oil and other elements has been a think a great deal more effective than people would've predicted. we have gone this far on the basis of that. we now need to make success for diplomacy which sanctions have given us a chance to complete. >> let me ask more about unity not just with the united states but also among the e3. ambassador araud, your foreign minister as he certain pension for revealing details of the negotiations adversaries at times that france is not always been helpful. just the other day said the iranians are insisting on a 24 day waiting period before any allegations of cheating can be investigated. is this helpful to negotiations to repeal these? and our uis on the same page in terms of the negotiations speak was of course it's helpful since it's my minister. [laughter] you know i think in any country

and especially in this country once country takes an initial it's supposed to be sort of based on a very good analysis of the situation. once a country says must take it out of good intentions are wind when another country takes an initiative or commits a mistake it's out of the cynicism or its reckless reasons. i'm going to tell you really to your utter disbelief a secret. the french foreign policy is neither more not less -- so it means that what we are doing in the very technical and very political issue is based on our own analysis. in negotiations got to understand even a technical experience disagree from time to time. really you have the ministers

and diplomats and the nuclear experts who are discussing about the issues and of course, diminish into diplomats don't understand a word of what is exchanged but basically it is a discriminate. the negotiations are extremely complicated technically. they are also extremely competent because you a lot of different issues which are linked. the number of type of centrifuges are linked to the stockpile you're going to allow for instance. i could multiply examples of, which means it's very likely that we will not have an agreement before the end of june or even after june. the iranians are obviously not negotiating to get an agreement very shortly. they want to push the issues to the ministers the way they did previously. so we're going to have drama at the end of june ministers not sleeping, doors slammed you know, i'm leaving iran no way

and so on, to try to get the best view. but even if we get the best deal, afterwards you have to translate it into the technical nexus. so it maybe we could have a sort of the end to the negotiation. >> can i add something speak with yes. >> to the unity. i think it's hard to separate the degree of cohesion that we as europeans have on every level. out experts meet on a weekly basis or on the phone sometimes on a daily basis. our leaders meet on iran. and as you said yourself the three europeans were at the genesis, at the inception of this whole process. i want to add two things. i think it also deserves mention that russia and china were very constructive partners over the

last 17 months, or however many months it was since the beginning of negotiations in november of 2013. and that maybe came to the surprise of some because you could have figured that let's say the ukraine crisis would have contaminated those negotiations around iran. that did not happen. so there was unity among the five plus. and another i think i love it here in the genesis deserves mention and that is as i would say the rather courageous step by the american administration to engage directly with iran. i think that was a catalyst for progress. of course it was not self-evident that after those long years of the vacuum and relations with iran, the administration would engage with iran directly i think those elements help to forge that

unity and make that progress. >> any thoughts on the unity of the three speak was nothing to add. i agreed. >> one other and then open up to the audience. that is the impact of the sanctions on european economies as you rightly pointed out ambassador westmacott, it was the facts that the europeans agreed to stop buying iranian oil by and large come to stop investing in a rental to cut back to trade a drastically come to impose sanctions on the banks that got us to where we are certainly in many respects. how much of an impact has that had on your economies? and if for some reason there isn't a deal, can hold the line build on sanctions? can be processed in the european union given the eagerness of many other companies to go back? >> of u.s. companies also spent another store the they have

other problems. >> not more or less than the european companies. >> i think that iran is a country with a minced potential commercial political and in lots of other areas. i sometimes like to point out to people who say to me i cannot understand why guys are negotiating with those iranians are you don't see very many iranians she is strapping on suicide vest and stepping on airplanes. they are quite pragmatic especially the younger destiny to save the regime is like the but i think there's a great deal of potential of us were. if you go to a rented a you will find -- precise because of the black market that there is an appetite for an awful lot of western products to they have to pay a very high price for because of the way which things like opera, things across

borders at a price. i think it's not surprising that a lot of companies would like to do business in iran. it has great potential, natural resource, national wealth. at the right moment hopefully not at the wrong moment, companies will start looking again at that. i think it's very hard to be clear about what happens to sanctions in the event if there is not a typically does not to do because iranians simply will not live up to our intimate if you like the broad parameters which with agreed in the framework, that i think we carry on with the sanctions regime and as certain as they may be right to try to raise the level of the sanctions. this is the area hypothesis. at the same time if we were to walk away or if congress were to make it impossible for the agreement could implement it or whatever, then i think the international community would be pretty reluctant to contemplate a ratcheting up further of the sanctions against iran. my sense is where bobby not far

away from the high watermark of international sanctions against iran economy the exact what happens next depends on what happens. if there is clear evidence families will not prepared to live up to what they said and i think we're in one area of territory but if we're in another one because the west decide what i want to do this then becomes complicated. pursuing a number of countries which don't respect the embargo on oil but russia and china and india and turkey are buying certain quantities from iran. i suspect we would probably see more sanctions erosion rather than less and less the deal collapsed because of reasons that were visibly clearly iran's responsibility. >> dr. wittig, the impact on germany has been pretty significant. >> yes. we had very long very traditional, very friendly relations with iran pretty how

many -- free domain -- the sanctions regime was hurting our businesses a lot and many of the compass come especially the big companies just pulled out of iran like the automakers. so it did hurt. that's a fact and i think i echo what peter has said. the potential for an agreement is also the potential for all of our economies. not that we rushed back into iran. we will be very cautious and the government advises our companies actively to hold back, but it could be carry huge potential not only for us but also for the young iranian generation, as

peter said. they are looking to the west and that might entice or might trigger some internal change in iran. >> ambassador araud, it's my understand what comes off from the u.s. side and mission are the secondary sanctions that inhibit foreign companies from investing in iran. easy american companies are eager but american countries will be largely shut out? >> like in dubai, for instance. i suppose -- of course also my country. for instance, automakers can we were providing i guess if you% of the iranian market and all the gears were made in one small city in france. of course, that city was devastated by the sanctions. really a small city in the east of france. you know, and also our oil company had made a strategy

choice of investing in iran. this oil company was of course lost its investment. so it hurt but we held firm for the last 10 years. there is no reason that we will not do it in the coming years. >> i'm going to open. please wait for the microphone and state your name. we will start right here and ask a question or. thank you, barbara. thank you for putting on this excellent event and thank you to the three ambassadors for being here. it was mentioned -- trita parsi from the national honor can tell the. that's been determined the amount of unity within the eu three with a united states and that's i think difficult to doubt. i want to ask you to get into a hypothetical. let's assume there is a deal

late june the president of sudan report to set within five days purpose and as 30 days or so to be able to review it and and then cast able to close assume there is a resolution to reject the deal and the resolution passes. the president has the option or the obligation perhaps to veto it. what will the eu three do between the resolution of rejection passing as the president put in his veto and then facing a challenge to that veto? >> who would like to take that hot potato? >> i will make a very brief comment. forgive me for saying this but you're getting ahead of the game. what we are focusing on now is trying to get this deal but we are not there yet. when we get to the stage then we'll see what the difference elements are the politics my government hasn't yet worked out what the answer to your hypothetical question would be but we'll have to take all this in stages. the important point for the

moment is to remind the long journey we have embarked upon. can we not get this thing over the finishing line at the end of june? we hope so but that depends on awful lot of different elements. the presence of commitment has been cleared come if that isn't the case to selling this to the united states congress to the american people and so on. i think we take these in one stage at a time. it may well be that at the stage where reach a deal that there is something the rest of us can do to help explain that this is is not just a u.s.-iran to but this is something which the international community in general and the p5+1 in particular, three representatives here our party too all involved and want to see made into a success. but i personally can't go any further into the era of hypothesis that you want to leaders at this stage. >> did you have a question? >> i'm harland olsen.

pleasure to be on barbara's iranian task force. i want to ask about -- [inaudible] >> can't hear you. >> bring the other one over if you would. >> is this better? >> yes. >> i'm going to ask the question which can get an opportunity to get in great trouble with your government. would have to be thinking what if's. assuming deal does not go through and blame can be laid legitimately at iran's a door, what do you see as viable options? because you know in israel and the congress there will be loud voices conference some kind of military action. and alternatively if the deal goes -- does go to be verified what opportunities do you see

being created in the east which could benefit from this particular agreement? >> i think i will not answer to the first thought because it's quite hypothetical. so innocent the sanctions will remain in force. the questions will be may be to increase the role of sanctions even as peter said, i guess we are very close to the high part of the sanctions. as for what would happen after an agreement, again a very hypothetical we looking at the crystal ball my personal bet i'm very good at making personal bets is that the iranian will want to prove that it doesn't mean that it has to change its policy that we can have an outburst of anti-american rhetoric during the few months after the agreement.

