.. there's an app and it will tell me what flights are above me in the sky and where they are going, what airline there is. do you anticipate any such app, because my concern as a citizen and the drones flying above me,

how do identify what they are and why they are there and who they belong to? and that piece -- it was interesting when this was introduced to me. >> well, in today's world if there's a drone flying above you it's probably an amateur operator. there's no system to track who that is and where they are going. it's an unregulated sector of the market. as you move forward with fully integrated operations in the controlled air space, you would expect to have some ability to know who is out there. >> you said you would expect. i want us to move toward the point as if there is a drone

flying in my personal property space and i as a citizen have a right to know what's their purpose, there will be for me if i have any issues, as a citizen, to process that concern, and that so me it's a very high concern of mine, and the people that i talk to. what would be the process of educating the public, and i would like to ask mr. geiger. >> geiger. >> what is the proposed process, so that when we -- i anticipate a number of drones that we will see. where's the education process when we adopt the rules and get them accepted, where is the education of the public?

>> i think you'll see education of the public from both government and private entities. the question is how would the public know if there's a drone -- >> yeah. or what are my rights. >> well, as i said in my testimony, i think that your rights ought to be strengthen by congress. when it comes to tell whether or not -- what identified drone is in your vicinity and where it's going and so forth, we think that the industry and government ought to work on technology that would enable that sort of transparency for citizens. i understand that there are technical limitations due to weight. nasa is working with towers, that may hold some promise. we think that there are other

technicianal -- technical could use. a nation effort that that regard, and so we would prefer that you did not fly here. i think there's a variety of technology that is could get you there but not in prime time. i think it's important that they continue to work on them. >> the other question i have in a few minutes to mr. whittaker, in the rules it talks about reporting an accident or damage within a certain amount of time, would there be a requirement, if you are a licensed drone operator that you have insurance, because if your drone disables on my property or a

package being delivered and destroys my prized-rose garden or something. >> typically we do not ensure. >> i just want to say for the record that if we are going to allow -- you don't require airlines to have insurance? >> airlines have insurances for reasons. we're prohibited from regulating model aircraft, so we would not be allowed by statute to have that provision. there's a rule why we don't get into that area of requirement. >> so it was an accident, what would happen? >> what happens with respect to -- >> faa would just have a record of it?

it would not be any requirements for drone operators to be insured? >> there typically will be reporting requirement for accidents and we investigate the cause of accidents but don't get involve in the liability. >> my time is up but i want to say for the record that that is a concern of mine. >> now, recognized and senior member and former chairman of the aviation subcommittee, the gentlemen from tennessee, mr. duncan. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have any questions but i do want to express some concerns. to do that i want to read a couple of -- read from a couple of articles that have come in a few days. i read several articles about drones. a lawyer who specializes in this area wrote a few days, for

example, will drone schedule to deliver overnight package be allowed to collect information during dropoff and so what time of day, gnaw uavs with the ability to record video and audio, use facial recognition technology, radio for data, id d consumer credit card. it mentioned a case or cases in which they are now using drones in diverse cases. jeremy scott who is the head of an organization called the electronic privacy information center wrote a few days ago, the faa has failed to consider the data collections of commercial drones in an age of big data companies flying commercial drones will likely look to

collect data as they fly around performing other tasks such as delivering packages. one company has used drones to pinpoint cell phone and wi-fi signals. he goes onto say, there exists a lot of potential for commercial use of drones but there needs to be rules in place to protect against broad surveillance and data collection. that's why more than 100 experts and civil liberties organizations, petitioned the faa to develop privacy rules for drones. faa denied the petition and subsequently filed suit to consider privacy. currently best practices are being developed. there's a lot of concern out

there. most people feel that we don't have much privacy left anymore due to internet and modern technology, and not just drones, but to show you how much concern there is, i understand that ten states have now passed laws. and my own home state of tennessee, which is a very prolaw enforcement state, very prolaw enforcement, the legislature passed banning law enforcement agencies from using drones to collecting evidence, surveillance, and so what i'm hopeful is that to faa and some of our organizations will take a look at all these state laws, because the state seem to be taking the lead on this so far and see if you can pick out some good things out of those state laws, and i think companies that

want to use the technology, because there is so much concerned about privacy that you would be -- your company would be well advised to try to come up any possible way to protect what limited, what little privacy people still have. and that's all i have to say, mr. chairman. i yield back. thank you for making the points today. did you want to respond to that? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree that we have to take privacy responsible. we've got for 20 years now and we respect privacy, which, of course, is a delivery service and not surveillance. >> technologies that will enable very intrusive physical

surveillance. that's just coming. the examples that you read are indeed, troubling, and i'm glad that you mentioned in those passages that there are other types of surveillance except video observation, cell phone tower, we saw the federal government use them tens of thousands individuals just in the past year. in terms of how to provide individuals with that kind of privacy, you know, the privacy towards get you some, but again it's limited because reasonable -- reasonable to a person standard. it's unclear to which congress can directly regulate those kinds of uses without violating the first amendment right to collect data in public places. we think you should take the lead. you mentioned your state laws,

states are indeed taking the lead on privacy laws, but the -- part of that is because of federal in response to the concerns of their citizens, but the patch work of state privacy laws is going to be difficult for the industry to navigate, particularly for a technology uaf that could fly within borders of the states. providing some regulatory certainty will benefit both individuals as well as commerce. >> well, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for holding the hearing. it really raises a pretty fundamental question about the future and values and parts of our philosophy. i think you're quite right to raise what privacy means.

even a commercial drone whose mission is purely the delivery of a good could be equipped with surveillance equipment and actually penetrate the walls of the house and look into what's going on. while technology isn't far away from doing that, we're going to -- you know proliferation of drones difficulty to enforce even regulations we adopt. it's a fascinating frontier-kind of issue for us. i don't think we have any easy answers. thanks for highlighting them. what is -- if i'm a home owner, how high do i do in my property control? can someone fly 500 feet from my

roof? i'm going to ask all of you to please speak into the mic and move it closer. >> it's a bit unsettled, clearly if it's 500 feet above your house, it's tech -- regulated air space, when it was designed, there was no thought of a gray area. i think we are facing a gray area. by statute, all the aerospace is federally. >> a commercial drone is flying within 3 feet of my roof is it -- >> you're pushing at those gray areas. >> i think we have to revisit that too. presumably somebody is flying to develop fine chocolates to my neighbor, did i mention fine

chocolates, you know, they may need to get close to land, if that's what they are doing, and they maybe violating from my point of view my trespasses including barack above my roof. >> i think the legal structure hasn't had to address them. >> we have legal issues, constitutional issues and we have commercial issues, economic issues and all kinds of issues. amazon, quote, restrictions are likely to have do unintended effect and offer any correspondent safety of u.s. technology evolves. i'm going to ask you to speak into the mic.

