happy these services are held accountable sit look, they are doing terrible things to their people. if they are stealing money, if they are repressing dissident and civil society. to stop it from getting. it's a state department's purview to give at will. so we're using the visa restrictions and what we are finding in terms of evidence and learning and analyzing this tool which is relatively new, it has a fact of naming and shaming internally. there is a status to being able to travel abroad. so some of the systems of the georgia were adjusted our policies, ironic were we have done it very deliberately and carefully to punish and give consequences and accountability to the visuals and were active in pushing back on and really

jailing all of the leaders of the women's rights movement a few years ago. we are working on controls. we don't believe they have the right to control expert controls that is how u.s. governments i'm sorry u. s. companies are given the right to export hand to sell in a broad area countries so you just go through the state department and we don't believe these are items that can be used

for journalists independent activists lgbtq leaders should be allowed a license. and the department of commerce agrees. we target export control to not give you one example. there's commercial spyware which is a thread on many levels to national security and when it's misused by authoritarian regimes that used to really get into the personal computers and to stop the work of civil society and civil dissonance so we've been successful of commerce at saying no to an export commercial spyware company that was trying to do business with an authoritarian regime and they had no idea frankly this company with their product would be used for. there were some barest not embarrass the so alarmed about the product they created a company policy to only sell and do business in democracy but that's an example of the impact

and the fact of our export control and finally i will highlight dhs working on supply-chain issues and this goes back to the biden priority. i'm happy to be able to institutionalize them good to add a flavor to and really implement directly which is the biden administration has focused on supply-chain sprint competitors such as the prc and we know about the chipset in many ways in which the biden administration created a smart industrial policy to make sure american workers and american companies get a fair damage when the supply-chain traces back to support business practice and economic collection so as part of the supply-chain you can see some products in the world can be sourced back to xinjiang province in the prc where uighur populations that are often detained and held against their

will in conditions for forced to some of the products for these companies that end up as an international supply chain. dhs we are trying to implement the new act that senator rubio and other members of congress passed a couple of years ago which says that there was forced labor by uyghurs in the supply-chain that product can be imported into the united states and we are big importers amid the big market of consumers and the goal here is to send a signal to international business and companies in the industrial sector that we will not allow for this sourcing of uyghurs and it's been productive work with dhs because the agency will work with us to check on the supply-chain on the resourcing of labor and we are proud of that work. it's a bit of a pilot experiment

to try to, prevent and i do want to say punish. enact consequences for practice of labor conditions. so that's an example i'd give of evidence. >> it's great to hear the whole of government approach to address multiple things we talked about it now you get to ask the assistant secretary your question based on her schedule we have time for three so if you do have a question please queue behind the microphones here in the room and i would ask that you make the question brief and give your name and title and as folks come up to the microphones i will take one on line which is how does the biden administration balance the push for democracy overseas with strengthening and maintaining relationships with non-democratic countries? >> this is the core of the daily

work and frankly i mentioned before foreign policy was a big debates on the state department we are having fruitful productive debates every day and at every single level. on how to strengthening alliance and partnerships working together on global security concerns while attending to her concerns about democratization. this balance and i hate to you to use the word builds that recognizing the interconnectedness for example of some of our countries and i would list for example egypt is very concerned about domestic human rights record that is not necessarily getting any better. there we have a very important security partnership within egypt and we work with our colleagues and experts in the

embassy handed washington to try to make the case diplomatically. i didn't mention it's the core to the mission to use our diplomatic engagement to make the case for the government of egypt that essentially this is not good for partnership and the largest country that so young is not a recipe for stability, so using our diplomatic relationship to really make this case. we try to create and work with our colleagues and our embassies and our diplomats and the secretary and the president and others to make the case that you can do both at once. you can integrate the promotion of democracy and concerns about human rights even while you're shoring up another issues with interactions and relationships

that relate to security concerns are third-party concerns etc.. i would just note turkey is another one that is a country that's so critical and a known ally. we need to work with turkey especially because it's gotten wrapped in the middle east and europe with the arrest of journalists. >> lets come into the room here, please. >> good morning. my question, hindu families in

the country in the community in the area echoes all over the country. nobody is being accountable and they are not -- they cannot do that. rather they are talking and associated with other parties. they are more people dying every day in my family is afraid to move anywhere else. they cannot provide safety on the other hand there is terrorism.

