they trained him and brought him in and altering is a new kind of activity that hasn't been introduced into society before, that i think was a great opportunity. it's hard to put a price tag on it, sort of like mastercard, you know, it's priceless. i want everybody to consider those other intangibles, also the education that they receive. to service quality, of people,

from what i understand and russia, they haven't had a chance to really understand quality service. going to an olympic experience or world cup they get a lot of training on service. also on media, commercialism i think these or other intangibl intangibles. >> thank you, lisa. i want to know, and over the discussion about the political issues involved with the world cup. >> i want to go on more the local contacts in russia and the two kind of central point. the first one is between the moment russia -- hosting the world cup and now it's very different, russia politically, both international position and domestic situation. not only the ukrainian crisis but globally the revival of tension between russia and the

west. between the laws of the judo, between the loss of lgbt issues, so it's really a very different way for russia to position itself. domestically also things have been changing a lot. the bid was made before the anti-put in per test of 2011-12. now the political situation domestically is very different. that's interesting to see what domestically and internationally how the russian authorities will manage the preparation. what seems interesting is if we look at the international aspect of that, during the last 10 years rush has been really successful in promoting kind of russian stock power, that will be, the first, russia has to display of power after the green crisis. we'll see how it works or how it doesn't work.

that's kind of also for russia at least that's kind of uncharted territory where they would be going. and probably at the time they couldn't even imagine the situation would be like that five years after the make of it. they will probably have to face kind of -- if the ukrainian situation is not resolved, the situation deteriorates they will have to face the ldp discussions that would be going on. -- lgbt -- manage street violence, something relatively usually and russia, as in many european countries. usually a russian law enforcement agency would like to be good in managing this situation affected also have a aspect that would be given kind of, but basically what russia manages this condition.

it will be interesting to follow, russia -- such intense political context. in the years to come how russia manages this incredible opportunity to promote itself abroad. as you know all this kind of megaprojects are very good in the project, her important for putin as the most abroad and at home together highly centralized dynamic going on for all these big megaprojects. he has really centralized around putin and some of his posts associate to be sure all the process is going with a purpose to get what wanted to make his domestically russia changed a lot also. as manuel said they would be a year of prudent reelection. it will be intense political atmosphere in russia because and even if you can regime that you

can describe -- nothing democratic, managing election is something very important for the political legitimacy. has to be successful. you cannot say schilling, displaying the success or the popularity of the leader. that will also be a moment where putin will also have to be sure all the oligarchs are well iran can add to be sure that works. as you may know, to kind of the oligarchs are kind of person involved in managing and financing some element of the world cup. so that's also a moment where maybe we see some tension or adjustments over all these elements will make the political weight of the preparation fully imported. as lisa said i think what really is kind of critical element of the russian authorities is to be sure they were not developed a

kind of narrative about the cup being the kind of useless, crazy spending any time of economic crises. that's really what things are becoming more difficult than from the olympic games. sochi olympic games, the crisis was a visible and also sochi was recentralize. everything was in one city. it was a huge project for the region but that's why the highly centralized. it's more difficult to manage this kind of narrative, about the public spending made for the world cup useless are useful for the population because we economic crisis now in the russian authorities themselves, how it will be next year and a year after. if you just kind of slowed down, that's doable per capita kind of crises, they'll be difficult to avoid local impact on the population. the second element that makes it

more difficult to manage is this not in one place. it in several cities. which make that a centralized mechanism that usually helps until the way the money spent will be more difficult to do because of the decentralized in many cities. it will be very important for the russian authorities to be sure you don't have huge scandal around really kind of sports related or teen issues, but also to be sure that there is,, big scandal of corruption and some of the cities that are receiving the cup or that you don't have kind of -- in one cities because all the selected cities will probably get their new stadium. so hotels, airports, roads, improvements, railways, not all of them will get the world package so you have to manage local. all these godless make the political aspect of the preparation of the cup very

sensitive. so just to conclude i think what is really important is that russia managing its soft power image in improving its image abroad, avoiding, getting support, voting scandal at the time of economic crisis and also ensure that russia is able to avoid showing publicly economic deficiencies, administrative dysfunctionality's. that would create negative publicity and that's too important for russia and putin himself to lose this kind of game of credibility and visibility i will stop here. >> go on with lowered the -- lori. spent it's a pleasure to be here. thank you. i definitely not an expert on russia at all. i don't know that much to say but i do know within athletic

environment, you can often feel as if you're in a bubble, whether it's leading up to the competition or if you're in the competition, whether it's olympics or world cup, so to speak. but for me in my position as an athlete, it was always important to maintain the awareness of what's going on outside of the athletic environment. so hopefully today as we get into some of the questions and stuff i'll be able to get some insight for what it's like an athlete socially, whether it's racism or more specifically to meet the lgbtq issues, while participate in a world event like the world cup. so thank you. >> great. we are going to continue then with the moderated question and answer session. i'm going to start with you, lisa. and my first question to you is what they chose about the negotiation process as regards

agreements on infrastructure requirement, tourism travels, regime, et cetera. just your past experience. >> as i mentioned before it was up to, to have a minimum eight stadiums, and 30,000 is the minimum number of seats in the stadium. so with those minimums it was up to the local organizing committee, the loc, to determine how many stadiums they wanted to build and how big they were. not much negotiations that there. basic minimums and russia decided to go a little bit about those minimums. in terms of the requirements, there's a certain number of hotel rooms that the organizing committee has to secure for a minimum amount of money. and all of those, most were already secured before they bid.

they promised these hotels are going to be for fifa and this is the price that they're going to be at and there's an escalation clause over the years. so all of these are very well laid out in the post contract. there's not so much negotiation. in terms of the spectators, fifa says well, we'd like x number of hotels but they don't really care about the spectators to this is really a tv made event. there's a billion, i forget the numbers, how many, 10 billion i think people watch the world cup, and only 21,000 show up to it. so really, spectators, good luck. that's what really got me involved in doing research on spectators. why do they come? how long do they stay? where are they staying ask how

much of the spending? i have some students in the room who have gone with you on some of my trips and have been out there collecting data on the spectators, and whether it's homestays or in hostels. most of the spectators that are not on corporate packages kind of go on the backpack style. they're just trying to find a place because they are to fans and to stay whatever they can. >> just to follow up on that real quick. because of the ruble crisis, russia decided to downsize to a stadiums. -- two of the stadiums. how does this work? why does people not just suggest that these stains altogether? because they are already for over the requirement. what kind of negotiation process

goes on when this kind of stuff happened? >> i can tell you in brazil, fifa continually told brazil you don't need to be in 12 stadiums. you really need to be in eight. this country is too large it and i'm sure that said the same thing to russia. but it's their money. they are spending it. so it's kind of like i'm going to refer back to athletes. how many are broke after they are playing? their agent to tell them, put money aside, don't spend this money. but in the end it's the country's own money and if they're willing to spend it, they are going to spend it. >> interesting comparison. serving alcohol to someone who is an alcoholic. spirit they are using as a showcase and also using it for political reasons. so putin may want this region to be happy and to vote for him.

