interview. here it is. >> we have got the tailspin of culture in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of ork --" caller: i think he was absolutely correct. he was mimicking something someone else said that i like to quote back in 1978. i quote, "our children are living in depressed neighborhoods and on the verge of economic collapse. people finally contribute to the politics of decadence, a generation of people lacking the moral and physical stamina necessary to fight a protracted civilizational crisis is a danger to itself, its neighbors, and to future generations.

" that was reverend jeb -- jesse jackson in ebony magazine. the crisis we're facing today in terms of poverty, you cannot generalize about poverty. people who just -- there are three categories. there are those who are characters in place intact, but a factory is moved out, the death of a breadwinner, and people like that, if they are given an opportunity they use welfare the way they are supposed to as a surface and not a transportation systeservice ad then you have category number two of people like the single mom in milwaukee some years ago who was on welfare with a single child and a saved $5,000 of her money to send her child to college. when officials found out they invited her into charge her with

a felony associate concluded the disincentives for working and being responsible or not worth it so i will just sit back. and the third category that concerns most of us are people that are poor because of chances they take and the traces they make. that is exactly what paul ryan is talking about. they are people that are poor because they are on drugs, living irresponsible lives and just giving up money to support a group like that injures them with a helping hand. and so what they must -- they need intervention, therefore, to help change the culture as jesse jackson said. and i think paul ryan was really echoing what everybody that deals with the population understands to be true. >> host: he was criticized pretty severely by the congressional black caucus and some other leaders as making a racist statement. >> guest: that's ridiculous.

he didn't make any reference. anytime you talk abouany time ye inner city, that is supposed to be a metaphor for race and it isn't hopeful to racialized. you have the racial grievance industry coming and what they do is they just look for opportunities, for instance the lead demonstrations for only 30 blacks are killed each year murdered by nonblacks. 6,000 are murdered by other blacks. every six months, 3,000 young black men are killed by other men. that is another 9/11 every six months but you don't hear anything about this outrage. 50 people were shot including a 3-year-old girl but this doesn't rise to the level of protest or even acknowledgment but one member of the congress making a statement like this, paul ryan,

it becomes national news and it becomes a subject of outrage. why aren't we outraged by the slaughter that is going on in our own community. >> host: what is a conservative approach? >> guest: i would say that conservative poverty -- i don't use the word myself i consider myself a radical pragmatist. i am a christian who is a pragmatist i just want what works. i think what we are talking about is meaning we respect individuals people must be held to become agents of their own transformation and uplift.

70% of the people are in poverty in the black community and therefore they believe that they must be rescued for themselves. in the past 50 years we have spent about 1 12 chilean dollars to address the needs of the poor. 7 cents of every dollar goes not to the poor but those that some poor people they ask not which problems are solvable but which ones are fundable. so we have created a commodity out of poor people that you have a class of people, social workers, psychologists, drug counselors ou have a whole induy of people whose careers depend upon having a dependent population to serve. so there are perverse incentives for us to maintain people in poverty. the conservative approach does not have that.

the conservatives i believe have strategic interests that are compatible with the interests of the poor because they don't profit from the existence of having large numbers of poor people. therefore since they are more oriented towards the market they are the people that run businesses, they need people that are responsible that can come to work every day. with current independence and self-sufficiency in a conservative approach would define success not how many people serve independent but how many people have been rescued from self-destruction. how many people are now independent are starting their own businesses and starting to be self-sufficient. so that is a conservative perspective on the board.

>> host: can you give a pragmatic example of how a conservative approach would manifest itself ask? >> guest: a pastor of mine in detroit michigan took over when he had 50 boarded up houses in his neighborhood and drug dealers were coming in and out of it and he was concerned about it. they had about $200,000 on assets instead of building a new sanctuary he decided to take that money and renovated the houses. he was training members of the congregation and literacy to renovate th a cost of about $400 each. the problem he faced is that he couldn't get additional financing because the insurance companies would not ensure the neighborhood loan.

they would have hired an attorney to sue their insurance company for the redlining and sue the bank's. when he came to us, what we did is go to the executives and insurance companies and ask them what were the barriers? they said they don't know how to make character judgments in the communities. so they got the executives into the pastors and they had a chance to see the program developing people. a brother risk assessment team and said make the following changes. they said this is what they've done. the bank purchases the mortgages and they were able to take the capital to other developments in fields of finance a restaurant in the community that all of the

experts say you can't operate because of violence, that they have hired as a dishwasher and guy named bolton that spent 13 years in prison and so that restaurant got associated with walt and ownership. so rather than vilifying people and companies, what we did is enlist them as enterprise partners in the restoration in the uplift of the community. that is what we do rather than vilify people or talk about class warfare were racial grievance. we should look for an opportunity to cooperate and coming to help rebuild the communities. >> host: why did you found the

center for neighborhood enterprise? >> guest: i may drop out from the movement. i lead demonstrations in the 60s but i realized many people that suffered and sacrificed most do not benefit from the change. outside of the pharmaceutical company they hired nine black ph chemist's present we got the job because they were qualified and not because what you did so i realized i was in the long struggle. i began to work on the low income people of all races and so i worked in the civil rights community and the urban league and i realized that four people were being used as a bait and switch game by liberals they were using the demographics to demand changes and when the benefits arrive, it didn't benefit those in whose name was solicited that the middle-class.

so i left and came to the american enterprise institute a conservative think tank but then i realized to many conservatives while they are open to change, they mistakenly believed all you've got to do is open to door to the free enterprise system and meritocracy will determine the winners and losers. and so i found some. that was problematic for me. what was good as the conservative movement welcomed the challenge and debate and discussion and so i was dissatisfied with just opening the door to the free enterprise system. so what i did is establish the center 33 years ago so that i could concentrate my efforts to help low income people who could better make their way into the mainstream of the economy.

>> host: robert woodson is the guest and center price for neighborhood enterprise is the group. talking about poverty and approaches to poverty. we begin with a call from georgia. edward go ahead you are on the washington journal. >> caller: good morning. i want to say hello to doctor woodson and i wanted to ask if he could speak on the fact that democrats were livid to the leave that obama wasn't going to raise taxes on the poor people and just a few days ago found out that the regulations in the beer companies are going to be and have to come up with $13 million for these new regulations so that is another tax on the poor.

>> guest: we have 2 million people in prison if we are concerned that 90% of them are going to come out and be rehabilitated. but it's amazing. they suffered the attacks on any group. there is a group that has a telephone company they have contracts with 470 different systems around the country where they actually pay a $40,000 signing bonus with a correctional system and then these systems can make as much as $270 million a year by charging families seven times what the rest pay for telephone calls to and from prison and his companthis company has a revenuf

$1.2 billion yet this isn't discussed. and i think that if we are to reintegrate people coming from prison it is important to maintain their relationship with their family and other social networks. but this is made more difficult if they have to pay 17 times the amount, seven times the announced in telephone costs that becomes a tax and i think this is outrageous and i intend to do whatever we can to bring about some change. >> host: you are on the washington journal. >> caller: good morning. >> host: james, you need to go ahead. we are listening. >> caller: good morning. i have been a long time watcher and first-time caller. my name is jim jackson from pennsylvania. i'm a former neighbor of robert

woodson, and i'm here to tell you you're a disgrace. i don't believe that you believe anything you've said. i will tell you about bob woodson. you remember me from the summer? >> guest: no, i don't. why don't you just say what you have to say if you don't mind. >> caller: you grew up in a normal home in a nice neighborhood with doctors, lawyers, a whole array of people that lived in our neighborhood. our homes were clean, we respected each other and bob went to school every day like us -- >> host: james, what's your point?

