleet in assisting trying to find the air malaysia flight. just an example of the kind of thing that we do every day. the military does every day to advance humanitarian and other causes. that work is important work.

many of the questions and comments today have really kind of circle back to budgetary realities surplus and to granted. we have to budgetary choices posed for this committee by the president's budget submission. do we accept the president's budget or some version of it which is the have sequester budget. the president's proposal would actually absorber have to sequester cuts over the entire range of the sequestered but try to find a replacement for the other half. there is a suggested replacement or do we just accept the full sequester? there is no way we can do what we want if we accept the full sequestered. we can do it. we are concerned we have a way to solve it. the way we have to solve it is do what we did in the 14-15 budget and sequester relief. it is my hope that we will work in 16 to cite we did in the 14-15 budget to do it. that is ultimately the significant way to answer some of the concerns that you are

each laying on the table in my view. admiral la clear, want to ask you a question about one aspect of the sequestered to muffle sequester, have sequester budget deals with carriers because that is one of the atoms that is sort of most obviously different between the two -- between the presidents submitted budget in the fall sequester version. that is scaling back from an 11 carrier navy to attend carrier navy. the 11 carrier navy is a statutory requirement. believe you testified recently were you said 11 carriers continues to be a pretty important component to america's maritime dominance. i would like it if you what kind of describe that, please. >> well, you know we have debated for a long time what the utility of the carrier would be in the 21st century. we continue to see it as i would say in the forefront of military instruments that

leaders have been able to use to be able to maintain the piece, to maintain stability and in crisis to be able to respond quickly. the benefit of our carrier force today is that it is unequaled in the world. it is nuclear sustainable at sea for many many -- relief for just about as long as you can think about it. and it carries a very credible capability to maintain peace and to be able to prevail in crisis. the downside to the nuclear carrier force or the opportunity cost maybe not the downside is that they have to be maintained in a safe manner. if you take a look at the history of navy nuclear power, you have to give these and men and women who do this a lot of credit. you have young 19 20-year-old people around these nuclear

reactors. they have been largely without incident for the history of the program. to do that you have to bring them back through maintenance. they have to come back to our shipyards be in nuclear shipyards to have that done. and in the kind of day-to-day operations globally to be able to maintain the requirements that i have and the other combat commanders have based upon the world as it is abide abcaeleven aircraft carriers, is just barely making it today. >> what would it mean in pay if we dropped back from 11 to chant ? did not refuel the george washington and dropped back. >> well, i am confident we would still maintain a nuclear carrier forward in that japanese alliance you know, we announced recently that the ronald reagan would be that replacement. we are moving in that direction. the implication would be that there would be greater time not

only my alar, but other aor where a combatant commander was a carrier is needed in this crisis are needed in this scenario and it would not be one available. >> if i could continue admiral with you i want to talk a little about china. as i was hearing your testimony you were indicating that china is pretty rapidly chewing away any dominance that we might have in the region. but i think you indicated that even at that 12 percent growth it would be many decades before they could reduce our dominance globally. did i and a stand that just your testimony correctly? >> that is correct. >> does china have military bases outside of china? >> not that i am aware of today. >> does china have significant military presence today in the americas? >> military presence no. >> africa?

>> military presence, no. >> europe? >> no. >> middle east? >> just in the gulf of aden where they have done counter piracy operations. >> based on that is a your understanding that china is basically trying to significantly grow the projection of military presence in their region but is not at least to this point significantly growing military presence felt -- elsewhere? >> the predominance of their efforts are in the region. >> that kind of explains the testimony you gave earlier. there chewing away our dominance in their region, but it would take a long time for them to chew away our dominance elsewhere. >> that is correct. when you combine the u.s. global security capability with that of our allies, with that of our significant allies from -- in all parts of the world they would have a difficult time

globally. >> mr. chairman, i just ask these questions, i think most would say china is our principal competitor. we use that phrase. they have a fundamentally different business model than we do. our business model is a global projection a presence both sort of physical with fixed assets from the bases and flexible assets like carriers. at least now they're pursuing a different business model. military bases is now we're focused on. other regions that is now we're focused on. it is as if we pulled our resources into the americas. we would be a major force in one part of the world. that is not what we are doing. principal competitor has a different business model. one last question. i think this is a confusing one for us because these are uninhabited islands. is the debate, the controversy the skirmish potentially between china and japan over those islands, it is not about the islands as an economic source

unless there are natural resources there. is it more about you know national pride or dominating sealanes? are just for china creating sort of a buffer in that region? how would you describe it? >> well, i would describe it as primarily as sovereignty issue less economic. it is not something new. this issue has been around for a long time. of course we don't take sides on territorial disputes, but japan is our ally. we made it pretty clear how we would support our ally in the case of these -- this particular scenario. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. >> thank you senator cain. senator blumenthal. >> thank you. i want to begin by pursuing a line of questioning that senator cain began and his very

pertinent observation that china strategic model is focused on its part of the world and yet you make the point, i think very tellingly in your testimony admiral that china will soon have its first credible sea bass nuclear deterrent before the end of this year. now that ability to project nuclear power beyond its area if it is further growth and expanded with somewhat contradicts the reasoning that center cain has just advanced for the model that he has just outlined, would it not? in other words it projects a nuclear deterrent that potentially would be aimed at this country protecting interests beyond just its immediate area. >> well, i think they have a

nuclear deterrent. they have had in a clear deterrent that could be in this country. so putting a at sea bass for them just adds a -- just as it does for us or for the indians who are pursuing the same thing it adds another layer of confidence their strategic nuclear deterrent will be compromised. so what it does for me if you should ever have a crisis, and i don't think a conflict or crisis with china is inevitable. i don't think it is. certainly it would not be in the best interest of peace and security in the world for that to happen. we have to us walk ourselves back from that dialogue i think. but in general i think what they are doing would just add more complexity to how we would never enter a contingency, but we should not talk ourselves into one either me.

