achilles heel to nato. i really think it needs to be addressed. >> thank you very much for your remarks. i was wondering when you did this report on europe yoon defense with others and you talked a lot about pooling resources and niche capabilities and european defense agency what countries could do. i wonder now that you're in government dp you see burgeoning trends in that regard since then. >> thank you. in particular as it relates to smart defense i was wondering whether you had any sense of the expectations prior to chicago in terms of associating partners to

our discussion at 28 on smart defense. >> i wonder if anyone on the panel might want to comment on the link between smart defense and the nuclear issue in particular. i think it's already been mentioned. the uk decisions up to now to reduce investments in conventional forces in favor of maintaining the trident. in terms of smart defense with the panel think might be better to go the other way. >> we have four questions one on the intranato tensions and given the smart defense is all about trust, trusting neighbors and working with neighbors, how does that kind of pan out? another question on the pooling resources based on earlier

studies. that will be one of the key topics for two of the sessions we have tomorrow. if i can ask the panelists to be brief, again, pick and choose which parts of the questions you want to answer. maybe you could focus on the. >> i'm just different. i'll reply in a very different way. israel suddenly declared to -- solution solved. the issue solved. we have our own sovereign borders and we respect specific things. if our counterparts would like

to negotiate, it's not notionable. turkey is key on ballistic missile defense. at the same time turkey is suddenly becoming a power. now we have to be -- to disengage those two countries between them. turkey's $80 million developing economy and greece is an $11 million market economy not -- i wouldn't say falling apart, it's restructuring itself. the only thing that binds us together is that if we fail, they will fail. other than this, if you want me to criticize a bit turkey, there's some game for me is a total failure.

i don't see any reaction. they didn't solve an issue. but nonetheless, we're the best ally. the directory basically number one is greek and number two is turkish. i would love to see that at some point. this is my answer. >> briefly on that issue. alliances sometimes have perverse effects. there was an attempt where turkey and greece the leaders sat down to talk about reductions and military spending and confidence building, et cetera. within the context of nato whole, the push is to increase military spending without too much thought about how that

might impact the relationship between greece and turkey. it's not a peculiarity of the nato alliance. without thinking that there's a serious ter toirlt conflict. it doesn't send warnings signals to the united states that maybe it's not such a good idea to encourage your idea to some alternative. some kind of military tension reducing formula between our allies. what's the kind of dugs i'd like to see not only within nato, but the united states fosters among its allies in general.

>> sure on the report it's time. we've seen a little bit of traction on some of the concepts presented in that report, the pooling and sharing and niche capabilities. it's really taking root now primarily because of the financial crisis. and it's obviously front and center on everyone's minds. but we have not come to a point where this is the be all end all answer to our problems. there are a lot of questions on the table similar to the questions that we heard when we wrote the report about sovereignty, about handing over responsibility for your security to a neighbor or a collection of neighbors. and there's still questions about where to invest and who's coordinating it as i pointed out. so i think it could take root. i think smart defense is a big opening act is going to occur this weekend. but the real proof will be in whether or not this is a concept

that's sustainable and pursued long-term. it cannot be a one off. we do not want to have the summit open with smart defense and close with smart defense because 20 multilateral initiatives is by no means enough. so i think we're putting the keys in the engine and we're going to see how things work out. but really the success of this will rest on future commitments to it. >> i think you're certainly right. two comments. i don't think we should conclude on a really pessimistic note of what happens to the euro zone. my personal belief is that it's tough. i don't see it falling apart and there is clearly an option that we will -- we'll figure out how to get beyond the situation that

we have now. so i have to say that i disagree with your pessimism. on the partnership note, i want to be very clear, i don't know what will happen. i have my very strong views on this. i do feel that finland and sweden have come very, very close to if -- the difference between finland's ability to participate and the ability of a full member state is -- and i think that has to be appreciated. i do believe in one way or another nato should appreciate this fact. i think there should be a dif rentuation among members. i don't think nato should push sweden or finland towards making their cooperation condition to their membership because there are historic factors and this should not prevent finland and

sweden and countries like them to make their full contribution to nato operations. that's my very strong view. which chicago will bring in this respect, i don't know. i'm also certain the topic will come up. i hope that this whole concept of a special relationship will be supported in chicago. >> thank you very much. i'm not going to attempt to sum up the discussions we've just had in part because i think that julie did that herself whence she said that chicago is an opening act. and also partly because we're continuing this capabilities debate tomorrow. i think you'll agree with a good series of smart discussions today. i would urge you all to join us tomorrow for a continuation of these discussions.

