fayeq wahedi, director of press and public affairs at the afghan embassy here in washington, and ralph e. winnie, jr., director of the china program at the eurasia center and vice president of the eurasian business coalition. thank you all. [applause] just last week, the world trade organization announced the global trade for the year would be significantly lower than predicted, cutting its forecast to 1.7%, down from 2.8% estimated last april. typically, trade grows 1.5 times faster than the gdp. wto director general roberto azevêdo said the slowdown should serve as a wakeup call, particularly because of the growing anti-globalization sentiment. he said, we need to make sure that this does not translate into misguided policies that can make the situation much worse. at the wto public forum last week, azevêdo made his case for the importance of global trade, but noted that the benefits don't reach as many people as

they should. he said, the proper response to that is to make international trade work better, not to tear up bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. both presidential candidates here in the united states have been critical of some trade deals, with hillary clinton saying her views have shifted on the trans-pacific partnership, for instance, when the final document didn't meet her expectations. donald trump has gone further, saying, these trade deals are a disaster. you know, the world trade organization is a disaster. trump said that if he is elected, he will pull the united states out of the wto. azevêdo will talk today about the importance of trade for america and the world. roberto azevêdo became the sixth director-general of the world trade organization in september 2013 for a four-year term. as an ambassador for the brazilian government, his first posting was to washington in 1988. he holds a degree in electrical engineering from the university of brasilia. please join me in welcoming world trade organization's director-general roberto azevêdo

to the national press club. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. i am truly delighted to be with you here today. very happy that we started this gathering with a delicious feijoada, which is the typical brazilian dish. so very thoughtful of you, thank you very much. it is an honor to add my name to the impressive list of speakers who have addressed the national press club over the years. the list includes monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, but also campaigners, thinkers,

celebrities, and radicals. and the argument i'm going to make today has been made by many presidents and prime ministers over the years, but in the current climate, it is actually beginning to seem radical. i'm here to make the case for trade. and in doing so, i must say that i feel much better today than i did just about a year ago. back then, it felt pretty lonely to talk about trade and the benefits of it. but now, i think the catchy and often ill-informed anti-trade arguments that we are hearing have encouraged others to speak up. but let me say one thing up front. i also believe that trade is imperfect. despite the obvious overall gains, it can have negative effects in some parts of the economy, and those effects can have a big impact on some

people's lives. my argument today is that we must correct those shortcomings. we must work harder to spread the benefits of trade further and wider. and we must help those who have lost out or who have become marginalized. but we would be betraying those very same people, and many, many more, if we just turned against trade and allowed the negative arguments to go unanswered. and america will be vital here. it was american leadership that opened the global economy to trade after the second world war as a means of building a more peaceful and prosperous world, and it is american leadership that can move us forward now. the u.s. is, in large part, the author of the global trading system that we have today. and i believe that this should be a source of pride, because it has had a very positive impact globally.

so let's look at the case for trade. most economists accept that trade has proved to be one of the most powerful pro-growth and anti-poverty tools in history. in recent decades, it has helped to lift one billion people out of poverty in developing countries. and this is a historic achievement. and trade has improved people's lives and livelihoods in developed countries as well. besides, the world bank found that income grew more than three times faster in developing countries that lowered trade barriers than for those that did not. here in the u.s., estimates show that the gains from globalization have raised real household income by up to $10,000 annually. trade means more choice for consumers. it means lower prices. it means the dollar in your pocket goes further. companies that trade are more

competitive. export-led jobs pay more, between 13-18% more here in the u.s. but at the same time, talking about the benefits of trade is of little comfort to someone who has lost their job here in the u.s., for example. so it is important also to acknowledge that trade can cause dislocation and can create uncertainties in some sectors and communities. in addition, there is a perception that trade only serves big companies and that smaller companies, and those who can't compete, are simply left behind. while i would dispute much of this, it is certainly the case that the benefits of trade don't reach as many people as they could, or as they should. the overall benefits of trade mean little to someone who lives in a poor country and that lacks

the means to export. so perhaps, with today's disappointing global economic performance, we should not be surprised with the rise in anti-trade sentiment in many countries. here in the u.s., there has been a particularly strong reaction to initiatives like the tpp or ttip, or to issues like the current overcapacity in the steel sector. and i think that we do have to act to respond to people's concerns, and to the very real problems that they represent. but we should not do so by attacking trade or any other mythical scapegoat. this requires a much clearer view of the challenges before us. now, the charge often leveled against trade is that it sends jobs overseas, particularly in manufacturing. and as i have said, trade can cause this kind of displacement,

