the question is how long you can wait. at which point is it just too hard to strike because the way the sites are configured. that is the question. and what's happened with north korea and pakistan is that america has said too early, too early, oops, too late. that has been the track record until now. >> is there somebody on that side? >> oh, yes, sorry. in the middle, sorry. >> glen tobias from new york. >> okay, why don't we take a couple of questions. >> assuming a second term obama administration, i would welcome your thoughts as to everything else being equal, which of course it never is, what kind of shifts might occur in the policy of that administration vis-a-vis the type of issues we've been discussing? >> okay, a question from over there? >> that was my exact question, actually.

>> okay, good. so let's get your question. i only have to put two together. >> adam roe of chicago, illinois. i wanted to know, mr. aaron david miller, why you would say netanyahu would call obama a con man? if i took it out of context -- >> the other way around. >> obama would call netanyahu a con man? >> right. >> if you could provide examples? >> that's my own view and i've written it at least three or four times. i have no evidence -- i have not a shred of empirical evidence to believe that's how the president actually thinks of the prime minister. but having worked for four or five presidents, half a dozen of secretaries of state, knowing what he has been told about the prime minister in his first incarnation from many people, some who are in his administration still, some who are not, i am absolutely persuaded that the president believes that netanyahu is

insincere at a minimum. he has no interest whatsoever in pursuing a serious negotiation with the palestinians. and if the president could find a way to get even with him, stick it to him if he could, which relates to the second question on the second term, i think he would. this is not, i say it again, this is not bill clinton, who is in love with the idea of his israel, who said in his memoirs. i love him as i have loved no man. this is not george w. bush who was as frustrated with ariel sharon as any american president has been, and yet whose gut reaction when it came to the issue of israel was to bond. there's that famous story of bush as governor in the helicopter ride, he's flying over israel's narrow waste, and the soon-to-be president says to

sharon, we got driveways in texas longer than this country is wide. that's a gut instinct. that's not barack obama. i'm not saying he's an evil man, i'm not saying he's an enemy of the state of israel, certainly i'm not saying he's an anti-semite. but his capacity to emote, which is hard for him on other issues, is doubly hard here. he sees this as a -- from the interests of the national interest paradigm. he sees it not as a morality play. he sees it as gray, the color of diplomacy. i know much about gray. i lived for 25 years in the world of gray. and a deal is not black or white, a deal is gray. i don't think he'll push for a deal because to me, it's a second-term illusion. presidents make mistakes in their second term, they get tired, they start to think about legacy. thinking about legacy works both ways. just ask bill clinton at camp david in july 2000.

so i just think that there are too many constraints, too many problems. the u.s./israel relationship is simply too resilient, the plins too dysfunctional, the arab spring too uncertain. the sun, the moon, the stars aren't there. he may decide to go for it anyway. but -- because he's the president and that's what presidents do. >> thank you. dani, do you want to take up the second part of the question, or the second question as well? what happens in the obama administration in the second term obama administration as far as the middle east? >> i have no idea. you know, everybody made a great fuss about the president being heard on that height mic moment when he was talking to president medvedev of russia and he said give me some space, i'll have a lot more flexibility after i'm re-elected. it was obviously a foolish thing

to be caught saying, but of course the truth is, as the white house very cavalierly said, well, that's true. and it is true. it's true for any president. so i guess the only question we have to answer is, what does that flexibility in the second term mean for this president? especially if he chooses to go into re-election with a vice president who will not after him seek the presidency? so a little bit liberating in some ways. i don't know, i've been struck by what i perceive as the president's antipathy to israel, but i am, as aaron noted very nicely, you know -- i have much more empathy with people who have empathy with israel, and i think you're right, the president has no empathy, he has no visceral feeling toward them. if you don't, well yes, netanyahu, any israeli prime minister is going to be rather annoying, causes trouble for us in the middle east, makes our lives more complicated.

i anticipate vis-a-vis israel we'll have an even less friendly relationship. in the rest of the world, i guess if you are a country that doesn't wish toly, then you are a country that wishes to do nothing or to follow. there are many people in washington, many, and i agree with aaron absolutely that there is no left/right divide, who wish for us to do less in the world, and i think the president is among then. to cede power to regional leaders, the chinese perhaps in the pacific, the russians in eastern europe, and to intervene when there's an imperative national interest, whatever that might be. and so i think that very well could be the shape of a new administration. i worry about it a lot. >> okay. we have to wrap it up -- >> could i just -- >> i was going to say, let's wrap it up with david, then.

