march 2019 once we leave. you have said repeatedly this afternoon and in the chamber you want maximum access to the single market. can't i take it from that that there's been the plan that you present parliament and the letter that will trigger article 5050, that you will explicitly t out, that your overall objective is to avoid that scenario, to avoid a a wto sonority in march 2019? >> i wouldn't say it in those terms. i'll stated in terms, well, firstly until the letter, there's never been any before, so how it is phrased may be important in terms of the relationship between the council and the commission. there are various aspects of that which am still thinking about in terms of whether we phrase a long or short letter. that's the first thing to say.

the second thing to say about this is, we will state in terms of objectives, not in terms of things to avoid peer where not going to this negotiation supplement. we're going as equal partners and that's how we're going to conduct ourselves. this is going to be done in a way in which we hopefully everybody will treat each other with the best of intentions and the best of ames. >> if the government objective to have better access to the rest of the european market and simply debbie tl access, would that be a safe -- >> it's up to have as close a level of access that we can achieve. >> okay. in terms of the letter do you feel you have a good understanding of what the other side expects from that letter? this has a been there before and if we get ourselves in a situation where the other side expects a lot more detail and the government presents something very not detailed,

then that could -- >> i think, i have an idea what they expect will forgive me if i don't detail that at all spirit my last question is that prime minister recently visited india to talk about a future trade agreement with the indian government. it was interesting that the indian government didn't want to just talk about trade. they wanted to talk about visas to business people and international students. you said recently you keep the option open when you had that exchange with mr. carmichael, possibly pick is also the case that given that we want as close as possible maximum access to the eu single market, that although we would take back control of immigration, that we could still end up with a preferential system for eu migrants? a preferential system in eu migrants over non---

>> that's an important issue. the example i will point you to is the swiss example. who thought they had control of their own migration via an emergency situation which they tried to exercise it because it was tied into so many other treaties. so i think what we have to bear in mind is we have to pay respect to the outcome of the referendum and, therefore, it's got to be clear controlled by this parliament spirit i understand that but maybe be a differentiation between low skilled immigration and high skilled immigration? >> i didn't come my is to bring the decision back year, not to exercise a decision thereafter. >> you don't think i would be part of the negotiation? >> i don't. the operation of that decision after we let the european union will be in the national interest, that will affect all

levels of skill, the judgment that the government comes to as to what is necessary for universities, what's necessary for business and what the necessary for other groups. >> can i just follow up on one point of arbitration courts because a number of the possibilities you've outlined this afternoon, mr. davis, could well involve some arbitration arrangement thereafter to sort out whether our differences of interpretation. the government would be prepared to accept such arbitration of ranges as part of the deal? >> almost. almost any free-trade agreement which i guess is one option. >> and that would involve the uk having to abide by the outcome of the arbitration speakers it depends on how it is written. well, for example, if the arbitration says that the one party has not met this, not met

this status or something like that come in they mean they can no longer export a certain good, and that's hardly onerous. >> but that would be as subjecting ourselves to the decision of a higher body. >> it may. we do anyway. >> i agree spirit we subject ourselves to -- >> unaware of that. i'm i'm just try to understand what is the difference in principle between accepting those higher authorities and those examples you have just given, and accepting higher authority of the european court of -- >> because one relates just to trade and other relates to intrusions in laws that operate within this country. spirit and that is what you think the distinction is? >> that's the difference. >> but if it prevented us from exporting goods -- >> wellwell, it would impact upn this country. >> when you export goods, if you

did, let's say to the united states, you will be subject to the operation of the course of the united states. that's nothing unusual about that. the idea that you deal with somebody on a commercial basis means that you accept their standards for selling the goods of. also, and that's fair enough. >> secretary, it's been a pleasure to listen to you this afternoon. spirit should i take that as a compliment? >> you certainly should. it is definitely a compliment. could i start by just asking a question about tone of negotiations? something you said which i think was very helpful, he made the point at the end of the day whatever it is whiplike to set up i went objectives, the negotiation will come down to mutual benefit between the two. could you confirm that it's really the case? we have an awful lot of public comment in this country which seems to suggest it's all about

us at the end of the day. we are a big trading nation with a large economy picks who are later when push comes to shove it in negotiations, the trade issues will dominate everything else you can actually that isn't the reality. >> of course it is. for many of the nations of europe, europe represent something much bigger than trade. it represents democracy, represent the rule of law. look at all the countries that came out of the soviet demagogue. for them this is not just about trade. it's important but it's not just about trade. back when you were in school -- >> i think i was in another part of parliament. >> i'm getting revenge. >> you would have said -- >> we were different in some ways. it's not a claim of benefit for greatness. it's just they had a view of this institution, which was more

than that. this isn't why i say that what we want to have is a successful eu and a successful uk. it isn't why i defined that in terms of greater than economic come in terms of security and mutual values, protection, mutual values and so on. i say those things because i believe them. but it is an important part of the argument. it's an important part of the argument spirit i think it's very helpful secretary of state, stated in such a way. in the case in relation to something you said in answer to john. could i just approach slightly when you said you thought it was more the eu that was worried about issues of contagion and cohesion necessary than nation-states? in my conversations with colleagues recently over the past few months, politicians representing national stakes in different parties, they have

expected their countries are concerned about cohesion is probably the european commission was. >> cohesion -- >> what was your evidence suggesting it's the eu worried about this as opposed to nation-states? >> the public statements is only really institutions, talk publicly about britain not able to do better out of this. that's what drives. it's not malice. it's not in any sense any -- it's there fair that if we come out very well been other countries will be tempted to emulate us. so i don't, i don't blame them for that fear. i just think it's misplaced i think they are wrong about it. some of the countries take a similar view. probably, i mean i haven't actually spoken to germany yet but i think it's possible. it may well be france does as well. i have spoken to me shall but

haven't spoken to a french minister on it yet. but broader speaking, it's more predominant amongst institutions than amongst the nation-states. that's probably a better way of saying get spirit the practical outcome of this is that a factor in negotiations as well. >> of course spirit could i probe just a couple others if i may? you made a reference earlier when negotiations have reached further and have the issue about how you can keep on up-to-date with negotiations as we get more detailed communicant something about closed session. you want to say over that more about that? is your intention to come back to colleagues in a closed session at different stages with some -- >> and maybe. i don't at this stage. it's a possibility. what happened as you will remember in the negotiations is information is often sensitive

for a few days or a week or two but not for months or years. the other thing is that sometimes, and we will try not to sort of hold information too long the point where it's no longer sensitive, and very occasionally it may be that one wants to say look, this is outlooks, this is the position, some would want to be in the public domain at all. but that's the circumstance under which we might have a closed session. >> thank you. do you find it helpful as you come it to the point of detailed negotiations and discussions with colleagues in europe that a quite larger group of mps insist on tweaking the tale of the eu are writing letters to and signed by lots of them with some challenge or other? is this helpful to you? is this harmful to you, or is

this also annoying really of no consequence? >> you start off by calling the april. spirit that is duly noted. >> i want to take you right back to the start of this session. hopefully short and sweet. you asked about your department when he visited with their 307 staff at that point to a been appointed. some of those were dismayed to find all had come from civil service. you are the senior medicine as a pointed out. if anything you want to happen in the next two years and your team is to achieve good for you and the country is that we need good people, not to take anything into the long grass. so my question to you is, and it may be a bit of a top gun