>> caller: i read that article from the south carolina [inaudible] and there was a philadelphia inquirer two weeks ago where he said that he came from the ghetto. you came from a privileged area. i don't know how many republicans brainwashed you -- >> host: that was james in pennsylvania. mr. woodson? >> caller: i don't respond to personal attacks. my words speak for themselves. we have negotiated in southeast washington 17 years ago where there were 53 murders and a five square block area. i organized people going in and

we brought these leaders to the office in downtown dc as a consequence that in the terrorist neighborhoods the violence went down to the point where there wasn't a related murder in 12 years in the community and based on that experience, we were able to develop the zones using those same principles in the lofty wisconsin. so my record speaks for itself and so -- >> host: what is the significance of being raised middle-class versus -- >> guest: i have no idea. all i know is that my dad died when i was nine, and i was raised a pretty stable home and neighborhood. the point was that if we were able to achieve that kind of stability in the period of segregation in the time before the poverty programs, the question is then what has

happened. back then we were not afraid. all of that has declined and the question is why have those declines occurred precisely in the midst of the civil rights games and having people running these various governments. the question that we have is that why are so many failing in the school systems and other systems run by their own people if race is the principal problem? >> host: it's run by politicians in washington and like every other war, it is never really won. we are moving into the 50th anniversary. a lot of the civil rights programs resident johnson's war on poverty. what in the 50 years have we achieved in your view? >> guest: i think on the positive side when johnson started the programs and bobby kennedy walked through appalachia and we had the

children dying of starvation and if yo you have people dying wito food in the stomach the government intervened the child nutrition programs. we don't have those kind of horrid conditions anymore and that's good. the sad part about it is that we have created an industry out of serving poor people and we took money that was intended for the poor and converted it into services from the poor. and then they are driven by people that have no vested interest in solving the problem. it isn't that people working inside of the poverty industry are bad people. but they work and bureaucratic structure that causes good people to do bad things. so we are injuring people with a helping hand in the name of rescuing them. >> host: oxford pennsylvania calling on the independent line.

sauron with robert woodson. >> caller: good morning. i was going to say the problem with poverty money isn't always the answer but goodness, look how the politicians send jobs overseas. i was in a shop the other day looking at $60,000 made in canada, china and mexico. everything could have been made in this country but it's not made in this country because the billionaires don't want to share their wealth. the guy that goes across the bridge in the city and the limousine he doesn't care about that family. until people start carrying it's never going to change.

you have a quote i want to read and it's very short. you make justice a bitter pill for the poor and oppressed. righteousness and fair play are meaningless fictions to you and that is a quote from god. thank you. we define the problem as vilifying the rich and suggesting people are poor because they don't have enough money. the top earners pay 93% of all federal income tax into the bottom 40% pay no income tax and in fact you earned income tax credit and receive a check from the government. i don't think that the issue is a maldistribution of wealth. i think years ago when senator

kennedy and others passed the luxury tax he said we are going to tax the cars so rich people stop buying them and what happened? they closed a lot of middle class jobs and was quietly rescinded. so for the issue for people to begin to suggest the reason that we have so much poverty is because rich people are rich, poor people are not poor because rich people are rich. what we need to do is to establish a bridge so that those that are in wealth would be able to invest in these communities. any low income ethnic groups, their participation in the american economy depends upon a small business formation. the healthy community, to add

half businessehavebusinesses pee per year. we need to come together to try to improve that. >> host: the approach to help get rid of poverty is education. the low wages and cutting programs is not the way. what you talked about in detroit she says you conclude that it was okay for insurance companies and banks to be racist in their policies and make blacks jump through hoops the majority does not. >> guest: it is not a matter of making the races. it is a matter of people need to understand how to make judgments in certain communities. if a community -- if you are in an insurance company into the

neighborhood is run down and there is violence it's difficult for them to take a logical conclusion that you can bring about reform so what you have got to do is bring people in and introduce them. we have to make sure that we respond to that. i don't see many of the people like that minority setting up the businesses in these high crime areas. i see some of these people that played their finger at others. what we are trying to do at the center for the enterprise for instance is used a lot of the organizations that we support of the offenders and once the character changes come to characteristic has an advantage so we are trying to set up the

company and some of the high crime areas run by people that have access to those communities so they can have the owner occupied. we need to use our energies more creatively to try to create wealth and use the talents and skills of people who are in their and build on those strengths. >> host: chicago, republican. >> caller: i would remind you about the story of the good samaritan and i would caution you in this way there was a man who discovered living in a porto potty. everyone was 21-years-old and could join the race and for you to buy into the american

enterprise institute statistics and then recite them is disturbing [inaudible] they can't sit for two or three hours. the things that you suggest are great for those that are in their teens but there are many people like yourself have faced the same reality when you are no longer a youth and that's when the government steps and into social securitin intosocial secd housing into that sort of thing. >> guest: there are some people who are physically disabled and we have to provide long-term care for them. but we shouldn't treat everybody as if they are going to be forever dependent. i think it is shameful that a person can be on a waiting list

for section eight housing for 15 years. there is something obscene about that. but what i'm advocating is we have to begin to go into the low income neighborhoods instead of always concentrating on the 70% of the households raising children without of wedlock births we need to go to the households into the neighborhoods and ask ourselves how are we able to raise children that are not dropping out of school, they are not in jail on drugs what is it that they are doing that is different than their neighbors and what lessons can be teach us. there were teenagers growing up in shelters living in their cars yet there are about ten of them even in the difficult circumstances they are now in

college. they are achieving against the old. there are organizations, for instance the first baptist church of somerset gardens in somerset new jersey that's demonstrating the half million children in foster care there is a solution to that and that is they are placing hundreds of them in adoptive homes and that they have theyhave a foster cart has a 90% retention rate for the children get the state has a negative retention rate, so we need to roll up our sleeves and begin to embrace remedies that come from the community suffering the problem as an anti-poverty agenda. more imagination and more creativity we must build on the strength of communities rather

than to be polarized. the triumph of joseph how the communities are reviving the streets and neighborhoods. this is the cover of mr. woodson's most recent book. >> guest: i have used this as a metaphor as a way to poor and the rich should be coming together to help. joseph as you know was one of 13 sons born and he had these dreams and he told his brother and his father and it provoked envy sai city was sold into slay and faked his death that he endured a lot of hardships in slavery that he would remain faithful. he was eventually imprisoned when he became the best prisoner. he never succumbed to the victimization and when pharaoh had a dream he was summoned and

came before him and he told ferrell that there would be seven years of famine, save up 20%, and so he appointed joseph second-in-command of egypt. if it wasn't for the powerful pharaoh there would be no joseph and they formed a partnership because he knew joseph had integrity because he refused to bow down to pharaoh said he knew he had integrity. the bible says together for 500 years egypt prospered and feather the world until there was a pharaoh that knew not joseph. he had to reach across race and class and a lot of barriers,