>> on our strategic way down in the pacific i noted that the national 2020 strategic laydown -- and i may be misreading it -- seem to contemplate a 22% ship increase based in that part of the world. is that correct? >> well, i think that you know when you define my area of responsibility wears a ships and submarines and their plans are it extends from basically california to the intersection of india and pakistan. they will be somewhere in that large area, not necessarily west of the dateline. >> but in that 22 percent increase based outside of the united states? in other words, non u.s.-based? >> not all of it. >> what percentage of it?

>> i will have to give you the exact percentage. it will be outside of u.s. bases. >> is there a way that more of those ships can be based in the united states rather than based abroad? i know i am putting it in somewhat simplistic terms, what i think the reason for my question is facing more of the ships in the united states means more jobs in the united states. potentially greater levels of scrutiny and oversight about contacting. >> well, you know, to some degree we are an island nation. when you take a look at us globally where we're located. and the value of -- as an island nation that is predominantly a maritime nation the value of maritime forces for word is why you have a navy.

otherwise if you want to bring them all home because of the vast distances we have to travel you know to continually rotate them from home first of all, is very expensive. for instance, for every one ship that i have applied for summer it takes about four ships back in the united states to be able to support that rotation. so it is a cost-effective solution to before it particularly where you have an ally york a host nation that is willing to help support you. so i am always reticent to say let's just bring everything back to the homeland. it sounds good but it is not operationally a good thing to do >> well, i am not suggesting and i am not in any way arguing with you, so to speak. but i am suggesting is an analysis that assesses the potential for creating jobs

sustaining economic activity at those bases, whether why your california rather than abroad. and the recognize that it may be more cost-effective looking at is solely in terms of the dollars and cents in your budget but i am thinking about employment and economic activity . anyway, if you get back to me with those numbers i would very much appreciated. general, i notice that yesterday there was an announcement that the republic of korea has officially selected the f35 the conventional takeoff and landing design and announced purchase of 40 of them. wondering if you could tell us how that helps you and terms of both the common platform with our allies and also the qualitative military advantage of the f35.

>> well, senator the an ounce yesterday was one of those that includes a global hawk. and those are commitments that as an alliance the republic of korea has made as a part of the commitments of strategic alliance 2015. so the first part is that they have invested in their qualities and the capabilities that they bring to this alliance. and both of those platforms in particular the f35 provides, you know, the state of the our capability compatible with us and in dropper ability and in particular having the same systems gives us a great deal more of vagility. and then finally, the air force is building, getting stronger all the time. that helps us a great deal. in the plans that we have if we were to go to a crisis the air force and the establishment of their dominance is critical. >> and i understand that there

are eight other international partners. i don't know whether there are any of those in the area under your command but do you know what the state of purchases by those other eight international partners are at this point? >> no, senator, not specifically . >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for your extraordinarily distinguished service to our country. thank you to all the men and women under your command. thank you. >> thank you senator. >> i have one additional question. others will be obviously if they have questions or have them and just as well. in your prepared remarks, admiral, you said that it would enhance our security cooperation effectiveness with key allies and partners if we had an authority to have $30 million a

security cooperation authority menaced by a that joint staff under the appropriation. i am wondering whether that request was made of the administration when they put together their budget and whether or not there is something like that in the budget request. we are trying to find out if there is any reference to that. >> of the department of defense is aware of my desire to do that. i cannot tell you if this is actually in a line somewhere. we will have to look at myself and see if it is and then. the purpose of it is it would give us enhance flexibility to be able to do some of the things that statue wise we are prevented from doing today from small dollars to big impact. >> if you can give us that for the record we would appreciate

it. have a number of other questions for both of you. for the record. are there any additional questions? >> did our intelligence provide us any advance warning that china was going to impose the adic in november of 2013? >> well, we have been observing that dialogue the potential for that for some time. as far as the exact date and maybe it day or two warning we did not receive an indication that. so it was a surprise to the region of when they actually announced it. we knew for some time that there was a contemplation of that. >> of the surprise was the timing rather than that they actually took this step. >> right. i mean you know we came out pretty firm about how we felt about it afterwards. in reality every country should have you know the ability to look at their own defenses and

put these types of things in place. we have more than any other country in the world. but is the method and the extra cabbie s that were put on it that made them unacceptable. particularly the way instead of being just -- well, let's have a dialogue with the neighbors and talk about how we're going to defend our territorial airspace to make it was laid on as a i think, a direct issue with japan . there was not in a dialogue among the regional among the neighbors. there was not in the dialogue with the united states about it. and so in the end it did not sit well with their region in general. >> thank you. >> one last quick question. thank you. admiral, thank you for being so forthcoming on the bases abroad. one of the reasons for my question is not only the jobs

and economic activity but also some of the reports of corruption or waste and contacting and so forth. i wonder whether there have been changes in the systems providing for greater oversight and scrutiny, whether the systems of crown -- contract to import german have been changed at all with respect to those bases abroad? >> well i would have to dig into specifics of your question senator. i am not sure that i know contacting irregularities now we're talking about. i think we have -- in fact i know we have including generals effort very credible leaders of these alliance and the bases and the dialogue that goes on about how we share costs, how we share responsibilities. we just finished negotiating the

mutual agreement between us and the south koreans which we hope that they ratify as soon as they are -- their congress comes back into session. we have a very deliberate dialogue with our allies and japan about how the money is spent. and so i think we are doing due diligence. >> let me be more specific then just to, you know, give you a little bit more. marine a share, i am sure that name is familiar to you. it is a singapore-based firm that service navy vessels throughout asia in fact continue to do so until is chief executive was recently arrested. i wonder if you could provide us with the records of contract that the navy signed since 2009 and also -- i am not going to