analogy, you want the best of the best. so of the new 23 people that you said is now 330, have any of those people not been from the civil service? are any of them -- let me finish. brought from the outside with outside expertise? do you not agree actually you probably have enough iceman and ice women a you probably need some mavericks? >> i'm going to resist the -- [laughter] you are dragging me into it. they've got enough mavericks already in the political wing. the simple answer to your question is, if i were able, instantly to step up 100 people who were well-qualified, a perfect fit, i would do it. we are in real world. we we have to get on with the job and we are also dealing with the moment. it's a hell of a pace, the job. a lot of the sort of the analytical work comes from outside, you know, from the

businesses where talking to and so on. in terms of pace, this department is a little different from a yes minister time. because they are all volunteers, every single one of the new group coming from the 40 offices are volunteers. we have vast number of volunteers for small number of jobs and they want to make it work. that's why judgment i certainly haven't seen any so far. >> i am very pleased to have every confidence that i just want appointed they may all be volunteers but there's no performance enhancement for the pic if it all goes wrong they will all be going back to the old jobs. do you not think you need some outside expertise? >> the reason they are volunteers is because this department is at the pivot of a historic change in our country.

and they want a part of that. i will take civil servants along as well as the next, remove or i used to be chairman. i'm fairly familiar with the syndrome it but these people the best for the country, and as do i, as does everyone in this room i feel very and they will do their best for the country. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, secretary of state. can i ask you, you a little bit about immigration? net immigration to the uk currently runs something over 300,000 a year, split roughly 50/50 between eu immigration -- slightly more from outside the eu. not too far from 50/50. the immigration policy is going to change as a result of us leaving the european union. what is the policy objective of

the change that we will make? is it still to reduce net immigration, to tens of thousands, rather than the 300,000 plus? >> all i can do, bear in mind as i said earlier, my task is to bring the decision home as it were and are others to exercise decisions. i draw your attention to comment both by the prime minister and by the current, secretary who had said that ai pain is still there but they also warned it's not going to be, it's that could happen overnight, not some closing doors and so on. and my own view of this as i said earlier is that it will be exercised in the national interest. this does not mean suddenly denying universities nobel laureates coming there, or denying businesses the ability to transfer managers from tokyo or berlin or wherever.

and it doesn't involve shutting down -- >> but is it a reasonable expectation on behalf of the public that the policy outcome of taking back control of immigration is for them to see it reduced to less than a third of its current? >> a third of what? >> its current levels of net immigration of 300,000 a year. >> i think the reasonable expectation, but over time. >> thank you. >> what have you made of the aims of the eu 27, what you think the commission would be for success? >> he suggest, he's not quite concluded his 2f27. -- his tour of 27.

when he gets that he will come back. he will have a view which i think will be laid down by, he will make a presentation to the council and then they will lay down the negotiating guidelines bu.i think that's what he's goig to have to take as his guidance, as his aim. his criteria to success. i'll just make this point as an aside to that. michel got heavily criticized by the british press when you supported. i think and very to be honest. when he was the commissioner for the city effectively for financial services, he was very tough, but the judgment i come across the city was he was pretty pragmatic in the conclusion. that is my memory of him in the past. he didn't actually ask that but that's that. it may vary.

they vary. her support nobody has asked but which i think is important in this context, and that is from the beginning of this process there were 17 electoral events between the beginning and the probable conclusion. and from now since we've had the italian referendum and the austrian election, there are still 15 to go, in my estimate, assuming we go the distance. so in a way the water is changing, it is flowing fast and altering, and so the aims may be a bit different. the second thing to say is the different parts of the union tend to fall into categories. security and migration high up in the batting order. the swedes very pro-free trade. the nordics very pro-free trade.

the spaniards similarly pro-free trade. quite a lot, and some of it is driven by this sprint to the links with others. so when i was in madrid, the ambassador had people come all businessmen who at all strong links. so it's not a single entity. i was giving examples because not a single entity, but at the end of the day i think we are going to have to harness two things. one is self-interest, economic self interest and make security self-interest. and the other is a persuasion of them that actually and europe's best interest to have a frame and a strong trading partner. >> you stress the diversity of interest across the european union. am i right in thinking that britain is one of only two european union countries capable of projecting significant force abroad, and, therefore, it comes to protecting the eastern unique him on the britain and france

can protect the baltic states and poland and, therefore, it would be in their interest to ensure that britain remained strong defense partner? >> yes that's right, that's accurate spirit having stress the diversity across european union, do you think it conceivable like a country like spain facing pressure for separation within spain, but a country like spain would want to see difference of treatment for different parts of the united kingdom? >> probably not. >> given the diversity of opinion that there is a cause the european union the case has sometimes been made the commission will want to punish britain in order to show leaving the european union has consequences? and, indeed, speak about other counsel said there will be no take on the table what's the worst they could do if they decided that they wanted to go forward?

>> i don't want to put ideas into anybody's head. let me just say to you, looking for someone word answers, sometimes i don't have any of them. firstly, much of this is at this stage, right. i mean, even your comment about spain, this stage. they may change her mind, i don't know. but there is a viewpoint i think which is only really just playing among some europeans that we can't really neat. that way can be persuaded to change our minds. maybe that's what they were trying to do, i don't know. i can't can't read his mind. but as recently as october, at least one head of government was saying how are you going to reverse of this? how are you going to reverse

this? many of the others still feel they really can't happen. that's partly the mindset that is still the end. as we get further into this, once we start of the article to get letter, one of the virtues and the article 50 process, it's a very, very difficult to see it being revoked. we don't intend to revoke it. it may not be revocable, i don't know. so that's, that's the rule road where going to end. and i expect at least at that point people speculation will change from how we make them change their minds to how to invest in this? >> i'm anxious because -- >> one more question spinning very, very quickly and this is think. >> is it within the british government to think about for example, do you see the corporation tax, changing the regulatory tools within its controcontrols in order to make written and even more attractive

destination for investment if the european commission as a council sees intent on trying to punish as? >> can you explain that in more detail? >> well, i'm not sure i do want to explain. spirit the simple point is, we are invited to blame the european union could put the screws on the spirit of course of the truth is that if they do so they're harming themselves more than they are us and we many tools which can make our country far more attractive destination for investments and they can make their country attractive destination for investment. the assumption which underlines my, to write it which is we are weak and their stock is, in fact, a misreading of the situation. >> you've made a good point but i'm not a natural analyst spec tax policy is probably above your pay grade. [laughter] >> i will take your advice. >> sector instead, he made formulation early on about britain remain in european citizen outside the eu, and when we talk about that dry details

and also but what we don't want but because we don't want to show our hands, there is a risk within government and parliament that we sound rather mindful. i wonder if you share my love and patient that it is perfectly possible subject to the negotiations in the two-way process that britain can be an even better neighbor, ally, trading partner outside of the physical centers of the eu. i wonder whether at the highest level that is an out to be the governments and patient? >> yes, that is my view. i mean, that is of the aim. this is is, at the end of the dy this is a changing, turning point point in our history in which we are going to have lots of opportunities to seize, which will give britain a better future, in my view, my view, and with a stronger economic future we can be a better economic security, cultural, diplomatic

neighbor. and so yes, it is more than just my view. it is part of the aim spirit thank you. >> thank you, chair. we had a a very interesting discussion earlier about opinions in the debate about speeders i'm tempted to close -- if i wa i was interesting, it wa mistake. >> i just wanted to ask a couple of very quick questions. you talk to about the best outcomes for britain. my interpretation of what you said is that would largely be about what's best for the british economy and our security peer would that be fair? >> yes, those are two high-level aims which are mature to the interest of every british citizen. they want to have jobs. they all want to be better off and i want to have a secure life. but they are not the only aims.