that he puts the interest of the state of his country ahead of all of these racial and ethnic, and joseph today as they ar thee people that are not dropping out of school and in jail on drugs. they became transformed into so they are with others in the community is that you know freedom should have a transformation as possible, and so what we do at the center is we go all over these high crime drug infested areas. people who are not only in poverty but of it and the people that have been reading from it and we provide the resources at

least access to the resources so we can learn from them to determine how we can then rebuild low-income communities from the inside out and then we are recruiting the pharaohs because they have an expertise about how to build u the witnesses. so rather than a fellow fighting why don't we ask them to show us how to create wealth and generate jobs in our communities so that america can read the rebuild and return to the rich traditions that make us exceptional. >> host: baltimore, democrats. >> caller: am i on fax he is over the place. if you listen to paul ryan what he said about the inner city, it

is a code because it is full of minorities. and what he said was generational. my grandfather and my father worked very hard. how dare a man not see that this of all people how they send e-mails to each other calling people monkeys and all this stuff and then you have the black conservatives who downgraded person like barack obama who dispelled all of the stereotypes of white racism yet they still can't see a man like barack obama fighting for not only healthcare but for insurance companies can work people off and talk about income in quality and on the one hand

say we are vilifying the rich that they are getting money to offshore accounts. we have to have -- >> host: when it comes to solutions where do you disagree? >> caller: there are others that have been through poverty and the government came in with resources. we need resources. like iraq obama said people need a hand up to get out of poverty. >> host: so are you talking about federal government resources? >> guest: >> caller: yes, they should get help just like everyone el else. people forget about all that.

the government came in just like the bill that helped a lot of black and white folks yet black folks could move to certain areas. people don't talk about that. white supremacy is going on and it's not only hurting black folks it's hurting white folks come it too. he said a personal attack about how he grew up. it's not an attack. if you are lighting that you didn't grow up in poverty that isn't a personal attack it is the truth. people like these black conservatives the only thing good about them is they will not be on this earth -- >> host: very quickly give a snapshot of your personal story. >> caller: my grandfather, my father and myself worked very hard and there was a time that black folks didn't have much time. we lived in poverty and we were

quiet but as soon as we wanted to live up and we went to other areas all hell broke loose. they want black folks to be quiet, shut up and do the best you can with what you've got. i think everybody, black, white, mexican, whatever should have the opportunity to live to their fullest. the corporations are making more money than ever and purposely not hiring people. they send jobs overseas like the guy said. >> host: all right. thank you very much. thank you. >> caller: >> guest: it's unfortunate people don't understand. when you look at the city of detroit it is a disaster. detroit has been run for the past 50 years by black liberal democrats. look at the southside of chicago. the second congressional district icongressionaldistrictn for the past 33 years by three corrupt members of congress who

rather than using their influence to address the problems that resulted in 50 people being shot in some of the communities over the easter weekend they are using it to enrich themselves and i can go on and on. we have to confront the enemy from within if we are to move forward rather than always looking for an external executes. nothing is more lethal to anyone than a good excuse for failing. as long as we believe we buy into this and somehow our problems are always external and therefore people would only do something better that our condition would improve as long as we stay on that drug of delusion we are going to always be complaining. what we need to do is roll up our sleeves and to say to

victimize them i have knocked us down but we have to get up if the forebears can build businesses in the midst of a segregated racist society, then it became build a durham north carolina that is a black wall street, a green woods in oklahoma. if we can build these institutions at a time tommy why we cannot do the same thing today. they didn't whine and complain about what white folks did. we took responsibility before rebuilding our own institutions. and that is what we have to return to. so i reject this notion that i think is white supremacist or assumed they are responsible for delivering us we are responsible for delivering ourselves. >> host: the history of discrimination and slavery left african americans unprepared for free enterprise.

>> guest: that isn' >> guest: that isn't true. if that were the case, then hell do you explain the fact in 1863 in baltimore maryland when a thousand were fired from the docs we didn't march on washington. we established the railroad company. when we were denied access to a hotel we established the hotels in miami and in new york and the st. charles in chicago. every major city there were institutions built and financed. we had a real estate company that imported over 200 people and when they were discriminated against, we purchased the

building. so we have a rich tradition of treating in the face of discrimination and people that are ignorant of the history will always live with a feeling of personal impotence that somehow because of slavery we were unable to help ourselves. that is just not true. >> host: is now evident that the c-span washington journal has a racist agenda with a binder full of manchurian black people ready to set the black progress back 300 years. [laughter] april 30 there is a budget hearing that he will testify. what will you say tax >> guest: first of all, i'm going to be making a case for supporting efforts talking about the harbors of hope in the somerset new jersey.

70% of the people in the presence of spent time in foster care systems. so that is going to be one of remedy. there is a church that if we were to take what they have done and expand it around the country we could rescue children and help. we are going to talk about reducing the tax on the families of people in prison so they can take this burden. we ought to allow them to keep more of the money they have by having the governor's change the tax on the poor so we are going to share with the budget committee.com great recommendations. we have a program run by the organization in milwaukee wisconsin that is revolutionary in the sense for the past eight years they have maintained 800 or 900 convicted felons rather

than sending to prisons where we spend $100,000 they are caring for them in their own community being supervised and many of them instead of spending their lives in prison they will spend them working and being productive citizens and incidentally, it is what the group did was present a commissioner with a check of $63 million because that's what this initiative saved taxpayers by not sending them to prison. so we want to present to the budget committee recommendations about how to change it. it's determined by how much the government spends and we are showing it isn't possible to help people and spend less if we

invest in the neighborhood interventions that have the consequence of improving lives for people and reducing the demand for the service and therefore the cost would also be lower. >> host: robert woodson center for neighborhood enterprise is to group. thank you. >> president obama is traveling in asia. he started in japan, today in south korea before moving on to malaysia tomorrow. he will stop in the philippines before returning to washington next tuesday. okay that some of our coverage on the c-span networks.

some independent scientists looked after it was on the market and found that the gene that was normally found was switched on and that produces and allergens that you may have an allergic reaction from eating the corn is genetically engineered and on the label containing an allergen that the process of genetic engineering created a switch of that gene and changed to 43 others as well as the shape of protein. soy has a sevenfold increase up to seven fold increase in minimum allergen. again this wasn't intended. this was the background of side effect oto sideeffect of the pre engineering and the process used to create the corn that we eat. here are the organizations, the

american medical association, no problem. are all of these efforts of the conspiracy that a person has just suddenly uncovered and is telling us all about and if that isn't enough for you here are a bunch of other organizations. in europe and australia all over the world here is what we pay attention to when it comes to global warming or something like that. they say it wouldn't pose as a reasonable risk to the environment and i can come up with dozens of these.