prolong this sharing but perhaps in a written response and account of what is being done to prevent occurrences of that kind of issue in the future. >> i well senator. i will have to get with the navy it is his primary oversight of those contracts. even in my zero are as that army as primary oversight of the contracts in korea. we will try to consolidate an answer for you with the navy. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. any other questions? if not we thank you both for your service and for your testimony. again, please pass along our thanks to the men and women with heavy surf. we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in the event that there was discovered credible wreckage. respond more quickly. we clarified it is a localization that requires a pretty good knowledge of where the record will be before the system could be deployed. >> with china? >> we cooperate. there are 26 nations that are involved. we fully cooperate with china and all of the other nations. >> they will investigate independent. >> i have no comment. >> thank you

i have honestly never felt so welcomed in any country that i visited. it was of course very clear i was a visitor. there are not that many people from the outside and i look a little bit different even with a scarf that i was unfortunately forced to wear. everyone who caught my eyes said welcome to iran. where are you from? by the way and often excellent

english. there was a great awareness of the political situation. you mentioned restrictions to the internet, but it's very clear that most people know ways around these restrictions, and we met a number of people just walking down the streets, people were on a date who had met on facebook and the people it seemed news about our delegation, also outside of the media on the internet. within hours of arrival i was advised by one of the people who is working with the delegation how to use vpn to go around the censorship et cetera. it seems when governments think to restrict the liberties of the people, it perhaps only makes them smarter. as we see in turkey where as soon as twitter was blocked more people started taking to twitter in various ways. the sense of hope and optimism from ordinary iranians was

remarkable and underline for me the greatest capital in iran was the u.n. capital. in the official meetings it struck me how critical everybody was and how openly critical very explicitly critical everybody was. there was real sense that he is the director the economy destroyed the country. very, very strong words were used are stronger than i had anticipated. it also was remarkable that in each and every meeting we had we were criticized as the europeans because there are some members of our parliament who meets with the in kl and it was clearly very sensitive issue even though it's not the european parliament even though there was a parliament operate to meet with all kinds of groups even though the members of our delegation believe that this group is a serious representative force in one way or another.

it was real concerned on the iranian side about such meeting taking place. it also became quite clear and of course, again we were mostly interacting with the parliament of iran but the hard-liners, the conservatives are quite comfortable. quite self-confident as well and often very critical. if you heard their words, vis-à-vis the president, foreign minister and other reformers. one incident perhaps most clearly shows this fight between reformers and hard-liners. we had the honor, i should underline, the great, great honor and pleasure to meet a human rights lawyer and not only ugly but a lot of people we saw in iran, ordinary people believe she's a modern-day hero for continuing to defend juveniles on death row and others interpret difficult

circumstances, despite the great price this hat for her causing her years of for freedom being imprisoned in the notorious prison and all the restrictions, such as being limit or being banned from performing her profession or 20 years. so we met her in the greek embassy. it was a very short and also sensitive meeting. which we didn't speak about and it was sort of off the official radar. but we had awarded her a price. i nominate her for the most important human rights prize in the european parliament hands out, so it's good for us a great opportunity for us to meet her because she of course had not been able to visit europe to take the prize herself. immediately, within hours after

the meeting, hardline media started quoting from the media. and huge discussion erupted that would last for i would take two weeks in the iranian media about whose responsibility around whose fault it was that our delegation have had this meeting with this person. was at the parliament's responsibility? was that the minister affairs responsibility? a great, great discussion erupted, and a similar discussion we've recently seen when catherine ashton visited iran a couple of weeks ago when she met human rights defenders was a very similar kind of discussion in the media about whose responsibility is was why this has happened, et cetera, et cetera. it underlines the sensitivity of the topic of human rights. human rights are a priority and the position british remained a priority and we should be very, very careful that there is not some sort of zero-sum equation between focusing only on the

nuclear issue and forgetting about the plight of iranian people who live in very very systematic and difficult repression with the most severe case of coasting the large numbers of executions that continue to take place despite the fact that there is a new president who speaks of much more openness and reforms. in our meetings with also two of the brothers it was never clear the hard-liners who of course are appointed to hold a very very strong voice and strong position in iran and often use this i think to disrupt the efforts by those who seek reform such as the president and foreign minister and others in the current government. one of the other topics where this became very clear was about iran's role in the war in syria the role of hezbollah. we also saw maybe some of you

also at the munich security conference where foreign minister zarif was asked about human rights and zarif saddam focused on the nuclear issue now. i'm not that ambitious to wash to solve serious and human rights at the same time. i think it shows which responsibilities are within the government and which influence they can have and where others, the hard-liners also seek to maintain influence over issues such as iran's involvement with syria and human rights. so that was a topic we discussed but which was not as easy to get any kind of agreement or steps forward. a topic that was something that we want to pick up on also after the visit took place is what will happen with regard to iran and also the role of europe after this year in afghanistan. there is great concern clearly

among the iranian establishment about the rise of sunni terrorism in the middle east but also questions about what will happen to afghanistan, how would make the stabilize again with of course already millions of afghani refugees living in iran and the problem of drug trafficking through iran with the destination of europe but also other regions. so many issues will be of mutual concerns that we could look at. one of the opportunities may be in working together on finding this -- fighting this illicit drug trade while addressing the fact that most people who were executed in iran are executed for drug related charges. and, of course, the eu cannot and will not cooperate in arresting people which may risk, receive the death penalty but it was interesting from here from

ahead of the so-called human rights council that there is indeed thinking among the iranian establishment about abolishing the death penalty for drug related crime. it was also said on the record for anyone who wants to back that and i think really presents very concrete, very tangible opportunity for further discussion about changing that. okay, in summing up we went home with a few concrete points in our agenda. we want to try to open up a human rights dialogue with iran with the special representative for human rights of the eu hopefully being able to visit iran soon. we've also recommended that they go to iran. there is an invitation but as you may know it's a bit of tension with special locker to