[inaudible] on the other hand those people in the police and our war criminals. he was a war criminal. my question is here in america it's a big country and you are working for the democracy and security and please consider the

hindu people in bangladesh at the same time all these terrorists and jihadists every day tantalizing every day. so thank you so much. >> thank you so much for that question and i'm so glad i have a chance to talk about bangladesh because on one hand i can say i'm excited about the opportunities for a democratic transition and also wording concerned because i know from my own experience their transitions that this period right after a dictator flees and falls can be really fragile and really difficult especially protecting minority rights which is the issue you've mentioned and which every day my bureau and other bureaus at the state department are working on because we know how critical it is to show that

democracy delivers that a new leadership can protect security and can ensure inclusivity and can hold accountable those who have committed crimes against their people. untraditional justice we are making a significant effort in working with the u.n. and the u.n. high commissioner for human rights and we just met with him to talk about bangladesh and its efforts to go out there and to lead an international team to focus on traditional justice to hold as you say them accountable mohammed has agreed to come back and lead this transition and that is an incredible market public service because again he's been in exile. he is coming back and he has a very hard job to lead in this transition environment when people want to see again

democracy delivered. we are thinking the us government how to help them. deliver and protection of minorities deliver on security to make sure there is no jihadists threats. they want to make the case that democracy is bad which we don't want. we are trying to help a homak and the secretary nights is met with him two weeks ago at the u.n. and he's working very hard. one thing he's trying to do which is top of mind is to work on jobs. he understands correctly that the students in the streets who are part of this movement in late july and august were really expressing their frustration of a lack of opportunity economically. he is also trying to signal internationally that bangladesh has had this moment of instability. that's two things he is doing aware tie to help them. we are trying to work with the labor condition which has long been a concern for decades

actually and many american products are sourced through manufacturing in bangladesh so we are very -- working very quickly to make sure there's an agreement between unions which are very strong but have not been traditionally supported by civil society organizations so those are some of the things we are doing. of course to all of this we are promoting and pushing of rule of law which is lacking in bangladesh. a rule of law for beinart is the rule of law for tracking down shehada some and any kind of terrorist threat to the people of bangladesh and the protection of the ratings who have fled from burma into bangladesh and who have been having a right to be protected. the people are incredibly generous so we are working with them to make sure that

continues. these are some of things we are doing. above all else we are working to make it clear that it's very tricky to take over an interim transition and we have the balance speed in delivering with getting himself out of office in calling for elections and aiding a roadmap for the people for what comes next. i'm so glad you asked about this and be assured the most senior levels of our different when to stand the opportunities we understand the challenges. >> so critical in addition to combating the many threats we have been talking about. yes, sir come to the microphone. we will round us up at the third and final question and then we will close. >> you didn't mention it so what is your assessment for what we

should do more of what this country and actively supporting democracy. we hope ukraine will win the war against russia and there'll be changes including in russia. this is a strategic question do you think -- what can we do now to support them. there will be changes in opposition leaders are expelled or imprisoned. any chance to using social media to support democracy? thank you.

>> two great questions. let me see if i can answer them in order. on belarus first of all i want to thank the with a link -- the lithuanian people and the government of lithuania because it has become the center for the belarusian opposition with great i think effort by everyone in lithuania to understand the need to protect these individuals many of them who are in deep danger because of their transnational oppression that i i describe before so for example two weeks ago when i was in new york some of the belarusian opposition and was there and you should have seen the bodyguard that had to surround these people. they are really scared when they leave their homes. so thank you to the lithuanian people for supporting the opposition but one thing i learned when i talk to them if you weeks ago was i asked where's the learning coming from, from moscow or from minsk to mosque and they said lukashenko is teaching the kremlin had to do the tricks in terms of oppression surveillance