>> i think the math of expending political capital, the physics of that, is not immune to a second term. i remember george bush talking about privatizing social security. he decided to put a lot of political capital. it failed. and he lost a lot in the process. i tend to believe that that math is going to be true in a second term too. there's a president who until now has tried to see, where do i use my political capital? and i think if he thinks this is a loser of an issue, that there's no chance. he knows if he deploys it here, he's not going to be able to use it elsewhere. i think that physics remains in the second term. i think where i would differ slightly with aaron on the issue of obama's relationship to netanyahu, i would not use that phrase that he did. i've heard from people who have talked to him that he would say netanyahu does want peace in the abstract, but he's not going to use political capital to make it

happen. that you need political vision, then you've got to be able to use that capital. his question about netanyahu is someone who in principle always talks to him about how much he wants peace, how much he's willing to defy his base. but on any given visit to washington there's a reason why not to do it at this time. so that's a little bit of a difference between the word con man that aaron used. but neither does he see him as a rabin sort of person, who's willing to have that vision and see that through. he'll say he doesn't have a partner on the palestinian side and you'll have a whole debate about that. i think obama has also at this point of his term is different than when he was coming in, that he came in clearly seeing the palestinians as the victims. i think he has been very much feeling that abbas has been very

frustrating to deal with and that has stymied him on many different issues and i think he has been a more nuanced view there as well. i don't think it's as black and white, i think there's more of aaron's gray that exists than it did when he started his first term. >> did you want to add something? >> i want to say one last thing. history is replete with instances of people who want to do less, who want to not intervene, who want to suggest why we shouldn't do things. and they found their heyday in the 1930s. but history is also replete with very, very few examples, because that's the opposite -- history shows us very few examples of people who look back and say, i wish we had done less. >> okay. well, thank you very much. [ applause ] the libertarian party will select their presidential nominee this weekend at their 2012 national convention in las vegas.

this year's theme is the party celebrates its 40th anniversary is liberty will win. our live coverage of the convention begins tonight at 9:00 eastern with a two-hour debate between the libertarian presidential candidates, including former new mexico governor and former republican presidential candidate gary johnson. live coverage continues saturday at noon eastern with the presidential selection process. convention delegates will hear speeches by the presidential candidates and then vote for the party's nominee. all of that live on c-span. also this weekend, president obama and first lady michelle obama will be on the campaign trail speaking at rallies in the battleground states of ohio and virginia. live coverage of the first obama for america campaign rally begins at 12:55 p.m. eastern on c-span.org. it's taking place on the campus of ohio state university in columbus. the president's second campaign rally is on the campus of virginia commonwealth university in richmond. that will be live at 4:35 eastern on c-span, c-span radio

and cspan.org. here is the flattering building going up in 1903. it was not the first and not the tallest. we see this all the time. skr skyscrapers and stop and think what is the technology. basically back in the 1890s when they were introduced, they were explained as a rf bridge on its end. how else would you explain this. most people were afraid of this thing. as a matter of fact, you might think we were all loving it. i mean we love innovation, we're in new york, we're americans. but actually this thing looked a little scary. the poor guy who had this building was not too happy. he couldn't rent it out, couldn't sell it, nobody wanted to be in this building because they figured it would topple over. >> this weekend from cooper union, lectures in history. architectural history can barry lewis on new york city in the late 19th and early 20th

century. saturday night at 6:00 and 10:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. next, it's a look at u.s. foreign aid. a panel discussed the need and effectiveness of aid at the university of colorado's annual world affairs conference in boulder in mid-april. you'll hear from peace corps deputy director carrie hessler-radelet. this is an hour and 20 minutes. my name is clint talbot, i'm the moderator, which basically means i introduce the smart people and let them talk. and i will do that now. we have to my left, immediate left is carrie hessler-radelet. she is best known right now for being deputy director of the peace corps, which is a capacity in which she served since 2010. she's also worked in the field

of public health for the past two decades specializing in hiv and aids and maternal and child health and a number of other philanthropic and altruistic skbefrs. to her left is heather hurlburt who is executive director of the national security network, a nonprofit agency or nonprofit organization. she has also served as speechwriter to former president clinton and former secretaries of state madeline albright and christopher warren. to her left is judith morrison, who is senior adviser in the gender and diversity division at international american -- at interamerican development bank and she works on international development in latin america. she previously served as regional director for south america and the caribbean at the interamerican foundation. and she's worked at several think tanks, including the interamerican dialogue.

