[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> welcome. we have a very special guest today. the minister of foreign affairs and vice prime minister over the state of qatar, his excellen excellency. he's a very young man, and already has a very impressive career and already was in a key position more than a year. and becoming somewhat familiar with washington. and i have to say, however,

it's a little difficult to understand his region, things are constantly happening, in addition to qatar there's a small state called saudi arabia. another small state called iran and they react in a variety of places and also russia and of course, the united states. it's very important and very complex region and we come to you, mr. minister to explain to us what is going on. i've just read your statement about a recent saudi move as far as lebanon was concerned. and it was my understanding that you found some reason for concern. welcome. >> thank you, sir. you can speak from here or from here, whichever you prefer.

>> good morning, everybody, and thank you for hosting me this morning. ladies and gentlemen, lately the world watches the news and see images from my region which are full of drama and discord. it wasn't always that way. we were a place of prosperity, thanks to shared effort. and that time was lost. and dark periods of closed mindedne mindedness totalitarianism and aggression set in. the middle east went from a center of connectivity and enlightenment to being a regi

region-- during the age of aggression extremism had flourished. government seeking domination, centralizing power and intimidating smaller countries into submission. these dark ages are not happening in the distant past, they are happening right now. >> the illegal blockade launched against my country six months ago is just one more an aggressive power play. the blockade was not really about those demands or ultimatums, but rather about modern day powerful regime threatening freedom, liberty and sovereignty. ladies and gentlemen, these are played out in a dangerous game of power against many nations

in the region, yemen, somalia, libya, lebanon. aggression gone wild. it seems this power are willing to use means of intimidation. silenting the centers, shutting down communications, manipulating financial markets. bullying smaller nations, black mailing. fracturing governments and storm arming and spreading propaganda and all the way, some are sacrificing their journalistic integrity. and why is qatar one of the many of the countries inside the powerful regime? well, we are a tiny nation in

the middle east sandwiched between two powerful forces in the region. iran to the north and saudi arabia to the south. and then there is the uae to the east uae is the largest trading partner with iran at the same time acts in conflict with saudi arabia. 20 years agca tar decided to make a bold move to independence. and our neighbor, with consolidation of power, qatar decided to chart course towards openness. qatar decided the best way to seek this would be through international collaboration and shari sharing. we implemented policy changes that we thought would be resisted in our region.

and we ended up being correct. the right to have different policy changes from our neighbor had been achieved for the past two decades. the punishment for independence has begun. the public reason given by the blockading states for the current crisis is and was-- a global leader in the fight against terrorism and the blockading states are well aware of this reality. the crisis was against my country in an effort to recess the centralization of power in the region. ladies and gentlemen, what started six months ago as a crisis of betrayal today looks

much worse. i visit the u.s. with the perspective as more crises unfold every day in my region, the blockading states have been trying to twist the truth with a scheme to flood the media with egregious lies about my country, but now the past six months the truth is surfacing. little did we know that behind the scenes, the effort of the blockading states ran deeper. cyber attacks, market manipulations and the plot-- and a plot of the crew. is the disrespect of international law and enforcement made our region for the power seekers vapes. regional players are acting

irresponsibly taking political gambles with the lives of other nation's citizens with no exit strategy. not even will prevail. aid for starving children is being used as a leverage. why the atrocities of syria are being tolerated and in the same way that yemen is being put in a meaningless stalemate, now, this power makes their actions in lebanon. this is the behavior, a reckless person for seeking power with a complete disregard for the suffering left in their wake. that suffering includes lost opportunities in the war against terrorists. the blockading states who are among the power players are in the region, have systematic

behavior that the u.s. and other global powers from our shared anti-terrorism efforts. the blockading states hunger for power and their unpredictability ruin stability and security. these power players are helping terrorism thrive. these are not blockading states run by institutions with checks and balances. but by individuals who seek power through a range of techniques from cyber attacks and i can sure with you from this region, those who seek power create crisis. the political maneuvering and aggressive counterproductive measures damage regional security, allowing vacuum for extremists to fill.