thank you. >> i will speak directly, and thank you. we believe that it's overprescriptive in the sense that it draws distinctions between within visual line of sight and beyond visual line of sights. both should be subjected to aerer -- based analysis. highly automated operations require higher performance than less automated operations. those are very clear. the massive analyzing, the different kinds of operation should be ie -- identical. mr. whittaker said the faa is going to get to them, we suggest that they get to them now

acknowledging that there are different risks involved and different performance requirement necessary to mitigate the risks. >> i understand that amazon offered to actually show on a pilot basis that some of the concerns being discussed in the rule making can be managed without overprescriptive regulation including multiple drone operation and other such issues. is that the case? >> yes, sir, in a variety of ways. we are working closely with nasa. you know, the project being taken, that's something that looks interesting to us. we will figure out -- >> have you made the proprose peal to mr. whittaker and colleagues, why don't you let us show you how it can be done

safely? >> the others to work on the rules. >> mr. whittaker are you and your agency open to that demonstration to evaluate the scope of what is doable and what is problem? >> so we essential are open to that. >> one final question. another provision you've expressed concerned about, amazon, that is to say, no more than one drone system at a time, why do you believe that's too restrictive? >> because the technology exists so that a single operator could allow -- could oversea the operation of multiple uav's, to restrict one drone to one operator is restrictive and

unnecessary. >> mr. whittaker that sounds reasonable. i look at faa controls, we don't say faa control, you follow one plan -- plane coming in and out. technology kind of does allow us to do more than one thing at a time. what's wrong with amazon's point of view on that? >> you have two pilots on each airplane. if it's a large aircraft, certainly there would be one per aircraft. if there's quite small, there could be scenarios where it's multiple units. the technology has to be proven and standards. >> thank you so much for having this hearing. i hope we have more of them, frankly, we just gun to look -- begun to look at new territory. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

in 2001 when under embassador and prosecuting the war, kind of was the inovator in the use of drones and operations, we had air force, army ordinance. i never thought that i would be sitting here talking about uav or having fine chocolate delivered to the neighbor. we have the greatest entrepreneurs in the world. my question is to mr. wynne, in

the development of this technology, is the u.s. leading on this, do we have other competitors, are there other countries that are beating us? >> well, it's a great question, sir, and thank you for your service. i would say simply that this is a global phone -- phenomenon. they are taken around the world and we want global harmonizain. we have the potential to continue to lead in aviation, innovation in this country. i think we are in the right path to getting back to that. i think there has been a little bit of a culture clash from the technology world into the aviation world. i'm an aviator myself as some of the other panelists, and we

appreciate the fact that this is a different -- a different type of approach to aviation, but there's a lot of sky up there that can be used efficiently for an awful lot of things and a lot of lives that can be saved that don't need to be done by humans. we call that enhancing human potential. >> all right. so my next question is to mr. misener, when i came from texas, i forgot my running shoes, the idea of possibly having those delivered by amazon, uav, you know, within a couple of hours is pretty interesting. you've heard a lot of these privacy concerns that we talked about here and they are valid, you know, this is continued to be an issue. how are y'all -- one of the things that are leading in this area. how are you planning to gain the

trust of the american people? >> thank you, it's a core question about the service for anyone who is responsibly pursuing a commercial activity here. we have to engender trust and the trust on privacy matters is because cost r -- it's been a result of consumer privacy. we strongly support the process and participating in that and hopefully developing practices for an entire industry. >> i appreciate that and mr. caf -- cavolowsky, what are kind of the main challenges y'all have left to the deployment of the

system? >> so many of the same concerns that brought up the panelists are things that we need to address in a technological fashion, being able to verify and validate that they are providing separation is a critical challenge. ensuring safe operations for all uav's but aviation aircraft in that aerospace. and another key element brought up by the panel is the challenge of first and last 50 feet of flight, in particular the last 50 feet, if you will, with the interaction or potential interaction property in people. the elements of the control, of the management safely in an

environment that can be unpredictable is a major element that we are trying to develop, you know, technology solutions. >> thank you. >> thank you, and thank you for being patiently. i want to recognize a lady from new mexico, thank you for your patience. you're recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to thank you for the hearing, and i agree that we ought to have potentially more of the hearings, because there's a broad base set of issues that do need to be addressed and there needs to be a regulatory environment to do that. i certainly agree that we want to deal with public issues and privacy issues, but there's a real important to enhance the economic benefits and making sure that that's addressed in a meaningful and balanced way. i represent a state that's been very slow to recover from the

2008 recession, we've got a company that's just gotten faa approval, our office worked with you all to do that to do the kind of mapping and kind of work that wear -- we are hearing in today's hearing. not only are they talking about the vast economic opportunity in our state, and whenever i have an opportunity to talk about jobs, that's the number one priority, that they talk about nationally, that the billions of dollars that could be generated, so i appreciate having google the table by these investments. there's also a public safety factor that i don't want to ignore, not just in regulatory environment, that we do need to proceed with for our man --

unmanned aircraft. we are using them to inspect power lines, we are creating a public safety benefit by not having to use workers to do that work directly and physically which is high risk and problematic and i think about liabilities for companies and local government and utility companies, it's significant. i'm seeing great opportunity. with that, there is risk. i have two questions. you been working to address that you recognize that there's got to be a thoughtful but balanced approach, and as a former long-time, i would like to think effective bureaucrat for 17 years, bureaucracy find themselves in the most flexible environment. the problem here is that this technology is changing every minute. probably every second as all technology does in the

thoughtful process that you will have to address privacy and public safety and managing the aerospace and companies to come forward and give you ideas so that we are not throwing economic values and investments. by the time you give those rules, what is your process for thinking about making sure that this is a forward-ongoing environment without mitigating our responsibility to manage productive real risks associated with any aircraft. mr. whittaker, maybe that's something for you. >> several times this morning it's been mentioned that we need a risk-based regulate other --

regulatory system. when we get a rule, it will provide program -- parameters. as we continue to accept range of operations, that same principle will apply. >> what can congress do that's more productive in this environment that provides both productive resources and investments and just exactly sort of risk assessment and performance model, what is congress' role and what can we do to enhance the efforts? >> i appreciate the question. i think the point that i've been -- i've been articulating here is it does not need to be immediate busies takennable. all of the questions that we are

discussing, really cool technology can do a lot of good stuff but we have safety, privacy questions. we go through this with every technology, pretty much. the same kinds of questions mr. geiger is bringing up, can also be applied on a technology-specific base, body cameras, a whole bunch of different technology context. the industry needs to do it in a way that's sustainable, otherwise it won't work. it's in our interest to make sure that our customer's privacy is protected and make certain that we can do this on a sustain basis, incidents, mishaps, et cetera, we don't want them. we are doing our best to make certain that we maintain the extremely high level of safety going forward.

to your question, ma'am, i think that all of this comes back to faa reauthorization, an extremely before matter before congress immediately, and we have submitted for the record of the transportation committee, what we think is important in that regard. i think it's also really important for the safety of the entire system that we do that on time. >> fair enough, thank you very much. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you for the panel. >> i've got a couple of quick points. one -- okay, mr. whittaker. you testified that in one year you would have the rule, is that going to be september 30th of 2016 or is that going to be june 17th of 2016? >> hopefully before june 17th. >> that's one year from today. we note that in the record, and

i'll let the staff schedule a hearing in june of next year and we will see how we are going there. i think you have to have milestones to get things done. i brought a milestone in the bill in september of this year, it's not going to be met. we are operating on a basis with these waivers and exemptions. you've been doing about 50 a week, is it? >> that's correct. >> 50 a week. we've gotten -- got 10 weeks. 500, by the time of next year, we should be doing, how many? several thousand at that rate. so we'll have a patch work of exemptions and waivers until we get to the final rule. if you keep it up at that rate, it's just an assumption.

