e move to another issue that we're following care through. plat week we issued a new report fueling online trade and you mentioned the digital agenda, how critical that is. yet we know data protection, transatlantic sharing of data, is a very difficult subject the safe hash pore agreement is now being -- safe harbor agreement is being reviewed and renewed and we know there's enormous impact still in europe over the nsa revelations. tell me what your perspective is on data protection and getting that right? because we're seeing obviously a lot of activity on localization, of servers. the commission is taking strong measures against google and other american information technology sectors is dominant in europe, dominant. and there's some reaction to that simply the competitiveness. how are you approaching data protection and that important transatlantic sharing of digital

information. >> well, this is indeed very important part of the negotiations because that da flows across the atlantic every second, and we continue to do so. so it's important we facilitate trading data and data flows in companies. this is the future in many ways and we will be discussing this in the ttip negotiations as well. when it becomes difficult is when we talk about personal data and how it is used, and that's we have so far that the data protection regime of europe is nose going to be negotiated with ttip. we're operating our rules. we also have the safe harbor, as i understand this is about to be very soon and i welcome that. and we are also negotiating that my colleague who is responsible for justice and the issue of an umbrella agreement between the u.s. and eu. why that is not part of ttip it

would be very beneficial to set the standard and the umbrella conditions there. so we will find a way to facilitate -- and is treated in accordance with u.s. the president has been very active in correcting some of the nsa -- how shall i put it -- some of the ways nsa was using data. that was not appreciated by lots of the american people, of course. so i think this is a movement that we welcome and that is moving forward. it has created problems for the trust between us. this whole issue and it's important that we build steady on the reforms being made on both sides and on the reforms we're working on together. >> do you sense from broadly the european parliament a little more focused on the data

question and privacy protection issues or more focused on the isds. what this european's parliament most concerned about today. >> oh. don't have long enough. both the data protection issue has been very high on the agenda for many years and they are the elected rem todays the people these are concerned the people feel not only in the nsa snowden context but we have had our issues internally as well and also with the fight against terrorism to get the balance right. but, yet we should fight terror jim but shoals be protection for the integrity. so they have been concerned for that for a long time, which is good. but i would say that these issues and with isds and the ttip cop text are probably the most complicate ones. >> let me ask you an unfair question so forgive me. when i speak with european officials that have been edge gauged in the ttip discussion i

hear a common concern concern that the united states is not as ambitious as europe would like forward-leaning and using ttip as a way to really push boundaries even whether it's tariff reduction which they're low but still -- or even looking at the regulatory issues. would you agree that the statement that you wish the u.s. side was a bit more ambitious being more dramatic and pushing forward some bold -- >> we would like to finish the negotiatings as quick as possible, but we also aware of the political realities. i know that in the congress right now there's an intense debate on the trade promotion authority, also the tpp the trade -- so many acronyms -- the pacific partnership in the finalities, of course. this is limiting a little built the possibilities for the administration to fully focus on

ttip with business being winded up we hope the full focus can be on ttip. we have very high ambitions and it has been confirmed by president obama as well we really want an ambitious agreement. because with could get rid of a few tariffs and that would -- that could have been done years ago but we trade for billions every day but we want to have this broad ambitious agreement. yes, looking at tariffs bus they're still affecting small and medium size companies and look at access to our markets when it comes to public procurement. when it comes to rules and regulatory talk about energy. it's a very ambitious agreement that we have sort of in our preparatory work set out together. so we hope and we trust and we think that we can -- hadn't been easy would have done it a long time ago -- to deliver and make the biggest free trade agreement ever. >> that question of timing is

increasing -- >> you have an election coming up. >> yes a little something happening in 2016. but i think remembering when the political rhetoric, the euphoria -- remember that one tank of gas we were going to get ttip -- i joke, has to be a prius because we're going to be on this one tank for a while and the concern is that obviously tpa tpp and taking enormous amount of political energy here, that in 2016, election years are not the best time for big steps to be taken. and i certain of asked a similar question to ambassador sullivan last week, saying itself feels to me we sort of stalled a little bit in the ttip. he says, no, no this is just the boring bit. this where is we get quiet and focused that you don't see. i said, okay, it's boring, but it feels like externally it's losing a little of its energy and this is when a lot of the

groups who don't want this dealing to be successful, you mentioned the toxicity in europe today. that's what it feels like is taking hold. i worry we are going to get into 2016 and it's just going to look like 2017. the u.s. is never in one administration started and completed a trade negotiation. ever. in our history. >> well, famous british austrian said optimism is a duty. that's my moto. we support the fair eleakses but they complicate the time timetables. i have time. i'm here until 2019 unless there's a revolution. >> you're not going anywhere. >> we have plenty of elections. 28 countries and there are regional elects. >> a big one on thursday. >> a big one in a country we all know very well, the unite kingdom, and then next year,

the -- we'll be busy. hopefully we can -- that's what we are aim agent intense identifying the debate. so some of the really political issues can be shoveled solved now and leaving the boring technical things for when the debate becomes intense. that could be easier. we'll see. >> absolutely. it's going to challenging. let me turn, tracking back on the question of ambition. the one ambition you don'tors have had is creating an energy chapter, and that has not been -- words -- something that is very attractive to the u.s. side. do you feel you're get something traction on getting the energy that national resources question out there or quite frankly this is something that the americans are simply not interested in exploring? >> this is certainly difficult issue for eu. we're aware of that. i think since we started to write our common agenda, the paper of the high level working group where we set out our joint

ambitions. since then quite a lot of things have happened. in our neighborhood we have some countries who almost 100% depend on energy imports from russia and there is a clear strategic dimension to this. we need to diversify this, and this is something that the u.s. support and encourage to do. but in order to do that we need to be able item port energy from other sources. the u.s. could be one such source. i think it has a very important strategic dimension as well. we have not really gone into that chapter to negotiate yet but by that i think there's a mutual understanding this is important, then we'll see how the reaction to negotiations go. i'm aware this is a sensitive issue in the u.s. but it's very important for us. >> one final question you can sufficiently warm up to get ready for some tough questions from our audience. my last question is third parties, to ttip, we certainly know turkish government has