elections and governance in south asia several former u.s. ambassadors and policy analysts discussed the recent afghan presidential elections in the parliamentary elections in the security challenges in pakistan today the brookings institution foreign-policy research to victor michael o'hanlon moderated the discussion yesterday. >> good afternoon everyone. i'm froi am from the brookings institution foreign-policy program and we are here at an event in carnegie space and we are grateful to our friends for

hosting us today. to my right is another scholar who is an expert on afghanistan and is one of the countries all in difficult parts of the world and difficult challenges she spent much of her career working on including a couple of excellent books about counternarcotics into the topic of the current research project she wrote a book about afghanistan called aspiration and end of the lens and was going to be an observer in last month's first round until violence precluded that which is a natural starting point for some of the discussion i know she is going to get into it about what has been going on in these last few weeks. next to her is the ambassador retired foreign service officer who spent more of the difficult years and most difficult place you could imagine as u.s. ambassador to pakistan in the 2010 to 2012 period you will

recall included not only the osama bin laden rate but a number of other challenges to put it mildly in the relations as a distinguished career for which he deceived the week received the award from secretary clinton on the retirement in 2012 notable than the previous assignments in iraq and a number of other european countries in washington we are grateful to have him here today and finally, the ambassador schieffer also affiliated that brookings and former officer that spend a career largely focused on south asia and was ambassador to sri lanka and also served in india, pakistan and bangladesh and knows a great deal about the region along with her husband wrote one of my favorite books about how to negotiate with pakistan and that isn't even her most famous. she wrote a volume on the u.s. india relations in recent years as well so the format is i'm

going to begin with broad questions for each of them. they will initially speak about afghanistan, pakistan and india and we will ask them to speak in order of one country, the ambassador for pakistan and ambassador schieffer for india and in the second round up here will go to some of the inner linkages into some of the other issues and once we are done we will go to you for your questions. without further ado, again, thank you very much for your research and insight into how you are going to frame the discussion about afghanistan and where we stand in the county process and in the voter validation process right now and what you've been watching so far and what you anticipate in the coming week. >> you mentioned i always ended up not going to afghanistan to monitor the elections and this

was because the run-up to the elections stood out very violent for the effort on the statements that the officials as well as the candidate should be targeted and that engaged in a great deal of violence and people shouldn't go to vote and of course they founded aero offended that i went or i didn't go to observe. it is the one that has been very impressive mainly just how many people turn out that it was greater vande commission expected in the motivation during the time of the election

many of the stations or out and people couldn't vote much to their frustration having stood for hours in line risking lives and battling bad weather. the reason why many are looking at the first round with great optimism people came to understand that this is the single most important transition among several taking place that it was the system set up after the u.s. invasion and hamid karzai and the first peaceful power in the country ever. we have some preliminary results

but i haven't seen them yet if they have come out. i don't see the numbers but it seems the two leading candidates are abdullah abdullah of pashtun origin that is perceived to be a politician from the north and who has a credential now about 44% and about 33%. this likely means that there will be a runoff in the second round because for someone to become the next president he has to have more than 50% of the vote. the political energy right now is by the imaginings between abdullah abdullah in order to avoid a runoff and by many this

is a desirable outcome. i am quite skeptical and it would be quite extraordinary. for the second round in the 29th. i don't think that this is likely and perhaps it is a questionable decision to see it as a problematic outcome. one of them will be fascinated. and by opening red marks in the

international community in washington and occupied both rounds several in the process of how it transfers to. it is a process that will go on for many months and even those that will be struck to create the precedent. at some point they will be negotiated and they will unlikely stay. there will be layers of institution changing that's very much about the individual network so this uncertainty about what the government would look like and how the power would be divided what go for months after it is appointed as

president. there is stability. >> one follow-up should we be giving president karzai they braved the elements and the taliban and voted in huge numbers. the security forces help to protect the process. the president if he was trying g he didn't give a very good job because all of the rumors were that it looks that they got 10% and the foreign minister may come in third. how do you read that and should we be giving at least acknowledgment is not a great applause that he stayed out of the actual process and that there wasn't as far as we could tell some big profit campaign. >> coming up for all of this was

greater than in 2009. so the question about fraud to me is whether it is acceptable to the afghan people and afghan politicians. it is more difficult but if he is leaving and he doesn't want to stay as president the thing is that they are held online for the first time ever and he seems not to have interfered directly in the process. i am sure that he has to be very carefully charging what the survival would look like and is very active in the bargaining that is currently taking place.

as they said should they not make it into the second round, they would reject that and challenge it. he deserves a lot of credit. >> i know we are going to talk about the regional connections and there is a lot of interconnection between afghanistan and pakistan that we will save that for the round. if you could catch us up not just on the pakistani elections how is it doing a year on into the government that would be much appreciated. >> thank you for spending some time in the metal of the day to discuss the topics with us. we name up to 2014 for the reasons for some sort of goal after which there might be a different kind of situation if

we are going to be disappointed if we expect a sharp break in 2014 despite whatever happens in afghanistan and despite whatever happens in the elections. and there is an overwhelming feeling that has been in power. but this is not a government that has chosen to or is capable of making the bold decisions. there might be more of a focus. under the rest of the government is led by the coalition and somehow they would come out of the stagnation and this would somehow link up into the sense that pakistan could get moving. i think the electric in the mandate had hoped for that but

what it has shown it seems to me he is going to be tended or at least very careful and it seems to the other power center which even though there have been many that have come out about the pending military incursions into fuzzier standing something that america has pushed for for a long time is something the people in the country are looking for a symbol of the pakistani government will resolve. it doesn't seem likely that that is going to happen anytime soon. it's almost as if what you see in pakistan from the outside is pakistan rather than taking the initiative and rather than putting its imprint on what can happen in the region is taking the wait and see attitude for what will happen in afghanistan. approach andctical

taking an initiative, not only because they are enormous issues as you all know, enormous economic challenges, it long-term challenges that take the challenge of water in the region, that if it is not dealt with in coming years will be change ofthat utterly politics in the country and will have a huge impact on the country as well. this longer-term things do not appear to be on the agenda. what appears to be on the agenda is stability. keeping pakistan stable. making sure the alliances making sure that the alliance is a various power ropers remained and perhaps in nawaz sharif's case, trying to make sure he doesn't get outflanked on the right, so therefore putting a lot of credence into, at least in public, into discussions and negotiations with the ttp, with

the taliban to at least convince the public something is being done, were most outside observers have healthy skepticism about whether the ads are going to make a lot of progress. so in other words, trying to work within a world that it is, rather than imagining a world that could be better. i think that is something educated pakistan's fine and want deflating large collection that could have given this man who has twice been prime minister before another chance. he seems to be doing the same kind of cautious politics that he did before and the leader of the military, nawaz sharif seems to be playing it cautious game as well. so sadly, those of us and i count myself among them, who looked for new initiatives, whether there are possibilities in dealing with the neighbors, which we'll return to later, doesn't look like that name.

my last point i would make his acting for those of us poor pakistan's friends from the outside, we would do ourselves a favor, even if pakistan doesn't change much in 2014, to see beyond of the combat role in afghanistan perhaps has a chance for us to reconceptualize our approach, to take into account regional issues, to try to not look at pakistan as we have for so many years down the bilateral track to supplement that with a broader approach to indian issues, afghan issues, perhaps to break down bureaucratic barriers that have limited india, pakistan ties, what others can do to help india-pakistan ties. that is to say, even a pakistan doesn't show some of the leadership we hoped for, might be time for us to come up with ideas how we can support a future for pakistan that is perhaps more bold for domestic

reasons. >> i took the follow-ups if i coded this introduction. the first one is a sense, even though there have been then big policy initiatives under nawaz sharif, due at least decided remain the practice and economy are still it is a country based on trends against the insurgency or the global partial economic recovery that's hurt them less than the great recession and all the things that have been in update -- 08-09. your last comment maybe wonderful it's time to change the u.s. government's organization and maybe at least in the foreseeable future, in a year or two think about eliminating the position as special representative for afghanistan or pakistan or modified structures. i'd be very curious for thoughts if you want to share them. >> i very much believably wise for us, not precipitously, but less first-order bureaucratic structure in the state department, white house, though some military intelligence community that does not make it