>> exactly, if i may join in on the discussion. it's also, fifa is not the one deciding what is a domestic discussion, that negotiation going on between the region and the central italy. we could look at how the selected city is negotiating with putin, the oligarchs or the local politicians trying to manage a relationship that's why have more cities and will be the minimum just because there's allegedly so important for kind of creating the unity between the different regions. things are becoming political and not financial. >> right, you can downsize but then that city got 40,000, or 50,000. why do i get 50,000? it's also that everybody wants what the other person has. directory, why did manaus get a?

the president went to satisfied or somebody want to satisfy. but one thing i want to talk about in terms of centralization, and sochi the most unique situation where the organization is located in moscow. and not until the very last year, really nine months, did most of the people moved down to sochi. from an economic perspective i thought that was really strange. i had gone over to sochi and all the local people kept saying ofl the decisions are being made up in moscow. i'm like, this is your event. but, in fact, it really wasn't very good. it was all run through headquarters. as we talked about centralization. obviously, because there is a headquarters for world cup and is usually held in the biggest city, so like for brazil it was always in rio, the headquarters for the brazil 2014. i just thought it was strange

for sochi for the headquarters were in moscow until the very last spirit i'm actually going to take this as a cue for marlene, because marlene, what of the questions, the world cup is hosted from moscow. that is the center of it all. but what kind of effect do you think has a tournament like that on a nation? where russia represents this nationalism, and maybe even come huge event. what do you think an event like this means in a country like russia? >> i think that means, globally that means a lot for every country receiving this kind of passionate we should be careful think he would have russia is so specific. these issues happening in all these countries. that clearly what seems to be important for russia, the fact

that the marginalization, the current marginalization on russia international is very much visible on the way the russian media is picking to their own population. i was in russia last month and you could feel how people feel very much misunderstood and so when. so you can see already the political authorities will try to develop consensus and to get popular support for the own population in trying to make the top a big event that will show again, as for sochi, the kind of legitimacy of russia to be a great power and be recognized. i think they would be high level popular support. if you look at the service that after sochi there is a genuine point of view among the russian publisher that the sochi games were productive not only for russia image abroad but also for kind of economic dynamism and

russia. which has really been demonstrated for the region but the immediate are pushing, mainstream media are pushing for telling the population that everything is a big kind of economic success. you can see already industry but we have that the population hopes a lot of things will change by 2008 and that russia will be -- the kind of financial benefit for each city receiving pickup will be very visible. so of course your big corporate pressure in each of the selected cities. they try, you can really see how people hope it will help improving the well being of the population. that the issue being of course the future of the economic crisis about the impact russia strategy globally with this kind of showcase. >> i will direct the next question to you, lori. what is it like to be in the

games like the world cup? unit a couple -- what does it mean, you played in germany. what does it mean for the athlete coming to a country like russia playing there in these new facilities? how do you think that affects the football infrastructure on the ground and what isn't for the athlete playing there? >> thank you. anytime when you're in an international competition it really helps work and offer an opportunity to bridge cultural differences, which can aid in more awareness and appreciation of the differences and diversity. i really think it depends on the athlete. ipad, you know, in germany we didn't have very many issues. it was a spectacular event and then candidate just put on a wonderful world cup for the women, but, so specific for

russia in 20 teams i know that some teammates play over there, go off and play. i've never played, i played in australia at the enjoyment in their leagues other deadly was, they had a professional league but that wasn't the infrastructure to replace the players. so when they go, there was some corruption in that regard as well, but any social aspect i think it will be interesting to see, you know, one point i like to bring up our to the sochi olympics, an organization i'm involved in is with athlete allies. prior ahead of that, those olympics about a hundred professional olympic athletes came together to basically bring up the draconian anti-gay law that they had in place and put pressure on the i see -- i see to force them to modify the

olympic charter. that did take place. i guess my point is though there is a way to inspire athletes do not just within their sporting event that separatist but in what also to inspire change and bring these cultural differences outside the sport. i think you see that again prior to the sochi olympics, but that is also than a lot of us, the u.s. athletes. you know, i think within the world cup that just took place in canada you so the nigerian athletes can't speak up about whether it's lgbtq issues or even the russians in fear of persecution. i think you, like with my friends who played in, went over and played in the league in russia, they can bring those

lessons learned that they've experienced over there back at how we can implement and help change going into the 2018 world cup, if that makes sense. >> marlene, i was wondering if you could comment on these things. what kind of impact do you think athletes from all over the world come to russia, what kind of impact will that have on russians itself but also of image of russia in general? >> two things. on the anti-gay legislation in russia and lgbtq shoe, i think the preparation of the cup and the cup itself is fully open for discussion in russia. even if you can consider that you have the kind of media pressure coming from the political authorities on this issue, look at -- very

conservative society where these issues are difficult to be discussed. i think we shouldn't hope that everything would change faster and russia around this issue. it's considered, you really can see the population for all these anti-gay, anti-lgbt legislation. i think what's important is all the kind of advocacy groups trying to least have an open discussion on this issue, then the minorities really need the presence of advocates to try to reopen the discussion and make it a larger -- that's a sensitive issue that is played up by the authorities. so that's something that would be visible i guess in two, three years when we'll be close to the date of the cup. globally another important issue, i think the results of

the cup could be more positive, if everything is what it. we have in russia, i think on that, really showing on tv kind of international group playing together and somewhat around the sport, that i think that's kind of a good message that will probably impact were especially the young generation of russians who are very xenophobic just because they don't know who are you and they don't have no kind of narrative or how come they don't have to learn to discuss these cultural differences. i am more optimistic that the cup will have on the john discussion about gay and lgbtq shoes that are really difficult to have. >> i've been working very closely with an obsession called fair and russia -- organization. i recently visited moscow for a

the that had to do with racism and xenophobia in russian football. one thing that really struck me was the fact that the dialogue has finally started, and one thing i repeatedly pointed out to journalists in russia was sort of at this point, sort of a blame game from the west, why the west is targeting as because we have a racism issue. i remember saying to them, everyone will host a negative it will be targeted for something. that's just a game. that's part of it. so for you guys to address issues such as racism, xenophobia or even gender equality issues, do it now because if you do it now used to three years, which, of course, is not enough to fix the problem, but if you do it now and to show sort of good faith of addressing it, i think you'll be in a much better situation than if you just let it go and try to ignore it.

very similar to what ukraine did where it blew up in the last minute for euro 2012. which is a very interesting. dialogue, we're still quite a long ways off in resolving a lot of the issues. >> a couple of the points that i wanted to make in terms of spreading the world cup across the country, it is it has forced people to go to other cities in russia other than moscow and st. petersburg. volgograd, places that most americans and europeans wouldn't even know existed, and so similar to brazil, everybody just goes to radio or maybe são paulo but to really push people out to visit other places. then those citizens in those locations actually get to meet foreigners as well.