that's not totally acceptable. i know you have to have something in the interim. office of inspector published this report june 2014, list of recommendations, i've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 recommendations, all of these are unmet. all of these unmet. some were supposed to be achieved and accomplished by -- here is one october 30th, 2014. within the time or keeping record of it for ten days, i want a response that would be in the record of make certain that this is your response to oig, but i want to make certain that that is in the record and confirm when you will achieve

the recommendations that oig put in their audit from 2014 that are giving these are report, do you see what i want? any questions? >> no. >> in the record. again, we are going to do another hearing the year out. you said you are going to do that. these are the milestones that allowed you to identify a year ago to be completed. i want that report in the record so that we -- we have these milestones met. all right. so let -- final thing. you talked about, mr. misener, that since in avoidance technologies, now they're important because you can put these things up, you testified, and you have technology either being developed on the shelf that can avoid collisions; is

that correct? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> now, those systems have to be approved by faa for use, mr. whittaker? >> yes, we will have to verify. >> this goes back to my point at the beginning. i think the last member too raised that technology is changing dramatically. we have law to keep up with rules and regulations to keep up. we are going to have to have mechanism to avoid risk, avoid disaster, avoid collision is certified. do you have a separate office by this type of equipment?

>> we certify aircrafts. >> i heard complaints how long it takes. we are doing faa, appropriation. we need to make certain that you have the resources that you set in place a mechanism to quickly certify technologies in some reasonable fashion. the problem you've got now, by the time they get the technology done and you get it approved, there will be another technology right behind it that's even faster. so we're falling behind in our certification of equipment, that will avoid disaster. you see what i'm saying? faa doesn't look very perspectively or how they are going to sometimes -- if this is all just boiled into faa normal certification, i don't think it's going -- it's going to succeed. so if you have recommendation or something you want to come back,

if you need to separate that, we need in someone in faa focused on this for the future. safety and entering of commercial age, which is this is all about. but, you can't do that unless you have the rules and certification. they'll find a way. i thought you said -- chopped liver, fine chocolates. fun with that. in any event, whatever we are delivering, it's a special opportunity and a great economic boost. okay, so those are my quick questions. and it's amazing what we've done. we've already flown unmanned

vehicle -- unmanned vehicle without a pilot. another thing too is certifying the pilots because the different categories of what's going up there. different categories should be qualified if they are not in the drone or piloting the drone, we have to make certain we have the rules in place so those people have the qualifications. i'm afraid that we are not keeping up with them and we have to be able to set and law and faa reauthorization or -- we haven't even talked about the privacy issue here. again, i go back to the problem we had when we developed this, we were told no to privacy, it was a different domain and jurisdiction, but that's very important and i'll look at the

posed legislation and the other things you mentioned that, again, the transportation committee was not allowed to go down that path, but it's a -- one we need to address. we look forward to your response. we make sure the staff is issued the list and want in the record. we thank you for participating, our members and hopefully move all further together. there being no further business of government reformment, the hearing the adjourn. >> and in a related story in today's hill newspapers senator is move to go require drone

manufacturers to include gio fencing. he's plan to go introduce an amendment to a must-pass spending bill to mandate technology that would shut off drones if they fly near commercial spaces. he said that the technology takes the human error which the faa is in the process of developing regulations. read the entire article at hills.com today. coming up live here on c-span2, we'll bring you discussion on the ongoing conflict within the workers party, turkish, they are pairing for elections on november 1st, that conflict could have effect on outcome. that's live at about 20 minutes from now. 3:00 p.m. eastern, you're on c-span2. to get up there, look at military buildup taking place in

russia from today's washington journal. >> matthew rojansky, director at the wilson center here to talk about syria and russia. good morning. >> goodtu morning. >> lets start with the headline in washington times. the story that the russian forces are working. this is a major airport in syria the support comes and concern among u.s. officials about increased activity in syria. >> guest: the conflict now for years, the russians have been serving contracts that were signed many years ago and, therefore, not a violation of embargoes today. they are continuing to supply

weapons. the broader picture, though, is obviously disturbing, they are escalating, the more weapons you have on the more sides the more complicated it gets. >> host: what's that dialogue beenou like? >> guest: in terms of the russian, sorry to have to say, there's not a lot of dialogue. kerry talks to russian counterpart. my understanding that that conversation to the high-political level, big picture strategic level. on the one hand the united states and russia are on the same side on the fight of isis, on the other hand, regime. youhe can't solve the problem without making assad part of the

solution. if you don't have some kind of security, you are going to get result in iraq, unleash a whole new wave. it's time to move past. in terms of that strategic political-level conversation, of daylightt between russia and the states that as well as as the ukraine crisis is the reason that russia and united states are not talking to each other as far as tactical level. that's a big problem. if you have russian military forces and u.s. military forces, and they're not communicating, you can see why -- >> host: we invite questions and comments. matthew rojansky talking about the situation in syria and we welcome your tweets this

morning. c-span wj. this is a new york times head line from just recently. the president on friday was asked about this at a town hall meeting. here is what he had to say. >> russia has for many years provided financial support, sold arms to assad. i remember a conversation i had with mr. putin four or five years ago when i told him that was a mistake as long as he continue today support assad. he did not take my warnings and as a consequence it has gotten worst. it appears now that assad is worried enough that he's inviting russian advisers in and russian equipment in. and that won't change our course

strategy, which is to continue to put pressure on isil in iraq and syria. we are going to be engaging russia to let them know that you couldn't continue to double ban on a strategy that's about to fail. there's the possibility a political settlement in which assadit and a new coalition of moderate inclusive forces could come together to restore order in the country. that's our goal. we'll -- you know, this is going to be a long discussion we will be having with the russians, but it's not going to prevent us from t continuing to go after il very hard. it could prevent us from

allowing political settlement to bring peace back to syria. and, you know, this is where our military efforts have been combined where effective diplomatic efforts. >> host: reaction. >> guest: this is the position you been having along. it's a syrian civil war is what the russians say. it'snt a complete mess. people are dieing in huge numbers. the united states position is that weop can extract from this, the president said perfect democratic revolution, which resulted in moderate syrian rebels coming to power instead of either of the two alternatives which is the assad regime, or isis.

let us up but the united states isn't going to accept that position, that's where you know, as i see it, it was one thing when the russians were staying out of the conflict, the more we have a three-sided conflict in which two of the sides are fighting the same enemy are not talking to each other. >> host: good morning, sir. >> caller: good morning, thank you forno taking my call h. >> host: you're welcome. >> caller: the united states continues to move the same in foreign policy over again. bush went to war in iraq to get rid of sadan. look at libya now.