to any and pakistan. does that mean we have to go back? of course not. but if we can look regionally, for the construction ourselves regionally, will help our thinking so people at places like workings can give it vice to people who are working on crosscutting issues than the way we have failed to do that. one of the critiques i've had in recent years is if you like at american soldiers in afghanistan , through the length of afghanistan and you look at pakistan, we tend to see in pakistan is the haqqani network. another is, that distortion that we have put into our policymaking has gotten in the way of what you suggest, i think judiciously could be very, very useful. the second point i make is how things got better i went to pakistan in 2010 and it went straight to. i left pakistan in 2012 and things have gotten gradually better. the best contribution i've made was of course leaving town. that said, i think things have called for where we experienced

pakistan, we experience a problem if exit patients at the end of the shards era from our point of view, the pakistani point of view in the bilateral track him but also domestically. it is the end up in the area with democracy coming back in a lot of things will get better. i think now we are much more realistic. we realize and balances of counterterrorism and long-term commitment to the country, we paid the price for that in 2011. now people are perhaps being a little more modest and a little more realistic and say that approach gets a little bit better. as for the economy, i'm a little bit sanguine about pakistan's ability only because it is not in a spiral, but in a trap of a target since its economy and the economic powers of the country. men make money. people they are doing well when

you see the sheets at bed bath and beyond, they are good quality sheets. peer the global economy that would make pakistan really a kind of prosperity has not happened and nawaz sharif, someone who is seen as the representative of the traditional business in many ways is the kind of guy who might've been, had he been older, the person who could push to see the structural change in the economy and would open it up to the rest of the world and specifically even open it up to india where the real advantages to both countries could live. it is going to take a lot more work by a lot more people to have that economic breakthrough change in the way the old-fashioned economy run by old-fashioned elites would therefore then feed a system of democracy and democracy that's not terribly responsive to

constituencies. they have to open up to the world economy and that they haven't done. >> you are speaking about an ongoing process. i have a lecturer talking about a completed first round. you are right in the middle of the first time it has nine separate days in a common but if you could explain to us what you were able to discern what is going on and what you expect. >> well, vandad and cameron have talked about the process in advance of the dynamics of pakistani politics and the afghan election process. i'm going to talk just a tiny bit about a process, but mostly what i think we have to be looking for. this election like every other election has ever had is the largest to date exercising democratic electoral politics that the world would know. in order to maintain order brought the elections across this huge country, voting a

series on nine different days with a patchwork quilt as the illustration of where each phase takes place. it's sort of a nice, neat force winds stretching across the map. the lower house of parliament is being elected has a membership of 572. india's elections are famous for being 572 effort elections. this year you actually have two parties with national elections that are competing. this has been the case over the last three or four elections. the outgoing government is headed by congress, which has been around actually for over 100 years, but which was the party that brought in the end and which has led horse only run

most of its government since independence, but which is why they are regarded as having run out of juice during the most recent administration and has also been beset a scandal. the other party with national ambitions is the priority bjp, hindu nationalist, headed by a ranker roadie, the chief minister of one of india's most dynamic state. bodie is a guy with a lot of package. good package has done a very good job in developing the home state of gujarat. he is a decisive guy. the bad packages is also an autocratic guy. he comes out of the partisan line part of the bjp and most

importantly, he was chief minister at the time of ethnic riots in gujarat 12 years ago, which left over a thousand people dead here at the own the court case that was ever brought him on those charges was dismissed for insufficient evidence to convict. moe dee is the darling of the business community now, which mostly tells you a lot about how far congress has fallen. there is a third possible outcome, which is actually in my judgment more likely. the third possible outcome is there might be a rickety coalition of regional parties. india has a number of parties represented in only one or at the most two states. which basically run on local issues and if the bjp doesn't

get enough seats to put together a winning coalition, then you could get a conglomerate of these regional parties possibly with congress support. what to look for as we get the election results, which will be on may 16th. first, i would say these comments presuppose that there will be a bjp right government of some support. that's not a lot and i'll talk about the different possibilities later on. first thing to look at his economic policy. moe dee has made no secret of his police that they should also be that hard at indian foreign policy. but he has provided relatively few clues as the economic policy would be. it's a big leader in growth.

its infrastructure and implementation and then stewardship of gujarat. it's about the valuable to the indian economy. he has proclaimed his enthusiasm about investment including foreign investment, but not including foreign investment in multibrand retail, which is one of those hot button issues on the indian team. what he does on economic policy will to a large extent set the tone for relations with the united states. the other part of that code will be set by the fact that the united states revoked his visa on account of the write-in gujarat nine years ago. and while we have reestablished contact with moby, something that he agreed to when he greeted our basset or it basset arica beatific smile and a huge bouquet of red roses, we don't know how much of that taste in

his mouth that lives although he has said it won't have anything to do with relations to the united states. third thing to look for, bodie has a hard-line history. in the one foreign-policy speech he gave, he was lyrical in his praise of the previous bjp prime minister, who among other things made a considerable effort to be the guy who brought peace between india and pakistan. bodie's formulation, much but i have the right formula because the peace and strength. so we are left with one potential positive in the relationship with pakistan. this is a guy who might be able to get the trade opening between these two countries unglued, always the pakistan army is willing to get back on the

positive side of that issue. they've been on both sides at different times. one potential negative outcome if there is a bad security incident, a bombing incident or something else, which could be traced to correlate at the the door of pakistan, that would be a situation where the stink would be tough and probably military response and one answered question because mode he has a desire or stomach for a kind of china role. people fantasize about that. i don't think we have any way of figuring that out in dance. next thing to look at, afghanistan. he hasn't said much about afghanistan, but i think it is reasonable to assume that he would continue india's long

history of maintaining its close relations as possible with afghanistan. this is based on the principle well known by machiavelli quote to you and everybody in between that of the country next year is a problem, the country next to them is their friend. he is unlikely to be interested in the security role in afghanistan. don't expect to see him in troops are placed in. but beyond that, he hasn't left us very many clues and a lot of us will depend on afghanistan. the accents i put on continuity in afghanistan will actually show up in places as well. india tends not to turn on a dime. and the party manifesto, there

is a kind of dull fix statement about the need to re-examine and modernize india's nuclear policy, which currently is centered on no first use. after a certain amount of reckless press commentary, bodie himself made a statement to the effect glucan and no first use policy. you will see some policy changes, but it will not be like flipping a switch. most of the changes you are likely to see is in the direction the government lands on some kinds of issues, particularly in the economic sphere. mode he does not have this election sewed up, looking up the price. to my way of thinking, the most dangerous outcome of this election would eat that rickety coalition i spoke about.

historically that kind of government in india has not lasted long, has not made many decisions and has been the prototypical week government, which is not able to deal with issues like relations with pakistan and anyone who was hoping for moves towards peace and pakistan had that her hope for a strong for strong government in both countries because it won't happen without that. i consider a return of a congress led coalition extremely unlikely. i would say so do the leaders of congress, which you have lots at that they will be happy if they get 120 seats, which is less than half of the majority. but as far as how much modi is going to be able to do if he is successful in winning an election, the size of his

coalition matters quite a lot and they are the on how many seats modi's party and their closest allies will be allowed to win before they have to start looking for other coalition members ranges from 120 to 240 out of 270 some day need in order to put together a coalition. obviously the closer you get to the number, the greater is the magnetic attraction of the big party people who want to be thinning in the government. and the greater is their ability to make bolder changes of policy, some of which we welcome, some of which we might very much regret. >> thank you had one clarifying question for myself. you're implicitly guided to some

extent, but i want to sort of set the baseline and at that one more question before we go to you out. does the state of the economy today, the basic economic backdrop to this whole election. two years ago the economist from a magazine for which i have a great deal of respect, had a cover, which i don't agree with basically saying india will rule the 21st century. india will overtake china not only population, but economic potential. that was before recite india's growth rate start to slip a bit. i would just like your take. in the context of this modi campaign or modi dominated campaign, is india selling it so it still? it feels like the last couple of years have been a blip with not high of a growth rate was india fundamentally doubt made whether it really is a major rise in power of the 21st century?