expressed some very concerns. the eu now is updating, in some ways reflecting the customs union and invigorating that, norway iceland other none partners mexico. help us understand your approach to third-party concerns. >> well, all these countries especially of course turkey, with whom we have a union since many years ago and then iceland and norway who are not members of the european union but partners in the trade area so they're following this with great interest. we keep trying to keep them informed what we're doing they're in the loop. and they have expressed a willingness to be able to log in into the agreement once it's done if think that's a good idea. if we can achieve an -- ttip and other countries in our neighborhood mexico maybe in your case, and others, sort of want to log into that, that's a good idea and we should keep

that prospect open for them. >> perfect. wonderful. all right. it's time to welcome our audience into the discussion. we have some microphones around. if you could raise your hand, identify yourself, your affiliation in order to get the most questions in we road like to keep comments short and thank you, and your questions very focused. so i'm going to start in the far back corner. i see a hand back. the'll gate microphone to you right there. thank you. and sometimes you have to speak very loudly into that microphone so don't be afraid of it. speak loudly. thank you. >> thank you. from reuters. commissioner you said you were working on further ideas for isdd. can you give us any hints what those might be -- >> actually -- >> and ei canada trade agreement be reworked to include those new ideas. >> we share those idea with the european parliament and trade

minimum next week and i'll share them with the press as well. >> so we get them next week -- this week. it's monday. >> if it's monday it must be washington. wonderful. we have three questions right here in the middle. >> thank you. peter ol' gaier from the coalition of services industries. thank you commissioner malmstrom, for your remarks today and your leadership for freer trade. at the beginning of your comments you talk about the broader agenda in trade negotiations, the different subjects that have become part of trade negotiations. i don't think you mentioned currency manipulation. and i'd be interested in your views on whether you think it's appropriate to include currency manipulation disciplines in a trade agreement. >> i think that depends. the is an issue being discussed with the tpp discussion.

it's not part of our ttip negotiations, so i think it depends on your partner. >> perfect. we'll have a question right up front here, please. thank you. >> thank you. hi. david thomas with inside u.s. trade. the eu has made clear that government procurement is a strong commercial interest for the eu and the ttip but the u.s. seems to have refused to offer really anything significant on it. i was just wondering, how long can this scenario, i guess continue? how many more concessions can the eu offer the u.s. until i guess enough is enough? >> well, we just finished the ninth negotiation round last week in new york. we have one more plan for july, and that is what we think is needed to have everything on the table.

tall the technical issues spend the we can go into a more political phase of the negotiations. public proaccurate is a very important interest from the european union side are or markets are open for the u.s. and has been for a long time. has been good for our economy and consumers and we will of course seeking greater access to the american market. this -- well, there are know ultimatums or deadlines here. we will be discussing this with our american partners as well, and we have not set out specific date or timetable but this is a very interest from the eu side. i don't think we can conclude an agreement if we haven't made progress on that. >> you don't think you can conclude an agreement without progress? i want to make sure -- . >> if i didn't think we could conclude an agreement i wouldn't be sitting here. >> optimism is a duty. >> absolutely. right there, please.

>> hello. melinda st. louis from public citizen. you mentioned your efforts to increase transparency, to -- for more public trust and so i was wondering in your conversations with ustr froman if you are encouraging the u.s. to follow your lead in terms terms of publishing proposals and if you would also day agree to publish come posit texts so the public can follow the negotiatings and have a sense of what is being negotiated and what is not being negotiated. >> that is a great question and there's' n some ways more transparency on the european side how do we manage those political challenges. >> well, of course we are discussing this and what is happening, the eu internal debate i think our american partners follow that quite closely so there nor secrets no sort of dark moves here.

we have decides to publish our ei texts basely all of the -- not all. there are some very sensitive issues such as tariff that you cannot put them online while you're negotiating but all the background text, all the legal proposals, all our position papers, all the refers residence to the different records and it's being published online and others and we also have a broad ingame. with the u.on parliament and different stakeholder groups where we report after each negotiation round. and we will continue to do so as we develop common positions in the eu. of course cannot publish american documents. that's for you to decide how to do that. we are informing what we do. as we start to go more into the delivering results of course, everything is so linked so just ticking boxes and everything is link elfed but as we start to deliver more reassault white be

more design to communicate that -- desirable to communicate that together and we need to fine a way to do that. >> right here. >> thank you. i'm tom with the foreign policy discussion group. it's interesting that you haven't yet mentioned agriculture. and yet we know that relations between the u.s. and europe on agricultural issues have been going on seemingly forever. would you discuss some of the agricultural road blocks you're dealing with? >> that's a seminar in and of itself. >> in itself. but very briefly sir yes of course agriculture is always a big part of negotiations like this. they are sensitive issues. i know they are here in the u.s. thayer very sensitive in our countries as well. we are looking at in ttip as a bay sis a full liberalization of tariffs across the board but

there are obviously here in the u.s. and the eu some sensitivities that would have to be excluded and that is for the end game. and we think it's an offensive interest for us as well to have increased access to the american markets and know that for the american producers in some of the areas they want to increase access to our markets. many of these issues we have mutual interests compatible interests so that won't be a problem. there will be a few sensitive products we'll always be discussing. for us and it is for you we have some laws that cannot be changed. that is from the european perspective are very important when it comes to, for instance, hormone beef is not allowed in european legislation. you have other issues that are forbidden in your legislation. we cannot change our respective legislations. that has been clear from the outset but we will try to find

ways to open up as much as possible in agriculture knowing the sensitivities there. they are always sensitive. always negotiations. even with big partners such as this and wto as well, the whole thing. so i don't know if i should develop more on this but if -- >> the other week, a decision on gm0s about letting the member states decide, ambassador froman was clear that was not necessarily where the u.s. was wanting to see more openness. i think we really have seen a proliferation of geographic indicators, and again how do you manage -- again, near the early days, just finished the ninth round but these are pretty big obstacles how much do you manage through those. >> start with geographical indications its one of the priorities of the european union. we have hundred protection tuesday and the canadian grandma we agreed on a list of 154 of them.

so this is something that is very important from the part of europe of many of our member states and so it's certainly part of our negotiation. i know the u.s. come from a total different tradition here so this will be difficult issue but i'm sure we can solve that as well. on gmos, at the same time be adopted a procedure for -- we proposed it, now it has to be endorsed by member states and the european parliament. we also gave permission for 19gmos that have been sort of cleared by our -- we have a scientific agency. so those 19 were put there which has been the u.s. demand for quite some time. and the knew procedures is compatible with wto and the internal market. so i'm quite confident that this impact will not change anything in the practical application. >> fantastic. we have question over here.