the president has been saying that assad has to go because it's a mistake, we can't negotiate with them after saying and the modern rebels don't seem to be strong alternative to isis. the russians somebody actually helping us against isis by supporting assad. our efforts have not been successful. i just want to hear your opinion on that. >> guest: thank you. thanks, you know, i think -- first of all, when the russians think about both examples that you gave, iraq, libya, they would tend to agree with what you say but take even a stronger position, which is that this is the united states not only being confident, but perhaps intentionally bringing down

regimes that we don't like and being incompetent in trying to replace b those regimes. i b think there's one experience that's probably more overwhelming significantly to the russians and many in the registration and that's afghanistan. that's a place where we in the united states, a decade long commitment, from the russian perspective that's been multidecades long that hasn't been resolved and has had to the with radical islam throughout the region and caos. that is the concern that when you think about syria. they saw go gadhafi in libya go. >> caller: hi, good morning, gentlemen.

i was wondering about what i look at the 500-pound gor -- gorilla in the room. where is turkey right now? the syrians want to get rid be it hezbollah, couldn't we let the turkies go and overthrow assad and then turn on isis later? is turkey okay with that? would they be willing to participate? what do you think on that? >> guest: turkey is extremely complex and basically impossible role in this equation, relative to i ts neighbor, it's a military superpower, a member of nato, russian transit, lets not forget the russian ships that we have

been observing over the last several weeks have been passed controlled by turkey, it's still basically turkish waters and flight goes over turkish air space. it's been talked about even as a crisis for the european union. turkey was an inspiring member and now the superhighway by which hundreds of thousands refugees from the conflict to europe. tickery -- turkey has a mix role in this. the last thing they want to do is get involved in fighting the conflict, they're either going to have haven't enemy on their doorstep in the form of assad regime or a neighboring dictatorship.

manage the refugee crisis, keep the border in control. >> host: susan is our next call from massachusetts, democrat. good morning to you, susan. >> caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. generally there was a consensus that the assad regime had to be dealt with or part of the solution of the problem, has that assumption changed in the past f iew months or is that stl an assumption and number two, is there anyone, you know, in his regime, moderate, in the country that stillmb works for the government that perhaps be the light upon to get him to come and become a more reasonable playoff -- player in the field?

>> host: thank you, susan. >> guest: the answer i think was sort of taken out of the hands ofed those in the discussion because the white house made it very clear that the official position of the united states is that we see a future for syria without assad. that became clear, of course, the united states was backing one of the rebel groups, immediately not the radicals that are presenting the problem today but the mission to bring down the assad regime. you maybe right, there maybe some people in the assad system, perhaps in syrian military whom we talk to or should be talking about. think about iraq f you get rid of the entire army, you sort of have no one left to give orders and control weapons. probably there are such folks. as long as the folks say that they are backing say their purpose is to bring down assad,

that screams gadhafi scenario. it's just not acceptable. >> host: didn't this iran deal guaranty that assad will never be depotsed in -- diposed in syria? >> guest: , yeah, the answer is it depends on how much the russians are going to es -- escalate. syria is one of the clients for russia. assad has not been able to prevail on its own. now that assad has been killing too many people, so bloody, he's so bad, he's just not very good

at being a bloody dictator, he's not effective at ending the conflict, sendinger in a significant assistance, perhaps, their own fighters, it depends on where the conflict, that could turn to ties. it could provoke a huge outpouring support for the islamisthe rebels from the restf the middle east. it could be a double-edge sword. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. >> host: you bet. >> caller: this headline concerns over russia's military buildup in syria. i think it's false title for the segment. i'm certainly not concerned over russia's military buildup in syria. i don't really know who is beside someone saying that there

there's buildup. i kind of remember putin a little while ago diffusing the situation in syria when, quote unquote coalition, decided that they wanted to go into syria over this chemical weapon thing, which was probably cia work, but we -- we didn't go into syria. itci was really putin that had diplomacy. we try to paint russia as military buildup, seems a little false to me. >> guest: if he's clear that there's an up-tick in russia both air and sea shipments and include logistics equipment like, for example, tents where troops can be housed, it probably includes personnel the

russians, experts, weapon systems that they claim they are supplying under existent contract, to the point whether it's an echo here of strange dance, it happened over the qem -- w chemical weapons, we didn't have to go to war because we were able to get the chemical weapons out. my sense is that maybe a handful of possible outcomes that putin has in mind, he wants to depend the russian facility that is are there in particular the naval center. if it gets attacks it's isis, i think there's a purpose here, that's positioning for the international negotiation that will take place on the sidelines

of the un general assembly this meeting. theon stronger russia's hand the more cards on the ground, the more putin will get the kind of respect and instead of us being just the united states running the table, even against the the united states, maybe the other regional turns to russians, you see have forces, what can you do to help. that's exactly what they would like. >> host: talks about putin/syria play, helps russia over the years of policy, russia's intervention is strategic to buckle, that could avoided if washington could have intervened years ago and islamic state did not exist and had moderate allies in the country. they wouldn't now be fretting

about the syrian swamping europe. do you agree with us? >> guest: it's counterfactual. maybe we would have unleashed, you know, an earlier even dead herld way of isis from the heart of syria. who knows. it's pretty clear where we are right now is not where we want to be. we cocktail of political powers on thee ground and then local, assad regime its. it's really explosive. no one wanted to be here and here we are and everybody is digging in. >> host: don't trust putin on surria -- syria. the russian consider all options

on syria against the islamic state, but if that is the chosen course t west must doubt that mr. putin can be trusted. the intelligence shared by russia will be credible and can help negotiate, then the west and allies can support. we must not let putin dictate corporation. >> we'll leave this conversation at this point and go to washington for discussion on ongoing conflict within the workers party pkk and the turkic state, the upcoming elections in turkey. elections taking place on november 1st ..

was summoned to foreign

secretary's office and they were basically trying to inquire whether turkey was going to join the allied side or remain not attached, so practically he said that we have big instability in our east. we had this eastern problem and at the time they used kurdish problem or kurdish question. we are really worried that this eastern problem will destabilize us in case we enter into war on either side, so of course he said i have known about this eastern problem for a long while, so why can't turkey just resolve this issue like we resolve this question. why can't you resolve this by scottish way and he takes a good

path and he says-- well, sir-- kurds aren't scottish and while everyone is there the typical shaw said the curse-- kurds are not irish and as the point where everyone freezes. so, in any case i think turkeys kurdish policy zero overall turkeys approach towards the kurds is what bernard lewis told me is increasing the number of scottish kurds in decreasing the number of irish kurds, so practically has turkey been successful on success, that is quite up for grabs. basically what i will talk about is in my recently published book i basically spent a lot of time analyzing the 1990s, the

violence phase of the insured-- insurgency. i want to talk about how right now it compares to 1990 and more specifically with the difference between what he 15 and 1991, when this insurgency started, so a lot of analyses .2 the start of the gulf where in 1990 as a source of why it's assumed such a chaotic and violent characteristics in 1990. turkey opens up the airbase to western jets and saddam hussein decides to punish turkey and watch a chemical attack. he attacks the northern iraqi kurds, driving them to the turkish iraqi border as a result of which you have a large population shift together with a refugee crisis.

overall, it intensifies the security question. fifteen, we also have an extra territorial crisis, which is the syrian civil war as well as the emergence of crisis in syria, again a large population shift emerging from especially syria, into turkey. a new refugee crisis that is worsening the crisis conditions in turkey. as a result, we pretty much look like in terms of structural settings, 2015 and 1991, are quite alike. politics, what not politics? in the 1990s, basically 1991, there was a general election that's produced the coalition government first time after the long to read mac of single party group, motherland party rule.