for human rights and iran. so the question is how that can be resolved by for us in any case, putting human rights on the official agenda, continuing the discussion and not letting additional the political focus for the nuclear deal is essential. i also think it is essential that iran is involved and stays involved in finding solutions to the horrendous and gruesome war in syria. there are concrete point to pick up in the discussion about afghanistan after this year the refugee issue, the drug smuggling and the death penalty as a result. and so all in all our delegation recommended opening an eu diplomatic representation to iran. it's been a discussion that's been going on for quite a while. there will be resources that need to be made available but also the different member states, ambassadors on the ground were very much in agreement that the eu can act more immunity as one voice

instead 28 different voices. and given the fact we play such a key role in the eu in the nuclear negotiations but also when it comes to the region to restore our economic ties, cultural ties the many exchange students that we have and are different member states there are many, many issues that we should and can better address as a european union as a whole. i think the eu should act more independently, and our parliament plays an important role in debt. we often see the member states being quite divided. some very particular sensitivities politically as a result of trade relations or other concerns. and i believe we see european parliament increasingly taking an autonomous and forceful voice in the discussion, and i hope we will continue that by extending an invitation to the members of parliament of iran and open will visit us made april, and potentially weakened further

push open the very very fragile window of opportunity. i believe it is upon those of us who believe reforms will benefit the iranian people to try and do everything we can to make that happen. of course, very well realizing that those who seek reform are not the only ones in power in iran and that it is very much an uphill battle, but one that is worth pursuing. >> thank you very much for those remarks. i neglected to thank the national iranian american council, niac which brought in one to with solemnity that and also thank the program here at the atlantic council. let me ask one question to get things going and then we will open it up. you mentioned the u.n. special rep a tour for human rights for iran. is just cannot with another report what he talks about some

pluses political press releases us over there still something like 600 or more political prisoners in iran. there still these executions that are going on. why are the iranians so allergic to allowing him go. it was i believe that is about special repertoire a canadian some years ago. isn't just him or if you were another person in the position to think they would allow a visit quick scan the eu be a bridge in that area? if i can get you back to the internet question. everyone in iran uses vpns and so on but did you ask officials why the use all these filters when people simply find a way around it when the foreign minister has his own twitter account, when the supreme leader has his own twitter account? did not find it a little ridiculous that they're still

attempting to block people from using it easily? >> thank you. those are very important questions. on the position of the sensitivities around that, i think the iranians no matter what political side they are on or whether they are old or young, whether their students or politicians, the notion of double standards being applied to the country is very widely shared. there's a sense that the west is unfair in almost every meeting there was a reference to other countries in the region were women can't even drive. well, we are very much aware that human rights are not only a problem in iran but, of course, we care about the situation of the iranians. and so women in iran, we address those. i think the sense there's a special repertoire for iran is the sensitivity. so that's perhaps why the high

commissioner for human rights was invited, who of course officially has greater responsibility but is not only focused on iran and to think that's the sensitivity and i do believe the eu can play an important role in bridging that gap and i certainly hope that everyone officials will take us up on the suggestion to send the eu special repertoire for human rights to make initial contact and to have a dialogue. there was an opening for a dialogue, but the question from the iranian side mostly coming from hard-liners, was that we do not apply preconditions, that it's an open discussion, and that we should respect the differences in culture and in the constitution. which makes some topics like -- very difficult to discuss. then when it comes to censorship

and filtering the internet, it was very much part of the discussion, not in the least place because at one point i wanted to point out the fact that i've asked parliamentary questions about the access to medicine and the damage and the problems that sanctions caused ordinary iranians. and so i had hoped to show my a rainy counterparts these questions, but, of course, my own website is blocked in iran. so that was a bit of a painful moment because i was confronted with the fact that my website was blocked there. for example, the website of the chair of the iran litigation was not, so there seems to be some reason for that that i don't know but at least it's not a blanket ban on european parliament website, or so it seems. i asked about this paradox or tension between the supreme leader, the president, the foreign minister and all officials tweeting, sometimes

very effectively about what they're up to, their ideas their wishes and many iranians being unable to see that. it is my impression that it's a lively debate within iran. iran. the cultural ministers mentioned a number of times he believes that censorship is not necessary necessary. and in these discussions about twitter and the use of social media, there were differences of opinion. and i think being engaged on social media also kind of lets the genie out of the bottle. i mean it's unsustainable if leaders go on these platforms do not allow the population, one day or another, we saw think the most remarkable use of social media by the president when the struggle between hard-liners and reformists are they came to the surface at the moment what he was about to address the nation on national television and is

broadcasting was delayed for about an hour. this was probably to hamper his efforts in one way or another. in any case, the president himself took to twitter to say i don't know why but i am being delayed in addressing the nation. and in that case, of course very clear his audience was a national one because it's national tv that was delayed. he wanted to address the situation. after each we did this the delays were salt and he was able to give his address. so i think what's really important in this example but also in a number of other issues is to remember that we need not everything that happens in iran immediately meets the eye. it's not all immediately obvious or explicit. but there are changes gradually happening below the surface. and again i believe that the population of iran highly educated tech savvy in many

ways, many trained engineers but also tech-savvy after having lived on censorship and monitoring for such a long time are going to be important force in making that change go further. is the opportunities from atop are also given. >> let me open it up. please wait for the microphone and introduce yourself. i see harlan has his cart up, so please. >> thank you very much for your insights which are enormously useful. my question is really relate to trying to tie together crimea ttip and the nuclear negotiations. it seems me if i had wishes, one would be that we would approve ttip but harry reid is not listing and we probably of more problems here than we do elsewhere. also the negotiation with iran over nuclear ambitions. so first how do you see the crimea affecting, if at all

ttip positively or negatively? second, how to see crimea influencing iran's stand on the nuclear situation? and to what degree do you think crimea may have some beneficial implications for nato and the eu? >> thank you. that's a question for brief history of nearly everything, but i'm also the spokesperson on ttip for my political group which is the alliance of liberal and democrats for your speedy you should put ttip is spent sorry. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership is now being negotiated between the european union and the united states where were we are seeking to take away barriers in trade and look for more common standards in a changing world at a time where both our economies could use a little boost to put it mildly. i think you're actually right to relate these issues. i think ttip on the one hand has