>> actually, some of both. india's economy grew at 9% a year up through 2009 growth rates have been significantly lower since then, down to below 5% last year. below 5% is still substantially above population growth, which is about 8% and a half. if you measure by the ability to develop more to people, it still meets that test. there is some sense that the worst of the recession induced slowdown has probably passed. there is some longer term problems that india faces, including the ability to deliver a rising quantum of well-trained people for a modernizing labor force, which is both an education problem in a business organization problem.

i think india is going to resume a higher growth path. they will do it somewhat more quickly in a modi government. not so much because these magic, but because there will be decisions made that might otherwise did there and because there is a certain amount of business hype about modi, which will lead people to make decisions perhaps a little quicker than they otherwise would. would india overtake china economically? i'm not so sure. there is a lot to overtake to start with. it is about a factor of two in per capita gdp. so i think we've got a substantial overall power deficit is substantial economic deficit with china. china friends is just going into it. india may be coming out of it, so the shape of those two

curves, but i'm very cautious about making long-term predictions about who is going to win that race in the next hundred years. >> unfortunately, none of us will be around. >> well, transfixing chairman, i went to pose a question. you both hit and bad aspects in your first remarks, but how much does the outcome in afghanistan shaped the likely future for afghan pakistani relations if dr. abdullah were to win, of course his associate with the northern alliance committee has been made to india and potentially hostile to pakistan. is this really an issue need to think about not only is the choice for the afghan people, but a big choice in terms of implications for afghan pakistani relations, or is it too soon to say and there's a lot of levers of influence both sides have available, that we would have available, that would allow us to work with whatever

outcome. how do you see afghan pakistani relations going into the two likely scenarios, bonnie were abdullah? >> i think the first question needs to be answered local afghan politics look like under the leader abdullah or asha dione. i was struck by imagining this system and is associated with ashfaq gilani and abdullah and whatever will they can imagine in the internal government or if turnout relations lined up ultimately very hampered by very difficult politics and already moves we have seen from ashfaq gilani, reaching out to posh to power brokers who are unhappy with the way he is for vice

president are very much indicative of the expectations that massive reforms will be quickly in a system of governments that is widely seen as not a satisfied element and that goes different foreign backgrounds might find it very difficult to move out. now the precautions for pakistan as well as other neighbors or other regional powers. i think for pakistan, the single worst outcome would be a strong government with strong protein via inclinations. they are equally concerned about the ability of disintegration into civil war and i think they

have accepted abdullah, a man associated with the tajik politics, particularly ashfaq gilani, that they would be capable of working with them rather than being hostile, a priority to the government. the countries in negotiations will inevitably be on the agenda of the next president and it's not going to be smooth for afghanistan, pakistan relationship. the difficulty here is the afghans to expect that pakistan can deliver and play now comes the pakistani mischiefs and i might just be too up domestic in terms of the pakistan connection. so there is a difficult misalignment of exit haitians but they like to manage

regardless of who is the next president. i won't bring india into it, but abdullah has very strong relations with him via and for many years this team by the indian establishment as their man and that will be a burden for him that he will have to address because it is a difficult position for the afghan president to be in pakistan. interestingly enough, the pakistanis have been the level of exchanges, there have been signals that it doesn't have to be either/or, completely hostile relationship. ashfaq gilani has an extensive relationship with india. again, they will have to be there a van and it was a very difficult mistakes that have constraints to manage very, very difficult decisions of which powerbrokers a brain and in which powerbrokers they bring

out. those pictures will be heavily quoted by their neighbors. it will inevitably be a complex and domestic management to internally strength and or hamper regional engagement. >> not altogether without hopefulness, but very sober. i'd be curious as ambassador how you cd the location of the election of afghanistan for afghan pakistani relations. >> the good news is i think as vanda alluded, i don't think there's a master plan despite what we hear from contacts in afghans intelligence. i don't think there is a master pakistani plan to restart the civil wars and famine proxies to take over the country no matter what happens in the power vacuum that would develop after 2015. this notion of a pakistan that has this vision. the bad news is they don't have

the vision. i don't think the pakistan times and attenuating vision that is a good vision. it is that they are waiting to see and to react to what they see as what is on the ground, kind of a realist anthropological reactive scent and this goes i think for the army, for the isi as well as civilians who have reached out much more in the last couple of years to the alliance, the people who traditionally know them as friends of pakistan. the military is going to wait and see what makes that hard and have some kind of predict ability from pakistan. i am not sure pakistan could've offered that at this point. other than predictability people might have a bit fantasy of evil. i think they are going to be -- if they are going to respond to various whirl is being afforded

by people who may lose the election are going to respond to that personality politics with a rough sense of their own personality questions. in this sense, perhaps what is more important is not so much the results of the election, but the next stage after the election when the winter of pakistan, of the elections in afghanistan has been at knowledge by the people who took part in the process to engage with the taliban. in a way in which they reengage with the taliban come with also the process has to be afghan led, et cetera. if that works in some way, it will have a huge impact on what pakistan is able to do any good or bad way. so that would be the key element. how do they, after assuming a successful election, begin the process and what opening is left to the pakistanis. finally, what worries me quite a bit is the idea that there is

the potential to post 2014 world, assuming the international presence not only is there, but sadly the international retention flies somewhat by people who live in the neighborhood will stay interested in what happens and mcnamara would be somewhere along the lines of indian construction crew in pakistan, seen a number of ethnic pashtun people in the area in vain is there a bunch of proxies for the pashtun look and say these are our eight debut and they go after each other for reasons we might not think are legitimate. but if there's no one to prevent the crash, the inadvertent crashes people who see themselves as enemies and afghanistan. afghanistan could be sadly the place where the india pak and misunderstandings get at it out and it would be wise for india

and pakistan to renew their effort before something like this happens to have a high level hotlines, other areas in which a something like this would happen, at least try to de-escalate. there's a back can, i think a strategic planning and secondly the possibility of unexpected events such as india pakistan competition in afghanistan would get in the way. >> thank you. just one follow-up. you talk about a lack of strategic vision and pakistan towards afghanistan were generally you talk about the vacuum, the inability to fashion a vision. is that because they essentially have within their government to conflicting visions, one of which is regional economic integration makes sense. it's good for all of our economic growth, et cetera. the other of which is by golly, india is always going to be behind a tree, behind iraq, behind and not in afghanistan.