and the marginalization of anyone who would express a different view and that was deeply concerning. we are working on prisoner releases for example and that there means we have two hold accountable the individuals in the belarusian government with sanctions. we are focused on it and i would also go to u.s. congress was focused on an commend senator cardin and many members of the senate and congress in a bipartisan fashion who have been focusing on the belarusian problem. the second question i think is a strategic big picture question of how do we first of all the west and the west is supported by the russian people. this is not a concern of the people of russia and we need to repeat that again and again bute russian people and not on then

russian national identity. it's a simple effort to protect the territorial integrity of the ukrainian government the people and literally right to exist. i think we need to make that clear. the question of where's public opinion in supporting the war machine and imperialism this is a very important question i think in the long-term would need to help the russian people and body polity can detach their nationalism from the concept of purism because the two have been intertwined and fortunately. and this goes back to georgia and moldova where there has been intervention because the context of russian nationalism and its views. again i do believe that many many russian people want to normalize and hundreds of people want interconnectivity etc., etc..

this is why we need alliance. we need alliances with lithuania and alliances with our nato partners and alliances all over the world to help push back on this nationalist imperialist pro authoritarianism regime at this as part of our strategy and we are trying to enlist partners all over the world. essentially the need to help ukraine defend itself because it's a litmus test of our resolve. >> to rap us up first and foremost i wanted to thank secretary rand for being here we truly appreciate you taking the time and all the prep that went into the session today and thanks to our partners at the atlantic council for joining us and thanks to all of you for joining us here in person and on line. have a great dane we will see you next time. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible] prior to that this is an project for quite some time. outside of my work. i have been doing advocacy work.

in my previous life i was a diplomat. i would have the freedom to ride back in 1900 lotot of problems r free expression. nonetheless in the past 10 years to promote free discussion in thailand because if everyone follows high politics talking openly about it in thailand is -- to talk about it and if you talk about it there could be serious consequences. but then i thought that maybe

i'd want to take this opportunity to do what i really wanted to do and because of this you know, i became interested in speaking and talking about it and on top of that this is very sensitive so i mean there is risk involved in talking about it. and then i mean when the previous call came in 2014 i did not expect, i did not expect that eventually they would come after me. in order to justify a number of many different people in it and i was sitting outsided thailan,

i was summoned. they called it attitude adjustment. i apparently i had in attitude that needed to be adjusted. they did an assessment and is the consequence they issued a warrant for my arrest and basically forcing me to apply fored refugee status. that had been the case since 2014 and that meant i wasn't able to go home for the past two years. i thought i might as well continue with what i had been doing. and then going back to thai politics ups and downs since 2016 once again i came back to

thai politics. i think my other thai colleague as well we would expect we would have nationwide protests in 2020 led by a youth movement and that became particularly excited because this wouldd be the first protest that looked at the issue of reform. the first time. they officially made it a public agenda. once again there was risk of malt against those -- risk involved against those who took to the street. we thought maybe we were entering into a new chapter and

it interested me even more in my advocacy work on the reform of thailand. so around that time i thought maybe my previously advocacy i had to think what they would do. now it seemed to submit quicker than i previously expected. talking with friends and police inso washington d.c. and a numbr of friends here and also civil societies organizations and ngos. these said you should do a new project a new activity. that's why in 2020 when i came up with the project.

if you want to do a kind of efficacy you cannot do many things at the same time otherwise people would get confused. in thailand you can can do things like you can talk about authoritarianism in thailand and you can talk about political involvement and setbacks and when you touch upon human right situations it's not necessarily on that. to have efficacy you had to pick one. it's an issue basically on my heart and i have become charged on this as well.

it's an international efficacy basically designed for international wares of critical issues especially among different communities outside of thailand. it could not return home. since i'm sitting outside and connecting to differentio communities for example the few times he a year i would come to north america into europe and australia and try to make connections. four and since i had a meeting at the state department and what they called the