>> it's such a good question. it's so hard. it actually relates to the question about high frequency trading and algo rhythms and dart pools. how do we take 21st century markets or 21st century media and make this 20th century regulatory regime fit all of these new developments. that's a real challenge. and we're working through those issues. we're trying to provide guidance where we can and when we can and some in conjunction with finra and with the industry directly and ici as well participates in some of that. and it's just something we have to stay really attuned to and really on top of as best we can. at the same time we will always be guided by our view that firms have a responsibility to sewers their employees' use of social media, to have books and records. to be thoughtful about how social media is used to

education investors to promote services, to promote products and that responsibility that broker dealers and others have had forever face-to-face in traditional media applies equally with social media. >> last question, you have two daughters you mentioned them a couple of times. if they were to come to you and say, mom, i dream of being a regulator. [ laughter ] watching you has made this my life's work. what wisdom would you impart upon them? >> you know, on the one hand, i would be extraordinarily proud of them for wanting to be leg lators because i do believe we have such an important role to play and us -- a smart and resilient and strong effective regulatory system is absolutely critical to the effect of functioning of our markets and our economy. so i would be enormously proud.

and i would be a little nervous about -- about what they were taking on because the responsibilities are great and they could handle that. the criticisms are many. and the spotlight is bright. and so those are things to think about. at the end of the day, i would be unbelievably proud of them if they picked careers in public service and i genuinely hope that they do. >> so mary, we are very honored to have you here. >> thank you. >> we appreciate very much what you do. >> thank you. >> we know you have an extraordinarily difficult job. and we know that we may not necessarily always agree, but it doesn't change the am of respect we have for you and what you're trying to get done. so thank you very much. >> thank you very much. this is wondserful. thank you. [ applause ]

we have a real demand for spectrum, but we would be foolish if all we did was rely on things like insent i have auctions and the auction of spectrum. >> i think it's important to have technological neutrality with respect to the commission's rules. >> learn more about the two newest fcc commissioners with "the washington post" technology policy reporter and amy shots from "the wall street journal." tonight on the communicators at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> saturdays this month c-span radio is airing more from the nixon tapes secretly reported phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. this sad at 6:00 p.m. eastern hear conversations between president nixon and white house special counsel and key advisor chuck colson who passed away

last month as they talk about george mcgovern. >> he doesn't have the stuff. >> no. i think he realizes he's on the verge of an impending disaster for his side. everything he has done is wrong. >> in washington, d.c. listen at 90.1 fm. nationwide we're on xm channel 119. and streaming at c-spanradio.org. c-span3 takes you now to george washington university where an overview of the 2012 nato summit is going to be held. we're going to hear from vice president bide's national security advisor, nato scholars and european foreign policy leaders all expected to speak. and president obama will be meeting with nato heads of state in chicago this weekend to discuss the direction of the alliances activities. this conference is hosted by the

british committee counsel. looking at nato's new challenges including cyber attacks, threats to energy supplies and closing the gap between u.s. and europe on military capabilities.

>> we're going to be hearing shortly from the group gathered here about nato and its future. president obama is meeting with nato leaders this weekend in chicago. right now he's delivering the commencement address at barnard college in new york. you can see that on c-span. and his next stop today will be

also in new york it's going to be at the ruben museum of art where he'll be holding a campaign event. you can watch that live online at cspan.org/campaign2012. and that's scheduled to start at a few minutes past 5:00 eastern time. again, here at this conference vice president biden's national security advisor nato skoe lars and european foreign policy leaders expected to speak giving an overview of the 2012 nato summit and looking at new security challenges for nato, cyber attacks, threats to energy supplies and closing the gap between u.s. and europe on military capability.

>> thank you, all. now you can hear me better? it's after lunch, so we'll try to keep this looiflly. thank you c-span for coming this afternoon. this session is about emerging security challenges and gnaw toe specific response to cyber attacks and piracy. the increasingly familiar terrain of nontraditional threats and threats that require different responses of resilience and new understandings of how nations

cooperate and get along. i wanted to ask this audience has anybody in this audience read the mr. y article? which was -- thanks, it's really important. i suggest going online and having a look at it. it was written by two officers ark marine officer and a naval officer last year off the joint staff in the pentagon where they were assigned to come up with a new grand strategy for the united states. and for those who aren't into that sort of, it's the plot in the movie and it takes to you to the maep ending. one of the problems since the end of the cold war in the united states is that our -- we don't really have a coherent grand strategy. we have a lot of ad hoc short stori stories. it hasn't come together as a grand story. i think what's hopeful about that document and for this session here today is it tells the story of going from a world

where things like national security are looked at as -- where nations are ranked rather than linked or that power is something over instead of with. and that we need to move from these concepts of deterrents to resilience from borders to relationships from coercion to persuasion there's a lot of concepts that we need to start filling out in the security realm which as anybody in this room knows is sort of one of the most stodgy priesthoods of policymaking is national security. i'm one of them. although i did work in congress for quite a number of years and got a lot of that beat out of me. but i'm hoping that we can open this conversation up to be more a discussion about how we can fundamentally try to create the appealing framing, the languaging and the ideas where we can shift the conversation from power over to power with.