the potential to redefine the transatlantic relationship for next generation. we should not forget the transatlantic relations most links on the shoulders of the world war ii generation. my parents were born in world war ii. the depth of the notion that americans were liberated is almost an explicit but very, very substantial. and if you ask a young generation, the average 20 year old today, liberator is that this is what the word that comes to mind when you think of the united states. >> thank you. >> the same for others but certainly this generational change i think will be very significant and is often not a part of these discussions and i believe it should be. and ttip has the potential but the trust between the u.s. and the eu serving the public in the eu and how they see the u.s., has been greatly damaged by the awareness of what the nsa has been doing and the fact that

being an ally of nearly doesn't matter in terms of being a citizen and being under surveillance. so that trust has been damaged and i believe that there are quite a few people in foreign policy circles but also in the transatlantic circles who almost wish that crimea and the crisis there will bring together the u.s. and the eu and to make them overcome these issues of trust. i do believe of course this crisis forces americans and europeans to work together. it forces your pains to work together much more effectively than they have. and clearly the euro crisis has overshadowed another crisis which is europe's position in the world and that is now coming to the surface. painful matter i should say. what is the overarching issue when you look at the nuclear deal in crimea?

first of all russia. russia has already announced it may reconsider its own role vis-à-vis the nuclear deal and negotiations. the very pragmatic and i would say very cynical approach that russia takes prompts the u.s. and the eu to take a stronger leadership role and, of course, brings questions about defense spending at our position in the world, our relation to turkey which is also facing a huge crisis, to the forefront. so if anything i hope this will turn out to be an opportunity to redefine the transatlantic relation but not just in terms of crisis management but in a more substantial and meaningful way. also in terms of what it means to be a democracy. i think that is really something that has to be answered here in the city and in this country first and foremost but it does

affect our position of leadership. i mean, how critical can the u.s. be about internet surveillance of activists, vis-à-vis a country like iran these days? i say this with pain in my heart i did a short the credibility of the united states. [inaudible] >> i think the first question is really capacity. we see budget cuts in terms of defense spending in every eu member state. we see a lack of coordination and cooperation to be more strategic and effective. and i think that crimea is a wakeup call and should be a wakeup call to make that more efficient. the secretary-general of nato give a talk very short and concise at the brussels forum outages came from before flying here yesterday when he emphasized this but we also use a very, very strong words towards russia. that it should stick within the boundaries of international law

and should not try to go further in its aggression towards nato. >> if i could say a word on russia and the p5+1 talks with iran. they had two days of meetings last week in vienna which went quite well. made more progress, and i think the concern is more on the sanctions front, whether the russians will be as scrupulous in continuing to apply the sanctions while this negotiating process goes forward. and particularly if they have to renew the interim agreement for another six months, ma will the russians keep the pressure on iran on this process goes forward? but in terms of the actual type of deal they're trying to reach, the russians come a statement over the weekend to get some ideas about how the iranians could modify their heavy-water reactor so that it would not be so proliferation prone. and at least according to u.s. negotiators, they behaved very professionally.

there was no difference whatsoever in the russian behavior in these talks this time than it was before the crimea crisis started. fingers crossed that it will not jeopardize the nuclear negotiations with iran. wait for the mic upon. >> i'm with the national academy of sciences and i want to address the broadening of the june issue. for a number of years some of us have advocated broadly the agenda beyond the nuclear issue whether the human rights whether it be border issues, in my case exchanges and so forth. and when rouhani and zarif took over, everyone -- [inaudible] but i think the consensus in washington is that if the nuclear deal falls through this fall we're in deep trouble. and to put on rouhani and zarif the responsibility for these other activities is going to cause real problems with the conservatives.

and i think some of us think that even though i did anyone more than i would like to see the agenda broadened, but the last thing i want to see happen is those negotiations fall through. and i think they're going to have deep trouble dealing with the conservatives without voting on them all these other issues which are obvious important, what i just don't think the time is right. >> well, i think it only becomes very problematic if you tried to make them an integral part of the same deal. i mean the difference between eu and the united states is quite clear. we've had thousands of exchange students, very successfully but this rating and academic programs of european universities, very value to students. and for iranians i think across the board, these are programs that are not contested or

controversial. in fact, they are actually welcomed and there's open as i would say also on the part of the hard-liners to look for more exchanges, cultural exchanges, people to people exchanges. so i don't think it has the same sensitivity as the nuclear deal but, of course, in this city, the view of iran has been almost turned into a domestic issue, i would say but it's very difficult after decades of strained diplomatic relations of very little official contact for contact out in the open to have a sense of what is happening in the country. i can speak for myself. i have very closest to iran for the past i've years as a member of european parliament, i going there was still very much an eye opener. to get a sense of it, it is much more modern that despite the pain of sanctions, the shops are full that it is more like

istanbul and cairo, let's say that people speak english so well, how young and well educated the population is common to see which ones own eyes really makes a difference. and, of course there's a large diaspora of iranian people living in the united states who can play very important roles similar to the european diaspora. but the restrictions that these people fuel the history change their view of relations i think. and sadly makes it more difficult sometimes for people to people contact. it's not always easy for those iranian-american sica back to iran were i think they are a great asset for both iranian authorities and the americans alike. >> i think you are missing my point. we have 7000 iranian students right here right now. most of them are graduate students in science and engineering. my organization has sponsored

exchanges involving more than a thousand people, more than one it is addition to the two countries so not talk about exchanges. i'm talking about human rights. how can you put the human rights burden on these liberals in iran and take away their credibility on the nuclear issue? >> i understand sorry. >> even in the exchange business we have problems right now because a variety of internal problems, but i wasn't talking about exchange. although we are not going to try to expand right now for sure. just because it's been even every visa we have to argue for. it's not a trivial issue but i was talking to her about human rights and about the more explosive border issues the drug smuggling, the big time issues rather than exchanges. >> thanks for the clever addition. i perhaps misunderstand. although both are important. so i agreed that is complicating