and we need to respond to it. but the effect of that should not be overstated. actually, trade is a relatively minor cause of job losses. the evidence shows that over 80% so, eight in ten of the job losses in advanced economies are not due to trade, but to increased productivity through technology and innovation. output in the u.s. manufacturing sector continues to rise to record levels. but technological advances have meant that fewer workers are needed to produce more goods. and where jobs are created, those jobs, those vacancies require a much more advanced set of labor skills. the reality is that jobs are at risk today due to technological advances that were thought nearly impossible just a few years ago. take trucking, for example. there are currently over 3.5

million truck drivers in the united states, and many more jobs supporting those drivers, providing coffee, food, motel rooms and so on. now, self-driving technology is set to transform that picture dramatically. companies are already looking to develop the selfdriving trucks. when that technology does come on-stream in a few years' time, how are we going to adapt? how are we going to respond to this? now, you can ask the same questions about many other lines of work. studies suggest that almost 50%, so half the u.s. jobs are at high risk of automation. and this is not just a rich-country problem. an ilo study on cambodia, indonesia, vietnam, the philippines, thailand found that

56% of jobs in those countries are at high risk of automation. and that's just on average. in some sectors, over 80% of jobs are at risk. in japan, there are 315 robots per 10,000 workers. in china that number is only 36, but it is rising fast. in the u.s., the number is 164, which is still relatively low. but it is set to go up. this is the real economic revolution that is happening today. many will find it unsettling. and that is completely understandable. but like trade, technological progress is indispensable for sustained growth and development. and the answer is not to reject these forces, it's quite the opposite, we must embrace these changes and learn to adapt. the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong medicine. and in this case, all too often it is suggested that the prescription is protectionism.

and this medicine will not help the patient, it will hurt the patient. protectionism will do nothing to address the real challenges that we face, and would cause many more problems besides. preventing imports would not prevent innovation. and even if it did, the net effect would be to slow economic growth even more. jobs would be lost throughout the economy, not created. in other regions, economies that embrace innovation will prosper and dominate the production of high-end goods and services. so let me outline just a few reasons why the protectionist approach is so flawed, first, protectionism hits the poorest the hardest. poorer consumers buy more imported goods. and they are more sensitive to changes in prices. a joint study by ucla and columbia found that people with high incomes could lose up to

28% of their purchasing power if the borders were closed to trade. 28% is already a lot. but the poorest consumers, they could lose up to 63% of their purchasing power. a whole range of consumer goods are vulnerable to this effect. for example, if your smartphone was made solely in the u.s., for example, the price would rise. the only question is by how much. some estimates are 10%, others 100%. so competing smartphones produced in other countries, that are produced in other countries, would dominate globally. second, protectionism is an ineffective and very expensive way of protecting jobs. in the latter part of the 20th century, the eu protected various industries including steel, agriculture, textiles. and the french economist patrick

messerlin analyzed this approach. he found that the average cost per job saved was several hundred thousand euros, per job or about ten times the corresponding wage in each of those industries. it was a similar story when the u.s. applied tariffs on chinese truck tires in 2009. around 1200 jobs were saved, but this came at a cost of $1.1 billion in higher prices for consumers. now, that works out as a cost of about $900,000 per job. the peterson institute estimates that these higher prices also resulted in around 2500 job losses in the tire retail sector due to the slumping sales. protectionism is a very blunt tool. if country a puts tariffs on

goods from country b, the jobs don't simply reappear in country a. they most likely wouldn't migrate to countries c or d. irionist solutions do not reflect the nature of the modern economy or the international nature of production. most goods aren't made in one country. most exports have components which have been imported. so by restricting imports, you can restrict your ability to export as well. finally, of course, protectionism is a two-way street. it leads to retaliation and the domino effect. and i understand that president of the united states, franklin delano roosevelt, was a good friend of the national press club. and when he picked up his membership here in 1933, shortly after his inauguration, retaliatory trade restrictions had just wiped out two-thirds of

world trade in the space of four years. for these reasons, and many more protectionism is just the wrong medicine. it wouldn't address the ailment that we're trying to cure. and in the current economic context, it would be particularly damaging. we are seeing a dramatic slowdown in trade growth. last week, as the president mentioned just now, the wto announced a revised trade forecast for the year. we now expect trade growth in 2016 to be just 1.7%. and this would be the lowest rate of expansion since the financial crisis. and it would mean that for the first time in 15 years, trade growth would be lower than gdp growth. there is a range of factors