even torino, italy, i was so surprised, the locals said, this is great. we have ever met so many international people. that's italy. just think what this is going to do to russia. and then when the thing is that occurred over and over how german football has improved since hosting the 2006 world cup. what impact will that have on russia now that they'll have an infrastructure, they do receive some money, also about 100 million or more from fifa. i'm not saying that's going to go far because corruption, et cetera, but what does it is due to football. you would be able to better answer that. >> as i said in the opening remarks one of the things that has happened very recently is the italian coach who made millions and millions and millions of dollars was fired by

the russian football union. he was mostly blamed for having 40 pair -- fairly poor results. but he wasn't that much to work with to begin with because they were structured was given, not fantastic infrastructure at anagrams, everything, a top notch match up to a german english cops have. but he wasn't given that kind of infrastructure at the top of that he wasn't given me to do the players were old and russia had sort of missed that playing development step. now that is a bright spot your they use of thinking has just two years ago one a euro, europe which is a big deal. just actually under 19 finished second. questionable these players will be ready in time for the world cup what you don't think about but i think what you're saying regards to germany, germany kick

started a project, played a successful world cup 2016 but brought up the current generation that won the world cup in 2014. i think you're right that i think absolutely a tournament like that can go a long way to reunite football, traditional football country especially. actually laura, if you want to maybe comment on that as well and just mention what kind of impact a world cup can have on players playing in that country. as a canadian i always wonder what it would be like for canada in the upcoming years. >> a good example of the 99 world cup. just how electrifying that can be and what ignited country to get them excited about the sport, and encourage and propel

other youth athletes to get involved in a sport as well. 99, even though we had a little bit of a lull a few years afterwards, it was an exciting time, been a little ball between her specialties in the early 2002 the late 2000, but i think exactly what happened in germany happened in the u.s. and a propelled, excited players like myself who ar were coming up the ranks to get involved and to play more often, ngc that group wins the world cup it we had one of the world cup since 1990. just as much like germany you can get people excited. and then it also empowers, specifically with the females, to speak out about issues. in this world cup which is exciting not only did we went but you saw quite a few more athletes who spoke out, came out

publicly and then arguably in my opinion had some of the best world cup because i think that inspires and creates a three-year level of play. -- more free level of play. to play at a level that you're playing an environment where you are free and you think your true self, and i think you saw that and that aids in being like a wonderful role model for upcoming young female athletes as well spit you speak about role models and one in which the stood up for me was -- hugging her partner after the u.s. won the world cup in vancouver. do you think, three years away, we don't have we have rogers was openly gay. he could be at the world cup maybe but do you think in three years time we might have a mail a catholic link of the world cup and maybe have that event for

even maybe more powerful, the 1960 olympics were locked players raise their hands to speak out on equality. do you think we could have something like that and russia are still too far away as in terms of gender equality in a man's game? >> i think it's tough to say. yes, it's exciting for me to talk about trying to hugging and kissing her partner, sara hoffman, or others having one of the best like tournament of her career so far. i think i was again inspired by her coming out and being true to herself but i think unfortunate thing is that we still have a ways to go in terms of estimated earlier nigeria and russia with fear of persecution if they come out and speak about being gay,

so i think we so unfortunate that way to go animalistic about the experience of the u.s. national team. it really does a platform and take it with athletes outline which a bunch of us athletes on the youth team, players on the us to our involving. that encourage is a platform to speak about advocacy and equality. but you don't see that in a lot of other countries. even though that's exciting on one end, it's still quite unfortunate on another. i think it's hard to say. i would say it's a little bit too soon. >> there is a move both within the olympic movement and fifa to better educate the football association, a national football associations on good governance and fair play and equality in

situations like this. and it will take time. just look at our country. we still are not racist free. we have our challenges, and i think we are all growing, all trying to improve, and it's not going to happen overnight because you will bring the world cup here. i think that's what a lot of people think, well, the world cup is, everything has got to be wonderful now. it just doesn't happen, but i think he can move the needle and that's a weird kind to use sports for. if we work hard enough and use the media and players, we can move the needle a little bit but it's not going to move you forward 50 years. it may move you forward 10 years. >> specifically for this women's world cup i think a good platform for that, move the needle a little bit and hopefully along on the men's side. >> this goes back to the 1930s

the olympic games, jesse owens and hitler. there's example after example of how sports has had an influence on society. >> you mention the influence on society, but then, of course, there's the other side, i'm going to ask this question to parlaying. how do you think, how important is the world cup as a soft power for a country like russia? and when you take the example of the sochi olympics, where it was very much a display of, they are often called prudence gains, how do you think this will play out in the world cup in 2010? -- whose games. especially in regards to the election three months before the tournament actually kicks off? >> so that's the kind of hard balance again of it will be a kind of difficult balance for

russia because they would be in the media spotlight was on presidential election a few months before. who have demanded a soft power. diplomacy as i said in my introduction to be the first soft power even of that size patch of ukraine crisis. that will be interesting to see. it works for all the other soft power that russia displayed, or it will not be so successful. what seems to me very important on that is that it would be the last, at least, i mean putin would be in his fourth monday and officially the last one, so the something where, at least it helps to stay and see the last eight of the last monday it will be something kind of very symbolic importance for him any kind of way of showing that he

managed almost 20 years of political presence in russia. what seems to be very important in terms of soft power is that because the olympic games are both all those sports. this is a soccer cup. so much link for russian population to europe. so much seen as a european sport where you would want to play with the big european countries. of course it didn't a sense, it makes the kind of symbolism of the world cup even more visible because you would have to interact with country that russia considers as its people are the ones she wants to partner with, which most of the u.s. and european countries. i think that would be a kind of very high level focus for russia and for the population to be sure like they receive all the

big famous team, and narrative around this kind of reconciliation with some element of the western country like sports are going well. that will be a kind of interesting moment to see how the narrative, isn't so not anti-western, so they have to display very positive narrative about the western culture. and i was saying russia is part of the western or european picture. so then we have to make the shift before the cop arrives. >> it's interesting to me most host of major events want to bring visitors in. i'm a little confused on the russian visa process. there so many people who do not go to sochi, one, because of religious media put in everybody but also the process, the hurdles a check to go to to get

the sochi. all that visa requirements and all of that. also i was brought over to sochi about nine months in advance, and i was supposedly doing a sport tourism session. and i said, but where's the tourism people? because when my specializations is how to leverage these major events to increase the tourism and economic impact in the future. they are like, we don't have any tourism developer here. and i said, this is your chance to do that. there's a missed opportunity in russia, and the government, maybe this could be the platform, talking about building tourism infrastructure, doing a plan, building an image, then more people would go to russia as a tourist destination. but again i'm not sure they really want that to happen. it's an oxymoron.

>> just to intersect, i believe that russia will actually get rid of the visa process for world cup ticket holders. that will already make it a lot easier. if we get any indication from brazil, i believe 40,000 americans travel to brazil for the world cup, and brazil had a visa process for americans as well. that gives us an idea i think where we're going to go with this, i if maybe a to comment on that. >> brazil waited the visa fee for americans if they showed they had an actual ticket. so i have not yet heard back from russia. it would be great if they just waved the visa, but even, we still have come on top of the visa we had to get a tourist or an olympic spectator card in sochi as well. so there were two things we had to go through.