the second element is we have to be very careful to dissociate the nuclear negotiation from the other issues. i think it's very important. because if you start to make a big deal start exchange -- it starts to be very very dangerous. the nuclear issue as such after that you have the other geopolitical issues but i'm not sure if they are linked to the nuclear issue. they are linked to the fact that all the region has been geopolitically destroyed. first by the invasion of iraq. because iraq has played a major role agenda a sort of saddam against -- for 1000 years. the crisis that we have in the sunni world which means that basically nature abhors a vacuum

so i've and his been basically because there is nothing to stop it. site don't think there is a linkage between the nuclear issues and the geopolitical crisis of the middle east. but that's personal. >> thanks barbara. i would like to follow below that on that and just kind of tie-in what you're talking about the unity of the p5+1. obviously, you've gone to great lengths to keep a lot of the geopolitical issues out of the discussion but i was wondering if you could talk to the extent that this long baggage between the united states and iran whether placed into at all? i mean, at the beginning of this process the united states was really, even before your current government, years ago the united states was the one thing so tough. i've heard diplomats from one or more other countries speak proudly about how the united states now is the one that wants

the deal the most. i mean, given all that given that president obama definitely wants a deal with this government yesterday the trial of "washington post" journalist jason starting to catch is that all play into the kind of negotiations and the tone of the room? >> doesn't the u.s. want it more than you know? >> we all want it but we don't want it at any price. i think this is what we made clear. we are here to negotiate in earnest with a lot of determination, what if we don't get a satisfactory deal there will not be a deal. so that is clear. we are focusing on the four or five weeks ahead of us and all those hypothetical questions come afterwards. i want to elaborate a little bit on the connection to other issues. you can kill this deal if you

link it to extraneous issues you know what does iran do in yemen? does it cease to support hezbollah and senator? if you link it to the issues you can kill it. this is what we don't want. no linkage. but, of course there is the potential in a successful deal to improve relations with iran and to encourage iran to be a more responsible stakeholder in the region. and that potential we want to explore once the deal is done. >> so many. i'm going to go to the back and then i will come back up in front. weight for the mic. >> thank you. i were to ask one question i think you answered by the history to clarify the purpose of the resolutions were passed

at the secret accounts regarding suspension of enrichment. there is a perception among many in washington that those resolutions were designed or intended to require iran to stop for ever uranium enrichment. as i understand the purpose was to facilitate a long-term solution that respects a peaceful program. could you just elaborate on the thinking a little bit about how and purpose of the resolutions something a man in washington i don't think quite understand? and this is an issue of course for the future of negotiations updating those resolutions. could you give us an update on whether that continues to be an issue? are you confident that will be resolved in time to facilitate a comprehensive solution? >> so when we started the resolutions or sanctions, the first in 1757 actually what we

were doing was basically to change the calculation of the regime. really basically to convince the regime for its own survival in this sense that the program was becoming too costly. you have to understand, the iranians have spent billions of dollars on this program. on a program which doesn't make any civilian meaning doesn't have any civilian meaning. and we went to tehran in 2008 the five political directors, we met a lot of iranians and basically the sanctions were only starting to work but the economy was so inept that really the situation was very serious. and afterwards it has only worsened. so we do think but of course there is no evidence that the sanctions have changed

effectively the calculation of the regime. as far as enrichment, personally from the beginning i've always been convinced that at the end of the day we would want, we would have to keep some enrichment capability and iran because as peter said the negotiation each side has been able to come back home saying i am the winner. and considering the investment of the iranians into enrichment financial but also symbolic, after that the challenge is to make it an oculus in terms of nuclear proliferation and that's all what we are trying to do during these negotiations. >> the lady in front. wait for the mic on. >> good morning. i'm a french citizen. i have a question.

regarding the amount of mistrust between iran and the international community how do you think the international community, including the negotiated, would be able to reset the missionary? with such mr. truss is almost impossible. could you give us a can't? >> reset the machinery? >> yes. >> i think we mentioned that one key element of this possible deal is a very very intrusive mechanism, averaging of transparency and verification. that's key to the whole deal. so we will have eyes, international atomic energy organization will have eyes on what iran is doing. and we are confident that a regime can be devised which would be kept and cover

operation that iran is engaging or would be engaging in. so the regime or verification of marketing is key to any agreement that we conclude >> ambassador wittig, you mentioned this going slowly try to draft a deal and i want to use it as a certain degree of brinksmanship and late nights. the indigent apostolate be on. and to talk about why you think it's going so slowly now and if bush is the substance cities this? related to that, do you think is zurita trying to dominate to the exclusion of the other ministers and other nations or do you think tragedy that iran is waiting for for the u.s. to send the secretary? is that your sense of? >> it's going slow because the substance of the issue are

typical. their technical. the second is there's a dynamic in negotiations. you need the pressure of timeline in order to facilitate some heavy lifting issues. so both factors are at work here. but i'm not particularly worried. i think this is fairly normal. as i said before we have a difficult path to work on. we have tremendously complicated ethical issues to clarify, and so small wonder that we are not making a lot of fast progress right now. but it's not a prediction on what will happen by the end of june. it's just sort of a feeling of the polls right now. so i'm still confident that we

can overcome those divergences of views that we have right now. >> i'm going to go here, but before we take the next question, i neglected to mention at the beginning, let me say it now i wanted to thank the ploughshares fund for their generous support of the iran task force. and also our regrets that stu eizenstat was an ambassador to the eu and is chairman of our task force isn't able to be edited because he is in europe of course. so, jonathan. >> for anyone on the panel jonathan with mcclatchy newspapers. over the weekend we heard new status from iran that senior scientist would not be allowed to be interviewed. we heard that military facilities will not be open to inspections. and that all links back to issue we have a talk to your which is the possible military dimensions of iran's program, and the iaea

aspect which seems to have got no progress whatsoever at all during the negotiations that have been going on separately. there is some concern among some that that issue, whether or not the iranians were, in fact designing a missile board nuclear warhead will be papered over. there some kind of calculation will be made or equation will be made that will allow them not to have to make the admission about what they were doing in order to set a baseline for the inspection program that you're talking about. can you talk about how a possible military dimension aspect of his feet into the talks right now? there's no progress on that aspect right now. >> i will also add that the deputy negotiator said something

about managed access to nuclear facilities which was in direct contradiction to what the supreme leader and what some of the other iranian officials said said. >> all these negotiations, really after all these negotiations it's like writing an article about what is a negotiation. so at the beginning of a negotiation that is just banging. at the beginning of the negotiation each side says i'm not going to cave in and i really and i did that's my demand my absolute demands. of course, after that a compromise other absolute demands. so i don't think went to attach too much importance to the declarations. really at the beginning the iranians say we demand an absolute immediate lifting of the sanctions but it will not happen. it will not happen. they will be integrated even if there is not an absolute immediate lifting of the

sanctions. on the pmd, i can't tell. we are very keen on having come into, and element of the agreement of the pmd. we are not going to let the pmd issue under the carpet. sorkin the negotiations for the moment, for the moment obviously the negotiating is not moving forward very quickly. it means that i guess the iranians make the calculation that it could be easier to get concessions from the ministers with some dramatization, a good deal of dramatization because negotiation it's also a theater. there are some theatricals in the negotiations. and i'm not bad at that. so really, so don't listen to

the outside declarations. there will be something on pmd. the sanctions would be lifted if there is an implementation in a reversible conditional condition the way the each side will have to be able to tell it's public companies public opinion that actually i got today. >> barbara, maybe to your hand of the declaration i think correcting or apparently the supreme leader i think was mindful of the additional protocols of the npt where it contains provisions that provide for access to military sites. site think he is mindful of the obligations of that additional protocol. >> one ascends on that. there's the additional protocol

of the npt but there's also going to be agreement on a joint commission which ensures that there is proper inspections under our own bedroom with iranians separate from our npt obligations, separate from additional protocols. there has to be a proper inspections regime so that we can if we have reason to believe or legitimate requests to go visit this or that side that we will be able to do so. this is still being discussed in some detail your we are not going to let this issue disappear. it will be an important part of the final stage of the negotiation. >> the gentleman in the middle who has been very patient. >> john hudson with "foreign policy" magazine. ambassador araud, speaking of the art of diplomacy, the sort of walk back on the amount of managed inspections, does this dispel the notion that has been perpetuated for a while that the iranian negotiators are perpetually boxed in by anything that the supreme leader tweets or says?

is there clearly some do? >> i really again i really don't know what are the inner momentum of the negotiation in iran. they iranian negotiators are negotiating and they are really under instructions. they have their own public opinion with their own decisions of public opinion. the same way that you have in the u.s. and in our three countries. they have to take into account the settlement the same way that the u.s. administration is to take into account the opinion of the congress. no negotiation is really simply a sort of technical or even political without, really without public opinion which is in this sense the background of the situation. >> the gentleman here.