behind this poor performance. sluggish economic growth is the primary cause. weak investment activity may also be an issue. protectionism is actually a relatively minor factor behind the weak trade expansion figures. but it unquestionably poses the biggest downside risks. so i think there are essentially three challenges before us. first, we need to ensure that the benefits of trade reach further and wider. in other words, we need a more inclusive trading system. second, we need to break out of the pattern of low trade growth. and third, we need to respond to the economic transformation created by technological innovation. we need policies which are designed to respond to these challenges. and i think there are two levels in which we can respond. first, at the level of domestic policy. and second, through systemic reforms. so let me say a word or two about each, starting with domestic policies. so while trade has fuelled

growth and development around the world, it is the task of domestic policy to ensure that countries are ready to compete and disseminate the benefits in an equitable way. and i think governments around the world are now recalibrating their approach. there is a common realization that more can be done, and that business as usual is not going to suffice in the years ahead. it is clear that there is no single recipe for all countries, so let's forget the one-size fits all approach. whatever the chosen recipe, we must understand that action is needed across governments. action cannot be limited to trade ministries only. given that unemployment is not strictly or even mainly a trade issue, trade measures will not address this disorder. more active and cross-cutting labor market policies will be essential. and they must touch on aspects of finance policy, education and skills, and improved adjustment support to the unemployed.

we should learn from where things have been done well. countries such as singapore, denmark, south korea, they have adopted adjustment programs with great success. we can learn from that. the oecd average for spending on active labor market policies is 0.6% of gdp. and some countries allocate much less than this, and some, considerably more. denmark spends 1.5% of gdp on labor market policies known as flexicurity. this combines greater labor market flexibility with enhanced unemployment insurance. it guarantees 90% of the previous wage when an employee is laid off. the regeneration of pittsburgh is another good example of an

active response to the challenges that we're discussing today. the city appeared to be in serious decline in the mid- 1980s, with a sharp drop in steelmaking jobs. but it has recovered to become a center of innovation. city and state officials, the private sector and local universities worked together and succeeded in helping to diversify the city's economy. they put a focus on high-growth sectors like robotics, medical technology, defense, and innovations like self-driving cars. and the result has been a renaissance for the city and the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs. so i think that a more active and creative approach at the domestic level can deliver a great deal. and this will require political leadership and commitment. and this must be joined by leadership and commitment at the global level as well. so let me now turn to the

global, systemic response that i think we should be working to develop. over seven decades, the world has built up a record of momentum towards open trade, with the u.s. as a leading advocate. but now that momentum has slowed, and it is affecting economic growth globally. we need to put renewed vigor into that effort if we are to respond to the challenges that i have outlined today. we have to act to kick-start trade growth, and ensure that the system is open and truly available for all. technology has already disrupted how we trade. e-commerce was worth around $22 trillion last year. the internet has the potential to bring millions of new entrants into the market. many entrepreneurs in the developing world have succeeded in selling their goods and services in foreign markets.

but still today, less than 50% of the world is online. how do we respond to that connectivity challenge? how do we help smell and medium enterprises to leverage technology so that this marketplace doesn't just become the preserve of the big players? how can the trading system adjust to the shift from a world of few, large, known exporters to a world in which exporters are many, they are small and they are unknown? how can we ensure that this transition works for consumers? furthermore, how do we ensure that trade can continue to promote growth and lift people out of poverty? initiatives to increase trading capacity in developing and least developed countries will remain vital. we must continue delivering new trade reforms through the wto, which help everyone to compete and benefit. the wto has been through a

period where delivering such reforms would have seemed impossible. for years, no agreements were struck. it seemed like all the action on trade was moving elsewhere. but at the end of 2013, we started to change all that. since then the wto has delivered a number of very significant deals, including, but not limited to the trade facilitation agreement to cut trade costs and red tape, which could boost the global exports by up to $1 trillion, per annum, the information technology agreement, which eliminates tariffs on a range of new-generation i.t. products, trade in which is worth about $1.3 trillion each year, and a deal to abolish export subsidies in agriculture.