>> do you think that wouldn't be in the best interest of the country like russia to bring in tourists to say, hey, we are an open society and we want to keep of the compass isn't the best interest of a host country in general? >> that's what they should be doing. everybody says greece, the olympics in greece were the fault of their dismal economy right now. i don't take it was. it was poor planning i got a call six weeks at a time, what can we do to leverage the games? your leg. russia needs to start planning now, make people feel welcome. if you go to fifa's website that each city listed at a description of each of the cities. kind of old. he got to spice it up a little bit. they are just not used to marketing, and tourism marketing especially. i think they need some help there. >> my last point may be.

i think, i hope for russia that the next big event of course in football is a euro 2060 in france and then, of course, the olympics that will take place in rio next year. so i think traditionally the world cup really kicked off after that because that's one year to the confederations cup, two years to the world cup. so i think that would be sort of the deadline, wouldn't it, for a country like russia to get ready and say this is what we are doing, this is where you can go, this is where you can stay. >> no, they should start now. because now you start working with sponsors looking forward. out of the last olympics are the last world cup everybody start look at the next one in doing that the plans.

and now is when they need to start. you have it all planned, you kick it off during the euro, but if you don't start planning until euro, you are not going to be ready in 2018. planning takes a while. >> okay, so thank you. one last question and this is for everyone. with all this in mind, and maybe we start with marlene on the right, do you think it's worth posting the world cup? >> yes. >> why? not letting you off the hook that easy. >> i think it's very important for countries like russia to get this kind of recognition, and that's an important tool to we have been discussing out russia's soft power will be playing around the cup it is also our own soft power that we

can use in application. so i think it's a nice way we can kind of celebrate what we share together with russia and try tovery put ee kind of back, at least at the table of the discussion as well. i think it's a wonderful opportunity to both sides. russia would use it on its own type of we could also flavor it odd that. we also have to disassociate the russian authority for the population. the population would be very much interested in kind of sharing more, receiving international gas and sharing more stories about their own experience. so i think everything makes sense. >> i would agree. i think it just provides an open dialogue for some of these social issues, whether it's in racism or gender equality issues. so many time you can bring some

of these issues to light, i think is always positive. >> i think there's a lot of misunderstanding in media about the money and how it's spent and all of that. like the boston situation. i think the bostonians lost a great opportunity to host an event that would probably change their city. maybe a lot of people in boston don't want their city changed. they don't. they are very parochial, i'm just thinking that. but in terms of russia, as we discussed before, it's an opportunity to open them up a little bit. the world cup has never gone that way in that area, everything that's what fifa was saying, let's open up and get more people excited about football and give them some infrastructure, et cetera. but overall i just think there's a lot of tangible and intangible, there is the leaders

and people would make money off of it argued for the own their own reasons, but let's look at other reasons, like the volunteers and the youth. >> my final remarks. i think that russia has fantastic opportunity with the world cup, and this world cup is going, is in my opinion long overdue, as you mentioned. the world cup hasn't been there. russia is the oldest and biggest european country but never hosted the world cup in the past, so there has been a lot of debate on process. of what to take that aside in sort of leave it open because we can probably all agree that if one a bit on the world cup probably have some dirt on their hands. but i think russia 2018 is a huge opportunity, not just because putin was shown as his event everything but because

actually it will open up a dialogue as you said i think at this point where we are in u.s. western relations, that's probably the best thing that could happen to us right now. okay, thank you. >> we would've questions and answers no. before i did i will take the opportunity to ask one question my super we are here in d.c., virginia, we have a proud tradition of soccer, particularly women's soccer easy to talk to us about our soccer scene here in d.c. and the united states. we are getting a new stadium for united. sort of look back at the u.s. right now. we not premier league on nbc and the women's cup was very successful in terms of television. just talked about this but just talk to us about that. >> extremely exciting time for women's soccer and i would argue women's sports in general.

but we got the emmy people no actual have a professional women's league and 15 in d.c. well, germantown maryland. that's beside the point. since the world cup though, i think we have nine, i don't think, we have nine teams in the league and every stadium up until the what is the last week and was sold out for the most part after the world cup. there's an exciting time for fans, the players to speak out just in regards to promoting the game, promoting women's sports in general. so if you do live close to germantown and cases you should check out the washington spirits. we do have one of the best stadium in the league at the

germantown soccer plaques. it's an exciting time to get behind women's soccer and promote gender equality in that regard. [inaudible] >> we are entering the last two games or last month of the season. so it pretty tight playoff race as all the world cup, we took about a three-week break in the middle of the season for the world cup another world cup players, international players as well are back playing with their teams, which have sparked excitement as well around the league. i would argue it's the most competitive league around the world. definitely athletically. it's the most competitive. so yeah, it's a wonderful product, family-friendly environment. should be a spokesman for the league.

so definitely check out again. we are in the playoff hunt. unless something goes terribly wrong, they should make the playoffs. [inaudible] >> thank you. this question is for marlene. i fully appreciate you know, the social soft power, economic benefits of russia hosting the world cup. i've of ukrainian descent. either completely different perspective on this, a biased perspective obviously, because i see the analogy drawn between hitler hosting the 1936 gains.

i see protesting the 21st century hitler, getting more emboldened by showcasing again after sochi, showcasing again, i can't that them. i think there are two big elephant in the room here. one is fifa is undergoing its own investigation here for corruption. and i questioned how this process occurred, why russia was awarded hosting the games went a bribery was involved in the second elephant in the room is russia invaded ukraine. and we are showcasing russia again? putin she's going to become more emboldened, and he sees this as another coup in his hat. he's a dangerous man. if you could comment on that please, thank you. >> of course. on the corruption issue, yeah,

that's a huge element in the room but rush is not alone being the other end of the. you have qatar, i think it's a joke debate with the label of corruption. globally in sports and in fifa, and i think, i mean, of course being an oil country has she been easily corrupt, corrupting because the money was easy especially at that time. but for me it's kind of a general discussion where russia is an element. i hope this investigation will go on. if they can, if they demonstrate that the evidence that russia and qatar really one because of corruption schemes, and i don't know what will be exactly the process get better think we can develop on the issue. for me it's a general issue where russia is one element of many of the. >> is spreading globally in this

corruption scheme. on russia ukraine relations, of course that is something very specific. my only argument, and i understand you would be unsatisfied with it, it's not through the world cup that we will stop at issue. if we are enable, we of the west of solving the issue politically, or literally, then what else can we do? the west has been failing in securing ukraine's security globally since the beginning of the crisis. so it's more about our own general inability find a solution to secure ukraine's territorial integrity because it's a small issue for us. it's a big issue for russia. i think on that we have been kind of a little bit naïve about the capacity of the west, something where globally given the current world context for the u.s. and even for europe is not the major issue.

russia has capacity to do whatever it wants almost in ukraine just because it's mr. putin and the house of popular support. i mean, trying to block russia having the cup because of ukrainian issue doesn't give us any political solution and doesn't sink in a good message we don't have a political of the military or the financial situation to help ukraine. so i think in a sense it's not because of the problem. it's just we don't have any kind of good solution. fifa, alas, but if we try to focus on that, we just the way we are avoiding saying that we don't have that kind of long-term solution for the country. but i understand that doesn't solve anything for the ukrainian people. i don't know how the ukrainian team will be playing and saw. that would be a huge scandal against political issue. >> maybe -- son back.