to put the human rights burden only on the foreign minister and the president, or at least on the cover. and i think from the site it's clear that it's not in their hands. again i'm pointing to minister the reefs, at the munich security conference where he basically said it's not really his priority or something we can talk about. it's clear that, for example the judiciary plays a very strong role in the human rights situation in iran. but i do believe that's what hope to bring across is that we shouldn't make the nuclear deal and all these other important issue some kind of zero-sum. in other words, to make any contact with iranians conditional upon next steps in the nuclear deal, for example. i'm hopeful and i think that that's a view that is more broadly shared in europe, that this momentum was more focus on iran mark contact with iran would look at

a broader agenda where for us human rights stories on the very top of the agenda. we look for opportunities to address, threats like the rights of extremism where iran both is on the receiving end of that aggression but also supporting carers or positions itself, which is a conversation starter. the drug smuggling i mentioned. i do believe the agenda is much broader and we should look for a diverse set of interlocutors and also make it clear to our domestic audience who is responsible for what development in iran. i think the hard-liners in iran and the judiciary in high numbers of executions are very much also intended to undermine the efforts of the reformist. because it is very well understood how sensitive human rights and the high level of executions are in europe and the united states alike. and that it hurts of course the president who is considered to be ultimately responsible for all these events taking place in

iran. >> the supreme leader is ultimately responsible, we just thought he made some very unpleasant remarks on the holocaust yet again last week. but let me agree with you. i think with all due respect that the image of iran in the world is very important terms of whether we get an interim nuclear deal and whether we get by in scorpio particularly from the u.s. congress, from the european union. and so we cannot even if we wanted to avoid the issue of human rights also it's not an accident that ate political prisoners were released just before i came to the u.n. general assembly last year. the iranians are very, very well aware of how this plays i think in the international system, and they've every right to defend the system and talk about double standards and talk about the number of prisoners in the united states as ahmadinejad always used to do, but it's a

conversation that still has to be had. >> one more addition. i think which also comes to the point of your question, similarly the question of course how effective, catherine ashton is both good and representatives and just went to iran a sort of a bilateral visit can be and how much of an emphasis she would willing to take or how much leadership choose when to show when it came to precisely those issues like human rights. because no doubt it is and should be her priority to keep the space for these negotiations healthy which she is sharing. i think that was a risky endeavor and one where she undoubtedly was limited in the political space that she sought to address those broader issues. it is on us to continue to address that the gin and to seek interlocutors.

>> the gentleman better. wait for the microphone placed it in others competitive questions, if you have a card tip it up. >> i am jeffrey harris. we have a small european parliament office for liaison with the u.s. congress but i have one question and make one observation. the question is, in iran the good guys, the bad guys the reformers and the hard-liners as you refer to them, are they assuming that the long-term agreement on iran's nuclear program is very likely or is it very very shaky flower that it is dealt with? i'm for sure that everybody concerned, russia in particular, is well aware of the political cycle and the circumstances in the coaches they are dealing with. they are also aware of the opposition in the united states consider the u.s. president rather weak and all the problems on the ukraine package

and then also the criticisms even from democrats over the agreement with iran. iran. so a lot of political pressure. so my question is is it is taken for granted in in the event that this is going to happen? and the observation just because i want you to be aware but within the congress, such delegations as the one that marietje has taken part in viewed somewhat negatively or with some lack of complete understanding or appreciation within the congress, but i mean, you just seeing if i may say so a model example of how the european parliament goes about this. it will go to delegation to iran but on the condition that such meetings at seven refer to take place at the same applies to china, cuba, north korea whatever. i mean i didn't mean it will solve the problems but it certainly is clear that parliamentarians are not just going for a trip and they forget about human rights and let the

interlocutors off the hook. >> let me begin by qualification of the good guys bad guys. not what i would like to see. i think it's clear by self-identity should a politician see themselves in iraq as a the more conservative or conformist, categories that are self-identified. when asked about the perspectives of the long-term nuclear deal we were there at a time where they were very contested sanctions coming from the u.s. congress, which the iranians argued were new sanctions which technically were within designations. yes, exactly. the signal in any case was very unfortunate and would have we asked the question it was really answered by saying, well we are sticking to our commitments but we don't think the west is. and they think it is important that the west is going to be decoupled, that we see the eu policy, that we see u.s. policy in each play our role in order to be effective and to be complementary and to play our

role in the partnership that we do have and in the common interest that we want to see achieved. so i think it is important in this city to talk about the role of the u.s. congress, how it is perceived in iran, and it's one of the reasons why i appreciate so much that we have this opportunity because it is so clever look at this very particularly in congress intended eu parlor our powers are very different, so that leads us to be in a very different role. the european parliament cannot apply sanctions itself. vis-à-vis any country. but the way in which we went about it is to address the issues that we thought were important, to underline that we believe the u.s. is committed to its agreement in the interim deal and we by the way highlighted that indeed. we did not single out iran when

addressing human rights. that we do this in every country, including the united states. spent the question is whether you have a sense for people to was going to be a company to do. admittedly in december when you were there, we do not yet have an agreement on the implementation of the interim agreement which was reached in november side of your able to send to a great deal of optimism that they would implement that and to move on to a long-term deal or whether they were just busy focusing on the fact that some new names were added to the designated for sanctions under old legislation in the u.s.? >> they made it clear they were committed to the interim deal, but that it's difficult to project too far into the future, and that everyone is basically looking towards the other. i see that in the eu. we are aspiring to achieve a competent to deal but it depends on the commitments. and implementation by all at the table. and so this is something that