and these are the biggest reforms in the global trading system for 20 years, the biggest since the wto was created. and all this has been delivered just since 2013. we've seen a huge boost in engagement in our work as a result, including from the private sector. there is a clear sense that the wto can do more, and a desire among members to keep delivering. as well as discussing longstanding issues, like agriculture, industrial goods, services. members are looking at a number of other issues. and so the discussion at the wto is connecting with the challenges that i have put on the table here today, specifically, how to open goods and services trade to new players in developing and developed countries, how to ensure support for small and medium enterprises, and how to harness the power of e-commerce to support inclusiveness. we are still at the early stages of these discussions, but

engagement is high and so is ambition. and whatever we do next, it will be just the first step. and there are other encouraging signs. a number of members are working to conclude the environmental goods agreement by the end of this year, where the u.s. is playing a very key leading role. this is a great initiative which highlights what trade can do for sustainability and for the environment. and in addition to that, many countries, including the u.s., are also interested in moving work forward in the wto on an agreement to limit harmful subsidies that lead to overfishing. it is worth noting that the recent run of wto deals reflect a variety of different types of agreements. and this is new. so we're from multilateral agreements. we're doing plurilateral agreements. we have agreements like the trade facilitation agreement, one, which allows a great deal

of flexibility for members on how they undertake commitments, and also provides implementation support, technical assistance, where it is needed. now, that kind of pragmatism will help us to keep delivering negotiated results that continue to foster development, inclusiveness and growth. so there is a lot to do. we need to be clear-eyed about the challenges in the economy and in the trading system if we are to design an appropriate response. but i think we have the tools to act. and i think that we have one critical challenge, which is that we have to work harder to make the credible, well-informed, and balanced argument for trade. my concern is not that anti-trade arguments are being made in public. my concern is the echo that they attract from the people.

that echo is loud. we cannot ignore them. we have to hear them, we have to respond to them. there is a responsibility on leaders, policymakers, academics, you the media, and international organizations to reflect on that, and to respond. we have to work harder to ensure that the benefits of trade are more widely shared. we have to work harder to explain why it matters, and to do so in clearer terms, recognizing that there are both benefits and challenges. we are going to be doing this more and more over the coming months. the wto is joining forces with the imf, the world bank, unctad, the oecd and others to produce new research to help make the case. to paraphrase winston churchill's comment on democracy

and i am really paraphrasing, open and rules-based global trade may be the worst form of economic relations, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. so trade may not be perfect, but it is essential. it is up to all of us to make it work better. and in this effort, i am absolutely convinced that american leadership will be more important than ever. thank you all. [applause] >> and the podium magically disappears. >> i was wondering. >> thank you very much for being

here. i appreciate your speech. are actually answered a lot of the questions are going to talk about, i think will get more in depth with some of the points you made in your speech. given that tomorrow is four weeks away from the presidential election here in the united states, you going to start with a few political questions. as you mentioned, the anti-trade sentiment in the united states has made international trade a significant subject of this campaign. donald trump appears to oppose all trade agreements. hillary clinton struggling to reconcile her instincts to support free trade with the political reality. have you thought about the potential impact on the wto if there were to be a president trump or a president clinton? >> in the wto, political leadership is also very important. at the end of the day it is an intergovernmental organization, so it's governments that are driving the agenda in one way or another. so the engagement and the leadership of countries like the

u.s., the u.s. is a major player in the wto, is fundamental. i think that this discussion just needs to be clarified. when we talk about trade, when we talk about unemployment, it is easy to blame trade. you can see the imports. you can see the culprit very easy. but we have to get things on the perspective like i said in my presentation, the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong medicine. ..

>> >> saving a job in a particular community may cost two or three jobs and that is protectionism but more than that is that you are taking dollars away from the poor people. the more reliant your order salary income with excess capacity to spend, the more you are hit by protectionist measures. that is the dramatic side of the soviet need to do

whether a new technology whenever government will support him to help the income of his family is easy to say that we need to retrain the people. that is okay if you are 30 years old but if you are 50 and lose your job is a big blow for you and your family. and the netherlands or south korea. there are ways to do that is much cheaper to support to a job than try to save it through protectionism. >> there are a few things that should have been like a safety net? >> absolutely you have to take care of that

phenomenon. but is this the matter of when not matter of if. water redoing? it isn't about the truckers but all of the indirect services that are there in the market to support, and millions of jobs. how do absorber all that? is becoming tougher if you don't have the right set of skills.

