reasons. there is no oversight at the federal or state level. is there a reason to treat adoptive children differently than biological children when it comes to the transfer of custody? >> i don't think so. it's really important for all of us to remember that a child who has been adopted is a part of that family now. they should be treated by the family and by law in the same way. i think children -- the question is how do we best protect children from parents who may place them in a dangerous situation? i think that's the question we have to think about. i don't think we want this situation to lead us to treat adoptive families, including parents and children differently. >> but what do you make of ms. twohey's investigation which suggests there is a differential in terms of how they are treated. in all the cases she found about the online advertising of children for rehoming, not a single one was a biological child. i certainly understand your argument, which suggests begin

the expectations we have of adoptive families, we certainly have an interest in avoiding a double standard, but it suggested for a subset, and probably a very small subset of adoptive parents, there may be a different standard. what do you think about the evidence that she is uncovered as to the rate of adoptive versus biological parents that are advertising on the internet? >> you know, it's hard for me to say because i don't know what the mindset was of these folks making these poor decisions. i do think that obviously when they adopted a child, they did not take that responsibility of becoming a parent in the way i think it was intended. certainly, i think it's important for laws to be clear how children, when they are placed outside a parent's home, what types of laws and

regulations should guide that. that should be equally true. because it didn't happen in this instance, in this investigation, doesn't mean it's not possible. i think the fact that parents, whether adopted or not, aren't clear that this is not appropriate behavior. we need to talk about this as a society. the creation of tools like the internet that allow people to share information in this way, that promotes that this may be acceptable means we need as a society to respond to that and be very clear that this, in fact, is not appropriate behavior. >> you mentioned in your testimony that you are encouraging states to review their laws. are you providing them with recommendations as to how to change their laws? >> in the information referendum we don't have specifics in that, but we are providing technical assistance and guidance to states. i'm having conversations with them. it's still early in the process of seeing what states are doing.

there are four states that have changed their laws. we are also in the process of learning what might be best in how to respond to this. >> i hope that you'll keep open the possibility of having a specific standard for the transfer of custody of adoptive children. i think you're right. we should approach this carefully and we certainly want to be careful not to adopt differing standards. but if the evidence suggests the problem is specific to adoptive children, then it may be that we need to tailor our response to that group of children, as well. thank you. >> thank you, senator murphy. >> madam chair, thank you for this hearing. we are grateful for this opportunity to talk about a whole range of issues. i know that i wasn't here for the testimony, but i've become familiar with some of the work in the testimony that our

witnesses have provided today. i wanted to focus in a broadway, i've worked very hard in this area to bring more attention to these issues. the gaps in our child welfare systems, problems we have. i have legislation entitled to speak up to protect every abuse kid act. it's really to focus on this problem that we have where we have varying degrees of what mandated reporters must do. in some ways, a multiplicity of standards instead of having one federal floor on what should constitute a mandate to report or protect, to report instances of child abuse or suspected instances. so all of this comes under a broad umbrella. i was particularly disturbed as

we all are by some issues raised in your testimony. i wanted to start with associate commissioner chang on the question of -- and get your perspective when you have a delegation of authority in these instances, and you have that delegation of authority, do you have the possibility or have you seen in your work that the child will have legal problems down the road. is that something you've spoken to already today or is that something you haven't been asked about? >> thank you, senator. it isn't something i've spoken to. certainly in our look into this process of delegating authority, that question does come up. i think that's one of the things that's troubling is that there is such variation among states about what that delegation of authority actually means what responsibilities carry. we know that when we have legal

guardianship that that does come with certain delegations of authority that comes with responsibilities, as well. a lot of what we, i think, are talking about is often done kind of outside the scope of legal scrutiny and authority. so there is a question that rises. if you don't go through the court process to get a legal guardianship of a child, what responsibilities do you then have for that child? so i think it is something that states really need to think very carefully about. >> just on the subject of states, in your experience, have you seen whether or not many states have acted to expand access to post adoption services following these reports of private rehoming? >> that's a great question. so we know that before the story came out approximately half of