but i'd like to urge you to join me in thanking the panel for the contributions this afternoon. [ applause ] >> i also urge you to stay and join us. we are having a reception hosted -- so we can continue the conversations. president obama meets with the leaders of g-8 industrial nations at camp david. after the meeting he'll fly on to chicago to meet with nato members starting sunday. tom don lin will join white house press secretary jay carney today at the white house. he'll answer questions about those meetings that the president's traveling to. we'll have live coverage

beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the u.s. house is spending the afternoon on defense department programs and policy for the next fiscal year. more than 140 amendments may be considered. the house also voting on extending the national flood insurance program through june. it's the 17th time it's been extended while negotiations continue over a long-term solution. you can see the house live on c-span. the senate voted today to fill the remaining two vacant positions on the federal reserve board. senators have moved on to other items including sanctions on iran and debate on food and drug administration user fees. the senate's live on c-span2. to learn more about your member of congress you'll want c-span's congressional directory. it includes information for every member of congress. you can pick up a copy for $12b.95 plus shipping and handling. go to cspan.org/shop to order. >> when people are saying to

him, don't take the vice presidency, right now you are the most -- you are a powerful majority leader. don't take the vice presidency. you won't have any power. johnson says power is where power goes. meaning, i can make power in any situation. his whole life i said nothing in his life previously makes that seem like he's boasting because that's exactly what he had done all his life. >> sunday night, the conclusion of our conversation with robert caro on the pass oj of power, volume four many the years of lyndon johnson. his multivolume biography of the 36th president. sunday night on c-span's q and a. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites.

and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. today's white house briefing comes up in about 45 minutes at 2:00 p.m. eastern with national security advisor tom don lin we're planning to bring that to you live. while we wait, a look at some of the international issues facing the obama administration. ant secretary of state for conflict and stablization operations rick barton said goal of his department is to have an impact in the first 12 months of a violent conflict. currently his agency has major engagements in syria, kenya, northern central america and burma. this is about 40 minutes. >>. [ applause ] . >> thank you. and thanks to all of you. i do feel as if i'm home and i

do feel as if usips are home. it's just a great, great pleasure to be among so many peace builders. all of you have dedicated so many wonderful years and superb efforts to us. so as i look around the audience i just see people that i've admired for a long time. your dedication, your professionalism. your perseverance. one of the things i'm finding in this new job is the tenacity seems to be a fairly important quality. it's not one that i would have necessarily put at the top of my personal list. i'm finding that there must be more of that new england strain than i realized before i moved into the state department in this particular job a few months ago. all of you have clearly shown

that. su so much. without it, we wouldn't be making the progress we are today. thanks to melanie and dr. and mrs. cohen for the gift. and obviously donback. i think there's a bunch of whole friends that deserve mention. clearly bob lovetis my predecessor who's here in the middle of the audience. he's made it possible for us to build on a pretty solid foundation. bob. [ applause ] he's here as well. we stand at a breakthrough moment, a chance to make the u.s. government more effective and coherent in building peace. and we must seize this opportunity. to do that, we'll need your

continuing help and openness to change. at cso our mission is to prevent violence and accelerate a departure for violence. we're trying to fashion an organization that can make an impact on policy and in programming in the first 12 months of a crisis. it's a high bar. and every time over the last six months that i've told people about our mission, i've heard the same two words spoken quite differently. good luck. and good luck. in both cases people want us to succeed but i also hear concern that making an immaterial pact in some very challenging places is just too tough. reno we have a lot of work to do. all of us face difficult

challenges. not only in the places we work, but with the attitudes and the structures that confront us. for example, we know that almost 80% of recent conflicts stem from violence reoccurring within two years of a settlement or cease fire. why? we know the donor countries spending priority in developing countries are remarkably consistent regardless of whether a country is at peace, in civil war or recovering from war. why? we know that an astounding 62 u.s. offices were involved in managing iraq reconstruction. why? to answer these questions, to be more effective, we see the immediate for some fundamental changes. the u.s. has spent significant effort and money the last decade to address conflict. but whether we spend $3 million

or $3 trillion, we haven't gotten it right. but with your help, i believe it is possible. but we also know that work like yours at the local level has contributed to the longer term decline in conflict around the world. i believe we are on the cusp of historical change as dick mentioned. i believe that this is change we have worked for and dreamt of for a long time. i believe that your work has brought us to this tipping point moment and for that, i thank you. making history is not easy, but i believe if we can work differently and work together we have an excellent shot. many of you have been on this rod for quite a long time. it's not hard to see -- to the work at grassroots and international level. cooperate groups that saw the links between violence and

poverty became working to address the root causes of conflict. organizations like search for common ground and partners for democratic change began to practice this work more systemically. academics began to define its boundaries and trained practitioners. i'm speaking of this like ancient history, but many of those people are in this room today. meanwhile the field began to take shape at high levels everywhere. in the early 1990s, the u.n. began to recognize our work as a distinct discipline. in 2005 the u.n. established the peace billing commission, peace building fund and peace building support office. in 2008 the u.n. adopted its latest definition of peace building only 121 words. and of course the diplomat review released at the end of 2010 identified conflict prevention and response as a core mission of the state department.

and led to the creation of cso. secretary clinton has told me and anyone else who will listen that cso is one of the most important things to come from the review. so i know she is invested in our success. by the way, i don't mean to suggest that cso is a crowning achievement of this movement. in fact, the u.s. must improve. i do think that elevating these issues at stake giving them heft has been on many of your minds for some time and ast a great honor to have the chance to try to bring it to life. the qddr reflects the fact that we have reached a critical mass of people who have built a shared language and the understanding of the need to analyze conflict, plan what needs to be done and work together to do it. we are coming to the greater recognition that building democracy, human rights, economic development or health all build peace.