sir rob speaking just i'm a good point, speaking about the position we hold in the world if you like is also quite a broad. >> i was also having some meetings with the businesses and i was struck by the feedback that from a range of organizations who thought there had been a structured consultation with businesses in different sectors. i'm not sure if you would feel that you would agree with that. i would be interested in how you been reaching out, how you been committed getting the findings of any of your discussions and, indeed, whether or not the findings and will be reflected in the white paper or what ever document might be, when that is published. and just as part of this conversation, i was very interested, the feedback i had was that they didn't feel that you and your department had fully understood the

implications of financial services or didn't understand your position on that to the moment. >> say that last sentence again. >> aware of your position on a financial services task force and whether they felt you had understood from their point of view the applications of leading that and, indeed, there are concerns about equivalence rules would the stability that would bring in that it could be much more subject for regulatory change of reasons or political reasons. >> right, okay. firstly, in terms of the passport, a thick complex subject. there are about nine different categories, and in aggregate, they affect more than half a dozen areas of finance, but there is one anywhere where

disadvantaged. something like five and a half thousand british companies seek passports. 8000 companies seek passports here. that is a quid pro quo. in terms of our conversations with them, this is a whole of the government operation. it's not simply -- to use a horrible acronym. we have seen 130 companies. every department has seen their own. with that vast numbers of roundtables, i can send you a list if you would like, of those. of course we can't go around and see every company. what we are doing is understanding the detailed approach at the detailed problem in each area. and my approach to that is fairly straightforward. i say to them, first give me

what the problem is. first give us the inside of what the problem is, quantified, given as an indication of how much were talked about in terms of employment, cost, capital and -- let me just finish stating the point. and also what your policy and is are and what you want our policy interest to be. yes, some of it gets complex. you are talking mutual equivalence. ..

i'll be very happy to hear from you in terms of areas you think that has happened. we will go back to it again. i can tell you, in terms, there's been a vast effort, one of the biggest efforts ever to get it done very quickly. it had to be done very quickly because we had to get on with it the conclusion hasn't come out yet. that's the point. we are halfway through the process. >> for obvious reasons, quite often today, you said you are not ruling anything out. there is one lace we would like to hear your opinion, you mentioned you wanted to see no hard border between ireland, but [inaudible]

>> let me, my view here is, i don't see that will be the solution, to be on a spread what i don't want to do, the the primary concern, the reason i'm hesitating is to make sure that we don't have that happen, all right. there are various technical ways to result in that. we haven't finished that process. we are doing it with the irish government. we may not have a solution to it in the next few months. what i will undertake is to write you on that matter once we have had a further think on it. i can see the issue and we can look at the best solution. i think we can find a better one. i will make a promise today, but

i will make a point of writing to you down the road when we have a solution. >> too very quick final questions for me. will the great repeal be published for scrutiny? i said earlier to mr. edwards i don't think we have that timetable, but again i will write to you, if i make. >> secondly i invited i invited you in the debate last week on the question of whether parliament will have a vote on the final deal when it has been negotiating to move from the words you have been moving to look parliament and the committee in the eye and answer a simple yes. >> what i will say to you is, and i said it before is there's a constitutional reform in governance bill which covers this and we will obey the law to the letter. >> can i take that too be a yes then? >> i'm going to return to you with your father's own words. don't let anyone else put words in your mouth. >> thank you very much for coming to give evidence this

afternoon. order, order. >> coming up this afternoon it's today's state department briefing. we hear the secretary of state john kerry will talk to reporters. that's coming up live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. join us later today for an event marking the 225th anniversary 25th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights. a panel of federal judges will discuss the document and its relevance today. you can watch that live at seven eastern here on c-span2. taking a look at other live programming, the brookings institution is hosting an event looking at nursing home rating systems. researchers will present a new new study showing the prevalence of grade inflation in the current system. that is live at two eastern on our companion networks c-span.

a live look at the lobby of trump tower were government officials and business executives continue to arrive for meetings. we will take a look. wad. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> again, live from new york city, a look inside trump tower in the lobby. among the visitors expected today, pete who is being considered for veteran affairs secretary. and the next u.s. trade representative candidate is expected to be there. we will continue to monitor thiscamera shot. as a reminder, you can watch it all day on our website c-span.org.

>> every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here are some of the programs coming up this weekend. saturday night at ten eastern on afterwards, georgetown university professor jason brennan looks at the failure of democratic political systems to provide the best outcome and calls for a change in how government is run in his book against democracy. he is interviewed by the vice president of the cato institute. >> fairness doesn't get you to democracy. why don't people want that? they think it won't work very well. they think it will lead to bad outcome. >> they are probably right. once you say that, i care about fairness but bad outcomes, then you're on my side and you have to start asking okay, how are you going to weigh fairness versus the quality of the outcome. >> on sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, before columbus foundation present the american book awards which recognize outstanding literary achievement from the spectrum of americans diverse literary community. the presents that the jazz

center in san francisco. at 5:00 p.m., jonathan zimmerman from the university of pennsylvania on the increasing pressure to curtail free speech on college campuses across the country. he talks about in his book campus politics, what everyone needs to know. >> the problem is the second kind of pc that doesn't taboo words, which add nothing to our discussion, but taboos ideas, right. if 40% of the faculty as opposed to raising affirmative action, we are not hearing from them. that means there is a serious pc problem. >> go to book tv.org problem. >> go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span three. saturday evening a clash between

the slave and the free black exit artist embodied the differences that existed in the black community as some, including artists who decided to support the revolt while others elected to support the whites. >> then on lectures in history, the university of maryland on advertising and marketing as a professor profession in the early 20s and how consumer changed. >> instead of selling an automobile as transportation, getting you from point a to point b, you can sell a car as prestige. >> just before nine, historian discusses the post-world war ii career of two-time pulitzer prize winning cartoonist who was a cartoonist during the war for the u.s. army stars & stripes

magazine. >> while overseas he had avoided ideological outbursts and he never allowed partisan politics into his cartoons. back home however, he jumped into the political fray with both feet. >> sunday at 6:00 p.m. on american artifacts. >> one of my favorite documents in the gallery is a draft version of what became the bill of rights. we usually refer to this as a senate markup. the senate took the 17 amendments that were passed by the house and change them into 12 amendments that, after a conference committee, it was 12 amendments that were sent to the states for ratification. ten of those 12 were ratified by the state. >> christina and jennifer johnson take a two or of the national archives exhibit marking the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the bill of rights. on december 15, 1791. >> for a complete american history tv schedule go to c-span .org.