all states have reported to us that they do regularly offer post adoption services, not only to children adopted out of the foster care system but also those adopted through private adoptions or internationally. the challenge remains that there are very limited dollars available to states to use to support post adoption services. another way to think about post-adoption is really prevention. these are services designed to help parents struggling with their children whether adopted or biological. the reality is in our child welfare system, we do not invest as much in preventive services as we do after the crisis occurs. this is a real challenge across all states. >> i was going to get in a moment to some of your suggestions you may have already outlined. some of them bear repeating at a hearing like this. any cases that you're aware of

where parents rehoming their children who are then criminally prosecuted, what's the basic metrics on that in terms of criminal prosecution? >> sure. it's a great question. it's one of the questions i asked miss twohey after i read her article. it's one of the reasons we issued our informatimemorandum. when we looked at the minimum federal definition of abuse and neglect it seemed clear this activity fell within that scope. that is how we saw these acts, they need to take careful look at state laws to ensure they were responding adequately. this is particularly important because if a parent is deemed to have abuse or neglected their

child because they engaged in rehoming, that means they are going to be in the abuse and neglect registry. if they try to go out and adopt again that, will be a notice to any private adoptive agency as well as public child welfare agencies about the behavior of this parent. we think that's critical. >> i have one question of miss twohey, but i wanted the panel to go one by one, if you choose to. in terms of the recommendations you have for next steps. often we have hearings and we explore an issue at great length and sometimes forget to come back and say what are the two or three steps you hope we would take. sometimes the recommendations do something here but don't push on this end. anything the panel would want to offer in terms of steps you hope would result from this hearing?

either especially, obviously, federal legislation or action. >> thank you, senator casey. i would like to see coming out of a hearing like this guidance from the federal government to states but also to other entities at the state, local and in the private and commercial sector about the kinds of evaluation that needs to take place of existing training and tools for the health care and educational systems, but also the development of further models and looking towards the child abuse and the domestic violence arenas for a basis for developing those models.

so to the extent that the federal government can provide standards and guidance and ultimately funding for evaluation and development of models that would be a great step forward. >> guidance rather than unfunded mandates, huh? thank you. >> i would like to make two suggestions. there's 15,000 school districts in our nation. while education is a state responsibility, the federal government has done a lot of leadership in the area of human trafficking, whether the blue campaign, the department of education to write an educator's guide distributed to schools across the fall across the nation. anything we can do to make this a requirement as has been discussed by our other panel members, it's very confusing for mandated reporters. all educators are mandated reporters, of what to do when they suspect a child is being a traffic victim.

what actions should be taken after that? so that goes to my next point. anything we can do in the area of grant funds or supports so communities can rally together cross-jurisdictionally, cross-disciplines to figure out what's happening in their community. for us it would be these student grants that allow this initiative to begin. we completely sustained it when we lost the funds five years ago when they sun set it. anything to encourage this and provide financial support. >> thank you. miss twohey? >> once again as a journalist, i can't share my opinion, i can only share the facts as i've gathered them. i think that in terms of what can be done to address rehoming, specifically you are looking at sort of two things. one, what can be done to prevent it? on that front you are looking at

scrutiny, perhaps more scrutiny of perspective adoptive parents, the quantity and quality of training requirements for families who want to adopt. that's one of the things that experts and other child advocates have brought up, as well as the support services for struggling adoptive families. that those two things could really help prevent rehoming. then you move on to the question of what happens when families decide that they are going to privately rehome. there you're looking at this what right now is a patchwork of state laws with regard to the advertising of children and custody transfers of children. there aren't any uniform regulations, aren't any uniform standards on how children can and should be advertised in print or specifically online. and there aren't any uniform standards here in this country on what should happen when somebody decides they want to transfer custody of a child to a

stranger they meet on the internet. i think the congressional research report, congressional research services report pointed out congress does have an opportunity to act. that the interstate aspect of rehoming and the fact the internet is involved presents congress and the federal government with an opportunity to step in. and that's something child advocates have called for. >> thanks very much. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you for your questions and your bill you are also working on similar to this issue. miss twohey, did you actually have any of the parents that you might have spoken with in your research, did any of them receive charges of neglect or abuse in their advertising? >> yeah. that is a great question. i've been looking at this issue