is straining for the market. , i did have a job in mind once they graduate who definitely not this one. [laughter] him on flatbush in those years you could get the job would be there. pdf but that position not exist any longer. her on film, even with that position may not be as rewarding as when you for started. also all of the shifts and changes are dramatic. we don't think about this enough is all. >> host: both major party candidates agree on the opposition to the

trans-pacific partnership in the present form. what is your position on the agreement will that facilitate greater trade if there are employed -- occasions if not ratified? >> were ever happens is good news because it tends it is contagious. for ims soleil for the agreement that facilitates trade to lower cost and is included to allow more people to participate. that is so we should all be pushing for in the united states and everywhere else. i definitely want these things to work. but it doesn't surprise me that they are there. negotiations started with

these journalists and academics how do you handle that? paul of these things will be solved in these agreements would is the role of the dead buteo? wait-and-see because anybody who thinks a trade deal that big will happen like this you have not been doing trade along enough. and is politically charged. isn't meaningful you wouldn't see that type of debate so does not surprise me at all that they are having a hard time. >> what if it happens if it fails? >> i have the wrong person to be asking. [laughter]

and those reforms to done that the way we can with the dead buteo -- wto with those that have been done or negotiated with tpp with wto. you cannot do cut and paste from these provisions with the disagreement and transplant into the rulebook . but it can inspire. >> host: donald trump has claimed that china has fixed exchange rates has started a virtual trade war with united states with a strong very economy and united states. can you comment on his claims quick. >> i don't know about

mr. trump's claims. i am sorry about that but what i can tell you is currently the debates are complex. very rarely you can see one country trying to fix the exchange rates solely for the purpose of trade package it is of product of the economic policy or the goals that lead to a number of outcomes and that is a greater competitiveness. we are having a conversation about the exchange-rate fluctuations as members are examining data and discussing at it is extremely complex conversation.

is this a complex conversation. what you win today you will lose tomorrow and you cannot take those measures only in the short term. if you wanted to be significant. >> use spoke about this did your address with critics of globalization blaming trade over the loss of their jobs. but that is the common thought it is trade and not manufacturing changes it is cheaper labor in other countries but talk some more about the actual reason of the jobs disappearing like a trucking jobs? >> i saw a graf yesterday that shows them jobs that were at high risk of automation are likely to disappear with the bank

tellers and accountants and a bunch of things. i'll look for a journalist by the way laugh laugh is very suspicious but the jobs are going to disappear but one example is kodak 150,000 employees they all lost their jobs. that was due to technologies like instead gramm. so it is 10,000 / one and this is not an isolated case i had a meeting in today with ministers, and christine was there from the imf.

everybody agrees this is a problem especially because with the consequences what do we do with be unemployed? to say this is a fiscal problem but it is a much bigger problem if you just treat it with protectionism. this is not what is causing the unemployment due to the imports. what about the other 80 something? howdy you handle that? and is much easier to blame trade than to say we have applied a system of education and social security and flied domestic policies the soul-searching is difficult to be. it is not the problem in the united states but it is a global problem. particularly in advanced

economies. it is about how to adapt. >> can the wto do more with job-training? >> data said good forum to have this discussion that we cannot implement those policies or force countries but we tried to do things that that we emulate the conversation. the one way to help diminish the problem of unemployment is to support the small and medium enterprises. they are responsible for the largest majority of the workforce. i know the exact figure but in developing countries of 90 percent of the workforce. and to be much more productive and deficient if they'd participate in the

global trade. there is the very high percentage, 90 percent of the small and medium enterprises that are connected that participate in the mobile platforms. some enterprises don't even know that they export because companies like caterpillar they don't even know they are part of this global value chain. but there is a number of things that we can do that will leverage the insertion of the small and medium enterprises. you just multiplied the of market several times. >> what do you see the future of the united kingdom with international trade as

england leaves the e.u. will the pound continued to lose value with us at brexit agreement? >> i don't know. but i will tell you that there is a clear perception on the part of the authorities that i talked to that the future of the u.k. is where it is open to the world they want to negotiate the trade deals with the free-trade economy and that is the healthy view anyway. how quickly we can get there i am not sure. and i have told them with our own trade negotiations that spit it is tricky said

that depends on the terms of separation and i myself them working very hard to make sure the transition happens as smoothly as possible rather than a turbulent position. but that is just the first up probably there will have to be negotiations between the u.k. and the regional agreements that they belong to it is many things with question marks in the future but the mentality the frame of mind is one of the insertion and free trade. pdf what about getting on

for the u.k. and various countries? >> both delegations are all exploring alternatives and possibilities of outcomes with technical support. we explained the alternatives and the likely scenarios. whenever we can do to facilitate the position to make this new the we will. >> you are referring to the e.u. and the u.k.? >> to the workers' rights and environmental protection with all international trade agreements? why or why not? >> we have fun -- no specific rules over labor standards or labor rights in the rulebook.