now a discussion on possible u.s. strategy in afghanistan under the trump administration. speakers officials from the u.s. institute of peace and radio free europe. the heritage foundation hosted this one hour event. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> okay, thank you so much for those of you who are staying on for the next panel which is on regional politics and economics in afghanistan. how afghanistan manages the regional economic and political situation will be a key factor in determining the country's future. afghanistan, being a landlocked

landlocked country will depend on its neighbors for trading routes and conductivity. we see china playing a growing role in helping to develop infrastructure throughout south and central asia and afghanistan is certainly no exception as we heard from the ambassador earlier. even though india does not share a border with afghanistan, new delhi and the pool have strengthen their ties in recent years, and as was mentioned earlier, india is investing into a port in order to enhance its trading ties with afghanistan. unfortunately, pakistan continues opposition to allow indian goods to transit pakistan and it cost pakistan itself in terms of being able to reap those local transit so hopefully there can be some changes in the future. one of the main changes i'm

hoping our panel can address is how can u.s. policy support more regional economic operation and greater regional connectivity. i think this is the future for afghanistan as the only way we are going to achieve stability in this complicated region. let me just say a few words about the regional politics, which will also be addressed. how can the afghan and pakistani governments return to some of the goodwill that they experienced in the first year of the gummy government. president gummy reached out and he started sick to see the fruits of that effort, but unfortunately the increased television violence, and the failure of those peace peace talks which started to get underway in 2015, has undermined these outreach efforts. is there a way to get that back on track?

certainly the smooth transition two weeks ago from one pakistan army chief to another has sent a positive signal to the region. it has provided a bit of cautious optimism that we might see increased efforts by the pakistanis to rein in the caliban sanctuaries on their territory. only time will tell if such hope is merited. i wanted to just say one word about a topic that came up in previous panel and that was about whether the fragmentation debate, whether it's in the u.s. interest to have a fragmented or a unified taliban. too me, the answer is very quite straightforward. ending most insurgencies is precipitated by a split in leadership. i think we saw that clearly in the case of the sri lanka where

you had one faction peeling off and a couple years later you saw the government able to defeat that insurgency. i would say it's certainly the u.s. goal, the international community and the afghans for the tell them to fragment. they will be less able to conduct large-scale attacks, less able to impose their form of law in the country, and it is just common sense that you strengthen those individuals who want peace and are willing to negotiate and you weaken the individuals who want to keep fighting and who are unwilling to compromise at the negotiating table. >> we have a very distinguished panel to address these and other issues today and i am delighted to introduce first claire

lockhart, she is the director and cofounder cofounder of the institute of state effectiveness the isc seeks to address the challenge of accountability in governments through a system building approach across government, markets and citizens she actually served in afghanistan as an advisor to the un during the bomb process and to the afghan government from 2001 until 2005. she is co-author, with the current president of afghanistan of the book fixing failed state and she contributes to the media on issues of security, peace building and development. claire was named by foreign policy magazine as one of the 100 most influential influential thinkers of 2009 and 2010 for her work on fragile state. she was nominated as young global leader in 2011 and serves as a trustee of the asia foundation.

we are delighted to have here here with a spread let me introduce the other two panelists as well. then we will move to remarks. scott worden is director of afghanistan and central asia programs at the united states institute of peace. he comes to this role with an extensive background in reconstruction, development, democracy in governments and policy, as well as extensive regional expertise on afghanistan and pakistan. prior to joining he was director of the lessons learned program at the office of the special inspector general. he served as acting director of policy and senior policy advisor for the office of pakistan of affairs at usa. he's originally from boston where he and his bachelors degree at colgate university and has a jd from harvard law school our third panelists is a journalist with radio free europe, radio liberty and author of a book, the unresolved key to

the future of pakistan and afghanistan which was published in 2014. he is currently the editor of radio free europe, radio liberty, there are gone dara website. it's an ancient region and this webpage provides reporting, analysis, commentary, direct from those on the ground in afghanistan and pakistan with the aid of promoting peace peace in the region. without further ado i will handed over to our panelists and start with claire. >> thank you. it's great to be here. i will start from the premise that the a route or be rude to security.

i think it's well-established but while a security commitment is most important of stability, and confidence for the people of their country in the region, the economic and civil dimension are important pillars of that stability that actually help lessen the load that the security commitment has to carry i think the principles are worth restating. perhaps the afghan up economy can grow, the more it can raise revenue and show the cost of its own borders. over the long-term, it goes up and the burden on taxpayers from other parts of the world diminishes. second, it's key to unlocking the growth but also can play an important role in transforming regional relations. they're not going to solve the political insecurity issues between neighbors but they can

certainly offer and incentives and create environment for win-win and be a point for reinforcing law and building institutions. i think that's becoming more and more important today and that's of central importance which is well understood by those in the insurgency doctrine. it's important of individuals and the people of the country and particularly the youth. we've seen so many fragile states around the world with growing young populations. afghanistan is no exception. it is there to have confidence in their future. if they're going to buy into the system, they've got to have hope. i'm reminded. [inaudible] it was a memo from world war ii and he said were never going to get stability in europe and other parts of the world of people of the country don't have a stake in their own future. for those three reasons, i think

it's important to remember. what does this mean in the context of afghanistan in its region? i will touch on the internal and regional dimensions, but first the regional approach. i think it requires taking a strategic look at and a fresh look at what building conductivity and establishing those regional linkages mean. as we all know it's an ancient concept that has been with us for millennia but there are changes in the economic drivers, the realities of the region that require. probably everybody in this room has heard about the trillions of dollars dollars of potential, but how you prioritize amongst those? is it possible to unlock within a five year time period or tenure time. or 20 or 30 and what does that mean for revenue implications question if we look at

connectivity, i think we need to examine across several axes and we heard from the ambassadors, some of the updates across each of these. the first is the transportation, the road and the rail. the second is power and energy, and the third is fiber optic and data corridors which are becoming more and more important to the global economy. each of these flows can connect or are already connecting through afghanistan. we need to look again at afghanistan from the context of central asia, south asia and east asia. since the afghans themselves look at this division as a hub of conductivity. [inaudible] the president of china launched a new plan. there are many plans but what's missing is a common strategic framework that puts the thing context. just a few days ago, the afghans

were at the heart of asia conference and describe some of the initiative. i will mention two of these. to peel back the implication of some of these foreign examples, there's been a lot of focus over the years on the possibility of pipeline and gas across the region, much less focus on electricity. many might be familiar with the project that had many breakthroughs, but beyond that it's really just a concept. what is behind this is the immense potential of power trade across the region. it used to be the place that produce the hydro power. south asia is the reverse. its population abundant and energy poor and the potential

for that energy trade to take place with unlock a lot of value were thinking in terms of return in investment and the possibility to unlock that potential is there. then we need to see these investment structure, much of which can be private sector driven, and just over the past few months there was close to a billion dollars in of private sector that has gone into the linkages of power and production. the potential for 15 mw of power to be transferred from central asia to pakistan, and we know how energy issues are such a key concern of pakistan. another example, the rail. i hear many of these debates in washington that rail is not feasible, it's not affordable, it was one of the elements back in 2004 conference, they said take out rail, afghanistan dan can never afford rail. if we take it closer look, the

rail linkages are being filled. just over the past several months several were launched. that's on the region. i think we need to look at the internal dimension and take this agenda that the afghans have put forward having been endorsed in the conference and take the self reliance agenda forward. what they are asking for is not a blank check and unlimited support, but it's the capital investments that will allow them to be in the security lane. we've now recognize that the civic duty forces in the defense of the country, what does that mean on the economic track? it means their variable to match their own budget and deliver their own programs and shoulder that burden themselves. what does that mean for policy? i think first reform is nice to have, it's it's not the icing on the cake. it's really a course for

strategic element. if the grievances of the people are to be addressed, if pieces to be established, be established, it's not a question only of cutting a deal, it's a question of addressing the grievances by cleaning up the corruption, i attaching the predatory nature of some of these institutions but i think there's something of a bargain here that if they're going to support him of the court costs of maintaining the state, in return, there needs to be, and i think there started to be serious action on corruption and on increasing the efficiency. second, it means putting in place the foundations of the economy. over the past years, i think it happened without people realizing that the afghan community is almost entirely independent. if you look forward to the next 15 years, it will be a productive economy.