i have been in washington for more than a decade working on this issue of how do we reframe security since the end of the cold war in 1991. i'm presently at the new america foundation where i'm exploring a new possibility of i'll just put it simply crowd sourcing congress into states and districts especially on the issues of global public interests where we're working with these old stodgy institutions who still see the world like it's 1948. it's still the way they refer information, sort information, filter information and talk to itself. so it can't compete with the 24-hour news cycle nor can it compete with other information sources that have lots of control over the fate of people and how we move forward. what we're going to do is move from left to right and start with the big picture about emerging security challenges and our first speaker is phillip.

i'm not going to go on and on with the bios because you have them all right in front of you and you can look it up online. >> good afternoon. i have a power point presentation. >> my apologies for the delay and i hope -- i'll try to start

perhaps and catch up with a few slides later on. first of all, good afternoon. i am the executive director of the international security information service. it's a nonprofit neutral and independent research and advisory organization based in brussels. and i'm very proud to have brought a little bit of the brussels weather with me today. i'm very glad and honored to have been invited to speak in front of such a distinguished audience. i've been told to limit my presentation to ten to 12 minutes. i'm keep my comments brief. my presentation today is about how the e, and nato respond to the rise of emerging security challenges focussing mainly on the e, but use nato as an element of comparison. now i want to thank our program associate in brussels who did a lot of research on this topic and helped me out a lot.

this presentation will be divided into four parts. first, a few comments on emerging security challenges. secondly, a very short summary of nato's response at the structural institutional level and then the eu's response which will be the main part of this prex. finally a few words about eu nato cooperation. the last decade has seen an evolution in the understanding and definition of global threats. these are no longer limbed by state borders. many are initiated by nonstate actors operating internationally. these threats can have one or more dimensions political, economic, social and environmental. they are hybrid threats which nato defines as quote unquote according to the allied transformation posed by adversaries with the ability to simultaneously employ convention and unconventional means adaptively in pursuit of their

objectives. generally speaking these challenges include terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass drx, cyber attacks, psycher terrorism, piracy and attacks on maritime security including the security of global shipping routes, energy and environmental security and state failure. to respond to these throats nato created an emerging security challenges division or escd within the nato international staff in august 2012. this was nato's structural response to cost cutting threats and was the fruit of several years of discussions. it brought -- brings together various existing fields of expertise into one single division. nato's integrated approach was echoed in the 2010 strategic concept. here we have a military organization that could adjust its structure to take into account other factors. traditional military tools would be ineffective against a

coordinated cyber and biological attack. according to nato language, the new division focuses on terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber defense and energy security. the bulk that we mentioned in the list i've covered. the division provides quote, strategic analysis capability to monitor and anticipate international developments that could affect ale lied security. in summary it dares to new approach as the it was coined. so that is the approach that nato took to respond to escst. i'm not assessing the degree of success. it's too early to reach any conclusions. the power point presentation is back. the european union's response however is different. it is fragmented and much less coordinated. the eu has developed second tore yal action programs.

it has drafted resolutions and threat specific strategies. it has not adapted its structure. why? there are many factors including certain hurdles i will mention shortly. the eus general security and defense strategy is based on certain key documents. these are the 2003 european security strategy or ess. the 2008 report on the implementation and the 2010 internal security strategy. as you can see on the slide these documents mention the bulk identified by nato as well. there's a certain degree of convergence and common understanding of the nature of emerging threats. terks u doesn't priorititize these threats nor does it develop the concrete responses that are needed on an operational level. since 2003, the situation has

evolved. energy supply and cyber security have become topics as important as for example, weapons of mass destruction at least in the field of international security. the main strategic document was reviewed in 2008 it is incomprehensive. the 2010 internal security strategy is more timely. we're going to what i believe is the main obstacle preventing the e, from optimally tackling eses. that is constitution tal complexity. the 2003 and 2008 documents, for example, were drafted within the framework of the eus common security and defense policy which focuses on the external dimension of the eu and remains the competence of the eu states. the 2010 strategy was drafted focussing on the eus field of justice, and framework of the eu easy overarcing policy.