you hear i think similarly spoken in washington tehran and brussels spent if i could ask one question about sanctions. one of the provisions of the interim agreement was that they were going to facilitate financial channels for humanitarian transactions, for food, medicine, student exchanges. and i'm hearing very kind of contradictory reports about this. have there been steps taken? either now european banks that are do with iranian banks and processing these kinds of transactions so that iranians can get food, medicine, et cetera? >> it's my understanding especially what we call extraterritorial impact of u.s. sanctions, so let's say the second impact of u.s. sanctions which impedes european policy space, which really restricts us in making our own policies because basically u.s. sanctions over rule eu sanctions and restrict european companies in

doing business or create such a risk for them that they're unwilling to take a. it's my understanding but this is a topic that are difficult to discuss with the business community including banks and other financial institutions but it's not extend the most banks are still hesitant as to facilitate these financial transactions but i think that is a mistake because sticking to our agreements goals for ourselves as well. if we agree to let sanctions work to also make it practically implementable. i'm sure there are ways that can be found even if it cannot be done through commercial institution, we could do it otherwise to make sure that we need our part of the commitment, which is the lifting of all the very small part sanctions but in particular the facilitation of food and medicine reaching iranian people. i think should be noncontroversial and i'm happy that the eu has consistently sought to consider the impact on the iranian population.

which, of course, is not responsible for the nuclear program. so we have to keep them in mind first and foremost women look at the actual impact of the sanctions, and especially access to medicine continues to be a big problem and they don't think should be. i think we should hurt those who are responsible and to make a difference and rich be very, very careful of what we do of how what we do at the drawing table in both political discussions actually impacts people on the ground. >> jamal, would you like to say a few words? >> i'm from national iranian national council. for so i just want to applaud your efforts but i think this is a critical to the parliamentarians officials visiting iran and expanding the

dialogue yourselves. that is something that is often it's almost criminalized to engage iran politically and to see this happening are i think is important element of the entire discussion that we are having. as far as addressing the human rights issue, i would be curious as to your insights, going back to some of the previous questions. how can your efforts and other efforts bolster those in iran who seek to improve the human rights situation? president rouhani campaigned on the promise of ending the securitize if i'm in iran in addressing a lot of these social issues. and then at the same time we see an incentive structure where hard-liners who seek to sabotage constructive engagement with the west are almost incentivized to exploit human rights intend to commit these violations in an attempt to cut off these relations. so i wonder if there's been some

serious thinking strategically about how to bolster those in iran who seek to improve the human rights situation? and i think this does tie to the medicine issue because is there a way to demonstrate that dialogue compromise engagement and actually be get benefits for the iranian people, benefits from the policies of moderates and reformists, to sort of short circuit the structure for hard-liners who think, or who argue that engagement only begets further pressure? and have exploited some of these trips by yourself and by lady ashton to say that look, this is an example of the west that is just using the nuclear negotiations and increased openness to put more pressure on us. is there a way to open up the medicine trade, open up some of the humanitarian trade, ease the sanctions in such a way that demonstrates know, the policies of engagement that the moderate

are taken and i shall benefiting the iranian people? >> does a very important important questions but i think to begin with the question is really what our viable incentives for the hard-liners. and i'm not sure the well being of the iranian people is such an incentive. i say with pain in my heart but not convinced. i think there are still too many people benefiting from a economy that is flourishing in a climate of sanctions but we should not forget it's not sort of clear-cut measure that has only one impact. it also really creates a great economy that's doing very well. another aspect of access to medicine is the redistribution of medicine or the distribution of the impact of sanctions on the government. it's not only as a result of western sanctions that people have problems getting access to medicine. we have to be precise when you look at these issues. when you look at your question of empowering people in iran i

think that's the key issue. i believe we should be very focused on developing and bolstering civil society in iran but also private sector, which could be very helpful in counterbalancing the very few at the top who hold so many resources. and to make it more distributive economy. and then when it comes to the promise of the president to in this sector does environment i think the real challenge for iranians is really that it's not always the letter of the law that matters. it's the implication of the law. people gave me a great sense of less tangible securitized environment. they said that, for example, the police, the moral police to deal with clothing was less pressing that the atmosphere industry was much lighter than it used to be. but, of course without loss been changed that can be tweet with the second within an

instant. and with so may things are bidding on anything from having a silent on the roof to get it in it to consuming alcohol to the way you wear your headscarf if you want to target an individual, there's always something you can find on him or her. i think that insecurity and using these levers by judiciary government, police, law enforcement, revolutionary guard, makes them so powerful and makes people so uncertain about where they stand vis-à-vis the state and i think that is very, very difficult for them. but the responses come our visit and the discussion any be i think speak for themselves about the impact it has on fueling a discussion about human rights in the country and it even let the head of the european affairs committee say, what are we talking about? she is a free woman.

i mean, why should we have this discussion? so sometimes what seems controversial and what seems to be a typical discussion, of course we are very, very upset to see that the house was raided on a couple weeks after we were there, leaving a big mess and nothing of value behind, that are still a number of very very series problems, but i believe we can play a role in bringing those discussions to the surface and potentially also helping those in iran to find a way to address these issues. >> if i could just ask about -- i understand she will go to iran because she doesn't want to wear a headscarf, is that true? >> i haven't heard about the headscarf although i must say it's not pleasant to have no choice in whether to wear it or not. and it also gave me a lot of criticism at home. it's not easy being photographed

in that position for, explained to her own constituency, but i do think that the valley of traveling was still much greater and it also gave me a much deeper understanding of the position of women in iran who do not have this choice on a daily basis. i don't know why, whether she doesn't want to wear headscarf. what i suspect is the main reason she does want to undermine the position -- by going. it would be i think a more viable -- >> a convenient excuse. i misspoke a little bit about, this is from the latest human rights report put out just the other week. there are 895 prisoners of conscience. so nearly 900 prisoners of conscience and political prisoners. this includes nearly 400 political activists, nearly 300 people who were there because of their religious activities. more than 90 human rights