whether we call it peace building or stablization or something else, we all need to work together to seize this moment. now, where will cso fit into this rather crowded space? our ambition is essentially to be more effective in an increasingly dynamic world as rob and dick described. as i mentioned even within the u.s. government we haven't seen the best cohesion and coherence in our work on conflict. effectiveness also means a recognition that the u.s. is going to be a pivotal and vital player but not always a dominant force. we need to be humble. so we've got to think about the length of our stay into place and the resources available right from the beginning rather than saying we'll get in there and make it up as we go along. effectiveness also means boosting the impact of local

ownership. everybody talks about local ownership, and sustainability, but i still don't believe that we do it. and frankly, we need to. we can't travel as freely as we used to. we need to expand our partners. we need to get around standard bureaucratic excuses and we don't want to get into a place and end up owning the problem. we've got to be much more agile in what we do and who we can continue on to do other things. we must bring a new sense of focus and urgency to this world. but we are offering the cso is essentially a process. it starts with determining a center of gravity for each engagement someone with cross cutting authority for the network of offices and people involved who welcomes help and encourages innovation. so then if heaven forbid, we have 62 agencies working in a

place, they know what each other are doing and they're working with each other from the start. we think of it as a board of directors model engaged at the front end as many people as have an interest many the case. be inclusive, bring them all to the policymaking table. give them a chance to make their best arguments, but come to a decision on the way forward so that everyone buys in and no one can take a shot at it later. with that, we then lead a fast, rigorous analysis that is built in the latest local realities. in and outside of the capital, when the secretary interviewed me for this job, we talked about how when she visits a country, she ends up inevitably with the same list of deliverables, irrespective of the case. stst often terrorism, narcotics,

aid, refugees, all good causes. if you tell me which office or bureau is going out to do the analysis, i can tell you what kind of solutions they're going to come up with. we want to avoid an institution alibi i can't say or predetermined responses and instead answer the question what is most needed. we just helped with this kind of analysis in burma. we worked on a seven person team with three members from aid and four from the state department including one from cso under the auspices of derek mitchell the special envoy. we were just trying to make sure that those local voices are heard and that they drive the thinking that takes shape. as you know cso has its own analysis tool and i know that many of you have yours as well. and sometimes they produce different conclusions. we want to learn from you and refine it in large part to make

it more strategic and influential. the analysis that we all do should lead to the next step, a single integrated strategy with two to three priority that provide direction for all. many of these places need everything so you can never be wrong from infrastructure to schools to justice systems. but the u.s. can't be in a nation building mode. jump starting is still plenty ambitious. and we can't afford to work on priority numbers seven or eight. we need to be on one, two and three. we have to be catalytic. and make sure that those local people have the ability to make it on their own. next, the strat zwri leads directly to making sure that people and programs, resources, address the priority. burma will be a challenge in this regard.

it's exotic, it's safe. everyone wants to work there. but to work coherently together will be a center piece of our being effective. finally, we need to make sure that we are measuring and adjusting our work as we go, learning in realtime and not two years after the fact. with this approach i think we in the u.s. government can greatly increase our chances of success. will help us work better with all of you hopefully in a transformational way. at cso we recognize that we have the coming year to prove that we can improve the response to show change and impact. so for this year, we told the secretary we have three goals. first, we have to make an impact in two to three places of real significance to the united states. to do that, we'll dedicate 80% of our effort to four major

cases. right now they are syria, kenya, north zral america and burma. then we'll have another eight to ten places where we can test new approaches or make a welcome difference by just sending the right person at the right time. so far, i think we're gaining traction in each of our major priority engagements. many of you are working in these places and we realize that we won't know it all or know best about them, so we hope for your support. in syria, we are providing a nontraditional surge to empower and unite a fractured nonviolent opposition. as the secretary announced that includes providing nonlethal assistance. we are working with far ners to set up an outpost for the internal opposition to coordinate and communicate with international community. in kenya, we're helping to develop plans to ensure peaceful and credible elections a year

before the vote. incidentally, kenya is one place where we've seen the potential model for broad cooperation and innovation. in northern central america we have a growing homicide and governance problem that could spill over and effect our interests more directly. so we are bringing new urgency to address the violence on a regional basis, specifically to honduras, guatemala, el salvador and belize. in burma as i mentioned we are focussing on ways to connect with ethnic minorities at the sub national level. our second goal for this year is to build a trusted and respected team. we want to find solutions to conflict. we've brought in an entirely new leadership team. refocused our predecessor organization and are

restructuring the civilian response corp. and other core resources. we are reducing the size of the permanent core to a leadership cad re who can lead our engagement. so instead of keeping a larmg standing staff just in case of any eventuality. we're moving to the ability to deploy the right person to the right place just in time while expanding our partnerships. for example, this is one of my favorite stories. we recently got a call from the u.s. ambassador in liberia seeking our help. the day before the presidential runoff in november, the demonstration turned violent and one person was killed and eight were injured by gunfire. some felt the police were implicated. the liberian commission set up to investigate the incident didn't have the