the dark age of totalitarianism in the middle east is at our doorstep. we share the u.s. and international community's concern for regional security when reckless leadership takes hold in the middle east. the aggression must end. so, where do we go from here? >> i would be adding to the problem if i failed to offer a constructive discussion for the path forward. while we are a tiny nation, we have undergone enormous changes over the past 20 years. we are a work in progress, but i wanted to share some of the lessons we learned from others and one, practice good government. for there to be a trust built between a people and their

leader, a social contract must be formed. in can only be created through respect for the dignity of each citizen. giving them the rule of law and due process. transparent leadership and investment in the human capital sews the seeds of future prosperity. two, conduct reformmation with moderation. a reform should continuously happen and each nation has the right to define its culture and decide what changes, what change is needed. deciding what to preserve, what to advance and what to change takes thoughtful leadership. reform through forced stalemate creates a ticking bomb.

extreme reform forced into populations creates a better backlash. a formation through moderation inspires wide and lasting reform. three, exhaust all diplomatic means. war and violence creates suffering. and needless suffering could have been avoided through peaceful means. we can find ways to live together peacefully and at the very last-- at the very least, we must keep trying. and in qatar we believe in these principles and have worked to achieve them. we've seen these values played out here in the united states. and with our other international partners, and that is why we form alliances with them.

in closing, i hope that powerful players seeking domination in the country. those powerful nations seek to serve their neighbors. qatar wants more than just stability for the region. we want the middle east to flourish. and for the middle east it's for a peaceful could he existence where the east and west can come together and where qatar can serve as peace in a more enlightened time. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, mr. minister. it was a very powerful presentation. i would like to start with a specific question. i want you to read your statement regarding the saudi

position in lebanon and in particular, remarkable saga for lebanese or ex-lebanese prime minister. and you said interesting things about that. can you explain more broadly what happened recently in saudi arabia? >> well, once we found in the case of lebanon, because i cannot give you the two sides of the story because of the cutting off communication between us and the saudis, but what i can tell you, what we hear from the lebanese and what we are watching and how we are accessing this these steps taken. first of all, the prime minister, head of state of different country from different city and this way without any awareness from

his-- within his government or within his leadership is an intervention and internal affair of lebanon. not allowing him to go back to his country, we hope that he will be allowed to. this is also an intervention in the country. and so, what we see, is that this intervention is exactly the same method used again, again, trying to pressure countries in order to get them into submission and this is the risk we have in the region, that powerful countries are trying to take control of other nation's decisions. we cannot have a system within the arab world that the power will be consolidated in one or

two countries. this cannot be accepted in the 21st century, so, that's why we see that any try against any other country in the region to fall into submission will present a growing risk for everybody, know the -- not in the region, but in the world. >> qatar, a very interesting document, very ambitious and most observers suggest they could not expect that you would comply. do you agree and if so, what are they trying to get from your country? >> well, we are-- i cannot, as i told you, because of this cutting off of communication, i cannot talk to you on their behalf, but we're still getting what they want

exactly. so, mainly what we saw that there is any-- there is a desire for full submission, and to compromise the sovereignty of the country and of saudi, uae, the blockading states and listing nos demands just, a clear presentation for the attitude they are having there. and having, interfering in the country's affair, imposing decisions on countries is as i mentioned in the 21st century it's undermining the world order. ...

>> look at it from a different angle where we see that how countries are enforcing demands on underdeveloped countries. they cannot happen. they had concern. and of the country they have to address those concerns. but not enforced demands or ask for something from an underdeveloped nation. we need to change this understanding from countries who are in position to enforce demands on other countries, to our position where if there are any concerns, those concerns need to be arbitrated or needed to be discussed in a civilized

manner. >> now take a few questions. please identify yourself. even if i know you well, because of the lights i will not necessarily -- [inaudible] >> "congressional quarterly." the house for the first committee in congress last week approved a bill that would impose mandatory secondary sanctions on foreign governments and individuals determined to be financially supporting hamas. given your past comments about saudi arabia's efforts to suppress the sovereignty of qatar to use actions like this by the u.s. congress as a similar effort to attack qatar foreign-policy? what is your current level of support for hamas? >> just first of all to set the record straight. qatar has never supported hamas, and whenever support hamas.