microphone sir. thank you. i am sean donly from the u.s. council or international business. thank you for your remarks today and your strong leadership. for my organization, and i think for business in general the strong innerve yost state dispute settlement provisions are absolutely essential in the ttip and while you've been speaking out strongry, i don't see many of your fellow commissioners or european political leaders doing that. they seem to be hanging book a little bit. at a time we see president obama frankly speaking out very strongly and confronting members of his own party on trade and investor state dispute settlement. my question is why aren't more european leader out there now strongly trying too explain the benefits benefits of ttip and turkly of investment. thanks. >> i think that is gradually

changing. this is something that -- a few years ago started to become a bit toxic and people thought maybe they need to be reformed a little bit. i've taken all my fellow commissioners to a crash course in isds. they know everything and are preparing argument and when they're out and get goes -- because they do. this is the most well-known acronym in europe. which is a bit strange but true. so they know -- i know they do. and i also with the trade ministers who have asked us in the mandate to put in isds, so we are negotiating based on the mandate we get before negotiations start. you have your trade -- it is in our mandate. so member states are increasingly becoming active on

this. some could do more, absolutely, and i keep telling them you have the be out there and debate as well. in some countries this is a very difficult in the national parliament so they're trying to find a way and that's why we have been engaging closely with them to have a more updated version that is more transparent, that is clearer that is based on the clear limitation when it can be used and under what conditions and so on. so i hope that once we make our proposal which have been discussed for months, that also more can feel encouraged to be out there and present in the debate. >> i can just tag on one quick question. you served in the previous commission that did not have super commissioners. you now serve in a commission where there's a bundling of super commissioners. has it changedded your work? i'm curious if there was any

structural devils out in with this new -- >> or program out in -- your mandate is very pick. >> my mandate done on trade is of course very specific, but it has changed. i think to the better. don't call the super commissioners. >> a cape with an s on it. >> it's actually a good thing. as in many governments and i've served in the swedish government as well -- between the department of the ministers they're always very thick walls and nothing to day -- no policy area is within those walls. you need to -- with the different other ministers the commissioners in order to get coherent view and this is what we do with the commission. i work very much with the vice president of the super commissioner for economy and vice president 0 who is a former prime minister of finland to coordinate the economic part of what we do, and of course trade is a very important economic part of our economic recovery in

the european union and for our future. all the work with a high representative and the team who works with develop, with foreign policy with neighborhood enlargement, with i'm assistance to get the political part of trade because trade and development is closely collected. trade is a very important foreign policy tool. so we sit together and we go through priorities and make sure we know what we are doing and to fit into different agendas. so it's actually a more modern way of working i will say. >> thank you so much. a question right here down the front. please. >> pbs online news hour and european institute. another word you haven't mentioned is google. president obama last week labeled the competition efforts by the competition office at the commission as a form of protectionism. is the -- are the efforts of the

competition office colliding with your efforts in terms of undermining trade particularly when you think that no less than a martin schultz who was here trying to launch ttip is now on the antigoogle band wagon? >> what the commissioner responsible for competition is doing on google and many others is to like at companies of different kinds are abusing their position on the market. that has nothing to do with ttip and she has -- i think she was here a couple of weeks ago and presented what she is doing and the questions she has been asking and so on. so this is kept under her -- very clearly away from our negotiations in ttip. >> we have a question in the back. >> commissioner, my name is --

i'm the president of common good an international group and i'm from kenya. you talked about africa looking at the 27 countries who have signed with the agreement. what are you looking at in terms of transparency, corruption, human rights and the -- what is going to get them -- what makes you agree with them that this is a country that it better and will do better in policy and with business. so what are you posing on when selecting those and with whom are you working in africa, the same leaders or different businesses? thank you. >> we are working in africa with groups of countries. regional groups. so we have regional agreements. one in the western africa, one in eastern africa, and so the

regional agreements we give increased access to the european market but also in these agreements we are talking about sustainable development there is also provision for eight -- for trade to make sure that we can help in building up the infrastructure to be able to deal with the trade. there is always discussions on good governance and labor rights and so on. that is very much included in the dialogue we have with those countries, and were hoping that these agreements can be signed very soon. they're still having agreed but not ratified yet. so this is a process that is ongoing and we will seek to deepen those and to engage and to make sure. the wto side, where we hope that

is -- especially kenya with the menster from wto minister from all over the world will meet in kenya in december to try to agree, and related to the wto work is an grandma on trade facilitation. that would take away some customs fees globally, which could be very beneficial, at least for developing countries and we're also working with the countries in africa butanals other countries to promote and to facilitate this entering into force by building up the infrastructure and helping the sort of on the ground facilitation to have the maximum benefit of the agreement. >> fantastic. a question over here in the far corner here, please, microphone is coming. >> thank you. steve landy manchester trade. last time we hat the pressure to talk to a swede was many years

ago when there was a hall hal malmstrom who was well known it your as good as he is. that's great. i assume all plans will be in deep kim she if we do not get fast tract passed. many off us thing it ill witness be a nice goal to finish this agreement before there's a change of administration in the united states. quick followup on africa. pointed out in the bill that there could be a problem between the u.s. and africa. u.s. and eu, if the eu begins to get preferences of the u.s. in the african market. two quick questions one will you have some flexible so you don't harm u.s. experts and two, have you given any thought to a common origin rule, perhaps, being part of epa

where the -- doing part of ttip where the u.s. recognizes african inputs the same as they do european inputs and vice versa, so this wouldn't propose african participation and global supply change.

the invoke. difficult to have a position position on the individual paragraphs on amendments. we need to get clarity on what this means. the ones you mentioned on africa, what we have been doing for a long time is a good thing opening up our market and giving them access that is to support there economy and their growth. we don't think that is being done to harm us interest but to promote our interest. happy to discuss. and we hope that the tpa and tpp can be concluded quite soon. a parallel negotiation track of course it cannot be concluded before congress and the senate has agreed. that is why it is important.