it doesn't need to rely on external support. a means mining and agriculture and construction. i think many are familiar with the pillars of the economy but it needs a careful look of what kind of action needs to be taken and by who and what type of catalytic investments will unlock the potential and get those sectors going. again, it's not going to happen overnight. it's going to be a five or ten or 15 year project to make that happen. finally we need to take this citizens, and needs to become a core part of the way we approach the economic governance and development part. the international community partner have said for a while now that what used to be the national solidarity program. [inaudible]

they need to get the funding out to the villages so they can make their own decisions. this program after ten or 15 years is being relaunched and they are attempting to simplify. instead of international having to manage tens of thousands mall projects, they want to let the communities manage it for themselves because they are the ones that are managing the canals and building their own homes for centuries already. then i think finally, this means, i think we have an opportunity here to think again about the way that the economic and development investments are made. they have documented very visibly for all of us some of the waste and corruption over the past decade, there's been an effort which scott has led to see which parts actually work right and i thing we have to be careful to make sure what didn't

work does not shadow the things that did work. i think it's an opportunity, particularly on this to bring some new tools to the table. instead of technical assistance model, should we weep be bringing the best of american companies and innovation to the table. is there room through joint ventures and so on, is there room for a joint venture and an ability to increase exports. >> thank you. >> thank you so much claire. >> scott. >> great, thank you so much. it's it's great to be here. so far you have heard a lot of good ideas and some consensus that tends to be emerging and i think i will be reinforcing some of my comments but i want to talk about, take a little tour through the region, pakistan, china, india, russia and iran

and how they relate to afghanistan regional stability and stitch that together in some coherent fashion. i want to start out with the basic observation that the greatest mutual interest in the region right now, in the short term, is countering international and transnational terrorism. the potential on the upside for trade that claire mentioned is important and i think people in the regency but fundamentally there is a fear of instability in afghanistan spreading over borders that includes the taliban and in some areas -- in other areas in central asia it includes movements like the islamic movement. for china it separates us. they see the statistics that was mentioned earlier about the number of different terrorist groups that are seeking some kind of haven in afghanistan as their own national security threat and they are seeing afghanistan, unfortunately in negative terms.

how to protect themselves and how to hedge. there needs to be, overall, collective progress through the ideas that have been discussed. how to turn the relations between the region in afghanistan into a more beneficial one rather than a negative fear based one. going through the region, i think starting, another observation that builds from my first point is that the greatest factor affecting regional stability is stability within afghanistan. that is political and involves reconciliation. yes, there are these continuing security threats and i think the first panel did a good job of describing those risks and those challenges. at the end of the day, it is unity which i think is improving, but still this unity within the afghan community itself in fundamental disagreements within the different areas on how to divide power.

that's easy to say and difficult to solve. fundamentally, the stability of afghanistan and building confidence within the region in afghanistan is a on the path to success which i think it is, but slowly. the more the regional neighbors see that as the future and the vision, the more they will bank on it and the more they will invest in trade rather than security protection measures that they are taking and the better off we will be. i think the situation within afghanistan was probably described fairly well during the first panel, but it is this effort to get them to cooperate more on appointments, on implementing the good ideas that both of them have for good governance and also controlling corruption and providing resources to the afghan security forces so they can continue to repel caliban challenges.

within afghanistan, i would say the taliban are reading the situation very closely and there are two sides of the coin on analyzing a security environment as the afghan and ambassador mentioned the army has been successful in repelling attacks but on the other hand the taliban has taking increasing territory and surely they gain confidence from that. the internal security dynamic in afghanistan are very important to changing the calculations in the region and overall improving regional stability. moving on, the most important regional factor outside of afghanistan is pakistan. it's all ready been mentioned that pakistan has provided safe havens for the taliban, it is providing intelligence and support and certain elements are providing elements and support to the taliban and this is a continuing frustration and casually t casualty for afghanistan. the relationships are at a low

point, they are on the wane now and i think at the root of that is this mutual mistrust that each country has over the other efforts to control fighters and terrorism across the border. i won't go into who is right, but that's just to say that this mutual mistrust has really damaged relations. i think the arc of the story, since the 2014 election is that they took a bold political risk to be more accommodating to pakistan which is unpopular in afghanistan, they want to bring the town been to the table but afghanistan doesn't feel that was fully achieved and that more could have been done because of course, there were not high-level lateral talks, still today. i think on the pakistani side, right or wrong, there's a perception that they made a good-faith effort and got no thanks or credit for what they did and so there is some concern

there as well. i think the new, the point of the new army chief of staff in pakistan and the new isi chief, they might not fundamentally change the calculus in the short-term, but they do maybe provide a face-saving opportunity in these relations and may be starting on another new track which is difficult, but necessary to try to revitalize the reconciliation issues. the other other differences between pakistan and afghanistan have to do with trade so as mentioned are ready that much, they rely on land routes through pakistan for much of their trade whenever tensions flare up or routes get closed, trucks get get backed up in the economy suffers. there is leverage there and it's played out negatively as it goes back and forth. the area where indian goods can go through afghanistan as possible positive for regional

trade overall, but in the short term, pakistan has a lot of leverage via trade. finally, it hasn't been mentioned before, but a growing issue in afghanistan are refugees. pakistan holds, they have held millions of refugees for years but they are strongly encouraging, in some cases intimidating afghans to go back across the border to resettle in afghanistan for the afghan government has publicly welcome list but there is a burden on strained resources in afghanistan. the second largest group of refugees is coming back from iran more voluntarily, but nonetheless, the, the un estimates that up to a million refugees will have returned from various places abroad, to

afghanistan over the course of the year. there's a shift that will require afghan attention and could strain regional relations. let me move on then. just as afghanistan's greatest concern for its stability is pakistan, pakistan's greatest concern is india. this is something that people well know but have not been integrated into the afghanistan equation as much as it could have when richard holbrook took over as a special representative , one of the early debates was would india be part of that mandate in linking the issues that pakistan and india have over cashmere and long-standing historical tensions to the afghanistan problem. for a variety of political reasons that was not made. nonetheless, the elephant in the room is really the india question. there we see relations also deteriorating, in particular there is now sporadic fighting

across the line of control in cashmere and in india and pakistan, the diplomacy is tense tense, to say the least. that's not a promising view for the region but identifies a problem problem that needs to be tackled and resolved. india relations with afghanistan are good and that fuels pakistan's existential fear of encirclement from friendly india and afghanistan and somehow on both borders of pakistan. [inaudible] the new dynamic, although i would not not hold it out as a game changer is china. they have taken an increasingly proactive, forward leaning policy in general as it seeks to assert its role on the international stage and has been a longtime ally of pakistan, but it's increasing its role economically in the region and it's increasing its role diplomatically with afghanistan and reconciliation.