qatar support is going to the people who are in need, and all the support following process, and the results of the supports are realized by the people there, whether in qatar or the west bank. the reconstruction of the homes of the people which was affected because of the work of the reconstruction of the schools, the supplies for the hospitals which all being done, carried out by other government is all realize there and the people, they are welcoming any foreign guests to come there and see what kind of support and out these support to helping and stabilizing the situation. this is just to clear this is to talk about qatar support for hamas and the continuation of

this narrative, which is, which is no basis. what we're seeing here in the bill regarding hamas is one of the results of the propaganda created against qatar, because what inspired, the bill was referencing to articles which were inspired by this same propaganda. what we see, we have no concern about that this bill or any other action will affect our relation with the united states because we are dealing in full coordination and transparency with the government of the u.s. and they know very well what are the steps qatar is following and what are the steps and what is the contribution of qatar to the peace process there between these really and the palestinians, and how those are

contributing to the peace process. >> thank you. >> yes, please, back row. >> thank you, your excellency. al-jazeera english or i have two questions for you. first of all, the turmoil in saudi arabia at the moment, the interim turmoil mainly to the situation which your country being extended for a greater period of time. and secondly, are you concerned that the state department seemed to be taking a fairly neutral view and try to get a solution to this crisis whether it's, the present seems between he and much more pro-idea last -- [inaudible] >> regarding the u.s. position, and the president come he wants to see an end for this. this has been expressed several

times by him, and the president, he delegated all the efforts to be carried out by the secretary of state. we highly appreciate the role of the united states, and have been trying with the blockade in place to come to the table and to discuss what are their concerns. and the blockade states kept refusing the offers, including the offer of the president when he invited everybody to camp david to meet together and to address the concerns between the countries. so qatar accepted all those attempts and accepted the invitation of the president. we cannot push them to come and engage in a dialogue. we see that this crisis is

affecting the regional stability, and we see the engagement and we see a necessity to present the energy of the gcc as an organization. but from the other hand, we see another party who disrespected and disregarded and international trade to bring them to the table. and they are just trying to continue this crisis, and trying to create another and the crisw with what's happening with other countries. so in conclusion, our position, we remain committed to engage in dialogue. in fact, in the last six months we have at all levels 50 times qatari officials on different levels stated the readiness to engage in a dialogue. from the other hand, you can count how many times they have mentioned the dialogue are

mentioned the mediation or mentioned the efforts of the restoration of the relationship. so we see that there is the same attitude is continuing, and qatar, we are carrying on. but we see the importance of the region -- regional security so that is why we're still open for the dialogue. whenever they are ready to come in a gauge they will find us at the table. >> yes, please. >> the university of maryland and a brookings. just two quick questions, one related to the demands that are asked of you, and you suggested that they are really just, is not specific, while they are specific they are indicative of an attitude, suggesting that they are designed not to be met, suggesting that this is therefore indefinite. how do you see this point it's about if there's nothing that

qatar can do to satisfy them? how do you see the point out? second, you refer to the blockading state purchased specifically talked about saudi arabia's and united arab emirates. you didn't mention egypt. and i'm wondering if you are sensing any nuanced differences among the blockading states? what is the role of egypt? egypt has taken a position on issues like yemen and let leban that differed from its coalition partners in the gulf. is there a nuance difference on this issue as well? >> well, regarding the demands, i just mentioned to you that the concept of demands shouldn't be there in a place between countries, between the nation's. the entire concept is not right and not property to be addressed. us, we mention that there is any

shared concerns, it would be our concern as well. we can discuss it and we can engage in the spirit and we have put this very clear in different statements as well. if you're going to look at it when they are talking, they talk about their demands into the talked about principles. when you mention the principles, qatar responded right away that those six principles are acceptable for everybody and qatar is went to engage to discuss what area of concerns on both principles, and to engage in a series of dialogue, why they see those principles being violated by any of the countries, not qatar only, but any of them, which has been the normal principles for the international law, fighting

terrorism, stopping a difference in other countries, et cetera. so we remain committed to any civilized way to solve this problem. for them, they prepare their city. they impose the majority, they have collectively punished qatar as they think. we cannot change them. and for us, we have been the country which was subject for this aggression. they need to obey to the international law and from all the legal measure and come to the table and discuss their concerns. that's the only thing we can provide. regarding egypt and the blockading states, for us we see that those measures carried out by v4 countries -- the four countries mainly came from the gcc, and we see also all the