there are nine eu countries who are members. we are following a very closely. the us is not part of it. it is for the members to discuss's. discuss this. our discussions on geographical illustrations power track, find a solution to my way forward that everyone is happy with. this is a difficult issue that we are willing to look at it. i'm sure it can be done. >> fantastic. we have a question right here. >> good morning. the morning. the american cancer society cancer action network. the eu has a rather robust tobacco product directive

command we are seeing trade disputes around the world involving government regulation of tobacco to protect people from disease and death. can you say a little bit about how protection of public health, particularly on issues like tobacco are factoring in to your consideration of positions risd is? >> thank you for that question. that is an illustration of why it has become conventional. people in europe have seen tobacco companies suing governments because of there willingness to protect their citizens from ravages of smoking with playing packages and so on. and that is why we put already in the canadian agreement a provision that states have the right to regulate to protect the health or the safety of the citizens. citizens. and this can be put into questions that accompany. we're strengthening that language in this proposed reform of the system as well. so the case that is ongoing

would probably not be successful or would not be successful with the knew terms that we have been proactive. have the right to regulate to protect their citizens and tobacco and in other areas. >> fantastic. it's. >> high. very glad to see you here. >> i follow you. >> yes. the us european joint announcement. my question is in washington white house and congress used china as a subject to get through all the blocks like tpa and tpp.

if us doesn't accept the high standards china will. i want to ask if commission will also used china has the subject of a european members. and it is really about fighting a high standard 's. it concludes information for other emerging countries. thank you. >> well, it is not for me to comment on what politicians here in the us have said. we think that it's a great possibility to create the largest free trade area between the two biggest economies of the world.

we are convinced we are convinced that is something standard, good thing that we can set standards and new the generation of standards in different technologies, we have good people who put standards and regulators in europe, we have in the us as well. if we can set some standards they have good possibilities to become global standards. we are doing this for us and for our people because we are convinced it would be good for our economy, but we're not doing it in opposition to anybody else. of course, as i said in my introductory remarks the speculative difference for bilateral agreements, of course they can be seen as hostile toward each other, but that is the world we live in. we are engaged in trade investment agreements with china from the european.of view and hope we

can finish that quite soon and cooperate in other forms. it is not directed toward someone else but is a good thing to do. >> let's take one more question. >> thank you. sam gill steen with washington tariff and trade. one one of the key elements of the talks are in regulatory convergence. can you give us an idea of the status and how well those are going and which areas you see mostly have something in this agreement actually come out. >> yes. this is an area where we have made good technical progress. of course it takes time. there are eight or nine sectors where we can recognize each other cosmetic engineering for medical devices.

what else? well, there are a variety of sectors where we think you could recognize each other's standards. of course, for instance we do inspection of factories. they have to be done. we do it in one way and the european union. you do it in a very similar way in the us. they are both a safe and good and produce the same result. for a company who wants to export to one side or another you have to do it twice what costs a lot of money. medical devices have to go through a formal operation system twice to my car crash tests. addressed in europe is very similar to achieve the goal of protecting the consumer we recognize each other's standards.

i think that to be a good thing, especially for small companies who have the room to maneuver to pay. if we could put it together for future regulations because we have very good regulators on both sides to set future standards and electronic cars, nanotechnology, whatever we could form one global standard. and in that could of course be a very good thing for the rest of the world. one world. one standard and so too. so we have made good technical progress. we have we have to go through sector by sector cases and convince each other. but we. but we're making progress. this is work that are technical team is doing between the different. i i hope that we can announce some results later

this fall. >> thank you so much. you addressed it's a very broad range of issues with good humor great common sense. i have a feeling we feeling we will be seeing quite a bit of you. some frequent flyer miles to brussels. we help next time you're in washington you will return and help us understand the processes. extremely helpful and i would like to sit through your risd as 101 class. it should be something you do. start your time with us. wish you the best. your comments secretary. please join me. [applause]

>> on the next washington journal 's

. [inaudible conversations] >> watch your step you. i will. [inaudible conversations] >> my name is telling smith.

i am chairman of the board. world politics. is my pleasure to welcome you. the founder, and he heads the human rights and national affairs at the institute of world politics. we have the privilege of having with us ambassador negroponte. i am not i am not sure whether i should address you as mr. ambassador or professor because i no that in addition to your role as a senior diplomat you are still have 1 foot in the. as you told me in the past

your weekly trips to yell i went to school just up the street from their. but the but the same time you went to yale i was at trinity college. now i no you are running seminars at the respected jackson as to the yale. and so as chairman of world politics it is my privilege to welcome you here. it's if you ever get tired of that commute you have a home here. at the institute we have a unique institution that was founded 25 years ago. in fact, we we will we will have a 25 year event on the 14th of october down to 25 years ago here with us also, chancellor and president right now.

we provide education. not going to you through the details, details, but we have eight or nine major master degree programs, a student body and we are producing graduates who are going in the government commands of the military command to intelligence and serve in different aspects of government. i no you graduate from yale and join the diplomatic service. in the 80s in honduras. my late father-in-law bill casey was there it's. i heard a lot of stories about what was going on in that part of the world. in the days immediately following you assume the role. i think you had already been confirmed but had not taken office yet as the united states representative to the united nations.

somehow he had to find his way through something called the security council to get our activities per approved by the un command he did a wonderful job doing that. he did such a great job he gets into iraq as united states ambassador. and you did a wonderful job there. and right through your career seen how strong you were. you you became -- i guess you were the 1st director of national intelligence. as director of national intelligence ambassador have the responsibility of coordinating 17 separate agencies who were part of what i'll call the intelligence community. i'm not sure that they were all agencies equally coordinated because they don't have their own spirit.

let's put it that way. and now he has a similar role because probably a 3rd to a half a half of our intelligence apparatus today is probably coming out of the corporate world. and the national zero alliance coordinates and provides training for that corporate world and the ambassador is the chairman of the board's. we welcome them and look forward to hearing your remarks. [applause] >> thank you. i you. i said bill because i was thinking about casey. your father-in-law who i used to welcome to honduras

when i was ambassador. thank you, owen smith, very much for your kind introduction. i want to thank also matt daniels for having had the idea of organizing this -- organizing this discussion. i will make some are march the 20 minutes or half an hour or something like that about diplomacy and foreign policy and national security issues. then we will have a question-and-answer and then open it up to the audience. but what i wanted to say is that diplomacy is really all the other public. i no it is sort of self-evident given what we all know about the diplomacy that was conducted by the founding fathers but it is important to recall it.