>> thank you. kurdistan's 24 hour news agency. either question about the potential impacts of a nuclear deal on the situation of human rights in iran and particularly for the minority such as the kurdish people. do you expect their situations improve or will the world basically turned a blind eye for strategic interests? thank you. >> who wants to take up the human rights question? >> i will make a general comment. i think all of our governments remain very concerned about the human rights situation in iran. there are things which are done there which worry is for all sorts of different reasons

sometimes it's about the way individuals are treated sometimes it's the way different minorities are treated. sometimes there are surprising elements. you can see there elements of the jewish scenery for example in iran which thrive. there are baja youth who are regarded as hendrix at the level of dollars to a number of respects in which iran has a long way to go in terms of meeting international standards on human rights. i'm not expert on the situation regarding the kurdish minority inside iran. this is an area in which the broader human rights everywhere we look to iran especially if we are able to conclude this agreement to be moving very much more in the direction of international standards of behavior then we witnessed at the moment. >> iran could start by letting jason, our colleague, go. that would be a very good step. wait for the mic. >> george mason university.

ambassador wittig, i was quite reassured when you get russia and china being helpful but i'm just wondering in this final stage of negotiation how helpful has rush actually been commit special in light of their decision to resume as 300 advanced ballistic missile shipments to iran? one would've thought it would be helpful this would've been held out as a carrot if character negotiations were successful in that gone ahead and done this. i also note there's one place in the russian press about that in fact maybe a nuclear deal would be such a great thing for russia but iran's relations with the rest of her but also rumblings that if the west doesn't understand on ukraine russia can be less helpful on iran. i'm sort of from the generation this is what happens in the russian press is not accidental.

will come to be very straightforward, we thought a decision to deliver those kind of weapons were not helpful at all for the process and were a deplorable decision. but also let me remind you this was not a decision that violated the arms embargo. so it was not something that violated international law but it was we believe a decision that was not helpful for the process. >> at the same time again, it has always been for imported for the chinese and russians on board to assure it is not the west again against iran. and the russians and the chinese have been really perfect boiled negotiators in these process and that's still, you really doing their part of the job of working with us. and as for the system of

weapons, of course we share what peter has said. also the russians have taken really the system could be operational for one or two years. really they took they told us which means really they didn't want to simply to blame china on these negotiations spent i think i saw something in the paper saying these weapons will probably not go until there is an agreement. so it's more of a carrot. let's see gentlemen back there. >> peter bomb of bush i'm a lawyer in washington. the question is is the position of the west credible? the position of the west seems to be if you do not do this deal we will continue the sanctions or enhance the sanctions. i forget they have this may be

the high water mark of sanctions our own businesses don't like the sanctions. do we have a credible threat into negotiations? >> yes. i don't understand spent i think about the gentleman on what ambassador said is it depends on how negotiations break down from if they break of the if it's perceived to be the fault of the u.s. congress or others on this side of the negotiating then the sanctions regime will unravel probably pretty quickly. but if it's perceived to be the iranians walk away from a good deal, presumably they would still be some sanctions discipline, at least in europe. i don't know what is the true for the russians or the chinese? with a pc -- would the p5+1 been split? >> i agree with you, it depends on who's to blame if there's no deal. and i think we should not harbor

any illusions about the international sanctions regime. i think many of the emerging countries would consider congress blocking this deal may be as a trigger to at least question the present sanctions regime. so i would see a certain danger if the blame game in the international community comes to the conclusion that it's not iran that is to blame then the international solidarity that has been quite strong in the recent years would most probably the road. that's a scenario. but in legal terms know because in legal terms of sanctions could be lifted on, because of our vote. really so that sanctions that

will remain, that sanctions of the security council remain in place. that you a -- the eu sanctions remain in place and eu sanctions will be lifted also you need a unanimous vote. so the sanctions will remain in any case. but the implication, that's the thing. >> the most effective sanctions are usually the u.s. sanctions because of their respects. so i guess a lot of corporations are implement sanctions because they are afraid of the u.s. sanctions. >> have they started drafting a new u.n. security council resolution or not yet? >> i don't know. i think there is a trap somewhere, i read come in the report. but yes i think there is a draft, yes. one of the questions is about the sanctions, what you call

snapback really the way sanctions will be really reimposed if the iranians were not respecting their commitments. so there are some threats really floating around. >> my question to his excellency the french ambassador. your president has been in saudi arabia recently and the gulf and it seems that france and the gcc have excellent relationships. based on that had he been able to persuade the gcc that the nuclear deal that is being negotiated will enhance their security rather than undermine their security? >> not. you know i think you should ask more the question to the u.s. administration since as you know there was a summit in camp david organized by president obama. i think it was the american administration. it was a very i think a very

useful initiative because it's true that we have to give the assurances to those countries about their security. if they need security assurances come is that all because of the nuclear deal but it's because the geopolitical situation. i was referring to which, as given to iran, you know, the initiatives they basically we saw in iraq and we are seeing it also in yemen. so i think the message which was summarized by the statement after the camp david summit meeting i think was a very useful one. it's basically also want we told our friend from the gulf countries that really reconsider their security requirements are serious and that we want to really play a

role in it. as you may know we have opened, the french has opened up we have military bases since 2000 i did with security agreements with states of the region since the '90s so we've had a long commitment towards the countries and administration. but, frankly i think their concerns are going well beyond the nuclear issue. and in a sense it's a more what i call the geopolitical situation which is for us a source of concern, especially they think that the money in this sense that iran what it is that sanctions are partially or totally lifted could be used by iran for pursuing its adventures in their part of the world. so i think they need a particular arrangement because of that.

>> jim lobe, ips. given that there is so much concern over recruitment by the islamic state in europe and given that iran is playing probably the leading role in fighting i.s. come external role that is, in iraq and indirectly in serious does i asked i.s. figure i know the nuclear talks are separate but at the same time does it contribute at all to the urgency or eagerness on the part of the eu3 with respect to wanting to establish a better relationship with iran to deal with this question? >> not sure that i would agree that every needs are being that effective. what happened in ramadi recently is not a great story for anybody.

i think the iranians have got their own reasons of course to pushing back against isil. remembering that a decade ago the iranians were potential allies of ours against al-qaeda, partly because our diplomacy did not succeed back in those days come with ourselves singing ied is made in iran killing american-british soldiers in afghanistan some years after that. ..

it is specifically linked to the question of stopping iran getting nuclear weapons in stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the region. if we start thinking other things that will not help you if they could even spell the end of that negotiation. we do this because it's the right and to do in its own right. equally it would be a very useful spinoff if the result of cheating that kind of negotiation, successful negotiation with iran, other aspects improved and indeed if there are common enemies where we are making common cause -com,-com ma that is something to be looked at in the future. but one is not as the other. >> right here in the middle.

>> thank you so much. my name is hannah morrison member recent rusher from the florida school of service. i want to ask about the snapback and how the mechanism what exactly worked especially because i can imagine six years down the line some of the sanctions have been lifted. there is increased business for example in germany is benefiting from it. how does this not back work if we have slight violations that not everyone agrees that it is a violation. while the snapback mechanism be tied to certain behaviors that iran commits? i want to understand what the mechanism should look like. >> material breach and how do you define it. >> you know this map back at

that moment actually instigated to some members for bringing back the sanctions. the french have invented a system which is the opposite, that actually the sanctions, the snapback is automatic -- if there is really a vote in the opposite direction, which change is from one side to the other side. but it has not yet been agreed. by definition you can't assign whichever which by definition. it will be deferred to the commission, which will be

created as peter was saying to disguise the issue and after that it will bring back to the level of the political level. there is something which is getting on my nerves all the time is saved all the orphans want to make money to tehran really basically, actually you come him really we've lost a lot of money on the sanctions because we have not anymore on the iranian market. i know it's very american, but on this issue we have no extent to receive anybody. we've done a very tough job when

we have done it in a very loyal way. they are not more greedy than the americans want in our last by the way. so if the iranians are going to abide by their commitment, the europeans will be very strong, very keen and work with the other members of the p5 plus one to resolve the sanctions. we are trying to have been mechanism which allows us to do it as quickly and as effect to the late as effect of all. it's a very technical, very different agreement. >> and very conceded spare francis i. was again spared how can you have snapback be automatic? >> what we were to try us to avoid what we want to avoid is to avoid basically the chinese

saying we don't really. we want to system which would be the opposite in a sense. it will be instated with the p5 agreement. it is a mechanism which is not submit to their detail of our colleagues. >> so it's a majority rule. >> of course. p5 in germany. there is no germany. [inaudible] we are talking of the sanctions. the u.s. sanctions may impose

them without asking anybody in the ways you may do it. >> i would say in the e.u. we can organize the snap back in the u.n. context with you guys on the last word is more difficult. >> good point. let's see. the lady right here. >> sharon asked voice of the moderate. when i was here before barbara slavin by saying 70% of the iranian people wanted a piece to that the members who did the poll ended up in jail. >> 70% of iranians wanted a normal relationship with the u.s. >> exactly. but now we've got the nuclear deal and the american mindset is more open-minded maybe because

the isis. i'm wondering with each of your countries what are the average people come in the first time their mind is up in the piece could be possible. maybe it's cuba, but what about you and your countries? thank you. >> i think it is pretty popular throughout, or not? >> all of our governments have their own dates of baggage. sometimes with iran sometimes in turkey where we have a history or we don't have a history. if you take a case that iran it's been steered by the experiences of the hostages in 444 days. in the case that the united kingdom, public opinion was appalled. a bunch of government broke into the embassy, trashed the place and so on.