2015, again an election on june 7 to which produces a coalition government after a long period a party rule. one exception in 1991 and 2015, for the first time ever the political party rooted in the kurdish politics places the 10% threshold, which is the people's democracy party. so, in a lot of ways 1991, and 2015, are quite alike as well in domestic political setting. what about the conflicts? in 1990s, the conflict was mostly about the role conflict, clashes around rugged terrain not in areas, outposts and mountain holes has substantial strategic influence. whereas, in 2015, this clash is

turning gradually more urban. you have different splinter organizations, armed groups that have popped up in urban areas. they had diverted this rural mountainous combat into the urban setting, which means that now, we have a setting in which there's more involvement and more potential civilian casualties as well. what about the pkk? in the 1990s the pkk was pretty much a monolithic top-down entity with compaq decision-making. in that sense turkey's argument and positions are at the 1990s , was very clear. get rid of pkk leadership and organization will collapse. in 2015, we have much different pkk, which has decided to engage in the splintering strategy, especially valid after the

arrests and capture of its founding leader. the 2015, pkk is much more different than the 1990s pkk in a sense that decision-making is more localized, clashes in command is often more localized even though sergio executive body is quite influential as well. main difference is the emergence of urbanized young cohorts of localized leadership. that's younger cohorts used to be kind of the bridge between the pkk and the local populace. but, that's local intermediary groups have also taken up arms and he came armed groups themselves. so come in 90s, through basically defeated pkk you get rid of the leadership. right now to settle best

security question and the chaotic situation you have to deal with that issue locally and on a case-by-case approach. what about the turkish military? turkish military used to have a de facto control of her politics and executive origins in the 1990s and it was the primary actor and primary decision-making-- maker on a very large component of policy options on the curtis question. in 2015, you don't have that kind of an intellectual military. it went through a difficult process of aggressive leadership , institutional mistrust persists along with mixed views on the political leadership to resolve the crisis. so, there is also not monolithic leadership in the military as well. what about social perception?

in the 1990s, took us society was fiercely nationalistic. near complete support for the military handling of the conflict and belief that only pull defeat of the pkk will resolve kurdish questions even though a lot of people had access to conventional media, what happens in predominately kurdish areas and operational areas would rarely be communicated through mainstream media and that's why you have imperfect information was going on there. in 2015, there's still a vague nationalistic society, but this doesn't translate into a near complete support for a military solution. part of this emerges from the fact that part of that nationalistic electric now thinks that the peace process, even though it was imperfect succeeded in creating an

extended period a cease-fire and relative stability. once people thought it had actually happened it divided social perception away from unilateral resolution of the question. to the contrary, public opinion is divided along partisan lines. on the one hand were people who are closer to the government argued that this new phase of clashes is 100% of the pkk in their decision to go to war with kurdish states whereas those who do not identify themselves with the government believe that this is a political kind of calculation, political measurements that are in place in a way that the state and

government have decided to going to war. that's partitioned chip defy tell society takes about the kurdish question as well. on the one hand, you have people that argue peace process was doomed from the beginning and peace process should be shelved completely and military only should be pursued. that the part of the society argues that the peace process, although, that it was imperfect was still going relatively well in the government is choosing to stay-- step away from a political solution. so, this is basically painting a picture on how 90-91 and 2015 are similar and also dissimilar. so, after painting this picture i'm going to give the floor to other speakers and complete this

in the q&a session carried thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, everyone and it's wonderful to be here today. happy rosh hashanah for those of you that are celebrating it. i want to start with 2012. i think it was a turning point in many respects when the kurds in northern syria, i'm talking about kurds who were very closely linked or support for the pkk took control over several areas along with the border and steadily and expanding their control ever since. and what the turkish response to that was because unless we understand that dynamic we cannot really properly assess what's happening today between turkey and the kurds. in my view, what happened then

was a great opportunity for turkey to advance the peace process. what turkey needed to do at that point, i think, was to extend a hand of help to these kurds to do what they finally did with the iraqi kurds, which is to develop economic and political relations with them, but instead of doing this with an opportunity turkey chose to be this as a threat and the reason is quite simple, as i said because the kurds in the area happen to be very closely affiliated with the pkk. they perceive this as a national security threat and decided that what they needed to do was to keep these kurds under check and this is what underpins turkeys kurdish opening back in 2012. , the political ambitions clearly were a part of that equation, but above and beyond all else, i think it was the

fact turkey received this is a huge national security threat and decided that what they needed to do was to co-opt and somehow get him to keep the kurds of syria under check and so that was what they were talking about. and as we saw subsequently, that somehow didn't pan out. he rather than being able to keep them under check, somehow encouraged them or at least that's what was conveyed and what we saw was a steady progression of the kurds in northern syria. so, when that plan failed, what he chose to do as then to get the support of other armed groups inside syria to fight the white pg and we first saw the

very clearly in the summer of 2013 when there was this data for the control of this area as the kurds called it and it was very obvious that certain factions of the free syrian army and others were being supported by turkey-- sorry. of course, we saw also that did not work out terribly well because the kurds ended up taking control of that town as well. so, that policy was obviously not working, but turkey persisted in it and we saw that most recently. that was another turning point in the very big shock for turkey when the americans air got weapons and other supplies to the ypg and that is what propelled turkey, in fact, to open that core door and, of course, with was digested.

they decided that what they needed to do then was to open because they needed to somehow get the americans on their site because they became very very nervous about this deepening cooperation between the united states and that ypg, so what we know how this this sort of understanding that the ypg won't go in to 12 lists and so to that except you could say that turkeys policy as a way of curbing kurdish expansion has been somewhat successful, but for how long. many kurds in turkey believe that part of the key pro- quell of two opening it was that turkey would get to attack its

own kurds, that is the pkk and so the idea that you can have good kurds and a bad kurds, which has always been the case, unfortunately. on the one hand the ypg are good kurds and pkk are bad kurds and the americans can maintain this fiction i think is very unrealistic. in fact, we all know the truth that however much pkk may be on the united states list of terror organizations and therefore the fiction has to be maintained, but in fact, the pkk and ypg are one in the same. this contradiction is going to catch up with this government sooner or later because while you call that ypg our allies and you continue to condemn the pkk and say that turkey is it justified in its actions against

the pkk. what you also have to realize is that there are many families inside syria, inside turkey who may have sons fighting both in the pkk and the ypg alike. when i was in northern syria and i went to the homes of people, ordinary people, what i saw on the laws were pictures of their children who had died fighting for the pkk, but also fighting for the ypg against isis. so, i think what we now have before us is another opportunity. the fact of american engagement with that ypg can be turned into an opportunity. the united states can use its leverage with the kurds now to somehow revived this peace process that is now completely shelved and it needs to get turkey and the kurds back to the negotiating table because unless it does so it's going to be very