many people know that they have a 50 billion-dollar package of investment in pakistan, china pakistan economic border, can we determine how much of that investment gets realized but it's a large contribution potentially to pakistan's economy. i think the big question everybody has his does that yield political influence beyond what china already has. i wouldn't overstate that are based to many expectations on it, but nonetheless, adding china encouragement to pakistan to solve regional problems, that's all positive development. china also, through its one bell, one road is seeking to build the infrastructure projects throughout asia, this is the new silk roads, the u.s.

policy on a grander scale which includes routes that go through central asia to europe and south asia and links south asia. so far, while afghanistan is the crucial middle piece for some of these networks, i think china has been wary of really putting its initiative investment into afghanistan because it was so concerned about stability. the chinese investment is a major compromise seven years ago in afghanistan. it's still not proof for a variety of reasons. lack of security and lack of development has inhibited that. i think they're cautious, but they present, overall, a potential boost to regional stability. finally, reconciliation with china, they they have been involved in quadrilateral talks between the us, pakistan, pakistan, afghanistan and china on the taliban issues. they have discussed the taliban. these issues, it seems like

initial enthusiasm to get engaged is now tempered by the reality of the difficulty of these discussions. it's another useful voice, not too be relied on too much, but too be engaged as a new player could push things in the right direction. let me finally just talk about russia and iran. while different countries, of course, i think they play a somewhat a somewhat similar role in the sense that they do have a strategic interest in stability and afghanistan. i think there are interested more in the short term in preventing terrorism and so, as we heard in the first panel, there are these tactical assistance and communication between russia and iran with elements of the taliban against the greater and more flexible

international an ideological. it's more of a nationalistic, seeking afghanistan power movement. there are the short term deals with the taliban and to prevent the greater threat of other terrorist groups, but fundamentally, stable prosperous afghanistan is in their interest and i think they do play a positive role, if they are convinced that, for my first comment that afghanistan is on the path to success. if they think it's on the path to failure, then they will make some spoilers for everyone. a final note on that, as we going to the transition to the new administration, how the u.s. relations with russia or iran evolve will also affect the situation. so why they have a strong bilateral connection with afghanistan, the u.s. relationship will certainly influence those discussions. let me close with my elevator speech, if i have it, four

points on policies for going forward. one thing the u.s. can do is apply greater pressure on pakistan related to evidence that could be determined on support for terrorism. that is to say, we have had this approach with pakistan in trying to align our interests via the taliban tempered this is a area that requires great nuance. it's not go go all out on afghanistan because these things can backfire, but finding ways to reasonably but credibly increase pressure to promote what is a shared goal of stability in the region and that is something that should be re-examined in policy review.

second, and related to that, i think i think raising the india question again, it's very sensitive. nuance matters greatly there, but to include that i'm part of the conversation must be necessary or we will be in the same pattern of stagnation that we been in regionally. secondly, continued support afghanistan so the brussels conference that was mentioned where donors gave similar levels of support to the past four years is encouraging, the warsaw conference of nato gave sustained troop funding and commitments and those need to be maintained and stay the course, as boring as that is. that is necessary to achieve the first goal that i mentioned mentioned of stability within afghanistan, helping regional stability. third, i think it's continued support, but not too much hope on the regional picture.

these linkages will bear fruit overtime. as claire mentioned, i agree with her, prioritize what's needed in this short and long term. finally i would say, as much as the picture right now does not look auspicious for talks with the taliban on or reconciliation, i would redouble efforts that have political attention on figuring out how to unlock that puzzle and so, thinking about about a special envoy for reconciliation, regardless of what happens, thinking about what would policy change if we had reconciliation as our number one priority, obviously protect yourself from terrorism is number one, but our strategic vision of how does this war and through a negotiated settlement and what ingredients are necessary to support that, i think it's time

for a fresh look at that as well. thank you. >> great, thank you so much. >> thank you heritage for having me. actually, i will begin with this idea that we are in for an era of dealmaking. my esteemed colleague talked about all the possibilities and policy recommendations, but to look at it very simplistically as an opportunity for dealmaking, then you can make sense of the possibility and the minimum things that they can do and some of the things they need to do to secure a stable, peaceful future and also this land bridge. one of the things that my colleagues alluded to is the

whole idea of short-term security interest driven qualities. that's the problem. there was a lot of mention, i will give an example of iran. right now the taliban percentages openly visiting iran were going to visit iran and have participated in some sort of solidarity conference. they have said there is no ias or ist presence. the islamic state in kandahar, it's close proximity and they said i'll been eliminated during the past year which is surprising of iran support to the taliban.

their understanding or working together. [inaudible] since the department departure of troops and this is not surprising, this is kind of surprising because iran is a shia regime and taliban is sunni, but here it iran is kind of engaging in an optimistic or pragmatic alliance with the hardline sunni organization to ferment wood is essentially the group of establishing a foothold at the border. this is, the key. the thing is,. [inaudible] the same is true for pakistan. i think the simple thing to recognize, and that is what can they bring to this, it can help

incoming administration, for them to just simply recognize. if pakistan folks here have been writing that they need to have a decentralized government and certain things need to be handed over, now if islamabad. [inaudible] if they recognize that they are an independent sovereign country, then i think they can move along and go back to the understanding that the president invested in 2014. the first place was the pakistani military, and he had a

great friendship with the former military chief, but this was the core problem. ultimately they were not willing to concede that it sees them as an independent country, as a neighbor, and are there other things that they can do. i can see from a very pragmatic tactical point of view that the official people involved in these kind of negotiations now know their positions. they know their positions well. we are beyond the era. [inaudible] think people in capital are aware of that. [inaudible]

that is the key thing between the two. that's why a lot of these processes already look, although they look great on paper, they do not succeed. i think two months back we reported this, but there was a very revealing letter by a former taliban official who was in charge of the office in qatar and he wrote to the taliban chief that the taliban and should not heed itself as a terrorist escape. it should see itself as a movement within the framework for working toward an islamic system.

that is the thing. people who, i know there are individuals and groups that have prevented in some of them are genuine people. people were tortured and killed, in many ways wrongly, but at the same time they rely on terrorism or terrorist tactics and violence and it makes it difficult to, in particular it's difficult now that most groups have left or are ready to leave. i don't think that anybody in washington will argue for keeping more troops in afghanistan, but it's the violence that keep national interest there, and that's something that i think the pakistan policymakers need to understand. i will also add, the three things that pakistan is talking about, one is india's role.