iran has their own memories. some accurate, some not by foreign powers have done. we've all got a degree of baggage. i would say in the case that the united kingdom, our opinion is not at this stage of being deeply worried about the concept of a normalized relationship with iran. we go back a long way. others have talked about the companies. the iran oil industry was set oil industry was set up by british companies that the british companies that the person not british companies have deep roots in that sector and british companies have deep roots in that sector and we sat around political business links. the united kingdom was the dominant power in the persian gulf for a very long time. we go back a long way with all the countries in that region public opinion that has to support the kind of deal would not have a problem about a normalization.

however, that said i would say that i think i'll i think all of i think i'll just let the governments of of public citizen is no one to be seen iran behaving in different ways in the years to come thereafter. the two are not ranked but it might be human rights. it might be supported terrorist groups and will be looking for progress in this area since well. >> so my question is in regards to the potential arms race in the middle east which was briefly talked upon. saudi arabia has famously said after the framework agreement that anything iran had that they wanted to have too. that inherently seems to me like an opportunity. if the deal shapes up and gives

us confidence that iran will never develop a nuclear weapon why should we say saudi arabia come you are more than welcome to sign off to this. why not use any model for arms control in the middle east? >> again, it is in the sense that most worrying aspect of the agreement comment that we have created a one-year wake up state. npt so far that non-western states and the weapon states and now we have a one-year wake out. it is a new status really. so when you make a negotiation you are always to think of the elements and one is which president are you sending for the other countries. i think it was by kissinger in a hearing in the senate, the u.s. senate and i think that is one

of the concerns will have to address after the agreement that you don't have not only saudi arabia, countries wanting to become the states. and again it is not syria. so why not us. it is actually the opposite. for me, i should say it is in a sense one of the major weak point of the agreements we are negotiating. the agreement is not perfect. it's a compromise. so it's not a perfect agreement, but i think it is the same thing for germany in the u.k. it is what is possreached is what is possible that it doesn't mean he doesn't have some consequences that we have to address.

>> of course. the question are also has a verification measure. not just a question of one-year breakouts but they accept additional protocol and all the other transparency measures that are put on iran. >> nevertheless, to every one-year breakouts date i guess is not positive for the future of the proliferation system. >> that is true. let's not forget the npt envisions the right of countries to enrich civilian purposes. that is something all states have with members of the npt. we are the only country that is a nonnuclear country and so we know what obligations come with a dynamite also have contributed

to the iranians that we are not imposing the five countries are not imposing something on them that deprives them of rights that others have. the question of whether there will be a nuclear arms race hinges very much upon the kind of verification and how that is designed and how this works in practice. if we can create a real intrusive, credible, viable inspection and verification regime that would take away a lot of grounds for engaging in an arms race. >> and if we get to that point hopefully the other governments in the region will not be looking for a fact parody. they can have a program breakout over a decade or so. it should be about whether they

have confidence that iran is not going to have a nuclear weapon. if that is the case no reason why others have been talking about the possibility of buying one off the shelf if the iranians end up having nuclear weapons. the arrangements we've reached with iran are negotiating with iran to take account of what the program has gone to. they would be starting from scratch. why would she do that unless he thought genuinely threatened? it is not in iran's interests. it's not in the interest of regional stability. we have to make sure there's a proper ratio that the iranians also have an interest that implementing if they want to create a regional stability which will disparage others in saying i don't have confidence. everyone has their responsibility. it doesn't need to be about

parity. we are not going to have more nuclear weapons in the region. >> i went out there other countries if we look at japan for example countries that could make nuclear weapons that choose not to. and may not be entirely a new category in that sense. >> i am more worried about japan. >> i don't have a watch. how are we on time? >> yeah, time is up. thank you all for coming. [applause] thank you for your generous support. come back. hopefully july 2nd july 6 for what we might have an agreement. [inaudible conversations]

's show

>> coming up next from the chair of the food and water watch maude barlow talks to students at cincinnati university about what she calls the global water crisis and how to solve it. this is about an hour and 20 minute. >> maude barlow is the world's preeminent water rights activists. in fact if you google the phrase water rights activist she is the first and only person specifically named in the result. she chairs the council of canadian food and water watch international forum on globalization in the world future council. shields 12 honorary doctorates and has received numerous awards for her work on water rights. most recently the earth care award the highest international

honor of sierra club. she is highly published in her latest is blue future, protecting water for people in land forever. we are honored to have her here. please help me in welcoming her. [applause] >> well thank you very much. i'm absolutely delighted to be here. thank you for your beautiful words. thank you so much to nancy and elizabeth. thank you so much james buchanan for your beautiful words and work in cynthia comments for the great work you do and i just a shout out to edward rubén the founder. i want to say it is a true

pleasure speaking at a university where your stated goals have to do it peace and justice and that is up for a two-year wire. it is not that common so it's just really a treat to be here. i want to talk to about a bit about the global water crisis. welcome to the high school students who are really happy you came here. and then i will talk a little bit about what we can do and what we are doing. i want to say to you that i hate it when people my age come talk to younger people and say it is due and gloom and you should forget about it. there's lots we can do about the christ says and i do deeply believe pope is a moral imperative. if i share with you the bad news, it is also because i will then share what we need to do about it. i think we need to face the actual dimension of the crisis.

we have seen an enormous increase in the amount of water that we are using as the human species in the last couple decades. basically a 50% increase in withdrawal and a very very short time. we are seeing with some of us are calling running dry. we see massive pollution of our surface water and even massive pollution of groundwater. in the united states it is legal to dump toxic waste into the groundwater services and massive amounts are being dumped. out of sight out of mind is the thought. i was sharing today with others that they found an aquifer under mexico city. mexico city is in real trouble water wise. they did find another aquifer when they pulled the first cup of the freshwater outcome and

the engineer drinking incentives delicious and said this is why you don't destroy your groundwater because someday you'll need it don't matter where you are. we are also pulling up groundwater way faster than its groundwater sources can be replenished. we are damning rivers so most of the major rivers in the world no longer reach the ocean. where freshwater meets salt water is one of the very important grounds for product life. we are doing this for many reasons, but the most urgent demand on water is for food production for the global market economy. it is important to start off with the knowledge is something called virtual water. the water embedded in the things that we eat or the clothes we wear or computers or whatever. up until not long ago the united nations was saying each person on use uses x amount of water

and now we understand that is probably one 10th of the water we really use. nine tenths of the water reuse is not something we see or touch. it is embedded in our dinners and so one. if you sit down as a family of four, you are consuming the equivalent of an olympic size swimming pool. we are beginning now to bring us into the equation and understand what this means. what is happening this kind of like a bathtub. a bunch of guys sitting around a bat to put a lot of water and we've got wind folds and straws and we drink up the water really fast. we think is fine because there's lots of water for everybody and all the sudden it's called exponential overuse of something. it's not like one and one next and one next to you to win two

make four. is the exponential overuse as something finite. last month was the world economic forum held for leaders around the world in dallas, switzerland which ours is an every year due to a research ahead of time on what are the major issues in the top 900 experts around the world and they said the coming water crisis. it is here in terms of impact. another meeting with the secretary general of 500 scientists together in bed what we do now is what they call the planetary transformation as great a change to the world and the planet as the mounting of the ice age. in a separate different study again this one through the world bank the statistic that stunned the world at the time two years ago was by 2030 the demand in our world from water will

outstrip supply by 40%. this is almost impossible to understand. of course you stop and think about who's going to do without. it's going to be the port the much the people in the slums, the massive slum in poor communities in north america. although the animals. it is going to be the species that can't survive easily without water. i want to give you a few examples of upper talk about. india is in terrible trouble. 60% of all the water for farming comes from irrigation so they are pulling up their groundwater into him in the rivers really seriously. depleting water in some places by five feet a year and literally in some of the state beginning to run dry. china 75% of surface water is polluted and here's a stunning

new report that since 1990 half of the rivers in china have disappeared. they've gone disappeared partly from high journal after all, but also because they use their water and air and soil to produce so much of this stuff that gets sent around to the rest of the world. there are two links i want to tell you about. one is the former soviet union so big it was called a fee. the other is lake chad in africa. the fourth-largest in sixth-largest now both of them just down to a bare trickle. in each case it wasn't climate change as we've come to understand it. it is absolute over extraction. the story that most disturbs me now is brazil. brazil has been until recently considered the country with the most water in the world.