so what will happen now is each of the panelists will speak for about ten minutes, starting with carrie, then heather, then judith. and then we will open it up to questions. c-span is here and so when you notice somebody with a big fish pole with a microphone attached to it trying to get your questions, don't be alarmed. that's all part of the plan. so, without further ado, we'll start with carrie hessler-radelet. >> good morning, everyone. my apologies to the people in the balcony up here, it's hard to see you because of the bright lights so i'm going to mostly look down here, but please know you've all included. as he just mentioned i am the deputy director of peace corps but i spent two and a half decades working in public health for an organization called john snow, incorporated. it's an international public health organization that implemented programs funded by

your tax dollars at work as well as funding from foundations and the u.n. agencies. so that is the perspective that i'm going to offer today. i am happy to answer questions about peace corps if people have that later on, but my conversations today will really focus on the foreign assistance budget. so as the budget battles heat up in washington, which happens every single year, minding you, once again foreign assistance is on the chopping blocks. most americans are completely surprised by the amount of foreign aid that we have. most vastly overestimate the amount of money that we spend on foreign assistance. those on the right typically want to cut foreign aid, although not entirely, and those on the left typically want to increase or maintain foreign assistance, and then we have ron paul who just wants to eliminate it entirely. but at the center of the debate is really the whole issue of foreign aid effectiveness. just in terms of the facts, most of you probably know the facts. about 1% of our federal budget goes to foreign assistance.

this is humanitarian and development assistance, not military aid. about one-fifth of 1% of our national income goes to foreign assistance. now, research shows in survey after survey that most americans think that we spend between 15% to 20% of our federal budget on foreign aid. and when asked how much we should spend on foreign aid, about 5% of -- i'm sorry, when people ask what we should spend, most americans say we should spend about 5% of our federal budget on foreign assistance. so you can see that most americans think we should be spending much more and vastly overestimate -- or underestimate how much we currently spend. what's absolutely certain is that our budget, our foreign assistance budget is not a cure for our federal deficit at all. we spend a total of about $30 billion in foreign assistance out of a budget of $3.78 trillion. so it's a very tiny share of our

federal budget. in terms of aid effectiveness, most research has shown that in general, foreign assistance or financial aid to developing countries does help reduce poverty, does help increase equality in general. it has led to economic growth, it has built institutional capacity and it has helped to achieve some human development success. it's not uniform. there's huge variation across countries and within countries even, but in general, the trend -- the research shows that the trends are upward, that foreign assistance has been largely effective. the most important question is whether or not we're using it as effectively as we possibly can, and we have to look at the research to do that. we live today at a time of greatest development history in the whole history of the world. the indicators are most striking in terms of the reductions in global poverty rates.

in terms of the percentage of people who live under $1 a day, who earn less than $1 a day, since the beginning of history, that number as a share of our total population remained relatively steady until the industrial revolution as a share of the percentage of the population. it was relatively stable. after the industrial revolution, the share or the portion of people living in extreme poverty actually declined, although with population growth, the number of people living in extreme poverty actually increased until about 1980. and in 1980, that's when the dramatic changes really happened. between 1980 and 1995, there was a huge reduction in poverty rates from $1.5 billion to $800 million. that was a decline of nearly half in 27 years. that's incredible. it's incredible progress, just think about that.

a decline in the total number of people in extreme poverty from 1.5 billion to 800 million in just a period of 27 years after it increased from the beginning of human history. that can't all be attributed to foreign assistance for sure, but it does coincide with a period of time when developing countries received foreign assistance from donor countries like the united states. other statistics such as infant mortality rates declined by 25%. also as an example between 1960 and 1995, there were an average of about 30 countries that had greater than 2.2% global economic growth rates. 2.2% is the global economic average. it is also the economic growth rate for the united states, france, germany, so it's considered an indicator of economic growth. so between 1960 and '95, there were 30 low income countries that achieved 2.2% economic

growth rates. between 1995 and now, the number has doubled to 73. 73 countries having 2.2% growth rate. so, again, we've seen again we significant progress in the economic growth development. so the biggest question, though, is there foreign assistance, are we using it to the greatest affect and investing in countries we should be investing. i heard where there are not leadership that cares about their people or invest in their people, aid to those countries has not been successful in general. and we have seen investment in those countries that are committed to the people who do invest in their people who have strong and accountable leaders has been more successful.