lines of fumigation we have the leadership is with the two countries, and, in this blockade. regarding egypt, egypt, they have their own issues with qatar which was before this. and those issues where their issue. we have been very much open toward egypt since the revolution when was supported egypt, and then after the coup even we condemned the queue as the united states and in the coup in egypt as of the countries condemned them. they consider this condemnation by qatar that qatar is against and they continue carrying on their policy based on this condemnation without any try to seek for solution. why from our side qatar remains, consider egypt as an important country in the region, as a

center of power in the arab region, and the stability of egypt is important for all of us. and we don't want to see any part of egypt collapse, and we continue our investments there. so it's in our interests to maintain egypt's security and stability. and we have nothing against, if they have any issues and we don't know about them, they have to come and address it in the same way and to engage in a dialogue. other than that, also we cannot push them to come to engage with us. >> what about iran? it's an important country and you know the saudi are very critical of your countries ties -- over a very tedious explanation. what is happening? >> regarding iran, first of all we need to understand that the

uniqueness of qatar position here. and as i just mentioned, that qatar is really waged between iran and saudi, , both of them e rivalries. and for us where bordering with both of them and we are a small nation. we cannot, we have to maintain the stability of our country first of all. this is our priority for our people. so that's what we have to manage thousands relationship, this is number one. number two, we are sharing with them our largest -- gasket with iran. this also represents a main source of income for the country. and the third, when it comes to the difference between our region and iran, we never took the position iran against the region. and we have been, we are

confronting each other in syria. we've been confronting each other. we are still with all what's been happening we remain committed that yemen needs to comply with the security council resolution and the legitimate government to have the support, but we encourage the people of kingman jim and to engage in a national dialogue which will result as stability and put an end for this continuous war. so with policies we have come with iran it remains the same. regarding saudi accusation, was part of their topic and an life. this is a problem here. qatar would withdraw its ambassador from iran as solidarity with saudi arabia after the aggression against the embassy. and then the ambassador just returned a couple of months ago when saudi, the only land border we have an uae and bahrain

blockaded the skies and then only acted. 90% of of our food and medical supplies coming to this land border. so i have about relation with iran, then qatar will be under siege and we cannot get neither food nor medicines for our people, and we cannot bring any supplies for the country or export our products, which is main source of energy for the entire world. qatar represents 3% of the energy of japan, represents 25% of the energy of south korea which are united states allies, which are important for everyone that to maintain the stability of qatar, supplies, united kingdom was more than 20% of the requirement of lng. around 10% of foreign requirement of lng.

all those countries are relying on qatar, and qatar tried, we tried our best not to affect although supplies by those measures being enforced against us. and now we are accused that we have a strongly with iran. we have no strong relation with iran. we had communication and we have more communication because of the crisis since the blockading countries are blockading the skies, locating the skies from our planes. >> it seems like -- is counterproductive at least in terms of their objectives. is this correct? >> this is what we see, it is not only prescient as big we see most of the policies that admitted is counterproductive. >> yes, please.

>> david with npr. do you see the u.s. of doing more to resolve this crisis? could it do more, and do you feel the u.s. has your back in this dispute? and also, what is the significance of the u.s. military presence in qatar for your sense of stability? how important do you see that as a guarantee for your country? >> regarding the u.s. role in this crisis, we see that united states and that administration here are putting a tremendous effort to see an end for this crisis.

unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere yet, and the statements of the secretary has been very clear in his last visit in qatar it seems there is one part of the crisis is not willing to solve the problem. so they cannot provide anything without both parties willingness. and our position on qatar, we have been expressing our willingness to everyone,, including the u.s., and we appreciate the role all our allies uplink with us. and it's important for the u.s. and for our allies that this crisis see an end very soon. because as a children it is affecting the regional security. it's also undermining the importance of the gcc as an organization, and as a collective effort to fight any

common thread among those countries. so it's very important that the u.s. and the rest of the countries stay engaged to put a stop for this baseless isis, which -- crisis, and created all this sequencing. there is one important point here also which i would like to highlight, that also we need to look at the danger of the cyber attack, how it can create such a big crisis. this is very important. regarding the u.s. forces in qatar, we appreciate the close relationship we have together and the partnership we have together with the united states, but this space is not to protect qatar. space is to say the region. and for us, our main protection is from, coming from her own