>> -- [inaudible] >> cold war order. [inaudible] >> -- situation between the anti-west sentiment that exists and putin's russia, there's a very real issue, you know. it really does. and giving him the games begin as another feather in his cap, just emboldened a man. >> yeah, first of all, he was given the gains went before this issue actually came up. to answer your question about corruption, it is likely. we don't know. it is alleged corruption. the issue is about that everyone has dirt on its hands. the only proven cases of corruption so far was england

2018 where they have found cases of obvious payments being made. so i think it's very, most likely to with the payments made was corruption involve. yes, probably. that's how his games were awarded. but as i said in the very beginning, the train has gone off track because the tournament is set in stone. pressing issue and he said about qatar. i'm not sure if the world cup is another feather in putin's hat, because i'm not actually sure if it's going to be as beneficial for him as he thinks, or as the west thinks, or the trade as dangerous glorious moment for the because it's going to open up the country and going to open up dialogue and show certain elements of russia that is

probably not always welcome to the people in power. so i actually think that having the world cup there is going to do much more in terms of resolving current problems then taking it away. because, with the west takes away, because that's how will be perceived in russia. it would be the west taking away the world cup from russia. they will go into fielder note. they will completely isolate themselves and the situation will probably deteriorate even more. so i think i'm and i get some of the grievances the i've lived in ukraine myself for quite a long time advocate that, but i think taking the world cup away from russia will not solve this issue. in fact, i know a lot of ukrainian journalist and people in the world of ukraine that they want to go is to qualify. i think that shows sort of some of the problems. >> i just wanted to say that i think in terms of the bidding

process it was russia's time, just like it was brazil's time. so i think whether that payments were made or not, they were lined up. the difference is qatar. that's a whole different story. [inaudible] >> i'm a professor of global health at george washington university, a former soccer player and coach, and i would -- also chaired the national council on youth sports safety independent. just a brief comment on how germany was successful, with a trifecta. developing and marketing. it was a 10 to 12 your process of investment, development and marketing. the formula exists. fifa, an in fact, is planning ta russia that way and i've been in

touch with the medical director of fifa. they will be starting so-called fifa 11 that will be taking place throughout russia in the german model. of course, it requires a russian commitment. fifa cannot do it for them. fifa will try to catalyzed the process to work for germany to do it for russia. the question i have is, as you can imagine as a soccer player and physician and national council on youth sports safety, russia's health system is completely down. who will ensure the well being and health of athletes at this world cup? and how will the quality assured? can anyone comment on that? >> i know what they did for sochi is, i'd like her more for their national health care because this is across 12 different cities. they bring in, ge provide all the medical equipment. they built new clinics.

they had helicopters. they brought in the expertise if they did not have it locally. >> i think russia, you know in the russian system, it's more complicated than just being kind of collapsing. you have a public system and provincial city that is in bad shape. but you also have a private system that is growing where you have middle-classes that are ready to pay for a system, and we have a clinics that issue. they have more an issue with having good people trained, skilled surgeons and so on, or doctor, then not having enough kind of equipment. something they would just do exactly what they did here for sochi because that when you cannot modernize the whole system you choose create in parallel a centralized system that is really where the state is putting a lot of money on that to make sure it works. ..

>> i know for the u.s. we have a couple.yours that travel with and i'm pretty sure the majority of the teams would travel with their own doctors. i can't say that for a fact, but the majority were.

>> in sochi, we flew people to germany. we flew them out as soon as possible. i would be curious for those people studying is what happened to all the equipment. i know ge and other supplies left all the equipment, the x-ray equipment in sochi. i would like to see if it's being used. even if london, ge putting the whole nick uunet on top of their olympics authorship and the result or that it is saving i forget how many thousand babies each year. from their contribution. i am hoping the imaging equipment in every thing left is doing a benefit to the people of the sochi region.

>> ken mayer, world dogs. some countries boycotted the games. are there any rules of fifa that would cause them to penalize those countries.? >> no, any team is allowed to say they don't want to participate. [inaudible] >> braid. and the other countries will be happy to go. >> you know, to be honest, i know even in ukraine they say we are going. i have very high doubts that unless a catalyst tick event happens between now and 2018, i don't think we'll see any boycotts. i think the u.s. will definitely be there. that's a very good point.

first you need to qualify which i think you will. i'm sure the u.s. will be there. >> we learned our lesson from 1980. it didn't solve anything really. the >> thank you. this is a question for men while and lori. i take hosting the event in 1998 a traditional football country with the one in which it is not consumed at all are played by many french women and girls. that changed after hosting the world cup they are considerably more women in the stands in french football stadium's and what they call the world cup increase in girls who would roll to youth football programs involved i didn't sustain until a much more recent vintage that the success of the women's side, it was definitely seen as a

catalyst that coincided with a real dedication to growing the women's game in france. i am curious to hear what insight you might have in terms of whether something similar might be the case with russia in female football player and whether this might be a catalyst to help it grow and give it more wings and backing. >> i think in general russia is very far behind when it comes to gender equality in terms of women's football. they have a leak. they have a competition. to participate in the league. that said, in general a world cup always sparks attention and notice gets people to play and i would say they will definitely increase and help the women came just as much as it will help the men came because people will want to see it on tv, especially

young people, children. i would say yes it will have a tremendous impact. >> real quick comment the other thing if there has been a history once a country has hosted the men, they host the women's. i'm not saying they are going to get it for sure but it could be sent and down the line where women's world cup -- [inaudible] >> just to piggyback, this world cup is an exciting time for a fair women's national teams, specifically like nigeria because of social media as well. in 2011 with 16 teams participate in the women's world cup and this year there's 24. there's eight new teams participating and some would argue shouldn't have been there

and the fact that they lost 10-0. it up in a dialect via social media brought awareness and put pressure on fifa to mandate these countries put more money into the women's programs. if we have 24 teams they need to start spreading the money because the men usually qualify for the knockout round and some are arguing shouldn't have even been at the world cup. hopefully this will create a bit of a bad and pushing and giving more developing the women cited the game as well. hopefully that will be the case with russia as well. >> anyone can answer who feels

like it. coming from georgia, the country, i have seen russia occupy ukraine based on ukraine. i've seen russia adopting laws that ban homosexuality and racism flourishing in the country. recently like last week i seen russia destroying western food. it sounds to me a little bit naïve when we are speaking about these games opening up russia. if you say so, let's give you this question, what was the benefit of the olympics? how did it change russia to a better country in so cheap? >> we were discussing that right before the panel. he saw the media goes so favorable at the end of the sochi olympic games and i think those of us that attended really

fell in love with russia and fortunately, the week after all of our opinions we have formed changed again back even worse because of the invasion of ukraine. so while the goodwill that they built up and fortunately i think went away and it was unfortunate for russia. but i do think during the games they had an opportunity to change a lot of people's opinions and move forward yet they chose to revert. many people said it was already in the planning that they knew they were going to do this after the games. i don't know about that. to your question we can only hope that we have no scientific truth it is going to help any, but is it worth trying?

is it better that it's closed off and say we're not going to do with these people because they will just keep going. i don't know. [inaudible] >> i think they did. the people i talked to you, the citizens, the individual citizen to part in the olympic games benefited. i can't say that and changed. i don't think that is the case. but i think the citizens benefited. >> if i can follow why not. rationale that the country of racism, we all agree it's not the only one. look at -- [inaudible] we also need to be careful.

a lot of countries getting big sports. i'm not the one we consider in terms of social or gender issues. as i said the political point, if we fare for georgia and ukraine, it is the political failure trying to solve the issue is the kind of solution of our own political failure and managing the ukraine with russia. i think it is very important also not to forget that it's only giving power, it's also giving us such power because russia we have to engage with the international community. at that time they will have to allow for a nurse to come and allow away for us to state to the russian population. beyond putin.

you will always be the russian will be getting tired of the situation in ukraine. people have a lot of cousins earned. the big majestic aspect of the crisis as pressure kind of slowly diminishing. people are worried they have come for their economic situation, their well-being and you can find a lot of people in russia who say gas we wanted crimea to go back and we wanted the russian population in ukraine to be secure. this is higher than we imagine. things can change a lot. any communication with the russian population in that case you don't see diplomacy. you just need weapons and arms. i don't think that's the right

solution. [inaudible] >> you don't see for example the 50,000 volunteers to participate. you don't know how that changes your life and discussing long social transformation or you don't see the reasons right now. does that mean we shouldn't have done and not having them makes things easier? the discussion is open. >> i will add it is not that long ago that we really have to judge the impact. yes you seen the light of the events play out. these events are taking place.