on the 8th for the state department the portrait hanging on the wall at the very end of the ceremonial hall is the portrait of ben franklin we refer to as the father of american diplomacy and there was john adams thomas jefferson. these people were instrumental in gaining support for american independence. i don't think we can.to diplomatic achievements of quite such scope and magnitude as was accomplished more than two centuries ago the support for independence the expansion of our territory thereafter once we became her public. i a republic. i was speaking to a group of 600 lawyers last -- this past saturday evening down in boca raton florida where

they were having their annual outing. and a lot of them were in their real estate department of the law firm. you guys just don't know anything about real estate deals. think about the louisiana purchase. think about the acquisition of florida where we are standing at this very moment and think about seward's folly, seward's folly the $67 million purchase of alaska. again, that is really quite incredible diplomacy and likewise the diplomacy of abraham lincoln's in helping to save our union men are flexing or not so fledgling, but early adulthood public was in dire straits and in severe danger of collapsing

on itself. some pretty itself. some pretty good diplomacy was exerted in order to avoid countries like england coming in on the side of the confederacy when that was a real danger that particular time. so when people start telling you that the diplomacy you look at in the 19th century is about metternich and all those people answer to that is let's look at the diplomacy that we americans conducted ourselves during that century. the next thing i would like to make a few comments on is the issue of leadership. niemi leadership our country are really that time of post- civil war after we averted the catastrophe of the union being divided and we had, by the way, a

president who was really committed to the growth and very interested in our expansion westward in the construction of our transcontinental railroad. that is what he would have been doing had there not been a civil war. by 1870 we had become the largest, in terms of gdp the largest economy in the world. i think that is an interesting date to have reached that status in the world economy because it is not beyond imagination of the country of china will become the similarly perhaps the largest country by gdp overall gdp. this is not an impossibility it took from 1870 about 40

years really tell the advent of the 1st world war before we began to play a global role commensurate with our economic strength. so it just causes me to wonder at what time china will be able to convert it's obvious economic strength that it has now into really effective global political action. i am not trying to venture prediction but our own national experience suggests that this equation, if you will the translation from economic to political power is not necessarily automatic and it does not necessarily happen right away. there are other factors the commendably. in our case it was world war i. it was woodrow wilson.

it was the role he played in helping bring the war to an end but regrettably the diplomacy of woodrow wilson who was very active. in fact he conducted too much of it himself but he negotiated the treaty of her sigh with the allied powers. as we all know 1st of all, we didn't -- wilson did not succeed in getting it ratified's by the senate in part because he was ill at the time and just a sidebar about the presidency, but but that is not a job that is easy to conduct when he has serious health problems. he certainly he certainly have those at the time of the riverside debate. as. as a result, without us being in the system that was

negotiated he really planted the seeds of the next war which brings us to franklin roosevelt's who succeeded in several major respects. first of all, and leading and leading our country to building the largest economic machine that had ever been known in the history of man just an absolutely extraordinary accomplishment to build the economy while also mobilizing some 16 million people. he pursued a grand strategy in fighting the war that was nothing short of brilliant in terms of managing to lay our own actual entry into the fighting until such time as we really were ready to go in the action and not everyone particularly likes

this fax, but by making a pact with the devil, if you we will joseph stalin in order to be recognized, a necessity that in order to be ever you had to align yourself with the soviet union at least during the time that we were actually in the emergency of fighting against the nazi regime. and then lastly and this is where he compares from a diplomatic.of view favorably with woodrow wilson he really believed in preparing the postwar's. a lot more systematically and woodrow wilson had they did that right from the beginning and a lot of planners of the state department and the white house elsewhere working on the postwar system which of

course resulted in the creation of the united nations and the bretton woods economic system both of which we more or less still operate under today although more about that subject a little bit later. and he had i think, the foresight and intelligence to insist, some people don't like it, but he insisted on having veto in the security council within the un charter because he said and judged correctly that otherwise the congress would not once again have ratified yet another treaty charter ending yet another war. i think he felt that for congressional ratification there had to be a veto in the security council. that is how the charter was adopted.

at the end of the war the united states economy was extraordinarily strong. we represented something like 50 percent of the global gdp. i would say i would say we had political influence around the world that was commensurate with that tremendous strength. i am not going to take you through volumes history, but the cold war then sort of challenge this postwar's order that have been established command it happened quite fast. we did the cold war from 1947 to 19 91. there were a number of major regional conflicts during that time. most importantly korea. vietnam in afghanistan. we had we had close brushes a couple of times with nuclear exchanges. most especially in the cuban

missile crisis when nikita khrushchev was foolhardy enough to send ships toward the island of cuba with nuclear missiles which was an irresponsible act on his part. with great skill the kennedy administration documented and written about in many different ways and makes for fascinating reading. one of my favorite books is actually bobby kennedy's own account's of those events which was called 13 days. we had this close brush with nuclear exchange, but we got past it. then we moved into the post-cold war time which really started with the political transformation of eastern europe in 1989 in

1990 starting with poland and the fact that there was a polish pope who played an extraordinarily important role in canonizing the end of the cold war. then you have the collapse of the ussr at the end of 1991. and you just have to understand those of you who are not all the enough to have lived through that time none of us professional diplomats believed this eventuality was possible. it's believe me, we were surprised. and a lot of people were surprised. and maybe a handful who can say that we had not lost faith that freedom could come to the eastern block and that the berlin wall could come down but but i

think you can count them pretty much on the fingers of one hand ronald reagan, jean kirkpatrick was one a number of others. dick walters. >> dick walters, right. but i think you would agree with me that they were in a minority. there were those who really just reconciled the perpetual alley of the cold war division. thank goodness it did not turn out that way. and so from that day forward we no longer viewed events around the globe through the prism of east-west rivalry's and went through a time in the 1990s where we thought of ourselves and it was articulated by madeleine albright as the sole remaining superpower. the clinton administration also exercise an option for

a peace dividend, a reduction of defense expenditures and a reduction of expenditures for national security but that time was relatively short-lived and we woke up to the rude shock of the events of september 11 the ensuing so-called global war on terrorism which really governed our respective our perspective on world affairs ' for half a dozen years or so and included mounting pretty large expeditions into afghanistan and iraq. a time in which i had a chance to work myself. i had -- i got called back to government service by the bush administration.