people and her own army. the presence of the u.s. and other allies there is, should be in the calculation for anyone who wants to think about qatar, yes, maybe. but it won't be a a guarantee against any aggression. we hosted the u.s.-based after the saudis asked them to leave. we've been the only country which received them. and we have now around each the 2011-12,000 u.s. troops out there. but nevertheless, we have much stronger relationship then only defense. defense, education, economic relationship which is, it's developing very well and it's growing. in the same space wasn't affected by the current crisis. >> mr. minister, you mentioned

defense and to be responsible for tone security. -- its own security. [inaudible] and if this is a case can be tells a little bit about this visit? [inaudible] >> deputy prime minister is in charge. >> we have the defense minister visit us. [inaudible] >> yeah, but maybe as a follow-up for the defense minister. what we have, we had signed with russia a technical cooperation agreement. so there is an agreement between qatar and russia to also work on some areas of defense improvement together. but the main stream supply for qatar defense is from united

states and from france. >> is there any doubt -- [inaudible] >> well, it's still an early stage cooperation. >> thank you very much. >> bloomberg. i have a question about come to talk about uae being an accomplice to give any sense of the relationship between these two conferences? so the relationship, how directing policy kind of what's driving some of these moves were seeing, especially in terms of their communication relationship, your sense of that. >> i cannot talk about their relationship as individuals, but

what i am here in position to talk about is how they are together and in different causes. one of them, mainly which is affecting qatar, blockade which was imposed against us, and we see that they are continuing their escalation together. the same thing in yemen, what's happening there, we see a strong alignment together, but doesn't mean, do the means which are, they are following, they are serving their objective, initial objective. it's not anymore. so we see that there is, they are working together and implement think those policies, and we're happy when we seek countries cooperating together to implement policy together

from our region. but those policies need to be right. need to create stability rather than creating, rather than destabilizing the region. so it's not about the partnership, is a good are not good. the partnership is always good. but does it have a good result or not? what we see, there is no good results yet. >> former ambassador to iraq. >> good morning, mr. minister. thank you for speaking to us. i had two questions. the first, you referred earlier to the middle east peace process very briefly and i wish is wondering how you assess the chances for peace at this particular moment between israel and the palestinians? and the other was, i was curious as to what your assessment is,

what your governments assessment is, of the current situation in iraq? >> regarding the middle east peace process, we see that there is, first of all, very, very important that you, the national reconciliation. we hope that it sustains under two serve the main purpose which is the peace process. and we see also a commitment from the u.s. leadership here, from the president himself, in order to have a deal between the palestinians, and we are in favor of any peace process will take place which is based on the arab peace initiative, which

already laid the ground for future relation between the israelis and the arab nations. so we see that there is a growing chances for the peace because of the commitment of u.s. as taking, carrying on the mediation effort, but also from the palestinians whom they want to engage in peace, and this is from a our dialogue with them. but we don't see that the latest steps have been taken by the u.s. government by the plo office is going to be help because they need the line of communication with the palestinian authority. this office represents an instrumental tool for this communication.

regarding iraq, we see that the situation, and we're hopeful,, that the situation will be stabilized soon. but we've seen that iraq has suffered now for the last 14 years, and now the fight against terrorism is coming to an end. and we see that there is a tremendous unfortunate development of iran. and there is tremendous -- [inaudible] to stabilize the country and to create a better life for the iranian people they are. what it needs, it needs a collaboration between the nation's in order to invest in reconstruction, and helping iraq, building their institutions, and investing in their economy which everybody believes it's promising economy because of possibilities that are presented there.

we are maybe, iraq is maybe one of the places where we have been optimistic in the region, and we hope that it will continue at the same pace in the development. but it's very important also, and it's an important responsibility by the iraqi government to carry out national reconciliation efforts, a real national reconciliation effort and to integrate all the people from different backgrounds together. uniting them for one national objective, which is iraq. other than that they will continue the sectarianism and the marginalization. this will create a worse problem in the future here. >> yes, please.