they had the aquifer the rain forest. they have a massive area between the rainforests that holds a tremendous amount of water. but suddenly, the second biggest city in brazil was about 20 million people living there has gone dry. when i tell you in the last two years there was no problem two years, three years ago. it is going dry incredibly fast right across the sale. it turns out they are coming down the amazon and what we now know is when you cut down forests are rainforests or of vegetation it changes the hydrologic pattern in the rainforests give off massive amounts of humidity and a person for what they call flying rivers. enter it as a river in the sky being held up by air currents but then it can travel thousands of miles and it delivers rain to other places. what they cut down the amazon and the rainforests because they

are quite massive amounts of sugar cane and soybeans to make ethanol to put in cars not only in brazil but around the world. not only cutting down the trees by taking massive amounts of water and basically sending water away. the great lakes is a very big issue for those of us. you live about as far away from the area takes this idea. the great lakes are in very serious trouble. we have invasive species, massive pollution but we also have over pumping, over explication of the water system itself. one other study on groundwater if the great lakes are pumped as mercilessly as groundwater around the world the great lakes could be dead drive in 80

years. if you've ever stood on the bank of the big lake superior, michigan and so one come you can imagine. it is possible to take a massive amount of water end of story. also dealing with future vacation, the blue-green algae you've read about in toledo last summer they expected may come back this summer. this comes from industrial farming, chemical-based agribusiness where we do not have proper regulations and the nutrients runoff into her water system. 67,000 square miles of agriculture agribusiness and it is poisoning them. the patch we thought we got rid of in lake erie is back and it's a serious issue. you know you're on ohio river is named the most polluted body of water in the united states for seven years running.

a tremendous amount of work being done in cincinnati in the state on renewable energy and being a very exciting area for high-tech solutions to water problems but we are not stopping at its stores and we need to understand this. 23 million tons of chemicals were dumped last year and we have to find a way to stop this. martin luther king said many wonderful things but one he said was legislation may not change the heart that it will restrain the heartless. they see people doing wonderful things with their government will not stop people from doing bad things and you can't catch a because you can't keep up with the destruction taking place. we need to read and say nobody is allowed to do that to these lakes. the recent concern i have is the great lakes are used as a carbon

corridor to the dirtiest energy by pipe i around and under the great lakes and though shift on barges and though shift on the great lakes. the vitamin from alberta tarzan, fighting very hard in our country because it's an oily substance and they'll do it to get it through pipelines busy lately with liquid chemicals. they make massive dead zone thing terrible pollution. and now the coast guard should have given the okay on american waterways wastewater from cracking which is among the most volatile subs and. to my mind when we know what we know about the water system the water crisis in our world, how we do this continues to be stunning to me. the colorado basin, lake mead

the reservoir created when the hoover dam was built. all of these are down. a new study says they've taken down and that's groundwater out of the colorado basin to provide the water needed for all american households for eight years. we just put these wells down and drink this stuff out. 200,000 in the okolona aquifer that goes right down to the texas panhandle. again building massive industrial farms to grow corn for corn ethanol and pumping up the groundwater with pumps that were designed until the late 1950s. they had no ability to pull up the groundwater. only in 70 years we've been able to grade the desert in that way. the terrible price is the department of agriculture here in the united states said two

years ago the ogallala aquifer will be gone in our lifetime. you try to say that to people who find their word that they are. it's going to be gone and people say i don't know what you mean. yesterday the los angeles time if this is a headline that gets you i don't know what will. but it was their major headline their major editorial said california has one year left of water. are we ready to rashid nat. don't believe me. look it up. how can they get up every morning and say it's business as usual. go back to the people in são paulo. this is for most water rich area two years ago, three years ago. from 5:00 to 6:00 in the morning. they have water again from 10:00 to 11:00 at night and you do whatever you need to do to

collected in this two hours because that's the water you get. you don't have to go that far away. i've been working with the people in detroit, michigan have had their water cut off. we got a moratorium the u.n. involved and brought experts to look at what's happening. this is an area were a lot of money that the inner city. most african-american older people are stable mothers, high unemployment. they don't have the fund said they doubled the price of water. people cannot afford it so they come in and literally grow house to house and turn the water off. try looking after the ill. it's not just happening far away. it is rich parts of the world in america as well. these are real issues.

the last of the stats another report that there is an unprecedented mega-drought in the midwest and parts of cap. inmates say that it will last decades and will be unlike anything in living history. you've got a presidential election coming up. i predict this issue will not be on the table. they will not write about it and they will not be asked about it in debate. i had four thoughts on why this might be. we all learned back in grade six or whatever that there is a finite amount of water that can never be destroyed. not only the same amount of

water but the exact same water that was here at the beginning of the planet that goes all around and we had this diagram in our head. so we've learned that we couldn't run out and i also think the global north or the west or whatever you want to call, we tend to think there will always a technology that will fix it. the myth is deep rooted and hard to get rid of. secondly, we tend to see water as a resource for our pleasure and profit in communion. we don't see water as the element necessary for life. we don't respect water. we don't think about it. one of the advisors to president hoover said america will be great when she learns to conquer for our economic model is really a powerful one.

i also think we have misdiagnosed the water crisis. if you talk to any environmentalists are most people involved in climate change they say water is a victim of climate change induced by greenhouse gas emissions. that is true. the melting glaciers and all of that is true. what they don't say what is missing from the diagnosis is when we take water, when we move it to where we wanted, the entire story in california daniel but all over the place so they can produce 85% of all meds for the entire world in the state running out of water. so we have a situation where we are misdiagnosing what the situation is than our mistreatment our displacement

come our abuse of water is one of the major causes of climate change and it's very much time we start putting this in the mix and start talking about water in the way we treat water and how we could undo what we've done has one of the users of climate change. finally i would have to say in terms of reasons for politicians i'm not suggesting it's only here in the united states. it's very common except in a few countries where water shortage. it's the dominant model of economic development which says more unlimited growth, we could keep going forever. more trade, more staff, more market economy. i want my strawberries in january and i don't care where they come from or who would cost. they have the notion we cannot all things at all times and

we've created a global economy which i would argue is not only creating enormous wealth gaps between rich and poor. in the year 2000, there were 1100 cleaners in the world. now over 2500. what does that tell you about policies of the 1% for the 1%. the way we grow food is like putting a huge pipe into the water system and the water up and taking it away. when you use water to grow food you are consuming the water. the water does not get returned to the watershed. so what do we need? i call for a new water assay. water is not just a resource and as i say if our pleasure and profit in convenient that the

essential element that gives us life and it is to be respect they been revered and we need to come up with a new relationship with water. if i were queen of the world and could make every leader in the world do as i say all policy and this has to happen at all levels. municipal, state federal, international has to ask the question of the impact of water. using fossil fuels is not only bad for air. everybody knows that. tracking destroys the pieces come huge amounts of water. growing corn for ethanol take 1700 gallons of water to make one gallon of corn ethanol. maybe that's a better use for your car at the water footprint it is leaving is not worth it. i would argue at the mall is worse than fossil fuel because

the way it treats water. we must. we mustn't set up the air versus water reality. what would it look like if we asked the question about the impact on water and fruit reduction. would have to stop using chemicals. we wouldn't have any more toledo green water if we stopped having to refunds, if we start putting all this pesticide and narcotics of every kind into animal feed and so on. if we went back to the way we know how to grow food family farms organic and food for local consumption, we could cut the water consumption of the world in half. so what would be the question of the impact of water and trade policies? what if we took into account all

trade isn't the same period a way share coming from this country and a way share coming from this country and they both took the exact same amount of water to produce but the water in this country is almost gone and said that sharon is coming up the price of the local people's water rights. in this country distilled water so it's not quite the same so we don't ask the question. whenever asked the question in the trade agreements every protecting our national resources. we also have to declare water to be a public trust. public trust is an old concept in the united states deeply entrenched particularly in the northeastern states, last in the southwestern states where they have more of their rights to water sort of thing. public trust basically says it belongs to all of us and governments must protect date in

the name of the people for all and for future generations. that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. we are fiercely going to have to protect the commons and say what our priorities for people having access to the water. you can't have it for anything anybody wants it for her. i worked on this legislation and the state of vermont has beautiful water. a few years ago a whole bunch of bottled water companies coming in and setting up a plant and drinking the local water source until it was gone. there were concerns that they brought in legislation that groundwater is a public trust. they said to protect it will give water for daily needs and protection of the ecosystem and

water for local food production not for agribusiness to make money. so they had the hierarchy of access and they were able to use their public trust.turn because there was a nuclear facility making tritium into the local water sewers in the nuclear power company said yes but it is their water. we have water raised in the state was able to say now. the factory made it a public trust trumps your private right to dump tritium into this water. it's a very exciting columns that do we need to go back to. i've been working a lot with people around the great lakes and we want the great lakes to be declared a common public trust in a protected higher region so we start seeing your piece on this piece that it'll watershed.