was discussed on several occasions including when we tried to launch the last round to it was part of the discussion but was very polemic and very controversial. in did not enter the negotiations themselves but with those organizations that do have a more direct goal with the labour standards conversation. and with those economists to work together and with the studies and the date that trade is not lead to a race to the bottom of labor standards in the developing countries.

and but not to be directly involved in that conversation. >> host: back to china some believe the military action in the south china sea with international trade in that region? >> that is a very direct revision ship between the two i think trade in general of a stable economic environment. for with the economic environment in a region or a country the better it is for the economy and investors and consumers and trade and general. that is the most like can say for and its relationship with trade.

>> as a question from the audience with the sanctions from russia with the back-and-forth sanctions with agriculture between the e.u. and u.s. and russia with wto does that threaten those trade deals? >> they do have conversations about these. it is brought to detention of the general counsel affecting the economic stability i personally talked to the leaders of the delegations whether we can handle this in a way we

understand that are at a much higher political level than what we can do with the wto. that is an organization and it is always permeated with be under current of those things that we can help to solve with those issues. >> the united states has filed more than one dozen complaints against china with wto since 2001 and officials filed a complaint claiming china's rice wheat corn crop is excessive government support would be unfair advantage to imports. where do stand with the

united states complaints? >> the settlement is possibly one of the biggest advantages. from the early '90s i remember quite well the environment that was extremely contentious. there were unilateral actions here and there. in to take those unilateral actions and to be heavily politicized with no outcome of with the spiral of retaliation. the wto system was designed and engineered precisely to

avoid this situation we have record number at this point in time in 15 years a little more than that. we have 500 disputes that were heard via government of mechanism. it is technical, impartial and unbiased and more than that and it should resort to that that the idea is good news to solve their differences not by imposing those measures. and more than 90 percent of

those cases brought to the wto dispute settlement mechanism to be implemented to figure out ways for word. what about the complaints since they were filed? >> and whenever we have disputes one paying bade to immediately is stay away from it. this is a highly technical process and it is completely independent.

if a delegation or a minister or a head of state wants to talk about that. >> i will have to learn from you. >> will the wto pursuits millions of dollars for failing to correct subsidy violations? >> it is part of the process. and i litigated for brazil at the time and with those situations where brazil was authorized. but my experience at that point in time that retaliations don't help anybody they are not the

solution but it is for negotiations and usually what happens with the long drawn disputes because it does not have the power. it does say you are not in compliance see you have to address for your regulations but it does not say how. the other will dispute so we offer - - and deputy authorization so to sit down with the high numbers of retaliation and find a solution. that the two sides have then found to be in violation of

soleil should be possible to sit down to find a solution. >> brazil is a is a the middle of a political crisis. >> any answer how to resolve the crisis? >> i follow the process very closely. i am hopeful the brazilian government and the people will move forward and find a way forward with one of the most dramatic recessions in the history of the country and there really do hope that they can find solutions to overcome these problems over national unity.

looking from geneva from afar that what they need now is to stand up behind those key objectives with the development of economic growth in to gather behind it. all i can do with this point from geneva is to help that this is a successful effort. >> a quick reminder before the last question we're the leading professional organization for journalists. for more information please go to press.org. upcoming programs on wednesday the secretary of the navy will address the press club. and his secretary of education low-speed from the podium now we will present

our guest with the national press club mug. [applause] >> not to be in too much trouble comparing the up quality of soccer to geneva and basel. [laughter] >> enjoyed a have a challenging experience. >> not trying to be a politician but it is power of soccer to unite people of the different social strata different origins or languages to hammer that out

and at the end of that dago have baby your -- they go drink a beer. i hope that the end of that. >> thank you director azevedo. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> lied to the johns hopkins school of advanced studies in washington the conversation with the russian ambassador to the united states will sit down for a lead discussion with the former u.s. ambassador for women's empowerment. live coverage on c-span to. [inaudible conversations]