>> washington institute. you were saying that qatar support is been more for the people of gaza than for hamas. can you understand why some people have better perception? the leader of hamas during the 2014 war in particular was known to have a very close relationship with the emir. then you see why people might see a different way than you do? and can you say something about the gaza reconciliation and now, what's going on with the p.a. coming back to gaza led by egypt? do you see this as a positive development? thank you. >> regarding our support to hamas, there is no support for hamas. we have been very clear in this,

that our support was to the people. there is a perception that qatar supports hamas because we are having hamas particular office in doha, this particular office opened earlier at the request of united states. and it's been opened also for dialogue for engagement for the reconsideration. and also its help and our efforts to stopping the different worse. in 2008-2009 the war stopped from the negotiation with hamas and their office. the war in 2014 stopped from the same office. so we offer them just the platform to negotiate and to engage with others here we don't endorse the activities. we don't, we are not -- or with other parties. qatar wants to see peace, once

to support the palestinian people. so this is our only decide. the perception being clear, because hamas people are -- [inaudible] this is something which is not in our control, because what we have, we are dealing with this, and full of transparency. when we are supporting, where supporting the people. the people for explaining this perception, they are saying that since your stabilizing -- in order to weaken hamas prices, shall we distract the people? we have to stabilize this city in order not to have any more coming out of control or coming up from the city. there are continuous efforts by, because of the presence of hamas office in doha, that when any conflict or any dispute is happening or any confrontation between people, between israeli

forces, to defuse those confrontations. otherwise, it might lead to another worker can we afford another were in the region? we cannot afford it. we have enough prices on our table. now, hamas are dealing with egypt and they have continuous presence in egypt. does that mean that egypt supports hamas, or do we hear this accusation that egypt supports hamas? white egypt accuses that we're supporting hamas from the other side? regarding the reconsideration, the reconsideration was a work now for years. it's not something which was achieved in a week or two. this work, the leadership was with egypt and still with egypt. qatar, when we helped in the reconciliation, we were helping these efforts. we were helping bringing the parties closer because we believe it's critical for the peace process. and we believe that there is no

state and no palestine. we have to keep this country together. we have to keep it to maintain the integrity and to unite the leadership of the country in order if we want to achieve and long-lasting peace. other than that, if we're not helping indirect consideration -- in reconsideration because we hate one party or the other party, we keep it fragment and we will never teepees and we will keep it subject for very high risk in the region. >> what about syria? isis seems to be defeated, almost defeated at least on the ground. what was uniting russians and united states, common element. i should say is no more but there appears to be somewhat less ethnic russians and the american objectives --

[inaudible] russians are more supportive for the regime than they were before. should say united states has less of a priority in changing the regime in syria, but not prepared to accept current president indefinitely. and then of course its own objectives and its own unique diplomacy. what's going to happen there? >> we are concerned with what's going on in syria. look, just, the complicity of the syria situation, because of the different players, international players in this crisis is really making it very complex and very difficult to be resolved. but what we know, we have to go back to the basics. the basics that we have one

person with his army killed more than 500,000 people, displaced more than 1 million people. and we are seeing a level of tolerance with this person right now. because there were of the threats, which is daesh, syria, and we diverted the focus from the people of syria to fight daesh and focus on daesh, and we didn't care about -- i think that the biggest mistake that we didn't address the two things together on the same level. and our concern that the people who, especially the syrian children now who have been like five years old when the revolution started, they have witnessed number of atrocities

and crimes. the evincing their families killed in front of them. they have been seen their sisters raped in front of them. they have been seeing all this happening in front of them. what would we expect from those children when they grow up, ten years from now? how can we expect that we'll see normal people who are not going to represent another threat ten years from now? so postponing the addressing of the issue of the syrian people will will have a long-term effect. just, i had received that one of my dear colleagues from one of the blockading countries talking about the blockade of qatar help solve the situation in syria. that's actually the country. the blockade of qatar is not helping the situation in syria, but the change of your policy is

already all the crimes and all the principles which you can staniforth for a long time. so i think we need, syria issue, we need to look at it very seriously because it might represent the biggest future to us. we need to look at the cause of the people. we need to restore stability, yes, but we need to hold all criminals accountable for all the crimes they have committed. otherwise they're going to run away, then we'll have those issues repeated by maybe different dictators or different people. >> the problem is of course to do what you want to do. you have to force the government in syria to become more flexible. and one reason not so flexible about your own future is because they rely on the iranian support.