we need common laws common protection common enforcement. totally different on different parts of the lake. we need to gather to say no more shipping of the extreme energy and we cannot the water at this risk and it's a new way of thinking in terms of watershed governance which they are doing in europe. since 2000, all of the watershed is governed by committeecommittee s and legislators from other companies that surround water sources. it is not my water i will try to get this amount. it is our water collectively. at a global level a call for what i now named a marshall plan for water. you will note the marshall plan was the plan led by the united states to rebuild europe after the second world war. europe is in tatters on everything from rescuing orphaned children to rebuilding

schools and hospitals to put in an back together. and not that incredible endeavor. we need a marshall plan for water. when you read that california has one year left of water, i don't know if people in california think what they read that but a lot of them will be moving here. we might see american refugees moving from one part of the country to the other. what do we think of when we read that? we have to take this very very seriously. the united nations needs a separate process. it comes under the umbrella of climate change. if you go to those kind of comments, they talk about our greenhouse gas emissions which are very important. but they don't talk about water is anything but a big said they don't hear the stories if you

rebuild water if you've created a dead ferret bring the technologies and techniques and put people to work rebuilding and refurbishing watershed, the rain comes back. it's absolutely miraculous. there's so many wonderful examples of where we've done this. the key components of this are absolutely at the heart of it would be watershed protection conservation and restoration. we have to repair those that have been her. national and internatiinternati onal projects to replenish water. i'm working with a wonderful scientists in slovakia. he had a lot of land destroyed by bad farming practices all bad industrial dumping in industrial dumping in someone and he convinced many municipalities and their own federal government to allow project for they brought thousands of people to work

rebuilding the small worms and dams water retention, rainwater collection and so on and may have an amazing amount of the land. there are many projects for a wonderful man they called the rainmaker has brought back water to just a massive amount of land. a wonderful engineer in southern australia to commit his government to let him gather the rainwater, storm water, sewage water, put it through massive lagoons but back here in the poison in the birds have come back. scandals have come back. it's a miracle because we need to remember nature will come back. nature wants to come back to sf soon as they can. we need food policies that

promote local organic sustainable agriculture. we have to move away from the form of agriculture we are now engaged in and has been supported by policy in all of our countries. there is an area of land three times the size of great britain and africa alone for foreign interests, foreign investors foreign governments have come in and bought a massive amounts of land and water and they use it to grow crops that day so out of the community. they are using all the same bore while technology that is ruining the ogallala aquifer here, destroying water they are. we have to learn. people who have lived for millennia in communities in asia and africa and south america know how to live with the fluctuations of rain in dry season and they know how to conserve and they know how to

farm land. we commend with technology and we are ruining it. energy sources that don't come water have got to go. we are fighting the pipelines. the keystone accel pipeline which is a hot issue and will remain contentious through the next election but we are fighting future their pipelines in canada because they want to move a terrible stuff from the tar sands in alberta to export markets. tracking is a dangerous form of energy in terms of water. we have to say we can do better. we are going to come up with different solutions. i also call for and about the notion of using water as a source of peas rather than a source of conflict. about it for a minute. in a world where the demand for water is going straight up in the supplies going straight down

it doesn't take a genius to figure out maybe there's conflict. maybe there already has been. the deep germ of many conflicts in the world have partially to do with water from syria to egypt to israel, palestine and many dispute in africa, disputes in asia are around water as a part of it. water is used around the world as a weapon of war. the government in syria has cut the water sources off to the people in aleppo which is where the original revolution to place. if you wage a war and people you take away their water supply in very people can do in the absence of access to water. the question would be if it can be a source of conflict that water equally be a source of

peace? could we think about water is nature's gift to humanity to teach us how to live with each other and maybe my grandfather who was taught to hate my father and vice versa and i'm supposed to hate you except we both live on the server and assign expending the energy tether, and maybe we can come together build something. maybe your kids piece because we will come together and say this water source. there's a whole discipline and universities around water and nature and being forms of peacemaking, negotiating peaceful settlement water governance watershed should share insane this is my portion. what is the help of the

watershed demand. let's conform to it. let's make that happen. one of my favorite examples is a group called friends of the earth middle east came together years ago and they've got members from all gaza israel lebanon all of them and they came together to say we will agree and not talk religion or politics. we talk about how to save the water systems in our community. it has been so successful that there's actually some parts of the world taken down where people got to know each other and realize how much more in common they have with one another than they might have thought. we also have to promote humane laws that mirror and reflect the laws of nature. there's a whole movement that i'm involved in awful interesting people but the rights of nature and that is the

notion that it has raised beyond this to us. we all have common access. we all have equal rights to these, now said but water has made separately. even if water didn't serve us water serves other species. feature has its own rights revert back to start thinking of ourselves at the top of the chain of command as if we are so important and how that would be, we have examples here in north america and around the world where local ordinances are being declared the local water for the local wetland or local forests has the status of a human being. people are coming around the concept of protecting those rights. somebody said you can't go fishing because fish have rights. of course you can go fishing but you can't push a species to

extinction. that would be the way the law works. yes you can take it from the watershed that you can't take so much water from the watershed. you have to leave the integrity of the ecosystem intact. that is a sea change for us human and the more witchery dad and more powerful they get and the more industrialized and consumerist aggregate the more we think nature is they are to survive in nature has a really really rude wake-up call for us. finally and then i will stop so we can chat with each other. we have to make real the concept of water is a human right. i was invited in 2009 to be an advisor to the president of the u.n. general assembly. that is not on cuba's assembly.

general assembly every year elected president and not your is the man a liberation theologian from nicaragua. wonderful man. he read my first book on water and he called and said before he was president, which you come to new york and meet with me because i want to make water a human right. i say do i've time to go to new york? okay. am i connected i get on a plane now? fabulous man. we worked with a young man named pablo solo was a master at that time from bolivia, a landlocked country which had been walked into a water war where people were killed because the world bank said you have to take a private water company if you want help from us.

they brought in the private company had tripled the price of water. we own the rain and will charge you for the water you catch from the sky. they sent inspectors around and use the poorest people on earth. 85% indigenous. very traditional culture. this is the water from the sky they are told they have to pay for it so there was a revolution. there was a real water war. so when the president came in he assigned this to the u.n. o-oscar miguel and i worked together, go to a small team they are and put the resolution to the u.n. general assembly in june 2010. it was a very brave thing to do and basically said water and sanitation are fundamental human right equivalents of all other

human rights. was not included in the human rights declaration because no one imagined water would be a problem. last number of years it's been clear not only is water -- the lack of water is a huge that with the greatest that particularly to children. he had formidable and. i can share was suppose to great britain was supposed. all these water companies were opposed. we didn't think we were going to win. he got to that assembly and sat in the global south every three and half seconds a child as a waterborne disease. and then he went like this. how does three fingers up and everybody realized a child just died. a child just died. you could hear people breathing. it was absolutely amazing. and then the voting started.

they sit in their seats and press a button and it comes up on a great big ward at the front. i've seen in the balcony holding the hands of my staff saying we're going to lose but it's okay. whenever thought we'd win so soon. we will be back in five years. i was preparing them because i was sure we were going to lose. i was wrong. 122 countries voted in favor. not when countries including the u.s. and canada voted against it and they were opposed. the place erupted in cheers. it is a fabulous moment. in my opinion and not moment, the human family took an evolutionary step forward. we said it's not okay your job is to die a horrible death of waterborne disease to continue

couldn't afford to buy expensive water. it's not okay. does that mean the day after this is adopted and everything was fine? no. a crisis in detroit has happened since then. we outlawed tortured in 1938 and it still exists in our world. it doesn't mean we think it's okay. we collectively make this statement was really important as the human family the united nations said we will strive so no one has to do with out. the only way we'll do without us if we take care of our water batter and share it more just leave. .. no

about 15 years ago the government at the time started to get them out of the desert because they found diamonds and the desert. they were also beginning to crack in the desert and they wanted people gone. when the people kept coming back no matter what they came back they smashed their water bore wells and they said no more water and it passed a law saying anyone bringing water would be put in jail. it was a terrible violation of their human rights. they went to court with a group named survival international. they won the right to go back to the desert but they didn't get the right to water.