i i have been retired and ended up doing for different jobs during the eight years of the bush and ministration actually, i was not confirmed until after september 11 because my nomination of been held up for irrelevant political reasons. i was about to have a meeting on the 12th. it's of course they canceled my hearing he had left and months earlier. that friday night i was confirmed by the entire site by voice vote. so having been delayed and

waited desperately to get a hearing and interact came onto the agenda fairly early on. and with the change of administration in 2,009 there was a deemphasis. but all the while maintaining a pretty robust counterterrorism policy if you we will counterinsurgency policy to try to build the iraqi and afghan nation's. less emphasis on that. probably the next time frame if you will and perhaps the

one we're in now is the arab spring and its sequel it would be the next watershed starting with tunisia. and since and since then i think the social and political unrest has really -- and violence has struck the middle east with a vengeance. egypt, syria, libya and now human. the political turbulence has been compounded by the sunni extremist terrorism whether isis or al qaeda. both in the middle east or in the adjacent area of africa. that is to say al qaeda. that has been one of the trends that has occurred's, the movement of this

extremist activity from the middle east to parts of africa and of course it continues pretty much unabated in parts of south asia. now, while all this is going on and this nonstate actor activity that we have been experiencing, we cannot neglect the fact that they are rising powers. we talked about the united states having been represented 50% of the global gdp back in 1945. we 1945. we don't represent that anymore today. maybe something more approximating 20 percent. and there are other important rising nations starting to emerge from that situation back in the early

1970s. i have the opportunity to go to china with henry kissinger back in june of 1972. i been watching developments in china ever since. i remember 1979 only established relations i was serving, had just moved overlay 79 early aided to have early 80s to the east asia bureau. i remember as debating about what we were going to import we recognize china, lifted the embargo and were all scratching our heads. we all chocolate that question today. how can we stop buying quite so much china. it seems to be one of the questions that people have. i think the important.is that from 150 years of weakness and they consider humiliation in many

different situations where the opium wars or whatever example you choose special concessions for the european powers in china it's a country that has come back to its own. if you read dr. kissinger's book, a, a very thorough history of china from the us perspective, he makes the.that back in 17th and 18th centuries china's economy was perhaps the largest in the world. in a way for them they are going back to what they may have considered a normal situation to were 300 years ago where as i think we sometimes still have a certain amount of disk -- difficulty intellectually and emotionally adjusting to the fact that china is almost a peer of hours in the economic realm and may

someday in terms of its economic strength surpass the united states at least in overall terms. obviously it's been a long time if ever the other rising power, rising of course it was an important power before, but i would cite russia. with the with the collapse of the soviet union and we talked about earlier russia went through a time in the 1990s were it was -- it felt very weekend, it felt like the west in general treated russia treated russia as a defeated power and use that terminology. and there was and there was a time in the 1990s when the russian economy that so

we can there economy was. the oils covers and gas discoveries in russia and secondly higher prices not taking into account what we will happen in recent times. you have to think of it also as a rising power. that part of her three to five free trade network. we have to take into account as we formulate foreign policies and strategies in the years ahead. so where does this leave us today?

we were a fledgling republic in the 1st half of the early 19th century. we were the leader undisputed leader of the free world pretty much through the entirety of the 20th century they are coming off of a pretty good record. the question is what will be all in place in the 21st century. i don't presume to be able to answer that question with any degree of certainty, but i will try to answer it with a certain degree of confidence. it seems to me that it's really have a lot of things going. i want to mention while the more intangible ones 1st. very resilient and have a very creative and inventive

and innovative economy. this is something that is the envy of just about any of the country in the world whenever we try to organize exchanges with another country exchanges between students over there over here one of the 1st things that people ask for especially if there entrepreneurs is how do i instill the sort of silicon valley mentality and our students? 's had he teach entrepreneurship innovation i'm sure it can be talk to a., but i am not certain that it also doesn't have to do with the very conditions in which our society

operates through human freedom and the ability of everybody the greater opportunity for people to maximize their potential. that is one important factor. we still are and i'm sure will continue to be the strongest economy in the world and our recovery from the financial crisis has been as good if not better than any other. we have a military capacity that is unequaled around the world. so even though we're now at 20 percent of the global economy, i was thinking about it the other day, if you take just our allies basically europe, japan, korea and had the strength of there economy stars your

back up to the 50 percent i was talking about in 1945. we helped of those coaches back to the situation in which they are. we have a slightly different distribution the network of free trading relationships. but perhaps even more important is that i think we have an obligation to do that. i don't think we can shirk our responsibilities have that kind of strength of economic and military and having the kind of history and representing the kind of values that we do is an

obligation on our part to continue to strive to play a leadership role in world affairs. can we do it alone? no. absolutely not. it's we don't have that power commensurate to what we talked about. but we should not want to. the various aspects, there is no possible way you will be able to deal with them except in partnership with other countries. we are entering into an era of mutuality an era of interdependence and i think if he does to take this new

era very seriously and crew responsibility. i am confident really that under the circumstances we face today and provided that we continue to keep perfecting our own society and work closely with her friends around the world that we can continue to play the kind of strong leadership role of the played. thank you for listening to me and i'm happy to do some questions. it's.