another is, pakistani paranoia/constant worry about india and nice to -- maybe even a little bit of sense they should be dominating afghanistan interracially hegemonic way because the port nonpeople to the northwest they dare to actually raise the notion the border should shift in afghanistan should take some of pakistan into its own territory and that added to public colors and influences. in other words, to simplify the pakistanis still fundamentally complete good. on good days they might want to get along with afghanistan, maybe even india and all grow economically together. on bad days they want to dominate them are suspect that things going on. they just can't reconcile which of these two is the more persuasive. >> i think a fine representatives of both of those ideas and pakistan. the process -- i'll stick with process right now. the process here i am more

concerned about is not that they are competing visions, rather that there is a habit of thinking tactically and i think it's true the civilian center of the military. that is to say something is good for the punjab based or pashtun upsetting the ample quarter or third business and transit has to be balanced within pakistan, that will be what makes decisions about afghanistan. so for the military, there will be the question of yes, let's say we are past strategic depth of a concept, but we are still concerned what is going on in world order if this particular warlord for people is in power here and they are inclined to be friendly to us, we can respond with another move forward and talk to people who might be friendly to us. but i don't sense a broader

vision of how often the pakistani military, a vision of what not to happen. i think they believe in a broad sense are they to have a friendly country next to us. would like to have a country don't feel threatened by, we'll have to wait and see what happens in the election, and the reconciliation process in order to decide that. so i get back to the lack of vision, rather than competing visions. >> thank you. it's very clear. please, let me get my attention away for a microphone and identify yourself. if you'd like him identify which of the panelists you would like to begin to answer your question. i think it will take two at a time. we'll start hearing the third row. steve, did you want to ask also? third row and then the front for the first two. >> thank you. it is bill milo, senior scholar at the woodrow wilson center. in a former life, i was one of cameron's predecessors and also one of how we schaeffer's successors.

that leads me to make one note here and that is that there was a fourth election a few months ago in bangladesh, very problematic that seems to have fallen off the charts as perhaps i hope you are not ruling bangladesh out of south asia. but i do have a question for substitute in this regard if you don't mind switching to bangladesh for a second. if under the process they trained to wednesday substantial crickets together a substantial kind of coalition, not a majority, but a coalition, what do you think indian policy will mean towards bangladesh and nepal as he can before that was relatively pernicious and unhelpful to bangladesh into the rest of south asia? my second question is towards

cameron and i have to preface it with singing cameron, i took the election of a year ago and pakistan to be a vote for continuity. not the kind of continuity that would bring back the ppp, which was hopelessly ineffective, but the kind of continuity where there were big changes, only people will vote in for a better economy, more economic action. that is my view. and i noticed that they haven't produced, and i agree with you on the economy or anything else. you said something that i think i agree with. and i think you said that you didn't think there would be this move towards the military into north waziristan was then -- we will still be waiting for it for a year from now are some length of time from now. >> i agree with that. >> do you think this is because

they are waiting to see what happens in afghanistan or do you think that -- i am more inclined to think that they all of a sudden the ground and said wait a minute, what do we do when we attack north waziristan about all their allies, punjab and elsewhere and don't have a serious problem there and how are we going to handle that? you got a plan for that. they probably haven't got the capability. >> will take one more before we go to the panel. >> my name is arnold zeitlin and i opened the first pakistani bureau for the associated press many, many years ago. onetime i want to second those remarks about a mustache. i hope we will hear more about that if not now, at a later time. this is basically directed

towards dr. felbab-brown because it will mean the transfer of office from one individual to another. but will it actually be the transfer of power? time and time again, you have today and your colleagues as well, have talked about power brokers. so where willpower brass wants a decision about the election is made? and that includes references towards taliban, which of course did not participate, it holds tremendous power in afghanistan? >> this is perfect. one question for everyone. why don't we worked on the road beginning with vanda? >> you are right in the sand at the transfer of office negatively is not transferred power. nonetheless, i do believe there is a transfer of power and they

say so even because one of the fundamental questions really is what will be the rule of president hamid karzai propose president, ex-president hamid karzai quiet we know that he is building a massive problem for him elsewhere than admit to the presidential ground, indicating that he's willing to move maybe 100 meters away on the central of power in the speculation that has unsorted position in the next government issued the made senior minister or advisor perhaps given summerall of power. that is very much something -- we are touting the afghan process. how much power will be transferred away from him onto someone else? >> the second layer was the

negotiations between the power brokers and who the next men who will be the formal president will be. and it is still up for grabs in my view. it can very well be that the next president is unfortunately expectational era domestically from abroad that he is going to be the reform of really challenging that is very unpopular and arguably unsustainable for very much longer. but the expectation abroad and internally, the next man, very, very constrained in terms of politics. nonetheless, the afghan president is a very powerful office. let's remember one of the reasons why hamid karzai became president is because there was a broad sense he was a very weak man who would not challenge the system of power. and although he ultimately ended up challenging the system in the air of reform, he was able to

accumulate a lot of powers of the president the to divide the role and hamper others to make emulating more power than he had. and that is sent to even a weak successor might well end up in the same position. how desirable that is is highly questionable and i would say unromantic. but there will be a transfer not just of offices, the transfer of power that will also involve not just the president at the national level, but it will in a very difficult way also involve layers and layers of appointments in the key ministries and the minister of interior, and the ministry of defense, which is just the army. so it's quite possible the accomplishments of the afghan army will be very much challenged as layers and layers

of appointments are being challenged were thrown out and as many of the top ministers in the really create personal networks of power and if they go out, how much were these are petitions. the first element to negotiation of power is of course the taliban had. again, that is some name the difficult year. the taliban has ever had sent to to throw whatever they have come to challenge the new government and challenged the army particularly as the relationship between the army and the president has been negotiated. let's imagine the next president is abdullah, what else is i.t. too posh pasture networks within the army, how much fragmentation to be placed at a time when the taliban is going to do whatever

they can to show the system. if they don't succeed, if they take a beating, they stay standing. it might then be a much better pledge for negotiations of the taliban in 2016 and we have at any point the issue of negotiations came up. so the answer is we don't know when it will be difficult, messy and go on for months and beyond the elections. in fact, i would expect there'd be several several sets of negotiations to establish someone has a president. and then a year down the road for several months down the road, the next president will realize that he really doesn't like the bar to be struck. he will have to renegotiate them violate the terms of the deal and will be probably even more difficult, second set of the

negotiations as he is asking his power and the coming marshak to and having more potency with presidency in power. >> ambassador munter. >> i hate to agree with everything. i think the point you make is right, that there is enormous hesitation on the part of the package any irony in part to go with north waziristan not just because of the battle of north waziristan, but because of the unforeseen or the suspected result of how the groups come in the various groups that we call under the military banner with the north waziristan would call upon their allies throughout southern pakistan to hit the government where it hurts. and so since many of the people of the higher levels of the army as a pro core commanders always seem to say we don't want to take this kind of move until we are sure that the people have a

fuzzy concept. we want people behind us so we do this. this is seen by critics as you guys are chickens. you don't want to go win or you are actually on the side of the militants in waziristan. they are your friends and your playing a double game. i don't think it's quite that simple. the reason is they would be a very difficult operation to go when and it would very difficult if the army is going in to a number of bombs go off in lahore and the civilians, such as lahore's finest prime minister say wait a minute, i didn't bargain for this. it's okay for people to diaphanous hills. i don't want the overpasses all to come tumbling down because that is not part of the bargain. so i guess they go back to the question of the domestic politics at a time when we all wish they would be more