as we said 50,000 volunteers, what is the long-term benefit of that will be positive. what is the solution taken away. that will not do anything. it would actually make things worse. judging from what happened in 2012 which took place in ukraine and the second-largest in the world, some very similar issues in terms of racism, gender right comments better. that was eric for weeks and weeks prior to the event and we now take a on top of russia having problems with neighbors because russia will get full on media attention for two years. as soon as 2016 is over there'll be full and media attention and

that is going to do a lot more than taking away the tournament. [inaudible] >> yeah, but it's not been very long, has it? it's been a year. that's not very long in terms of dialogue. >> my question that olympics has not had any benefit in russia was the question. thank you. [inaudible] >> i mean, at least two people are historians by background come as you managing the impact of some and not have been 15 ago is more complicated than that in terms of how human can change in society. i understand there will always be a kind of sensitive issue

that we have other questions. >> anymore? okay great, we can end on time. they do for the great questions and fantastic discussion. let's give a round of applause for speakers who did a really excellent job. [applause] as i mentioned before we intend to continue the project with additional panel discussions, research and other goodies. the center of global interest collaboration at george washington university and manuals website which is football grad, you can follow along and participate in the discussion. thank you for attending.

the

>> one day when i had had perhaps nine hours of flying, he told me to pull over on the tarmac when i landed and he started getting out of the airplane and he told me it was time for me to take it by myself. when i took off that time, when i got up to 500 feet weren't supposed to level off, and i started wish forward on the state to outlaw and it came off of my hand. so i grabbed my shelled unless the throttle wide open. i leaned across the front seat and i started pushing forward on that front six, when it started low whirring the airplane. so then i climbed over into the front seat, but i made a fairly

smooth landing and he said what in the are you doing in the front seat and i just pointed to this stick which is just a stick you fly the airplane went and it was on the floor board. when he saw that, he said now you know you have the right stuff to be a pilot and that was before john glenn had the right stuff. >> the problem arises january 16 cap warning. 11 degrees out side. the men arrived at the baseball before 8:00 a.m. the prep the chat and got ready to go in 9:27 a.m. it apart, they leave the runner 31,000 gallons of jet fuel and three minutes into the flight the pilot called mayday, mayday,

mayday and are never heard from again. the plane crash encouraging or 16, 1965 and encourage that morning around 9:30 a.m. the plane went down on the northeast end of wichita. it crash landed in a section of wichita typically referred to as the african-american community. 97% were living in a section of wichita. it goes down at 20th and pine street are talking of 500 at high fireball involves the entire block. 14 homes immediately destroyed, firearms everywhere and ultimately 30 lives are lost. i found there was no substantial history there. i could not believe 30 lives were taken, there was no memorial and this is the worst national disaster in our state's history and there's not.

>> the heritage foundation yesterday host a discussion on the iranian nuclear remain in the role of economic sanctions in the deal. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation in our lowest layer but not a touring. we welcome us to join us on heritage.org website on all these occasions. we ask those in house to make

sure cell phones have been silenced as we prepare to begin as a courtesy to our presenters and internet viewers are always welcome to send questions or comments simply e-mailing speaker@heritage.org. posted our discussion is dr. dr. steven bucci, director of r. douglas and sarah allen center for foreign and national security policy. he served for three decades as an army special forces officer and pentagon official and is well-versed in special operations and cybersecurity is lost if that support for civil authorities. he served as military assistant to donald rumsfeld for five and a half years and upon retirement continued at the department of defense and prior to joining heritage was the lead consultant to ibm and cybersecurity policy. please join me in welcoming steven bucci. [applause]

>> i would like to add my welcome to everyone in the room enjoyed a nice either through tv or the internet. this is frankly a huge group for a meeting in august in washington d.c. so i appreciate everybody being here and it is a testimony to the people we have on the panel but also the subject. this is an awfully important discussion were about to have and i really hope everyone is here with an open mind. we tried to pick our panelist that would really stirs and thinking. we are going to give each of them 12 minutes or so to give their presentations and then the bulk of our times answering your questions. i'll give you additional instructions on questions when we get to that. after we get opening remarks. our title is assessing the iran nuclear agreement placing sanctions in context.

the focus today is on the sanctions piece of this agreement and everything around it. there's a lot of issues we could get into on the agreement with iran and perhaps we'll get into some of those when we get to the question-and-answer period keep in mind sanctions is the focus here today. sanctions are what convinced iran to come to the table and unfortunately sanctioned by one of the least understood parts of not just the agreement in international relations and other places we've used them. a lot of myths, a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of police not necessarily based on anything than someone's faith in a particular aspect of it. we've got three experts fear that hopefully in their remarks and answers to your questions will give us more understanding about the utility of sanctions

and how they've played a role in this particular case. they'll introduce them them now in reverse order that they will speak. they are see that correct way. first is a good friend, even on birmingham. vice president of the american foreign policy council. he's an expert in the region for security policy and has been an advisor and consultant to several parts of the u.s. intelligence community and defense. he's a frequent commentator on cnn and other news outlet and he is an educator as well as an author and just a quick pitch later in september we will have him here to discuss his latest book so you can ask them questions about that if you want. we are going to have a special event for that. he will be our cleanup hitter so

you will go last. next ahead we have dr. emanuele ottolenghi. he works at the foundation for defense of democracy. he is an italian which i like. he is going to bring us the european day of onset of these issues which is frankly a little different than the american and is useful, sometimes in washington we forget there's about to allies and friends that may not see things exactly the same as we do. said a ton of work, several books, quite a bit of participation dealing is is to

been a contributor to an enormous amount of news outlet all around the world. he brings that perspective. last is one of my heritage colleagues, bruce klingner who is not an expert in iran. he's an expert in north korea and the reason versus here if he's going to get within levels that on an historical case study if you will where we have used sanctions that the negotiations to stop proliferation with another country in the world which is north korea. bruce has spent a lot of time for the central intelligence agency and kind of a celebrity and south korea and gets treated like a big shot because they recognize his knowledge and experience with the neighbor to the north is pretty darn

expensive and pretty relevant. he will go first and we'll give him 10 to 12 minutes each moving from bruce to emmanuelle two ilan berman. we will start with bruce and you can begin. >> thank you, steve. i'm glad he said i am seated correctly. i've got that right. the audience may wonder why an event in the iran nuclear deal you have someone with no expertise in iran or the middle east but since i've been covering north korea for quite some time with a lot of similarities and differences between negotiations as well as nuclear programs, they thought it might be of some utilities to have me up your taking space. i will talk about five myths about sanctions particularly as they apply to north korea but also iran and 10 lessons learned

from the north korea nuclear negotiations which are helpful to keep in mind when assessing the iran deal. i won't talk about the iran deal at valve. the five myths about sanctions, first to be the u.s. and other nations face a policy choice between sanctions and engagement seen as a binary choice either one or the other. obviously, sanctions and diplomatic engagement are most effective when integrated into a comprehensive integrated strategy that includes diplomatic diplomatic information the that hillary and economic. no tools used in isolation. not fully utilizing any element of the toolbox that reduces the effect is the foreign policy and undermines the other tools. the second myth has sanctions can't affect an isolated country whether it's north korea or