>> thank you, ambassador everybody you can today. you referenced some of the rising terrorist movements that we are seeing in the world today. those of led to a decade of setbacks for human rights internationally. we all need to be concerned about that. human rights international to amass the principles as the principles of freedom and human rights that we think are the ultimate antidote. my question is for the ambassador focusing on the intersection of human rights and foreign-policy.

the 1st question for you there are some who regard human rights as being in tension with the principles of your policy. there are others and i would be in this who don't see such attention. really advances the us national security interest. can you comment on this issue of whether there is a a tension between the promotion of human rights and foreign-policy? >> happy to. then i was laughing to myself. in some administrations they're really were great arguments and tensions between the politics and those advocating human rights' and so i guess

there's always a tension against the policymakers those who have a unique focus and maybe one functional area or once of standard issue versus those who have an overall responsibility for the policy. but i think to the fundamental question i don't think there is any incompatibility between the pursuit of vigorous human rights policies and our overall policy. if i could try to broaden your issue of the week do not have any alliances with countries that do not consider democratic.

formal political alliances which after he's, which obligate us to come to those countries defense in the event that they get attacked. our alliance with democracies, democracies couple of countries that you might be able to put in the doubtful:. at one point he was under a dictatorship. by and and large if you take europe, japan, korea, so forth south korea's is all allied countries and democratic. very often we came to the relationship with those countries for security reasons.

like germany, germany, like south korea, but we saw the wisdom of helping them develop democratic countries that respect human rights. i think where things get a little bit complicated, it's in the tactics the day-to-day tactics of our foreign policy where you we will sometimes find some pretty serious disagreements that only the state department but around this town and maybe our country which is for example what you do about human rights violations you have extremely significant interests purchase, the largest oil-producing country in the world for the country of china which is about to become possibly the largest economy in the world.

you have to find a balance as to how you make clear that you support human rights in those countries but at the same time we are sometimes limited by the real possibilities as defined by two things that doesn't necessarily mean that a democratic a democratic country is automatically going to sprout up. we further learned the chaos that have been created's suddenly beyond our material capacity to be of assistance i mean, the iraq war in afghanistan war cost hundreds of millions, if not trillions of dollars.

i don't think we want that experience replicated in syria. i don't think we want to send 100,000 troops there to help try to set of the country right nor to yemen nor to any other place for that matter. in fact i'm sure the people of the united states probably feel they have had more than their fair share of these kinds of expeditionary activities so i think it's a balancing act. the overall goal is to continue to move until democracy around the world. related question. these movements from gaming

recruits and winning the battle for hearts and minds. >> asking about whether the fact of a regime being repressive might be something that causes some of this kind of rebellious activity. >> the idea is that just at the cold war we raising human rights issues and not just negotiating of the arms table. we need to continue to mount an educational effort around the importance of human rights even as part of the world. >> absolutely, but i think we have to do it realistically and have some sense of what kind of situation does that

government confronts. it's we had to do it patiently outthink human rights and democracy could necessarily be established overnight. i guess i guess my 3rd.is we have to do it with the recognition that there are some situations that people are in where the primordial concern is just plain old security. it is security. it is safety from the gunfire that is going on around them in the violence and the disturbances so that there are certain situations where people will most certainly, most assuredly value security of herself, the person more than anything else. and until the government has succeeded adequate military forces and whatever else it takes to establish requisite conditions of security it

is sometimes not that easy to promote the human rights agenda. >> are we too slow to sometimes criticize the human rights abuses by countries that are allies? >> well, i am in the category of those who prefer to work these issues through quieter diplomacy. i'm not sure you gain much in terms of retaining their confidence if you publicly embarrass them somehow. you may even undermine them depending on how you handle it. so i am more on the side of quiet diplomacy although

recognizing that there are times where you have to be public about these things. i'll give you an example of going public and human rights that seems unusual to those of us who have been in this business a long time. i of the foreign service in 1960. we didn't have a legal requirement to write annual human rights reports about countries. in fact, that was passed in the early 70s. that was quite shocking about the conduct of diplomacy. calling out all these countries. and you know what i got used to the fact and after a while it seems to me that it was not so bad to have these reports but it was important that they be drafted carefully, that they be careful about nuance and completeness and that they

not be done with too much fanfare. now you can go to library, anybody's library and find a state department annual human rights report on every single country in the world. i don't think that that has the effect of creating a huge uproar in our relations with other countries. that ultimately is probably to the good. >> the president and his cairo speech talked about emphasizing human rights and foreign-policy. many people have viewed that as more rhetoric and reality. do you think we have done enough? ..

>> >> it has created more problems than it solved. ask those who are advocates for human rights to consider the possibility that focusing on regime change

may not necessarily be the answer that we need to take a longer and more patient approach. or to other churches but the catholic church sometimes has of policy of suffering and patients and continuation with its mission but to never allow the hope for freedom to die. but not necessarily to say we just have to get rid of these guys. we have done a bit too much of that and it has brought more problems than it has solved. >> it has been 14 years deal think the page redact has

endangered fundamental freedoms or it has done its jobs well? >> it is the great question. you ask someone who isn't a scholar but did say practitioner as a director of national intelligence i'll look into these matters and was fully apprised of the surveillance program conducted by nsa. maybe not as familiar that i didn't have as much of the role with those activities but i did with respect to the nsa i had to sign quarterly letters to the thighs the court -- fisa

court and i honestly never sought any behaviors' thought that would impinge on the freedoms of our citizens. i have visited nn say a number of times even touche show me -- to show may carry out these activities with fbi agents and lawyers and all kinds of people to oversee the way that these programs were carried out. i was satisfied with adequate safeguards were taken to protect the rights of individual citizens. so frankly when the uproar occurred from the surveillance it did not resonate with me and i did not connect with it at all

but. >> one of the themes that we encounter outside of the u.s. is the uplink and surveillance to undermine our credibility do you feel that it should have been more targeted or focused on an actual suspect? >> you are making some assumptions i of not fully qualified to comment i guess i wouldn't anyway. but i think it is fair to assume we have collection priorities. these are targets where we

think some threat may emanate. what about a angeles ever call? my answer is it seems anytime someone and intelligence community thinks about collecting against a friendly foreign leader cut proposed activity needs to be reviewed at a high political level to me that it isn't clear to the case that she was so upset about. so real care with respect to collecting against a national leaders in and the third day in is you and i

know what the threats are. is international terrorism it is al qaeda qaeda, transnational crime crime, we don't have to cohousing - - go looking for things. so it is the analytical capability you have to be able to you digest to make sense of these information required analysts are an important area of work i hope he will become and listed in the future. it is probably the most important part of intelligence is that function we need to have

that approach. >> last question into what extends the -- extent has social media harnisch their power to promote freedom. >> as somebody 50 years under the and the. [laughter] i don't really dial. [laughter] everybody says it has to assure it's true but i haven't been able to fully understand it myself but the speed with which everything everything moves around and the reactions and that is the point that we can marvel at that actioner interaction part happened so quickly today. peter and i were in vietnam together 50 years ago i was