csdp -- those are very complicated institutional structure. many are mentioned in all three documents, but the decision making process to tackle each is different. if you look at the eus institutional structure for crisis management, you'll see a dozen or so committees, groups, and other institutional bodies. each one works with others on escs but how they work varies from threat to threat. numerous other factors come into play, but we end up with a very complex puzzle that even involves nato because of the institutional links between the organizations as mentioned in the lisbon treaty. so the role of the eu isn't clear when addressing a threat. a court between the members states and nato, the eu sometimes leads, it sometimes

acts as an enabler and it sometimes only follows. the general role also isn't clear. recently the eu has tried to establish itself as a kreshl actor in the field of crisis management. but it was born as an economic organization. with the csdp the role is fairly clear. you have to take into account human rights, humanitarian issues, gender perspectives, financial regulations, et cetera. where as nato has evolved from a mainly military crisis organization to one encompassing or trying to, many other dimensions. for the eu was the opposite. what start the as a economic corporation now has a security and defense dimension. so we end up having to reinvent the wheel several times. so what can be done? first of all, political leadership is needed. eu decision makers and member states must clearly define the

eu's objectives in terms of emerging security challenging. decision makers must be given the ability and mandate to develop proposals and implement them. and that is a challenge because it involves member states' national sovereignty. mentioning concrete proposals to be implemented. that may be a good idea as the current ess isn't adequate as we have seen. a new strategy could underline the need for competencive approach. it would reinforce the necessity for exert tease and common security and defense policy and provide clear avenues between the corporation and nato. it would be difficult to adopt nato's structural shuffle.

where can the eu start? well, the chicago sum et could provide impetus for things to move forward. the eu and nato are partners. 21 eu member states are also nato members, so generally speaking, apart for some political tensions that i won't go into, everybody is aware of them, both organizations work well together at least at the operational level. i know that small defense and building sharing are the topics this afternoon. tackling escs efficiently requires technology innovations. this is where industry comes into play. as the defense budget is

fragmented and the financial crisis is taking a toll on eu research and technology investments. the capability is threatened. the council has the need to strengthen the technology which has led to the launch of the pathology and sharing initiatives meant to bridge the gaps by coordinating defense budgets. this is also in the spirit of nato's smart defense initiative, namely doing more with less. so the financial crisis could provide the impetus needed to move ahead with issues involving national sovereignty, one major hurdle for the eu. the ball may have started rolling. since the eu's recent commitment has led the u.s. to mention a possible merging of projects in the framework of sdr and pms corporation which is a promising step. so in conclusion, i will summarize the key points of my frgs. the eu and nato share similar views, where as nato has

adjusted its structure, the eu faces complex institutional hurdles. eu political leadership and will are needed to face escs optimally. one starting point could be the defense industry using the financial crisis as impetus. the scope for increased corporation between eu and nato starting with combining elements of the eu's pathology and sharing initiative and nato's smart defense initiative. obviously the eu has taken good steps. not everything is doom and gloom. operation atlanta is successful, relatively. and the eu is doing its part to combat piracy. two months ago in march, a european cyber crime center was created. what i wanted to underline was a lack of comprehensive and coordinated approach.

even in the wider framework of human rates and internal justice. it will be difficult for them to cooperate challenges if they handle threats differently. that is why the eu needs to move forward. future could include using the eu's nation building and institutional reform expertise but we use soft power. common defense strategies could be used for cyber attacks, but without an eu structural response in the spirit of nato's reform, these will be difficult to carry out. i thank you for your attention and i apologize if i've taken longer than expected. thank you. we're going to move right along to jean-loup samaan. he's going to look at another

big picture nuclear proliferation and naturery in on specifically on iran and policy. >> thank you -- is this working? good afternoon to every one and thank you to the organizers for giving me the opportunity to be here for this conference. i will talk about nuclear proliferation, and in particular the current issue of the iranian nuclear program. just a word of caution before i start, as you can see, although i work for nato, i'm not giving you here an official statement on what nato thinks about the iranian issue at the moment. i'm only responsible researcher at the nato defense college. so this is just a first point before i start.

just to have a overview first about nato and nuclear proliferation, if we go back to the strategy concept of 2010, nuclear proliferation was explicitly mentioned as the biggest challenge for the next ten years with this general paragraph that you can find on page ten of the strategy concept. this is the only common ground that the 28 allies found at the summit. when it came to iran, it was impossible to find a consensus among country members to assess whether iran is a threat or not for nato. and this is the reason why i thought it was worth talking about, what happens if iran becomes nuclear armed country. this assumption does not induce

any fatalism, does not discount the current diplomatic processes, the effectiveness or not of the economic sanctions. but i think that the dramatic consequences of nuclear armed iran make it worth analyzing and planning for. and to start with, here are five reasons i think nato should consider seriously these kind of contingencies. five reasons why it would challenge the -- the aurn boards the territory, it is bordering turkey, it would have close and immediate in terms of the territory covered by article 5 of the treaty. second reason,