others. when people hear of sanctions they usually think of trade sanctions, refusing to allow trade between two countries but also things like targeted financial measures which are directed against specific entities violating u.s. law. it exploits their need to access the global financial network. even the most isolated regime, the most criminal organization or terrorist group are tied to the global financial order and dirty money has to cross borders. the vast majority of all international transaction are denominated in dollars which may not sound gordon but every dollar denominated financial transaction in the world must go through u.s. treasury department controlled and regulated tank in

the united states. if you transfer money from australia to london on the couch to, it goes through new york in a u.n. panel of experts recently concluded an north korea a majority of transactions still continue to be dominated in dollars. because the u.s. government tremendous leverage and power and for banks and businesses there really are catastrophic risks to facilitating illicit transactions even i know when he appeared to british bank was fined $2 billion for money laundering and sanctions violations including dealings with iran. $9 billion for processing van transactions with iran and sudan and cuba. beyond having to pay fines or having assets frozen or seized, financial institutions are designated as a money laundering can earn and tonight ask us to the u.s. financial system and

giving centrality of the u.s. financial system to the international system, that is the kiss of death because not only can i not access via a system that cannot have correspondent accounts in u.s. banks but also any other entity would shun any contact with them. north korea is the most heavily sanctioned country in the world. president obama has asserted that it is simply not true. washington has targeted far fewer than those of the balkans, burma, cuba, iran and said boy appeared with twice as many zimbabwe entities on the list as north korean entities. nor has washington designated north korea as the money laundered concern as we did iran and burma. while the u.s. has targeted such countries as zimbabwe, congo and burma for human rights violation

and sanctioned by name the president of zimbabwe and congo, today the administration has not sanctioned missing will north korean entity and this is 18 months after a u.n. commission concluded north korea's human rights violations are so heinous as to constitute crimes against humanity. the fourth myth as there is nothing more the u.s. can impose on north korea. i'm very envious of the sanctions the u.s., e.u. and u.n. imposed on iran because they are far stronger than anything on north korea which really is counterintuitive because unlike iran, north korea has with john the non-proliferation treaty and it does then claim its nuclear program for civilian purposes and is to turn washington, tokyo and seoul and to seize the fire.

the u.s. pursued with incrementalism in which various claims of tough measures, but only minimal measures after each provocation or violation or attack in order to save some and for the next time. after he left office, the former assistant secretary of state for east asia, kurt campbell, surprised himself by saying beyond marr or burma has sanctioned 10 times as much is north korea impossible to put more pressure on north korea and make their life much more difficult. the fifth and final minute, sanctions don't work. you might want to ask the south african apartheid regime of that in libya gave up their nuclear weapons program in return for sanctions relief is what brought i ran ran back to the table.

tougher measures did work when they are applied in 2005 the treasury department designated a code delta asia a money laundering can earn and in conjunction with meetings by u.s. officials throughout asia there were two dozen entities in china, singapore and elsewhere that stop doing business with korea at all. at the time to north korean negotiator told the white house official you finally found a way to hurt us and even at the time senator clinton and kerry and biden criticized the action once in office the obama administration officials said the banco delta asia action and later they are trying to re-create that same pressure on north korea's existing 2005. 10 lessons from the north korea

negotiations to keep in mind when assessing their brand deal. when you think of the discussion with iran as well as north korea they were precipitated by those countries previous violation of u.n. resolutions and treaties and agreements. which is hardly the basis for confidence that they will abide by yet another agreement. don't do your end zone dance too early. they claimed the framework have solved the north korean nuclear problem among which similar to a president obama has been saying. it was later confirmed pyongyang had begun an iranian-based nuclear weapons program before it signed the framework. authority in violation violation

as well as three previous agreements to never pursue nuclear weapons. the bad cop is good to have. they are not the diplomatic concessions. there is discussion the clinton administration was discussing attack options when a book up from her desk and pyongyang announcing parameters of the deal the administration had no idea he was negotiating. similarly, israel's threats of attack focused hereon slaters on the penalties of defiance. even a final agreement is never final. they allow countries with compliance and pyongyang or tehran could use ambiguities to

confuse opponents as well as avoid punishment. during negotiations are afterwards to prevent the crisis and collapse of agreement over negotiations, policymakers become willing to negotiate a way of previous revolutions, treaties or not enforce u.s. law. if it could be verify, verify, verify. ronald reagan trust was a very extensively detailed treaties as well as verification protocols with the soviet union which enabled progress and precisely defining the verification mechanism and responsibility of small groups. it requires a robust verification regime including short notice challenge inspections of non-nuclear facilities. arms control advocates reject evidence of cheating.

pyongyang seriously deceived, denied and decide the community yet arms-control proponents responded to growing evidence of north korean cheating by doubting, dismissing, dislike and, denouncing, deliberating, debating, dawdling from delaying, demanding and eventually dealing may initially eject the report of north korea's plutonium program and denied the highly enriched uranium program and the north korean compliance with complicity building a nuclear reactor in syria and right now debating how far along north korea is on miniaturizing this warhead. seven, evidence of cheating doesn't arrive. after decades of debating whether iran had a nuclear weapons program, experts claim iran is two months away from

breakout and also the strong belief the u.s. intelligence will now be able to quickly and uncritically identify cheating and convince you and rep resentment is to reimpose sufficient penalties have a nuclear weapons breakout. sort of imagine a cia analyst running down to the white house with evident in hand and kicking in the door and a policymaker responding you are convinced and not be immediately trashed the foreign policy achievement. number eight, the international community doesn't snap back. the u.n. has shown a remarkable ability to emit a squeak of indignation when its resolutions are blatantly violated and only after extensive negotiations and compromise and hampered by china and the soviet union or russia,

the u.n. security council has been limited to a lowest common denominator response. the snap back conjures up this image of a powerful rubber band to give you a painful whack, but it is more like the reality of the international response and sort of like a lamp, deflated balloon after the party. it is not impressive. nine, be wary of the pressure whether it's increase sanctions on the korea for two firmly opposed snapback or sanctions. the obama administration has pulled punches towards north korea but not fully implementing u.s. law and a long list of promises will increase pressure and were still waiting on that. we have seen secretary kerry has promised more pressure. i remember two or three years ago the u.s. official promised

we are considering bloodcurdling sanctions on north korea. well, we are still waiting. tenth and final ,-com,-com,-comma negotiations a lot inching across red lines. alternating provocative behavior and a willingness to negotiate to manipulate the international community about imposing penalties as well as that we have seen repeated violations and maintaining a strategic ambiguity on the nuclear programs, pyongyang and tehran might the proverbial camel's nose gain international acceptance of it committees previously declared unacceptable and proponents will dismiss criticism that allows tehran nuclear capability is precluded by a series of u.n. resolution and they argue it's unreasonable to expect iran to give the capabilities they devoted great

resource as well as national pride. to take a lesson from the iran deal and reimpose or refocused towards north korea nuclear negotiations were to resume it is clear pyongyang will demand terms far less research than current u.n. resolutions demand. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. good morning, everyone. thank you or the opportunity to participate. thank you for mentioning my nationality because it allows me to do two things. first it allows me to keep my slightly accented and you don't hold it against me but more and for me i do not have to prove my loyalty to the commander-in-chief in this room. because i'm not american. as the only non-american on the panel, i certainly would like to

start by making reference to europe. i was recently in europe as a no european joy eight weeks of holiday before the winter holiday of course i had the opportunity to speak to a number of officials about the deal and the one comment that really made my day or night a week holiday was something that to me by an official. one of the ministries in europe that shelby remained nameless but has a huge stake in the success of the agreement. it allows me to save you 10 minutes of comment. that is the view of the european business community for sure supported by a large their government.