for now more than two years. have covered a variety of cases in which adoptive parents rehomed their child. cases that were either prior to my reporting brought to the attention of authorities, certainly came to the attention of authorities after my stories, and not in one single case has an adoptive parent been charged with abuse or neglect or any criminal charge as a result of their rehoming activity. in some states where there are restrictions, and this includes states where there are laws that do restrict advertising of children and the custody transfers of children. lots of times local law enforcement has said they didn't know those laws existed. if they did exist they didn't have criminal sanctions attached to them so they didn't feel like they could take action. >> thank you.

>> ms. littrell, in your school systems, have you had cases of the rehoming that you are aware of? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> i know in many instances grandmothers end up taking over custody, not custody, but raising their grandchildren because the daughters have drug abuse or whatever situation might occur. in that case, it's my understanding that the school systems need to have power of attorney in that case. i was curious, in your situation, i would think you would have grandmothers responsible for their grandchildren. can you elaborate on that? do you know what the school requires of a grand parent. >> sure. we have a variety of different family members raising family members for the whole range of reasons. what we require is proof that

that parent or guardian has the legal right to register that student. >> which is what piece of paper? >> any kind of court order, it can be as simple as a caregiver affidavit, in this case a grand parent, aunt or whomever has to sign and let us know that parent has an affidavit saying they are the legal guardian for the student in order to be able to register them. >> that affidavit is not court sanctioned? >> correct. >> in many cases, some people are concerned that if we go through the process of requiring court approval on any case where they are raising the children, that if it's not an immediate family, that it has to be court approved, that there are so many situations where that would prevent family members or friends from stepping in and helping, but at the same time, i think we've seen unbelievable examples of what you all have described today of what happens

when there's advertisement or whomever might be the responsible person in this situation who really cannot help that young child, and obviously many numerous things happen. miss chang, do you have any suggestions on what states or school systems need to require in this situation or miss littrell, you also. >> we feel very strongly state laws need to be clear about what the parents' responsibility is, even if they do transfer legal custody. that is the care and custody, the care and protection of their child. 17 states have defined abandonment within their definition of neglect. 17 other states defined it separately from neglect. thinking about a parent might temporarily place a child with a friend because they are going

overseas to serve in the u.s. military, but you would still expect that that parent has a relationship with that child, they stay in touch with that child. they regularly communicate. and they are ultimately responsible for having placed that child in a safe, appropriate placement. i think that's one of the immediate things that we want to make sure states are thinking about. are they clear in their law about what a parent's responsibility is to make sure that initial placement is safe and that they are maintaining regular contact. >> under mckinnie-vinto, we removed some of the barriers historically there. if an unacopped youth walks in our doors we'll work with him or her to get them registered immediately. if a family is homeless and don't have documentation or that's the story they are telling us, we will immediately get that student registered.

>> were there any cases where you had spoken to parents and they had gone through training through their adoption agency on what they could do to improve the situation or do you know if they sought help before they began advertising? >> sure. that's a great question. some of the parents felt like -- some of the parents had undergone training. others had undergone very little training. sometimes they didn't feel -- in all these cases, the parents felt like they weren't prepared for the emotional behavioral problems that these children brought with them. >> did they get training once these emotional behaviorals came forward, did they then seek training and help in the system? >> in some cases they sought therapy. in other cases, they did have interface with the child welfare system. they often felt like they got no

help, and if they wanted to relinquish their child to the state, that they were going to face, that they would potentially face charges of abuse or neglect. one family didn't want to pay the child support that would be required to relinquish their adoptive daughter to the government child welfare system. they were told if you do this you have to pay child support until the child turns 18. the adoptive family didn't want to do that. >> thank you. >> thank you, madame chairman,ing this has been very enlightening. there is good suggestions we can do at the federal level. one thing i've worried about, if it's worth reacting to, it's worth overreacting to. miss littrell, how important is it for the local systems to