the other one is, the other two are the biggest domestic security terrorism threats or regions where pakistan state have been struggling and all of them go back to renaissance. [inaudible] they cannot simply go and lie down in graves and hope for the best. if they are attacked day in and day out by an insurgency, i know they are recent reports that they have moved into the area, but those are questionable. from what we know from our sources, maybe the reality is that taliban leadership is going to the area frequently, but it

still holds in the network is more attended within the taliban hierarchy. that also goes back to changing the outlook of the taliban from being a nationalistic one as an islamic movement that has open to alliances with al qaeda or other international terrorists or extremist groups. this indian hold on palestine is a result of what pakistan has been doing. if they stop what it's been doing, i think india will pull back. the other big thing for pakistan is the whole situation. [inaudible] pakistan has invested a lot of money and effort in bringing

stability to this area. i'm happy to report there is stability. i just read something about the area and the situation there has improved and people are going back, millions of displaced people. but what pack sign pakistan said it's unwilling to do is implement political reform. you can't have this region in pakistan which is outside of its mainstream league of political mainstream and hope that there will be an insurgency and hope that it will be prevented. if pakistan recognizes stability and pushes it back into afghanistan or gives them an incentive, a real real incentive

to engage in negotiations and denies them covert aid, then i think it will be a tremendous boost and they will also be a good thing for this pakistan china court or for economics. then this whole thing about short-term security interest is also true of russia. although the russian role, i don't see that it's a game changer, but since 2014, it has grown substantially. there's some sort of russia pakistan alignment in the understanding.

with that in mind, i think with the new administration, the big thing is too not. [inaudible] look at the situation with a fresh idea and also, i think with this idea that it can be a sovereign state, but it can only be a sovereign state if all its neighbors are united and abstain from interfering the way that been interfering. >> thank you very much. i think you agree those are rich and well-informed comments and i want to get to questions because we don't have much time. i would like to say a few words and then i have a question for all three panelists relating to

russia and china and their role. scott talked about the breakdown and the fact that the country's relations were at a low point. i would agree with that. i think we need to remember, the breakdown of the very talks of the taliban that happen in pakistan in 2015, the violence in afghanistan never stopped. there was a major attack in kabul in late august. think yes they get credit for getting the taliban and to the table but we have to see more efforts to reduce violence. any attempt at reconciliation has to address the issue of violence in afghanistan. you can't have one without the other. then, the indonesia and pakistan tensions very high right now.

it's a very dangerous time because we are in a presidential transition and you can have both state actors and nonstate actors trying to take advantage of that transition and power. we saw that in the mumbai attacks from the transition to the bush administration to the obama administration, but i would note that the reason for that increased tension, we've had two major attacks in india. you have the attack on the military base, 18 indian soldiers were killed, our national security advisor told us that the pakistan -based militants had conducted that attack and nine months before we had an attack on another indian base conducted by pakistan militants :

legitimateat way to hear out your foreign policy and we have made progress with pakistan, and pakistan -- but there's still some efforts that need to be made in this direction. coming to my question for all three, we've talked about russia's involvement, sort of recent involvement. we talked about china and china's increased economic involvement in other areas. instead of devolving into a great gains situation where countries are competing and supporting different factions and contributing to chaos in the

country, is even possible to think about cooperation between the u.s., russia, and china in combating nonstate actors? that's a comment concern with the three major powers, not having nonstate actor have a large role in the country. can we even think.any kind of cooperation among these three countries or between the two? >> well, i think for russia and china, the threat is very similar because for a very long time the etim, the chinese separatist group, has been imbedded closely with the -- us changed the character being in

the pakistan tribal area. so what has kind of driven chinese policy to a level they want to prevent against the threat, but i think in -- what they have failed is to convey this to pakistan, and there's one -- there's some kind of china-afghanistan and -- a instrument of adding to chinese interests in afghan san, for the "time" chinese appointed a new

envoy. it is very interested in closing -- with pakistan, investing in infrastructure and making pakistan a good, successful example, but china is not for pakistan actively participating and engage to control afghanistan. in russia's part, actively in context with some taliban commanders in kondus, that kind of tactical thing and also a

offshore scheme russia is supporting by giving them money and like that, we have to see more evidence to believe that. >> i would say the good news is there are mutual interests in the ends of civility in afghanistan and the region. the means there's significant disagreement in how to getter there. the u.s. folk kegged on democracy and -- not in the russian moron apparatus, and the chinese has been economic which is much more oblique. the final thing that is maced is an agreed international tremendous framework for --

there hasn't been an official recognized international framework for thus. doesn't have to be the u.n. but should be a more concrete forum to sort out these interests. >> i would agree. there's a basis at the foundational level as a common interest in counterterrorism goals, more stability and prosperity. i think what is encouraging is that the -- for example, -- in essence that was what the agreement to the process were about in 2001, rooted in the p-5 and the u.n. so the u.s., russia, and china were member of that grouping, with the 6 plus 2, the core part of -- and in essence it was about accepting a new point that neighbors accepting the sovereignty of afghanistan and the process to

build legitimatey internally. so there's a precedent for it. a lot has got on tracks' water under the bridge but i think some element to that basic recognition of afghan stability is possible. >> thank you. and we're running out of time. we have five minutes to questions. so i'd like to take two or three questions together. so, if you have a question, please raise your hand, wait for the microphone, give your affiliation and then please keep it to a brief question. do we have any questions? okay. i'm going to take these two questions. this gentleman first. >> thank you for the presentation. balance for the state department. can the panel incorporate the role that drugs play in this

regional cooperation among the various actors? it's been alludeed to but can you speak about whether it's been undermine can or enabling economic development and security. >> thank you. and we have one more question back here. >> i ammo ham -- the concern is that this is about the -- taliban. the concern is, is there a potential that russia leveraging from its contact with the taliban to turn it against a common enemy, that is, he west, united states. >> great questions. >> if there is, what's the level of potential. >> thank you very much. who would like to go first addressing those questions?

>> just say that i think they have tested be waters in the past here to or four years. international conferences, a lot of more russia -- pakistan -- what people are thinking and saying but i don't think that they have the resources, like in syria or other misses. they have committed the resources to do that. ever for example, might be hedging bets, if the situation goesad in afghanistan and kabul crumbles or the american commitment is not there, then maybe they think of it. there is kind of two or the schools within russia.

and there other elements who might have other desires. but i frankly think in is -- people use open source information, we don't know that. >> scott. >> i think i'll focus on the role of drugs. i think it was mentioned earlier that one of the key roles of drugs more ofs' to the u.s. and we were donors is its revenue stream in support of the taliban, number one and its corrupting influence on the afghan governan. in iran, a lot of drugs transition through the country and addiction to the drugs is a special problem in iran so they have made a lot of public statements about their interest in the reducing that trade, and

also russia, which ultimately is a recipient and traffic point so they have been quite vocal. i see it affecting those two countries in terms of national national interest, and the part of the corrupting influence in afghanistan, it's also becoming a public health issue. >> claire, you have the last word. >> i think it's recovered? okay. well, thank you so much for joining us today and can you please join me in giving a warm applause to all three panelists. [applause]