efficient for at least a regional division to do what we want to do, it's good neighborliness would not be, i don't think, because it has a way of extending itself, watching us closely from afghanistan. it will be much more -- we will be hesitant to make any moves into waziristan because we're afraid we'll have such an impact on domestic politics that we simply won't move. and if they don't move, there will always be again in the second player to play the chess piece. so what can we expect from pakistan if we are looking for in india or afghanistan? if the leaders after these elections are wise enough to have initiatives and allow pakistan to move, if they read pakistani politics well, it's a wonderful opportunity for india and afghanistan because i just

don't bank the indians or the afghans are going to be under some new pakistani initiatives. >> yes, bill come in a terrible election in december. for those who don't follow bangladeshi politics on a regular basis, about two decades ago the bangladeshis pioneered what was actually a rather brilliant way of managing hostile election environments by enact a constitutional amendment that required the outgoing government to step down for the 90 days preceding elections to be replaced by a government of technocrats who were legally precluded from seeking office in the next election. and this could be the group that oversaw the election.

unfortunately for both of the political leaders who have alternated in the intervening time under this arrangement, the outgoing government never came back. and both of these women had been looking for 20 years for a way of breaking occurs in hanging onto the chair but they rather liked sitting on. sheikh hasan, the current prime minister had a huge majority and therefore push through with no difficulty. we are throwing out the -- the interim government arrangement. bolstered by a supreme court ruling, which actually permitted them to use the interim government arrangement one or two more times, but said it was basically a cause additional. under those circumstances, she

would not agree to any election rolls that included a nonparty government and her principal appointment again all he has via wouldn't agree to any election rolls that didn't include the interim government. therefore megan xia and her allies boycotted the election. half the seats were awarded uncontested in the other half, 75% of them went to shea cucina. so guess what, shea cucina hasn't even dumping her majority then used to. during the run-up to the election, the united states continued to call to anyone who cared to listen and then to last the people who didn't care to listen for elections that were free, fair and inclusive. and sometime after the election, the united states government continued to call for having the

newly elect the government resign and hold a fresh election, something which had about as much chance of happening as a snowball surviving a few years and how. the indian government, on the other hand, basically stuck with this traditional friends and shea cucina's party. this is always a party closest to him via and not incidentally, it is a party that has not, at least not in recent memory collided up with any islamic parties. the indians concluded that the party allied with the jamaat t. islami was bad news than we are going to stick with the guy whose overall outlook on life is more sympathetic to india. i do not expect to see a significant change in the indian policy. the one thing that might change and that actually i hope does

change is that you might conceivably have a government in new delhi that is better able to manage damir curiel personality and strong interest that the chief minister of west bengal and using policy towards bangladesh as a way of managing its relationship with delhi. if that sounds convoluted, it is only because it is. the u.s. has pretty much dropped its call for fresh elections, recognizing that these were going to happen. every once in a while, the u.s. government still calls for a more inclusive politics in bangladesh. so far, the tea leaves are not looking particularly good other than coming from punjab sri lanka, none of them look particularly good.

and the jamaat islami has been leading the procession and the big as the young party is currently on a long march. they are trying to carry this out without basically getting themselves all the rest day. my guess is you'll see sputtering of iowa -- is traditional confrontational politics for the next couple of years, following which they may well get beyond sputtering and that will be the point at which we can see whether shea cucina is indeed going to go in the direction of something closer to a one-party state as her father had. i don't think the issue will be forced right away, but after a couple of years there's been a lifecycle of election during which the political environment in the government's ability to make decisions have started out not terribly high as drunk in a

gentle curve initially a year for a part of a five-year. >> thank you. a second round with scary. -- gary and then marjorie. >> thanks very much. i am garrett mitchell and i read the mitchell report. what to ask a question and i will direct it to dr. felbab-brown given the collective intelligence on this issue, and the observations if you're about to become the next president of afghanistan, you've got a lot to worry about. the most obvious questions we've seen you thinking about our what's the taliban going to do? what is karzai going to do? what are the neighbors up to and how do i get a message to the

world community that we are stable and we are moving ahead. so my question is if you were serving as a political advisor to the next president of afghanistan, what do you think should be on his agenda for the first hundred days? >> will go here for the second question, please. >> margery sonnenfeld, retiree and interested observer. very open-ended question. what should be the role of the u.s. government? i don't mean in the run-up to the elections, but i presume trying to promote some positive steps forward after the elections and by what instruments would we or could we do that? >> do you care to start?

>> sure. the other actor, the next president needs to worry about the elections. immediately, whether modi is in in -- the key power brokers that are running our very much manipulating the back round. in that structure, the domestic parties that will enable for a hamper structure in the restructuring government. and so, they are not exclusive. in fact, it is the politics that can blow up much faster and dangerously than the taliban bombs can start blowing up the palace. clearly, the next president will be able to make the decision on the relationships of the united states and the international community both have said they

will sign a security agreement. i think that our expectation in washington is they will sign very, very quickly. presumably with some haggling they are completely scared of washington. we are also expecting them to sign on the princess by the fact that there is a strategy is good for afghanistan and what will be put on the table they must stay because it definitely good for them. but there is 2000 troops and object does or is it doesn't troops, which also includes more broader support and they had surveyed had. i don't think that's the case and we could hold the next afghan president by being far more transparent about what is that we would give them in what is it they get out of as are

getting the capacity and the dangerous terrorists. but they will need to come to a deal in the more we are transparent about it but it will look like, the easier it will be for them to put a policy in place so they can sign very quickly. and then they will need to take on some key reform issues, possibly very, very few. we assure the international community, which is losing interest to move forward. that is all right now i think budget crisis in afghanistan. the gdp this year can even lower than was expected and so soon, the key administration of afghanistan will not have money to pay their employees. the army is totally dependent on foreign funding, but very quickly perhaps you for the new

government is formed, there will need to be some package in afghanistan in terms of very, very narrow payment capacity and leave the president towards a more sustainable economic scenario. but frankly, it would be a terrible economic situation and will inevitably be economically division -- it would be a vision that's close to materializing. i think the easiest and very most important agenda is how to provide the economy without stepping too much on the toes of the power brokers for home the next president will be indebted. they will start stepping and redesigning those, otherwise we end up in the political system,

which is ultimately unsustainable. >> if i could just drink it at your question, which is sufficiently broad, but i think one of the problems that has related the american capacity to pakistan, the ability to award these understanding is the bilateral relationship, the idea that we are the people doing things. it may be a refreshing possibility after 2014 with her hats to bureaucratic changes in government and with a difference , the way we are doing with afghanistan, that is less focused on the military and success, that we may be able, among ourselves to reconceptualize the idea that we are dealing with a number of issues in the region and those issues, since americans are famously patient, strategic, and cannot do long term, and they give us an opportunity to stop responding to crises as they come.

believe me i know all about responding to crises as they come, that we may be able using 2014 to try to think about how can we look at the decisions we are making about india, which have largely had different actors and players than the issues we've been dealing with that we can try and come up with priorities that has something to do with all three were all for. about these regions. there is no drive to do this. there will be less drive, impulse to play close attention when a certain number of troops -- there will will be very strong reasons why most american policymakers will say that is so yesterday. i want to work on crimea, i want to think about