defenders, 71 civic activists 37 journalists and 24 student activists. so this is still quite a large number. and in terms of executions which were discussed, at least 624 individuals were executed and 213 of whom most were executed for possession of drugs or for drug trafficking. so if, indeed, they're going to change their laws on using capital punishment for possession of drugs, possession of a small amount of drugs that would be a major step on their part. >> i agree but we have to look at what is official and what is not official. i'm convinced there are people executed for drug possession that are actually political activists. if we ask to ask the officials in iran, they said no there are no political prisoners in iran. spent what about the two former

presidential candidates? what do they say? >> well, some people said that they personally hope that they would be released soon. spent personally hope. it's been out for years. i believe they have been under house arrest. any other questions? okay, let me ask another one thing if i may. and that is in the question of the internet. you mentioned that someone who was assigned to you actually told you how to get around the restrictions? >> yes. >> in my own expense if you're in a hotel in iran, there are certain sites that are filtered from certain sites which are blocked and others not. so as a recall, twitter was blocked. facebook was blocked and my hotel room in august in the "washington post" was not blocked at "the new york times" was. however, when the government has an event that they want to

publicize, if they have a media center set up for the international press, then they unlock these sites to allow people to tweet and so on and to publicize the event in real-time. real time. so i don't know if you tried your devices in various places and got different results recently had to use -- >> well, first of all i only brought one clean device that had never been used or been connected to my main account because i didn't want to give an open invitation to the authorities to access all of us. and i think that's the main problem. i think censorship is a serious problem, it became very clear to me. even being there for 10 days i felt very disconnected from global events. and if you just imagined what it means for the average iranian to not only live in a country that is systematically censored but also news that is systematically framed a certain way, you know all kinds of conspiracies and

limited views on the world and no access to information as many others have. it is almost impossible to imagine the depth of impact because of course "the new york times" and the "washington post" are subset of news outlets of what's just as able to the average iranian or what's in a in the newspaper let alone on the internet or on the radio and television. each really important. but the monitoring through the internet i think is what really puts people's lives in danger. the fact that there's such a centralized system where almost everything can be observed, and people's devices can be accessed through the back doors that are in this technology by the authorities at any given moment. really have put and we know this, it's well documented, has put people's lives at risk. and so i think we as europeans and americans should also read which look at what we can do there. because there are still, i mean of course sanctions are now so heavy that almost nothing can be

exported spent electronic device of the sort and software of this sort can be exported. this is allowed. >> to facilitate access to information, some u.s. sanctions are lifted and they think that's a good move but not on in iran but also in many other countries. we are still exporting surveillance, hacking, tracking, tracing technologies and it's an illusion to think that these technologies do not proliferate. where trade is still available, such technologies i'm sure in the finance of iranians and of course, you don't have the monopoly on developing that more and more is coming from asia where no sanctions of the source that we apply are in place. so there's a lot of work to be done when it comes to these roles of technology and censorship, surveillance and monitoring of people. and i've learned a lot from the

case of iran after the presidential election, but also the solutions that iranian people have found in going around these technologies really reminds of the how vital to our for people to connect to each other, to connect to information. very important. >> wait for the mic upon. >> -- microphone. how many european ambassadors, if any are resident in tehran? >> many. i don't know what you mean by resident. >> their ambassadors spent like how many have a delegation there? over 20 i would figure out under the exact -- >> i don't think you are 20 ambassadors. maybe outposts but my question to our the 80 european ambassadors who spend most of their time in tehran? >> absolutely spent i know the french. to oust? >> the dutch the germans.

>> okay. >> the austrians, the poles, the italians, spaniards, portuguese but i think i met over 20 ambassadors i'm not sure of exact number, which i'm happy to look up for you. is a significant number. [inaudible] >> many. like a class full of ambassadors to breathe and debrief us. when we were there. i wish i had a picture with me. [inaudible] >> no. that's not my since. there's been people who have served there for years already. the dutch have served consistently for years and they lived there. it's not easy but they do. >> can ask about the european point of view? as i mentioned the british just restored i think full diplomatic relations even though they have not sent an ambassador back. i think they're still working on -- which was trashed by the regime of years back.

do you think this is real? are they worried about whether rouhani is going to be able to deliver? >> yes, i think all of the above. i think that they see that things are changing. i mean clearly, even the interim nuclear deal was a major hurdle with that which we cannot reach the finish line, however far ahead of us that maybe. these first steps are very, very important. and against the broader agenda of exchanges human rights regional affairs. there are many topics that these ambassadors and other diplomats work on very actively. and i think that they welcomed our visit to pick up on the discussions with officials and citizens alike. and that they saw that it had a major impact, and that it helps them to continue their work that there are of course so close to the fire they are not naïve. neither i we.

these are very, very difficult challenges, but without addressing them and without trying, you can never solve them. i think that is what i hope i can convey to people here in washington and where i hope that there can be a little bit more openness as well spent i think that's a perfect note on which to end our discussion. is join me in thanking thank you for coming here and telling us about her interesting trip to iran. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i do recognize that seem to forget exist. if it explain irrational fear of islam and, therefore -- xenophobia existed i'm absolutely against it. if it's part of xenophobia xenophobic is nothing then xenophobia versus one group. xenophobia, any other phobia. it's part of it. but what happened is that the islamist lobby, the brotherhood lobby and the iranian lobby have hijacked the notion and made into a weapon to invite who is criticizing a policy issue has nothing to do with religion having to do with the five pillars, there have been accused of islamophobia. with the national social and genuine of -- chris huhne policy against the germans, against the german reich. and even as the initial level becomes very dangerous.

u.s. policy in the middle east saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday night at nine on booktv is afterwards. on april 6, more discussion on the middle east with better strategist and former assistant defense secretary bing west with your calls and comments live in depth starting at noon eastern. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> c-span to providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. ..

that localism will get them a third chance against greed and profit when it comes to their wish to end the landfill site given that there is no evidence of need, a promise it would end in 1995 and community including who are increasingly saying no more dumping? does the prime minister really believe in local i'll? >> prime minister.