in my opinion, one of the best indicators is the leadership in which we invest. there has been a dramatic increase in foreign investment. we are very familiar with the concept of globalization. we have seen also a huge increase in the number of democracies with governments that are accountable to their people. there have been some incredible advancements in technologies, especially cell phone technology. i have done a lot of work in e hraoli lie -- liberia, and i get better coverage there than in washington, d.c. other kinds of technologies have catapulted some countries into

the modern world. in liberia, there are hardly land lines, but everybody has a cell phone. china is investing all over the world, especially africa. we have seen dramatically increased funding in health and education, especially in hiv and malaria. it has led to some very important health out comes. there are new challenges, of course. there is growing population and growing migration, and big concerns about resource use, and of course climate change is very important and a new consideration to us now. so in terms of what we have learned, what are the lessens we have learned over the years? i think first and foremost in likely success and predicting out comes in foreign assistance,

the most important is leaders of the countries of where we were. are they committed to their own future and development. i want to say something about the paris declaration of 2005. this is a big international group of nations that met together to really look seriously at the factors that are associated with the effectiveness, and they mentioned five principles that are regarded and adhered to most major donors, and maybe the panel will have something else to say that the paris declaration. and the first one is improving country ownership, which is having countries themselves define their own development goals and objectives creating their own strategies and taking leadership in their own development agenda. associated with that is increasing donor alignment with those donor -- or with those countries' plans, and the degree to at which donors agree to the strategies and allow the countries to take leadership in their own development.

and we have harmonization, and that donors and precipitation of the owners, and the developmental banks, and judith will have something to say about that. and simplifying the processes and harmizing donor assistance, and make sure there are not gaps and duplications or over laps. another focus is on results. there are communicators that virtually all donors and host countries adhere to which let's us look at the effectiveness of foreign aid. and then donors and developing countries are to be accountable to their people and to the world at large for development. i wanted to throw out a few

rather provocative ideas that have been raised particularly and related to the u.s. government and our own federal budget. they were most recently articulated by the center of progress, and not too new but they just wrote an article that i thought was interesting. i want to mention a few of them today. they estimate they could save $2 billion a day for our scarce foreign assistance if we did the following things, eliminating ridiculous laws and changing laws. the first would end cargo preferences for foreign aid or food aid in particular, so demanding u.s. use ships in the u.s. are used for the food bound

for foreign countries. and monetizing food aid, and that's where the united states gives american agriculture products to private voluntary organizations and then they sell it to the local market and nearby countries and take the money that they earn from the sale of those commodities and use it to fund development programs or to offset the cost of distributing food aid. the third is cutting u.s. agriculture subsidies, which largely really favor large producers, such as large agriculture producers in our country. don't help family farmers in general. and the fourth is removing limitations on local and regional procurements on food aid. and so that's american products produced here and shipped overseas, and so instead of buying locally or in the region, we have to send our own

commodities overseas, and the fifth is eliminating earmarks on foreign aid programs which does limit flexibility and makes it difficult for our foreign aid decision makers to be flexible and make decisions that are important to make in the time of crisis or as changing conditions evolve. so those are some issues that could dramatically help the effectiveness of our aid if we only had the political will. i would be curious to hear what our other panelists think about these. i want to end with a story. i like to tell stories at the end because when we are talking about foreign aid we forget there are human faces attached to this. elizabeth was a person i met in 1999 in zambia. there was very little foreign assistance in the form of hiv in africa, and treatment was very limited in africa and only available to those most wealthy.

it was readily available here in the united states, just as a point of comparison. my brother-in-law is hiv positive and has been since 1986, and since 1999 has been on anti-retrovirals and is healthy to this day and he would be dead if he lived in africa. and elizabeth was a wife to a man who she knew was unfaithful to her. she was not able to leave him because she was economicly -- completely dependant on him and divorce was frowned upon in her country. she became pregnant so she wanted to find out whether or not she was hiv positive and wanted to find out whether or not she could get -- she heard about prevention from mother to child transmission, and it was new in those days in the 1990s, but she heard about it. so she boarded two buses,

actually, to get from her homes in the slums into the clinic in the center of town. when she got there she found out they were out of stock of the rapid tests. she took two buses back to the community. and it was very expensive temperature when she got there she found out that all the health workers were gone that day because they were off testing the military. so again, she wasted her time, the whole day and her scarce resources to get there to no afail. she was pregnant and she didn't go back to the clinic anymore because she had such a poor result. a couple months later she delivered a baby girl that was sick from the beginning of her life, and five months later she died. as she held her dying baby in her arms at the central hospital, she found out her baby