destabilizing for turkey, obviously, but also for the region. you cannot have a situation where you have turkey fighting the kurds and not just the pkk. if you have been following what's happening inside turkey in places like-- it's not just the pkk or the youth wing that are described who are being targeted, but ordinary civilians as well and this will have repercussions. it is having repercussions among kurds across the region. so, what needs to be done is for somehow for the americans to use this leverage, as i said, to get both the sides back at the table because if you don't i think the cooperation, the alliance between the united states and the ypg will not be sustainable either. you cannot have a situation where the americans seem to be approving turkey's actions in

continuing this alliance because at the end of the day that pkk itself will start saying, okay, if you want to go and get any needle ypg support, well, they are going to say if you continue to-- [inaudible] >> so, i think there is a great opportunity here, and i said, for the united states and i think it has leverage over turkey also because turkey would not per instance have openly either that core door. of the course, we also have to presume reasonable-- reason will somehow prevail. that the heart assumption to make these days, unfortunately and what happens after the elections will be key. as to whether we will have elections at all, but if we do

have elections and if they are held free than the question becomes what kind of government will we haven't clearly a government between the ak and mhp will be very very unhelpful, so we will have to hope that first of all that we do have these elections, they will be fair and free, that the hdp will be able to participate, that people in the southeast will be able to go to the ballot box and what comes out of it will hopefully be a coalition. obviously, the ak continue to be that top party i'm assuming and it will somehow make a deal this time and either one will cut its losses and make a deal with the chp or maybe even with the hpp even though that's harder to imagine. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm actually going with 2015.

we saw 1991, 2012, and i will talk about the elections in the current crisis. it should build on what they both talked about. clearly things appear to be spinning out of control in turkey as we look at events in recent times. it's not just the violence that we have seen the pkk and the government. in fact, yet seemed quite significant pkk attacks that have cleared significant ties with these along the forces. but, it is also the fact that the government is not responding especially government that is technically election government, not necessarily a government that is a party governments. it is supposed to be somewhat independent and has members of the aged tp unit. this government is taking action we saw the stuff going on where

the whole town has been under curfew for eight days. they lifted the curfew and then reinstated it. today, that announcement that a great number of television stations that broadcast in kurdish, one of the great aspects of a form that was introduced after the piece was started and people could actually had television and radio stations and publish. broadcast in kurdish. those have been closed today by the order of the supreme broadcasting authority. you have newspapers that are being blocked from access. if kerry the newspaper's online because they have been blocked without any kind of order by a judge or by a court. so, you have essentially an escalating situation in turkey

that is becoming more and more between i went to say between turkish and kurds, although significantly it is, but between the government and president and significant segment of the population. that is what comes down to and i would say that it is essentially the failed election results of june 7. on june 7, the akp for the first time since 20-- 2002, lost its majority. one, it's because it was very clear that president erdogan wanted to respond to the turkish position. there was a great deal of resistance to that among people. not necessarily-- this was not a kurdish turkish issue, but it became a wave for people to

express was to make sure that the kurdish party would cross the 10% threshold. to things that we saw that happened in these elections. one, the significant number what people called white turks, liberal turks who wanted to essentially make sure that he does not his majority for the kurdish party. the other reason is the conservative kurds in turkey traditionally have always ordered for the akp, this time-- i think they seem to four good. when you look at the kurdish, they-- most of the kurds have always-- the declining percentage voted for a key p briquette akp predecessors. [inaudible]

>> so, that-- there was a break in this 2015 election, was a case where we saw the conservative kurds change sides and what's interesting is that these conservative kurds are also very close aligned in the k rg and despite the efforts to get the kurds to vote for president erdogan they did it and why would they and that is called bonnie. when the turkish government made it clear and especially at a bond made it clear that was a psychological break for between the kurds in turkey and president erdogan. in a way, i think that is the breaking points when it comes to kurds and president erdogan.

he has done more in terms of pushing the idea that turks and kurds can live in one country and pushing the idea there can be peace and he talked to the pkk even if he did not mean to. even if his heart was not in as we think is the case, the fact of the matter is the major threshold was cross. that threshold was talking to the pkk, talking to the enemy. that is a point you can't go back from. in that sense it's an important threshold. there was every reason why conservative kurds who don't necessarily like the pkk would have voted for mr. erdogan and his party. but that was a major psychological break because he came on television with great glee and made it clear he wanted him to fall. the fact that the united states shifted sides and decided to

help the syrian kurds also kind of gave the kurds a great deal of self-confidence, but once the election became obvious-- even though technically a constitutional president and he is not supposed to take part in elections he did. he basically ran roughshod over turkey and participated, which is all the more reason why this election result was devastating to him because despite his personal involvement he was campaigning for the akp and he still lost. this the fetus more his defeat in the akp because people can say the akp was overshadowed by him, so i must immediately after the elections hebe-- he started to essentially maneuver in such a way that there would be other elections:

a so you have a young dynamic very successful politician in

the personal steps. technically you think that any peace process is going to have real legs to do it needs to be handled through parliament, through democratic reelected numbers of parliament, so why start the violence? the only thing one can assume is there's a way in which mr. erdogan and the pkk have one target into my advance both essentially cannot, this is a hypothesis. i haven't asked the pkk leadership and called them up on the phone and say is that what you're trying to do? but the point i'm trying to make is given the logical situation in the way they are two culprits in terms of increase in violence. both erdogan and the pkk essentially benefit from this violence in the sense that if it undermines the htp.

the htp is between a rock and hard place as they say end states got into its room to maneuver has been severely diminished by events, that by the way doesn't necessarily mean that the htp has lost support. all polls indicate to the extent turkish polls are accurate and i think they are this time because the same polling organizations have predicted the previous election results essentially predicting the same results, not only marginal differences, changes in the election results. and, therefore, it's quite possible that come november 1, that the same result will emerge from the elections. that's what hypothesis. if the violence increases, if what we saw yesterday, if this

kind of violence is going for marshall law, curfews, essentially the breakdown of law and order in the southeast where the htp wins with overwhelming majority. the mayor was just removed by the minister of interior. she won her seat with 83% of the vote. so it's not, significant reservoir given the way the state has been behaving that the number of votes are going to increase. so the only way you can push a gdp under the 10% threshold is if you make voting impossible, in which case in the election becomes legitimate. from my perspective i think erdogan has taken enormous gamble for which he cannot win. if he loses in november, a cleaned up in the first election

it will be two major defeats for him more than his party. they can create a coalition and henri mentioned one possibility which would be probably the best way for him in terms of trying to making old control and go after the pkk. but if it goes, if hdp is kept below the 10% threshold because of any legitimate election and we have the argument that you in urban areas, organized but not centralized kurdish youth groups that are going to take matters on their own. and that is either very, very dangerous proposition or erdogan. and it gets all the seats he wants in parliament but turkey is going to be amazingly unstable with all the dire consequences we can think of for