the view is the agreement has done. there is a bit of a misunderstanding and confusion about why the americans keep on discussing it and debating that congress because the fact of the matter is there is an agreement reached by the p5+1 or his europeans like to call it the e.u. interest free and it's not a trivial distinction and that agreement has now become a chapter seven resolution that is mandatory on all members of the united nations including the united states which is a founding member and signatory of charters. whatever congress does, the weight of the international community now is behind the lifting of sanctions divided iranian fulfill their obligations. because the assumption is within a number of months the iaea will

complete its task of working on iran's nuclear program and we will move fairly fast to implementation, the europeans are not waiting in the wings until that day to start discussing or indeed signing deals with iranians in order to resort to the first hole level of trade they have with iran before sanctions began. just a reminder in 2006 the last year before sanctions were approved by the u.n. security council against iran must begin in the decade-long march towards this deal, the european union as a whole heavy volume trade of 25 iliad euro a year with iran at the time it was $40 billion a

year. europeans are confident they can reach that level of trade fairly quick read and then cross it. it was a very comprehensive business relation whereby iran was relying on european technology oftentimes produced by small family-owned non-publicly traded enterprises, the bulk of the high-tech high-end technology produced in germany and italy and austria is not coming from publicly traded fortune 500 type companies. it is produced by small companies that have 30, 40, 50 employees owned by a family of four and little calls. they fell in the local markets,

european markets or asia is some of the companies never trade with the united states, never conduct any kind of banking transactions of the united states, do not have u.s. nurses on their board and shareholders from the united states are not interested and are not that concerned the moment sanctions are lifted about what is happening in congress and what the united states may or may not do. this is part of the argument the administration is making to say look at where the world is going without a deal that sanctions would collapse and i would like to spend a couple minutes addressing the argument. the fact of the matter is that sanctions would collapse without a deal provided the administration continues to follow the policy it has indeed

followed with regard to its own sanctions and the sanctions regime as a whole since negotiations began. one more myth than is punctured here. negotiations do not began two years ago as the administration seems to suggest frequently. negotiations began a decade ago. that is why the e.u. p5+1 is a relevant distinction. to begin negotiations in late 2003. they then were joined by the united states, china and russia by june 2006. they let the negotiations headed by the e.u. high representative on behalf of the six powers. negotiations lasted for a decade and i ran never left the table. iran is that the table the whole

time. what sanctions did is persuaded iran but i must admit meaningful concessions it was heading for disaster. the sanctions were extremely effective the moment the united states and the europeans together went beyond u.n. sanctions and created not, ms. sanctions has done in bringing iran's economy to its knees. again, back to the mets referred to before, the motion of snapback sanctions. even if there is a political will in europe, security council with the p5+1 and international community to snapback sanctions, the effect is seen over time. the first u.n. security council resolutions was found in 2006. it was not until 2115 years

later the iranians really started feeling the pressure on their economy. the administration says yes maybe they were effective for a time, but they certainly did not stop iran's process on the nuclear track so the sanctions were not stopping. that is true but it is also wrong because the sanctions were never designed to stop iran's nuclear progress. they were designed to increase leverage of international community over your ran. they were designed increasingly over time as the scope of sanctions went beyond targeting entities and specific individuals with sectors of the iranian economy. they were designed to create a choice for the regime. you either make those concessions and comply with international obligations or we

will crush your economy and create such a level of dysfunction in your own country that you're regime will implode or crumble or be toppled by popular insurrection with people hungry and upset the way things are. what is amazing if the rationale well understood in europe is the rationale the administration all along, ever since 2009 only reluctantly embraced sometimes because they were shoved down his throat. remember in 2009 when the regime was on the rink of collapse with 3 million people in tehran protecting against fraudulent actions. this administration chose not to

support and why did it choose so? it wanted to engage the regime and basically calmed to an agreement with the regime, signaling to the regime we are really happy with you there as long as we can find some sort of understanding. it sees iran as a legitimate islamic republic of iran as a legitimate interlocutor we can work with that is hard for the administration that sees the display to embrace or promote aggressively a sanctions regime designed to cripple the regime and bring it down if needed. that is the first problem. when the regime was crippled enough to make concessions, this is where the problems begin and

where now we are a situation if there is no deal, the deal is removed and the fault of the failure is perceived to be the united states and the sanction regime will be in deep trouble. from the moment the united states began the secret channel with iranians then further down the road has signed an interim deal with the iranian regime. is provided to key points that undermine sanctions. one was sanctions relief. too premature, too broad and with too many extensions. in addition to that, it is only very lukewarm action agreed to enforce existing sanctions. many pieces of evidence for that, one for you to take home

look at how many entities come as subsidiaries of the iranian revolutionary guards the department of treasury and department of state designated after november 2013. zero. the irgc did not benefit from sanctions relief. the irgc is supposedly not going to benefit from the lifting of sanctions under the deal. none of their entities has been designated since november 23rd teen, which means hundreds of companies controlled or owned by the iranian revolutionary guard never made it to the list. companies in europe and asia who are now going to find interlocutors and business partners in tehran to conduct legitimate business and all things economic double not promote terrorism to build

bridges and hospitals, who are they going to work with in europe? my take is they will work with a lot of higher gc companies that haven't been designated. half treasury and the state department administration as a whole decided to negotiate but at the same time continue to enforce sanctions that remained in the law books. not just iranians by the way and the business community outside the united states. one more example. the italian at the end of it as everybody else in europe sent a very high-profile delegation to tehran. but they were the third one they

went last week and the foreign minister was fair and one of the ministers for the economy was fair. it is a huge high-level delegation of business leaders. they find all sorts of memorandums of understanding and agreements. when that was signed as a contract worth 500 million euro, about $557 million of exchange between one of the biggest publicly traded companies in the country has also an opposite washington. one was subsidiaries actually in a company called kadir investment. according to treasury slated to be delisted on implementation dance next month time but the italians didn't wait six months to sign the contract because the investment is a subsidiary according to treasury at least

otherwise known as the business empire the supreme leader. there is an agreement we are waiting for implementation to do its job where they are still on the table. we are keeping none as a tool. we will treat violations a subsidiary of a prominent european company feels entirely safe to go to tehran two weeks after the deal has been ensign a half a billion euro deal with a subsidiary of the tire of the supreme leader. this will be the beginning. precisely because iranians for so many years didn't have enough money to do all of these contracts and invest in the economy. now the lion share of the pie to

those elements of the regime veteran of privileged position to contrast the supreme leaders in the irgc. we know what the players the regime will do once they read the benefit of schools and hospitals. they will use those resources to advance the goals in the region are not exactly benign. that is the big problem with the sanctions. had the administration taken a much more aggressive determining principle proactive approach and enforcing the sanctions during the interim. without giving any discounts to the iranians without feeling any action by treasury and the state department and department of commerce might've said the iranians