a political reporting officer. i would go out to the field for one we can collect information on whatever province i came back with handwriting write a long telegram or a message then it would be typed up by a secretary then brought down to the code room and they would types that classified message on to the teletype tape that was fed into a machine then the telegram would come out the and the end of the state department and would go through this same process reverse would appear on the desk. i would send those reports that five or 6:00 at night that was about five for 6:00 in the morning in washington we had a chance to go home

and go to bed then we would break up and we had gotten the reactions from the people in washington. but you had one turnaround in in 24 hours compared to what we do today. just that question alone relates to the amount of time you have to think about the problems that you face and how do you carve out that time of tranquillity to think a problem through rather than constantly offering -- answering the last person in question? >> we will open questions to

the floor. i will repeat the question. >> [inaudible] >> is a question about american relations and its anniversary. >> you said something about the united states? my understanding. i don't know if it was a deliberate act by our government but as i said earlier russia was an ally

during the war. i.c.e. understand. i don't know. i am not in the government any more. i take you are saying why didn't we participate in those activities? i don't think it is hate. i really don't. i don't think it is hate. i think america appreciates and i remember hearing that many times during the cold war that we understand the losses that russia experienced during world war ii when things went in a different direction in 1947 but the opportunities to get along are still there we're going through difficult times because of what

happened in the ukraine that is problematic. but we should not rule out the hope or the possibility of better relations between russia and the united states in the future. it doesn't serve the interest to be antagonistic for a long period of time. one of the problems i believe which gives rise to issues and the united states and russia, others say and -- other than natural gas or oil there isn't many economic factors linking with the rest of the world is $3,445,000,000,000 per year but so the engagement

with the chinese economy is 10 times greater than it is with russia. we need more of that engagement to develop a greater stake in each other's well-being. >> i and a former governor offical. you have outlined a whole series of challenges but there is one that congress deals with is this subject of what to do with iran and its nuclear ambition. you have had several jobs in that area can you give us insight how we might look at this and what recommendations you may make? >> how did they get away

with not mentioning that? [laughter] and it was very much in my mind when i was ambassador to iraq. there behavior was problematic as they were supporting the violent extremist. the air rand revolutionary guard corps would cause lots of problems. but someone at a chronically when i was diplomatic national security adviser under colin powell during the reagan-bush administration were helping iraq with its war against iran. i remember working on intelligence sharing arrangements sending agricultural credit to the

country of iraq so we have an interesting history of involvement in that part of the world. with the current situation in the negotiations of the western countries the p5 + 1 the river say an agreement. -- there is an agreement. it seems if there is a deal or a treaty if it gets completed would limit to the nature the equipment that they have the centrifuge and so forth the numbers and quality, and also place limits on the material and one level of refinement it

is that and it would place limits on inspection of at least 10 years with a variety of facilities but we have not yet seen the final deal and that would depend on the details. my impression from what i have heard is the key issue is really inspection with the ability of international inspectors to have of access to the various areas and facilities so they can assure themselves that the commitments iran has made will be carried out.

i think we've just have to wait and see how that plays out. i take some comfort that the senate has established a role for itself that whatever agreement is reached will have to be submitted to the congress for approval as a result of the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee committee, bob corker. so there is a huge amount of effort that has gone into this. but i think i reserve judgment right now if this is a good deal or not. >> after the cold war we

have seen crimea day think those are necessary or what framework is necessary? >> with the border changes and the framework. >> i think that is a key and of forms. that it would be very risky. with the invasion of crimea so with the possibility of quarter changes there or elsewhere. so it was drawn with days certain degree of colonialism.

but once you're on the uh of path you're on the slippery slope. it is that only the political dangers but a threat to the whole concept. this the best system and to come up with yet. as long as we don't have an adequate substitute i don't think we will develop one anytime soon. behalf to remained faithful to the principle. sochi my way of thinking

changing boundaries is a course of action and less dead with general and genuine mutual agreement but that is a relatively minor border adjustment with large scale changes. >> doesn't apply to a congressional districts? >> but to have relations some people would get the issue is economic so how can the west engaged africa

still read social talk about u.s. engagement in africa for cystitis and others. >> a very important to question in and of bush administration i think we may day significant efforts to engage africa where recreated pat for -- pepfar it was $15 billion per year also during a period when it chose to double the assistance which genuinely surprised me for a republican administration

that the of monterey conference in mexico. there are so many different reasons, the united states to gauge africa with historical affinity, said the fact is the fastest growing economies in the world. with the economic potential and many other considerations. i think the administration has done quite a bit. we have had power africa. with those that we confront

with navy engineering part and we're interested in africa. but to acquire the group of south africa in stores. but denise to have been faster. did what they wish to and wine of investing to natural resources. for those approaches setter not as listed with this big

continent of africa. >> thank you very much. >> in your talking discuss to be a optimistic for the future for the opportunities ahead of us. and with the foreign policy than is concerning dow above line? >> so what impacts foreign

policy for the future? >> we talked about transnational threats so what and to be concerned about with trafficking in drugs or have been forbid nuclear materials. and vetting guard against. with the original remarks and those with different spaces there is a much better chance of these problems so if you have a huge gap of governance.

suggest of those tribal divisions with serious security and economic conditions is that the export of more trouble not only to neighboring states but that kind of situation? so the state to failure of afghanistan in the 1990's that permitted mr. been allotted to develop his capabilities so to talk about what is happening in our own country we have to be on guard with their own economic and social development. with five or six years ago there is still sung in

balance and issues that need to be dealt with. to get the fiscal house in order fortunately it would appear the level of deficits start to go down then obviously the events of baltimore show us we have serious and economic conditions here at home if we can deal with those successfully in excess of better country to deal with those that arise. land for somebody who was here 1968 it brings back bad

memories in the wake of the assassination of martin luther king. >> with that diplomacy even though diplomacy has helped us tries to use that military power purpose of my question is how do strike a balance between using diplomacy between to quickly deciding that is the way to go? rebec.

>> what do you do? >> i'll look forward to your paper on this subject but it is too late. [laughter] fetid is a good question and. were an excellent question. sometimes it gets oversimplified. my colleagues like 2.0 that there are more officers than the foreign service but i would not want to deprive the physical capability and they're being and. -- bands. . .

so i would rather just focus on getting good performance out of our diplomats than morey and be envious of the