[inaudible conversations discussion] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up here on cnbc 2, today's previousing at the state department. we'll hear from john kerry, take the briefing live as soon as it starts, 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span 2. and then tonight at 7:00, live coverage of another event in washington, dc, this one marking the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the bill

of rights. federal judges will discuss the document and its relevance today. we'll take you to in the national archives live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 2:00, over on c-span, brookings institution we discuss nursing home rating systems. live, 2:00 eastern, on c-span. >> let's check in live here inside the lobby of trump tower where government officials and business executives arrive for meeting. we'll observe the scene outside the lobby elevators. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the cameras live inside the trump tower lobby continue to observe the scene live all day at c-span.org and we saw continuing protests outside trump tower in mid-town manhattan, look at what that scene looked like earlier. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are here to deliver over 400 -- over 400,000 -- it's about violation of the foreign bribery clause. >> sorry, ma'am, you have to move. >> they won't let us talk? >> no. >> every weekend booktv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors of he's programs

this weekend. saturday night, 10 eastern, "after words," georgetown university professor looks at the democratic legal system to dib and called for a change in how the government is run, interviewed by david bowe. >> gets you to -- why is it that people reject that system. they think it will lead to bad outcomes, and they're probably right. on -- once you say that, you're on my side and have to start asking, how are you going to weigh fairness versus the quality of the outcome? >> on sunday, the columbus foundation. the awards are presented at the sfj centers? san francisco.

at 5:00 p.m. eastern, jonathan zimmerman at the university of pennsylvania on the increasing pressure to curtail free speech on college campuses, in his book called "campus politics." >> that doesn't taboo words but taboos ideas, right? if 40% of the faculty is opposed to affirmative action, we're not hearing from them. that means there's a serious pc problem. >> go to booktv for the complete schedule. >> next week i us a authorize's week on "wall street journal." begins sunday, december 18th. jd vance, a memoir of family and culture in crisis. december 19th, charles murray

talks about his become "in our hands." on tuesday, december 20th. author mark levinson doeses any book. an wednesday, author carol anderson will talk about her book "white range." and thursday, december 22nd, "twilight warriors. and then on the 23rd, the politics of resentment, world consciousness in wisconsin and the rise of scott walker, on saturday two authors, "the end of white christian america. and on sunday, "shall we wake the president?

" to levels of disaster management. >> and we'll be live again here in about ten minutes at the state department for comments from secretary of state johnnue. kerry. >> at our table this more than, donna reduce hughes, the president and ceo of enough is enough. >> our organization is dedicated to making the internet safer foe children and family, we were the first internet safety organization. we started in 1994 witha focus on the internet before the world wide web was online. it was being developed but had not gone live yet. before e-mail. >> so, before melania trump, which is why we asked you to come on to talk about -- she would really like this subero

bullies to be her platform. when you heard that, what did you think? >> she can do a lot. it is wonderful to have that kind of a platform to be able to speak into this culture, and as a younge mother herself, she has already seen off kids can behave plat online. she is graceful and moms will relate to her and little girls will relate to her and they're the ones are girls who of getting bullied. >> you worked for donald trump. what are you recommendations to her? >> well, the first thing is to learn everything she can about the issue. there are a lot of great effortr already going on, so our philosophy is don't reinvent the

wheel. there are a lot of wednesdays. so look at what is available, then let's see where to go from here. recommend an adviser to help walk her through his and see where are the gaps because there are some gaps. we talk about prevent can cyber bullying but i'd like to see someone who has involved in isg is to start encourage a shift in the culture, a shift back to treat can people with dignity and respect and kindness. was thinking about this last night, at this time of yeartu people are a little more merry, a little more joyful and a little more nice. it would be great if we could have that stepped every day of the year, that becomes the real

norm, and that bullying and things like that are just up acceptable. like smoking in public in aptab. restaurant is not acceptable, and not wearing a seatbelt. believe we can get to a paradigm shift with someone another her level. >> what is cyberbullying?ce that put up to the cdc has said occurs through technology, either electric trop county aggression, occurs in e-mail, instar gram, pictures sent through cell phones, estimated at 16% of high school students reported being bullied electronically in 2016. >> the numbers are all over the place. pie studies are usually higher.r so it depends on how the study is done, what the age bracket was and that kind of thing. i've seen studies as high as 43%, and some much lower than

the cdcs. i think the point is, if you talk to kids themselves and you ask them if they've been bullied they'll tell you. the key for the papers ifs wheat going on with my child, my child's peer groups and myool, child's at that months fear at school or church and have the conversations. >> we want parents and administrators, educators to, be calling in as well as student, this is how we're dividing the lines. students, 202-748-8000, parents, and then all others call in at -- join this conversationab about cyberbullying and gives us your caughts. is this the federal

government's john to address this issue? >> i think the federal government can address it from the standpoint that this is not assettable. that we -- acceptable, that we need to look at public policy.no right now there isn't a federal public policy and that fine because there are state policies and state laws, and in fact, stop bully doing.gov has a map of all the estates about lawsut and policies and dealing with cyberbullying. i think it would be hard for the federal government to address this in a legal fashion. this is better left to the states, because this is happening in localities for the most part. it's better left to the stateste to teal with this. >> host: who is at risk? >> guest: anyone who is using

technology is at risk. doesn't matter if it's cyberbullies or kid accessing pornography. it's so personality when parents start to allow their kids to have technology, to start their safety conversations at a very, very early age and talk to them be the fact this laptop, tableto computer, is a technology and is not a right.ht it's a privilege. and when you then allow them to go online -- and i don't recommend that start very early, quite frankly. you need to talk about what is out there. i think that parents and kids have a tendency to thick they're safe behind the technology, but

that not try. the internet opens up to all thr good, great people, and opens you up to all the bad and ugly and dangerous. so it's up to the parents to be the first line of defense. that's important there is a role for government and i do want to talk about pornography and thenc problem that is right now, and why there's so much of that going on. one reason is that many of our laws have not been aggressively enforced.ce we do have federal laws on the books to protect children from hard core pornography and adults, they're called the federal on sendity laws. they have not been enforced under the past administration at all. under the ashcroft administration they didn't force the obscenity laws, and then prior to that, not at all. what we have is a pandemic of

material online, and kids think and adults think it's in. if it's there, it's legal. it's not. the majority of it is not protected speech. but this is very important. this, for instance, is a danger that the federal government needs to get more involved in enforcing the laws, and we haven child pornography laws. kids come across that as wellos and it's getting worse. the lawyering being enforce there could be greater cooperation with law enforcement at the federal and state andem local levels. one of the things we did this past year is we wrote the first ever children's internet safety presidential plan, and we asked donald trump and secretary clinton to sign it, before they were elected and said if you're elected, will you enforce thehe federal obscenity laws, the

child pornography laws, the sex trafficking law, the children's internet protection act. and in some of these laws like the -- have not been aggressively enforced. that includes schools and libraries to filter. the libraries are not doing it. if they're taking government money they have to by law. that was passed in 1998. the needs to be greater oversight here. well, donald trump signed the pledge and hillary clinton sent a letter of support, so that was historic. so now we'll be working with the trump administration getting the next attorney general to aggressively enforce those laws, hopefully set up a commission to look at these dangers in digital world and come up with better solutions, and to also encourage greater public-privateri

partnership with corporate america, to do more than they're doing now. >> let's hair from an educator. jeff. from temple hills, maryland. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> host: well, question or comment?co >> caller: i have a comment and aaggrieve with what your guest is saying. parents have to take a greater roll. i've gone from no cell phones in the classroom, to no coputers to digitalized columbias and there needs to be education in thech schools, and perhaps even need tops be classes taught on proper internet and -- and parents have to talk time to talk with the kids, again, at an earlage and talk to them about everything so they don't feel like they have to go into the digital world toa be heard, seen, accept led, and