turkish stability t, turkish economy, turkish investment, tourism, you name it. so that, in a way erdogan is a real gamble. for somebody who doesn't believe in gambling he is really taking a huge gamble. i don't really understand why. the other person, as i said the pkk is also the unknown and unclear actor here. this, of course, could not come at the worst time for the united states. clearly the pressure on the united states is increasing in terms from the turkish-cypriot this weekend there was a major nato conference in which the turkish chief of staff came out strongly and said we are fighting three terrorist organizations at the same time. isis, the pkk, and the white pg. the white pg is a synchronization that the united

states is giving arms to. we are white pg's air force and all the exam forces. we are working with the only good answer you with whom we can work to essentially push back, pushback isis. so this full plan henri also described is actually becoming more come is going to get more severe and create serious dilemmas for the united states. and let me stop here. >> great. thank you so much, henri. i'm going to open this up for questions briefly but first let me pose a question of my own. i'm going to start with henri, but if others want to weigh in that would be wonderful. so we are in washington, d.c. speaking to an american audience. and i went to ask you, the united states has dealt with less than democratic turkish governments before. it's that with a turkey eating

with the kurdish question. these are not new problems. why does it matter for u.s. interests to resolve this the people in turkey right now? >> -- is a people. >> you are right. the united states as a steadfast ally. we have never veered from calling the pkk a terrorist organization, always supported, always supported the turks in the fight against the pkk. what is different this time is essentially isis. you we have different perceptions of places if you want. for the united states isis is the most important, more important than aside as we know. it is more important than anything else. isis have to be pushed back, defeated, eliminating. and for that, that's number one priority. for the turkish government the priorities are much different effect isis i would argue is

priority number three. party number one are the kurds and assad. i'm not sure which one comes first. one can make arguments for which one is more important i suspect that the kurds are far more important. the turks did not receive a series kurds emboldened. it's interesting. i mean, there's another aspect which we haven't talked about yet and that's the relationship between united states, turkey and kurdish readers government in iraq. you find turkey and that krg are much more in line with each other. the turks support that krg against baghdad in terms of all exports, even despite america's displeasure, but that krg is also important to the united states. so the destabilization of the region is not good for the united states. moreover, fighting isis requires this year in kurds and the pkk

to the extent the syrian kurds are part of the pkk complete attention to complete focus. this is undermining that. >> interesting. amberin, akin, do you want to weigh in? >> okay, the pkk is labeled a terrorist organization but that doesn't alter the fact that it is probably the most influential kurdish movement globally. and so you have to deal with that. not only as an influential in turkey. they are influential in iran. they are influential obviously in syria, and they do have some influence in iraqi kurdistan which he is acutely aware. and for him, too, it's a very difficult balancing act. on the one hand, to making the strategic relationship with turkey which is key to his agenda which is independence, and which is underpinned

obviously by being able to sell his oil. and you can do that without turkey's help. but on the other hand, the fact that ordinary kurds feeling very angry about what turkey is doing to the pkk, to the kurds on the one hand and the isis is doing on the other. and the fact that the pkk seems to be the most effective fighting force against isis. so bearing all of that in mind i think it's time to deal with the pkk. i think, as i said in my little talk, that this is a great opportunity and i think the fact that the pkk now having this experience of running an area inside syria is having a profound effect on them. its civilian icing them come if you will. they are having to actually run towns and deal with the issues of ordinary people. you might argue that the only have that experience in turkey where the hdp is running units

but that's a different sight of people who are doing it. it's the pkk itself directly who is. so this is an opportunity this would provide incentives for them to move away from violent politics. but for that to happen you need to have some kind of accommodation between them and turkey. editing this could be a win-win because you could also factor in the iraqi kurds because after all they need to also find a way of cohabiting with them as well and that seems to be getting rather difficult. this is where the americans who now have this leverage because they are the primary protectors of the kurdish people at this point to be able to somehow bring all these sites together. i know it's a lot to ask for at least one should try. >> i have more international political realistic perspective on that question, why united states should intervene in

resolving the kurdish question. when we think russian geopolitical ambitions, we generally look at the eastern europe. basically that's me to, cold war, iron curtain dividing eastern europe, whether it's expanding, whether it's retracting into the russian site. for all of ukraine or like air defense radars in poland. we think in terms of that. but take a geographic consciousness and move it slightly south and you have another russian geopolitical hinterland in the middle east which it sees as kind of its underbelly in terms of the western expansionism. so essentially russian perception of its defense of its own territory also has a middle eastern dimension. best exemplified by its naval base in syria. the access to the base is national security issue for russia. in that context russia's iran

and turkey policies are quite similar to each other russia wants iran and turkey not chaotic in the sense that they're falling apart but also not strong that they can to become impediments to russia's reassertion of its own strategic hinterland. solyndra case russia and a certain extent iran have usually supported little bit controllable amounts of instability in turkey's eastern region. and when you, for example, interview retired of course now, not active because they want not active because they want to become a retired turkish military people, senior people, especially those who were in the field in the 1990s, they would complain a lot about iran and have a kind of interacted with the pkk through the 1990s. the same is true for russia. so in that case the pkk and the

kurdish question, if it's unresolved it destabilizes turkey. and a destabilized turkey is not really good as a u.s. ally in terms of what the united states is trying to do. so it's i think rather than resolving the kurdish question or not, i think it's about rivalry for turkey's stability versus instability. so that's why the united states has an interest in stabilizing turkey in that regard. >> great, they do so much. i'm going to open this up to questions. i would ask that you identify yourself and any organization you are affiliated with. and i will insist that our questions involved, please no speeches. yes, sir. >> i have a question for amberin. can you explain why some of the basis of the --

[inaudible] have disappeared from turkey, and all of them have been like, you know, taken away in favor of the democrats? thank you. >> i'm not sure i completely agree with your premise that they have somehow been removed. i mean, is recently she came out and said she was willing to go on a hunger strike if need be for this violence to end. i'm not sure i completely understand your question, but clearly he is the younger generation. a very talented politician but anyone who's familiar with the workings of the kurdish political movement that is affiliated broadly speaking with abdullah erdogan in fact matters that individuals don't matter so much indian and this is a

collective movement and on the one hand you have the people, the hdp, the people in europe who are also incredibly important in terms of raising money, et cetera, organizing and public relations. and then, of course, you have abdullah erdogan. i think the most interesting question today is why he has been silenced. >> washington correspondent. i have two questions for amberin and henri. either of you can enter. twofold question. the first one and as you all know about the turkish and western experts before the elections, they expect and encourage people to vote for hdp believing that will produce a more democratic turkey. i want to know what went wrong and why did we see more democratic turkey?