but after the u.n. adopted the human rights and water sanitation we all went back to the supreme court in botswana, and armed with this new right, the people the indigenous people one the right to have their water reopen and they were returned to the desert. it's a marvelous story of a kind of genocide and a people fighting back and saying we know who we are and we know what we stand for and we will take nothing less than these fundamental rights. we don't want the whole world. we don't want to be competitive. we don't want all your stuff. we want to live our lives the way our parents and grandparents and their parents lived, and we want and need water for this. so when i think about my own, i think of a few highlights that i can tell you being part of that struggle was very deeply moving moment for me and for everyone involved. so this vision i have often

wondered if the based on water conservation, watershed restoration, watershed conference, putting water at the scene of absolutely every policy saying what is the impact on water and if it isn't okay, go back to the drawing board. water is a public trust in a. know has right to appropriate it for private property, to gather it up and collected in some for personal profit one of the people are dying because they don't have access to it. and water is a fundamental human right not just for this generation but for generations to come which is what i called it -- little bit cheeky to write a book saying how to protect water for people in the planet. i put for ever and my husband said that's pretty strong. i said well, what? guilt me to like her 100 years? it's got to be forever. we better think about forever. we've got to do what indigenous

people do in state in in state generations ahead. i'm going to end the formal this with my two favorite quotes and then we have time for discussion i think. some going to just -- so many wonderful -- i will give you three quotes because i have enough time. one of them is from a writer michael parkin who talks about watersheds. he said watersheds come in families. nested levels of intimacy. undergrad to scale the hydrologic web is like all humanity, serbs, russians, indians amish the billion souls in the people's republic of china, it's probably troubled but it's hard to know how to help. as you you work upstream toward humdrum of closely related. the big river is like your nation, a little out of hand. the lake is your cousin. the creek is your sister. the pond is your child. and for better or for worse, in

sickness and in health you are married to your sink. then there's the late great carl sagan, a wonderful scientist environmental list. anyone used to watch him on television will remember he used to talk about billions and billions of stars. he would make in nature and science, a life. he was a wonderful man. he said this. he said anything else you're interested in is not going to happen if you cannot breathe the air and drink the water. don't sit this one out. do something. you are by accident of fate alive and absolutely critical moment in history of our planet. that would be my message to you guys younger people in the room. it's not like me sing okay, we are handing over this problem to you. this is a generation to generation, we do this together. but we are given a gift to the challenge and that's only how i see. i don't see it as a problem.

i see it as a gift that we can come up with the answer that is needed, and we can put the last quote and i love this this is from tolkien, "lord of the rings." this is gandalf who sees himself as a water stored and what to share this with you because i think you are all water steward or you wouldn't be buddies talking to what it means to be a steward of nature a steward of the earth. this is the night he standing there. some of you will remember, and a terrible arm is coming the deep you know the one in the second movie where they are going, all living things, all good things, all things of nature could be possibly destroyed. for me the book is very much about the nature the assault on nature nature fighting back when the trees fight back, its nature fighting back. here's what he says and want to lead to the formal part of this with this thought.

gandalf says the rule of no realm is mine but all were the things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. and for my part i shall not wholly fail in my task if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in the days to come. for i, too am a steward. did you not know? and you very much. [applause] >> now we have time to check every two wonderful people are going to bring the mic around. don't be shy. questions, arguments? yes, right here.

>> thank you for your presentation. you outlined a very comprehensive and interesting approach to things that need to be done. my question relates to setting priorities about where to start. and what i'm thinking is many of these issues are broad, very deep, comprehensive. how would you go about looking at priorities or criteria to determine where you can get the political consensus, what set of goals where you can get a political consensus and the financing to do what? i will just give one example that everyone recognizes in the state, and in most urban areas, and that has to do with storm water sewers and what's going on. yet in our state the proposed budget, that our governor has come up with is basically

$10 billion short. there's not any funding for infrastructure, and in general everyone wants to shrink government and no one wants to pay taxes. so i against that backdrop any thoughts you have about how to identify the priorities where a consensus is a low-hanging fruit where you can actually make some progress? i would appreciate your thoughts on that. >> it's a really, really thoughtful and very tough question, as a matter of fact. i wish there were the apathy that exist now. i'll start with a smaller local. i think people can say what, first of all learn as much as you can. read read, read. get your head around. if you've lived in canada i

would send it you to our website but go to food and water watch.org. good information on both food and water protection and keeping water in public hands and they also are leading the fight on fracking in the u.s. one of the groups. start with getting as much knowledge as you can. for those who are still students were very involved in its edition high school or university you can start a discussion about bottled water onto campus. there are many, many campuses around the transit and canada that have actually stopped selling, stopped providing bottled water. it's not that they abandoned it. if you want to bring bottled water onto the campus that's your business by the campus is saying we are no longer going to provide because we are these great drinking sets, you know what i'm talking about, the fresh waters. yes, thank you. it's been a long day. my brain is gone. so that sometimes is the way to

start that then leads to to a much greater sensitivity. i was in one university where the students collected a small plastic bottles just one week from the vending machines from the cafés, from the cafeteria from all the sources existed in the put an end to end and then tell you they went to all those school, outside the albany university. it was just like stunning as a visual image, this is what we're doing. and by the way last year it would you take all the individual single plastic bottles just the water that people drink in the world and put an end to end they would reach to the moon and back 65 times. try to imagine the plastic we're talking about when it's not necessary, right? sometimes it's what's very reticular to you. it could be a local fracking fight, those are really worth getting involved in because we're winning a number of those. we've got in my country we have

got moratoriums in québec, nova scotia, new brunswick. we think we're going to get one in ontario and maybe one of the prairie provinces. there's been an absolute backlash because we have put up with those tar sands pollution and people say we don't want another form of this. sometimes it can be that kind of a fight. it can be then when you get to the larger question that you were racing, which is how do we get people to pay taxes to be prepared to say we have to of the kind of government that's going to put this front and center. do we have to wait until everybody is california with a sign saying okay, folks one year are you ready to talk about rationing? i noticed they didn't say the regulation. we need regulation. i quoted martin luther king. i'll quote again. we need the rule of law. legislation may not change the

heart but it will restrain the heartless. we need law. we need to get to the place where we elect leaders who we elect leaders with an essay what's to be. i don't know the easy way to do that. i do think, however if you start at a level that is instructive that you diffuse within your grasp, that creates the movement. i spoke to one university in new england five years ago and a group of the first two students were so moved and excited by the challenge that they decide to form a club to give it up all the bottled water onto campus. invited me last year as they were not graduating, it was their last year. they had succeeded and they wanted to celebrate and have me there. every single one of them has gone into other environmental challenges. some of them and gone into sciences. one is going into environmental law. like all of them from the one experience became dedicated to his larger vision. it's very very exciting

process. but it's hard added to any easy answer for you. if i did i would be queen of the world. >> question back to you. please stand up when you ask spill i've got a bogus question for you but it covers is one of the solutions. qatar has just opened a 550 million gallons a day reverse osmosis plant. israel as to-250 billion a gallon at the reverse osmosis plant. san diego, all over the world, trading energy for fresh water. can you comment on that? >> thank you so much for asking. because i think that's one of the myths the myth that technology will fix whatever we are doing. it's okay to file those waters because some technology will come along and clean it up it's if it's okay to use up all the water because we will build plants and political notion. here's what you need to know

about desalination. it is extremely expensive never one. that's why you don't find in poor countries that are thirsty. you won't find it in rich countries that are thursday. number two, it's intensively energy heavy depended. so it uses fossil fuels to run and that creates more greenhouse gas emissions which in turn heard water soviets defeating the very purpose for which it is supposedly being created. number three what it puts back out into the ocean is poison to brine. what they do is they take in the seawater with aquatic life. they put it through a heavy reverse osmosis process using chemicals. but to go back is a dead aquatic life them is very intense brine and the chemicals. it just destroys the fisheries the coral reef and so on. one community and australia, their answer was just build a deepdeepwater pipe and send out into the ocean your see no evil hear