the government in scenery is not really -- [inaudible] if you're talking about who's fighting, they have obviously iranians. they have now some shiite militias from iraq and, of course, they have the russian air force. so it you are talking about finding solutions in syria, how do we perceive the russians, take a lien is, to be supportive of the current government? because otherwise very little is going to happen in terms of diplomatic -- what where am i ? >> everybody needs to understand the future concern of the current position in syria. otherwise, we are going to pay the price and we're going to pay very high price. all the countries and whether it's russian or united states, iran or turkey. everybody is going to pay a big price for this. so that's why we need to really

put everything, all our interests aside and think about the issue of syria and the syrian people. >> thank you very much. any more questions? yes, please. >> your excellency, what happened to the kuwaiti initiative? is it still valid? are you still talking about it? because i see some attacking from blockading countries to -- [inaudible] and we heard the gcc summit would be postponed indefinitely. how do you see it, how long will be postponed? the future is to build a new gcc summit, thank you. >> well, regarding the mediation effort by the emir of kuwait, we

are very thankful for his efforts. and we have been in touch with our brothers in kuwait in order to find a solution for this. but as just the secretary mentioned, there is to parties of the conflict and one of them is not willing to solve the problem. then even if anyone will come to the dialogue you will never come with good faith. so for us the kuwaiti mediation will remain the leadership of all efforts which is trying to restore this relation together between the gulf states, but right now they cannot, neither the kuwaitis nor any of the international community can force others to come and solve the problem, or even if they will come, they will come in good faith. now, the kuwaiti initiative for

us is still alive and we believe the mediation, if there's any mediation effort will be carried out, will be led by kuwait. the gcc, it's very important organization. it's meant to be for collective security. right now after this blockade can the gcc operate with the same efficiency as before, i think there's some time needed to rebuild the trust which is been lost because of this crisis. but also we believe that there is an importance now to address all the issues and this relationship between the gulf countries and do the proper strengthening the government system of the gcc as an organization in order to put a

proper arbitration mechanism in place and enforcing mechanism for the decisions so things come all the things which we are lacking we have to look at and to look seriously if we care about the restoration of the gcc and make it stronger. >> mr. minister, last question from me. you have covered an enormous amount of ground. one country we didn't ask you about. another country in civil war. it's another country where the sounds and iranians have been involved. the sheer allegations of human rights violations, and really no plan to resolve the situation. what do you think is happening and what is the way forward, at least according to your position? >> well, yemen was continue say

cementing crisis which is happening there, what we see, there is a continuation with the stalemate in the political process. qatar supported and still supports the human government and supports the government back to yemen in order to operate from there. but that doesn't mean that we continue with this tool without any finding of political power forward. so that's why we see that the parties are not ready to engage in dialogue or they are not willing to engage in dialogue, and they're willing to just to continue with the war to get better ground for negotiations. and the yemeni people, those other people who are paying the price of this continuous policy. there were a basis, since the

national dialogue was in place and special envoy when he was in position, and outcome which resulted the government, then the coup by the houthis, and -- [inaudible] so right now i think that we have to go back to the basis of the dialogue and to bring all the parties, the yemeni parties to get an engage in a dialogue which result in stability. >> the perception in washington, the trump administration is more supportive for the southeast with fewer reservations during the obama administration. do you think this is a correct perception, and to the extent it is correct, is it seldom to find peace in yemen are contrary kind of encourage the saudis -- carte blanche from washington? >> we see the u.s. is remaining with the same policy. they are supporting, yes, the

government which is our position but they are condemning the human rights violations, which is also our position. so we didn't see any contradiction in the both ways. both of us, u.s., qatar or the other european partners, they are encouraging everybody to go back to the table and engage in dialogue. so we didn't see this deviation in the position between the international concern. >> thank you very much. he has to have a meeting with the secretary. let's hope you will find the conversation very, very interesting. one little announcement. there will be ministers speech, formal remarks available outside. those interested please pick up the copy and mr. minister, thank you very, very much. >> thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tonight on "the communicators," adam alter talks about his book.

>> what i say is we know the dangers of technology. they don't say things like we build in special mechanisms that are designed to look people, therefore we don't want our kids hooked. that's the since you did. never get high on your supply. that if you're creating something, you know with the dangers are, you want to make sure other people you love and you hold dear anna could be affected by them. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> tonight booktv is in prime time with a look at u.s. science policy.

>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies and is brought you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> the senate energy committee last week took up legislation that would open alaska's arctic national wildlife reserve to oil and gas drilling. alaska senator lisa murkowski is a picture of the energy committee. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. the committee will come to order. before we begin this mornings markup, i'd like to extend a