turkey, -- more instability. my second question is in the positive snap elections, why am i wrong to believe that the turks, the turkish voters have only two bad choices? either vote for erdogan, making them an absolute leader, or vote the same way they did and produce the outcome we have? make you. >> well come in response to your first question comes wide web is unstable situation, it's very clear. i think that june 7 was a wonderful day for all of us in turkey. it was great that for the first time we had this kurdish political party overcoming this terribly undemocratic am terribly unfair to threshold making it into the part of the. yes, principally with the votes

of kurds but also with the votes of people like my mom who is a hard-core a secularist lady who voted for the hdp i. expected to say because i hate erdogan so much can we must do everything possible to make sure he doesn't get his majority. but no, this lady whose name i won't reveal, she'll be upset, was saying no, we can't keep the kurds out, we can't keep the kurds out of parliament. this is bad for our country. because people understood after two years of no conflict, that peace is a great thing. and so mothers were not having to find people in the army to make sure that their sons would not be assigned to some place in the southeast or they might die. people for the first time were tasting the fruits of peace there and they wanted that to move forward. it was a great opportunity. and if this government was sincere about solving the kurdish problem, they would embrace this. they would embrace this because

the public consensus for moving forward. this was an endorsement of the peace process. but no, mr. erdogan and his friend openly said the fact of democracy working was a bad thing for democracy. now, i would, i'm not sure i really understand that beyond what we have all come to realize that mr. erdogan wants absolute power and he was denied it. perhaps you want to answer the second question, henri. >> let me, i would pick up on where henri left off. first of all, people did not encourage -- outsourced to that encourage people to vote hdp. outsiders had very little influence in turkey. look, it was a very interesting election campaign. it was probably one of the more interesting election campaign

i've seen in turkey, even though the majority of the press was quite hostile to hdp, because erdogan now controls a significant amount of the press in turkey. but the answer is i think, what henri said. look, erdogan cares more about him becoming president with all the requisite powers of a presidential system, and everything else comes second. look, i don't want -- almost in a cocoon now where i'm not sure to look him he's a great politician. you never underestimate him. however, i'm not sure people are capable of telling him what's going on in the country anymore come in the sense i think he only wants to listen to people who agree with him. you almost see it by the ways actually maneuvered again, who

he is selected for the ruling council of the hdp. it must be his choice. there are people related to them, people who are loyal to him, people will essential to extract what he wants them to do. you have essentially a system which is being created around him that essentially is a vacuum chamber. he only hears his own voice. in terms of the choices, look, as i said this is a gamble that's actually quite problematic. innocents either you're going to get the same results or you will get -- [inaudible] i'm sorry, you're going to get, either you're going to get the same result which may lead to chaos or you will get erdogan, both of which are bad for turkey, but who decides whether turkey goes through elections? it's not outsiders to get the turkish government and the turkish president.

>> budget need not be chaos. you have a coalition government, as in many democratic countries spent i agree. the question is speeded mr. erdogan's perception that it is chaos. >> right. bubble, chp, clearly erdogan does not want to see a chp, -- is afraid all the corruption charges are going to come out and be investigated, that's not good for him or his family. >> in the back. >> i'm wondering why erdogan is so silent, given the fact that next week it is -- son that he will allow access for his family with it. do you expect erdogan to speak,

and if so, what would you say? thank you. >> akin, any thoughts of? >> well, there are specific, like erdogan specialist who are kind of -- [laughter] -- who can decipher what he wants to say by reading between the lines instead of reading the actual text. i'm not one of them. so take what i'm saying with a pinch of salt. basically in all conflict resolution processes, there's always this tennis match between agency and structure. basically influenced by the individuals versus influence of the processes that are already ongoing. when peace process goes well, it tends to strengthen the agency.

you know, people get more influence as things go good. but when things go more conflictual, it assumes a life on his own answers to get separated and individuals that are running the conflict because complex high-definition are very unpredictable. when you start a war, he think that it's going to end whenever you want but it never ends whenever those people who start the war want it to end. so in that sense, erdogan i think is hibernating because he is walking on a tightrope between one pkk leadership that increasingly seeing him yes robin, yes important, yes influential, but nonetheless been in captivity. so what he is seeing our things

that are set in captivity. so they are actually taking all of these with a pinch of salt. erdogan knows this. so i think he is keeping silence because he knows that if he asks pkk to drop arms, pkk probably will not do it. if he tells pkk to take up arms and fight, if he's going to lose the connection with the government and the turkish state and all the favors that come with it. so essentially it's one of those periods where erdogan is withdrawing himself from the game and waiting for the structure, the process to complete itself, to reassert at a later time. >> let me add one thing. he may be silent because the government will not let him talk. i mean, that to me, first of all, none of the hdp number so you to go and visit him have been able to visit the really

people he talks to our people from the security establishment. so it's not as a people from the security establishment are going to come out and say this is what mr. erdogan is saying. clearly that's not going to much credibility. so i think it's a government policy to keep them quiet. maybe he wants to be quiet. it's possible, but we don't know if it's in the thick of it is keeping him quiet. so from that perspective, you know, -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. in the next week the family members are going to be able to visit and talk with them. what do you expect him to say? >> are you sure they are going to go for short? >> i think i'm in turkish practice, if it is completely is not allowed to access his family member that means a bigger crisis because it has to become all citizens to all imprisoned

people have access to the family members of those special days. that's what i'm assuming if it is state allows family members to talk with them, then it needs certainly different dynamics going on. >> you raise a good point. i'm not -- i don't know if the family members are necessary the right's media and if you want for him to talk through. this is not the hdp who are much more seasoned politicians, so you may not hear anything from you because that's not who should be carrying the message. look, i'm speculating. i don't know. >> yes, sir, in the back. >> i had a quick question on pkk's objective action. can you please elaborate on more on pkk? for example, how many -- [inaudible] what they are trying to do.

just the tip of targeting -- [inaudible] so what is trying to do what's pkk, what they are trying to do? and also is there any tactical changes in the attacks of the kk? for example, they are targeting more the police officers. this is my observation to i'm not an expert on pkk but is there a tactical change or is there a structural change because of the youth mentioned -- youth movement? so the objective of pkk and the tactics of pkk. >> question is addressed to me. okay. well, obviously i'm not a pkk spokesman. i can only speculate, but from what i observed i think one needs to realize that it's very close, closer link to what's

happening inside syria. and let's not forget that this escalation happened after the attack. and however much i agree that it's impossible to prove that the government was somehow involved, and i would beg whoever makes that claim to provide evidence. in the minds of many kurds, including the pkk leadership as well, this was somehow connected to the state and he was witnessing a very strong message about what was happening inside syria and that it was, in fact, targeting what the pkk is achieving in syria or its allies with the united states and the fact of turkey opening -- thereafter, probably persuaded them that that indeed was what this was all about. and i think the pkk is on the one hand saying to the turkish government, if you continue to try and undermine us, well,

we're going, this is what we will do. this is what we will do. and on the other hand, it's also saying that if you continue to undermine the kurdish movement inside turkey, if you continue to try and marginalize the hdp, so that's sort of what we disagree, i'm going to make turkey ungovernable for you. this is, you know, a way of saying if you're going to play hardball with me, well, i'm going to play hardball with you. and very few of us actually predicted this because we all seemed to believe that when the pkk was bogged down in the fight against the islamic state it could hardly afford to open up a second front against turkey, but in a very ironic twist in a certain sense it's america that enabled it to do so because america wrote to the rescue with its air support which, of course, took a lot of pressure off the pkk on the ground, making it easier for them perhaps to do wh t