no evil. it's gone. i know it's used very, very much but i believe it is a technology of last resort. here's something interesting. you of heard of peak energy and deepwater pictures a new one peak salt. in the arabian states the gulf states because if you say they use all, almost all of the water that's used is seawater, desalinated seawater. they have used so much of it and put this heavy salt brine back into the gulf of the arabian gulf, that they can, they're saying they can't get much more water out of it because each time it is saltier insult your. using surely it runs out to see. it doesn't because they damned all the rivers. the natural flushing system that might help is gone. humans are saying what all the things we could do together that

would make it impossible for us to live. and i quote in my book a scientist in dubai who says that if desalination for some reason were cut off maybe the price of oil maybe they discover some coldfusion or whatever and suddenly the money dries up in that part of the world in terms of energy and they don't have the money to desalinate, because it's an expensive guess how much money you buy has? to buy has golf courses and -- dubai -- 20 star hotels that are built on water cities with water theme parks and huge slides and found. it's a really really water joyful city in the desert. they have one weeks worth of fresh water. if the desal water were to dry up, one week. i mean when you stop and think about it when when you understand it that we the go to places like

dubai. i've been to qatar, some of the places that depend on this water, it's lush. the shopping, i call the 20 star hotels. five star one not describe what we are talking about. it's based on tears. it's based on something that's not going to survive. so we really need to ask these questions around protecting into first place which goes back to your question. if you're not prepared to protect in the first place, then you are paying to have it cleaned up at some point, or if people don't have it. >> this is a little bit of a personal question. this gets discouraging sometimes when you're fighting the good fight, and when you get down, when you get discouraged where are you looking for inspiration and how can all of us help you? how can we help each other? how can we be a community the?

>> that's part of the most important question there is. people as they sometimes how do you remain cheerful and hopeful in the face of all the stuff you know? like some of you i want all these list serves and is not a moment that goes by that i don't get some horrible news yet another crisis of some kind or another. i always had a commitment to speak your etiquette jobs and i feel all better, which is actually too. my husband says you mean people deliberately, cautiously come out and hear an upset themselves? from somalia to take time for yourself. you have to find support around you. i believe in joe in activism. i believe in having fun. what's the old saying? i'm not going to the revolution if i can't dance. i believe in making communities of activists who love each other and care for each other and build a support system for each other and building sometimes building the kind of support

because it's i do a lot of traveling in the global south. i've seen things that will never leave, if you don't just forgetting the name of islam -- the slump in kenya which has almost 1 million people. they have what they call flying toilets. there's nowhere to go to the bathroom. there's out houses that are patrolled by locals projected me to use it. you know, it's terrible. so they defecate into plastic bags and a just throw it. everywhere you go this plastic bags of shit you know everywhere. it's just so hard and you, and you say i'm so lucky you know? i've got a private bathroom i can go in. i've got clean water coming out of the sink and i got a shower and bathtub. i'm so lucky and i find myself

being really grateful for having tothis big anything that sense of gratitude it's extraordinarily important. we've got to stop having the sense of empowerment. this is gratitude. 2.5 billion people in the world don't have a toilet. i was in a slum in india in calcutta, the old bombay, mumbai, and they said is that america is told air services 5000 people. try to even imagine what that means. i can't even imagine it. i guess part of it is being grateful, been humbled. i think we need to be more humble. i think we need to love nature and we need to put in the center of our lives and we need to be grateful for it and that they consciously grateful. and we have defined joint in the work that we are doing and realize that it can be tough, but to my mind it's like you

opened the door you see with any other site. some people choose to close and not see. i call it a right not to know. i don't want to know, i don't want to know it's not my business. i find if you walk through and see it it will hurt. we talked earlier about a wonderful quote by margaret atwood the wonderful canadian writer who said the world seem clearly to sing through tears. why ask me than what is wrong with my eyes? if you are really seeing it you will be sad a lot. but that's a good said. that's the sad that gets you out of bed in the morning and often doing something that you need to do to make it better. i have enormous hope, i really do. i'm not just saying that the everything i've talked about is absolutely recoverable. nothing here is not recoverable if we start to take action now. >> let me just for start off by saying you're a true inspiration to students like me.

i'm a junior at a local high school. we are very conscientious about our environmental stance. right now we're focusing on our watershed. we have a natural prairie. we do a lot of things like that. i'm just wondering how i can personally in my life reduce my footprint on water and how my school itself to reduce its footprint as well? >> first of all thank you. you say i'm an inspiration. you are an inspiration for me and it's really, really important that we have this solidarity. because no particular generation is going to solve this alone. i expect you know as much as i i do about what you can do after school. my guess is you guys already doing tremendous things. you know in your home and in your school the appliances that are water saving, a toilets and all that stuff. we all know that. cutting down on the length of the showers. what we the way we grow what we have in our gardens and our

lawns, all of this matters to this is a more water rich areas. it's not going to be as crucial here as in some dry places but all of those things, what food we eat cutting down the amount of in the is one thing we can do trying to support -- the amount of meat. local organic food is extremely important in terms of the water footprint. helping find energy sources that don't hurt water and all of us things are incredibly important. but it's that sense of knowing that you have a role to play that's most important. you already are there. you guys are already there by being here. you already have made that kind of conscious decision and a really, really appreciate it. i think i spoke earlier to some of the high school students and i told him about a 95 year old friend of mine who's been involved in every single fight including a vote for women.

that's her age and she says when any of us get tired, you just cut that out now. becoming an activist is a lifelong commitment. you do everyday and it's not bashing you take off now and then. when she gets really exercised she will say oh fighting for justice is like taking a bath. you do it everyday board you stink. having made the decision you already part of the answer into will come up with answers that i haven't got. like each of us is going to give something back. new technologies. there's wonderful work being done on new technologies for porous pavements, parking lots for recovering dead water. unbelievable technology, small technologies that are just marvelous. so finding a career where you can find a place to both make a living and make a difference is fabulous.

just being conscious the way you are a think is great. you inspire me back. >> i work with a local food and water watch and went many other groups along the ohio river to keep the corps of engineers from approving shipping fracking ways down the ohio river in barges. despite all our efforts they approved it. so my question is what, if anything, can we the people, due to make them change their mind? >> well, it's very difficult when governments refuse to listen. just up and think about what we know about fracking wastewater from fracking operations. i don't know if you guys know about a community in québec a small community. for training trained a year and a half ago carrying fracking oil and some fracking wastewater left

the track and plot into this small town late at night. it was close to midnight, into a local pub was very popular, killed, incinerated 47 people. i mean incinerated it blew up. this is not we know -- this is what we know about fracking oil and wastewater. it is explosive. it is not just toxic in slow motion. it is explosive. they are talking about moving it storing it all around the great lakes because they frac so much now they don't know what to do with a fracking wastewater. now the coast guard has given the okay to move it on barges on our water. ships have accidents. it's going to get into our water system. ships of accidents. it's a form of insanity to allow this to happen.

how can communities stop it? we have to make these decisions separately and how far we are willing to go. sometimes we have to put our bodies up in a peaceful way on the line. i was involved in the 350.org so the protest in front of the white house a couple of years ago, bill mckibben. bill would say come and get arrested. my husband lawyer what site you're not getting arrested. because it's not a joke anymore to get arrested because it goes on your record and then you are suspected of all sorts of terrible things, and then try explaining the customs officer it was a protest. they don't care. so i promised bill that i would get arrested in canada at the first chance. so year or so ago we held a protest on parliament hill against all of these pipelines, not just keys to vegas understood ahead of time that like a morality play.

you know exactly if you do this you get arrested. we worked with you will committed mounted police, the rcmp, and a where the red surge and the big cats faq if any of you can begin to you see the rcmp musical ride in front of the parliament hill. a police parliament so that's who we were dealing with. they put up barricades and they said if you cross barricades we will arrest you. to a whole bunch of officers getting ready to arrest everybody. we had drumming and music and i have told my voice has been that nothing was going to happen. it was with a board and no point in coming because of the boring because i forgot to tell them i was intending to get arrested right? so sure enough he shows up what's that green armband you've got? all the people planning to get arrested. i said what green armband? it was an amazing day. we had drumming in speeches and so at a group of us went to this

stage, his fans and i crossed the barricade i was one of the first to this very tall big rcmp officer said, look way down at me, he said ma'am i'd like to step back over the barricade. i said i really can't. he said i would like is typical of the barricade i said i really can't, officer sorry. he leaned down and said my wife is a huge fan of yours and if i come tonight and tell her i arrested you i am in such trouble. [laughter] said would you like a note? [laughter] i.c.e. agent going to have to arrest me. i'm really sorry. pick somebody else. i do know what to do. he put the handcuffs on me the handcuffs on the the handcuffs on me and he said on the too tight? -- >> for those of you here in the room watching live stream online competitors of c-span2 i would like to welcome you to our announcement and