develop and implementing these plans that you have? >> i think there is definitely best practices that should be followed across the nation. however, how a school district works with their local law enforcement, their local stake holders will really depend on what is present in their community. rural communities may not have the same level of resources or same number of resources as urban communities. how recruitment and trafficking happens in one community also varies a little bit, but as i worked with the department of ed to write the guide for the nation on addressing sex trafficking in schools, what i found was actually there is a lot of commonalities. it's much more similar than dissimilar. the recruitment, the grooming and what needs to happen in a community. so having said that, best practices i think should be offered to communities and some kind of guidance for who should

be at the table and what steps can be taken can definitely assist those communities from having to reinvent the wheel or start at ground zero. >> very good. i look forward to seeing that report, too. miss english, in your testimony, you cited the oakland unified school district as a good example. can you give us a little more detail on what that school district is doing? >> yes. thank you, senator enzi. the oakland unified school district partnered with the school-based health center that is operated by the alameda county health department to provide both training to individuals in the school setting to begin identifying young people who are victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. and also to provide services

including referrals for any students who are identified as being either at risk or victimized by sexual exploitation and trafficking. alameda county is one place in the nation that has developed some really fairly advanced services for the victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking, and the unified school district partnered with local community resources to learn from those practices and to share them within the school district and also to make sure that their students get referred to appropriate services when identified. >> thank you. i'm the accountant in the senate, and i have a tendency to ask some detailed number questions, but i've learned not to do that in hearings. so i hope that we'll have an opportunity to submit some questions in writing so we can

get some of the numbers that might help with the testimony that we've had. >> certainly. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator enzi. >> ms. littrell, in your experience with the situations of child trafficking, has law enforcement actually indicted a trafficker in one of your situations? >> multiple times. >> good. very good. i just want to thank all our witnesses for being here today, for traveling here, for your testimony, for your involvement in both the child trafficking issue and then the rehoming issue that has been brought to light. thank you to you, miss twohey. we heard from all of you. we heard these issues. these exploitative issues specifically concerning our children and the private rehoming. they are such serious problems. they are taking place right now, right here in our communities and in our country all across every state, and obviously to

our children. so i want to also thank the many groups and the many individuals who contributed their experience and their expertise to this hearing. in particular, i want to thank the north carolina coalition against sexual assault, the on eagles wings ministry in charlotte, salvation army in raleigh, st. joseph's school in brooklyn, new york, and the alliance to end slavery and trafficking. and the victims, obviously, the victims of both trafficking and rehoming that have been interviewed by my staff. this is, these are serious issues. i do think there are, that numerous examples of what our states are doing to combat these issues and to work best within our current agencies to help not only the parents, but obviously the victims and then the coordination between the schools, the health care professionals and our law enforcement, to bring to justice

the individuals who are committing these trafficking acts, then to really treat the young people who are being trafficked as victims and not criminals. this hearing will remain open for ten business days after today for any other senators to submit questions to you, to submit statements for the record. once again, i appreciate everybody's time and attention to this very important issue. this meeting is adjourned.

>>. >> live coverage of another senate hearing this afternoon. that one focused on european energy security including the construction of a pipeline in bulgaria that would allow russia to transport its natural gas to europe. that hearing organized by the senate european affairs subcommittee gets under way today at 2:30 eastern live here on cspan3. tonight, the house veterans affair committee holds another series of hearings looking into the treatment of veterans at v.a. health care facilities. this examining whistleblowers who report on inadequate care to

vets. we ask you to share your thoughts through social media on our facebook page and twitter using c-span chat. - with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2, here on cspan3 we complement that coverage by showing the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. then on weekends, cspan3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story including six unique series. "the civil war" 1 509 anniversary. visiting battle fields and key events. "american artifacts" touring museums and historic sites. "history book shelf" with the

best known american history writers. "the presidency" looking at the policies and legacies of our commanders in chief. "lectures in history." our new series "reel america" featuring archival government and educational film from the 1930s through the 1970s. "the washington post" reporting this morning president obama will request $3. billion in emergency funding from congress to deal with the influx of unaccompanied children from central america. that money would be used to build more detention facilities and add more border patrol agents as well as immigration judges to the southern porder. president obama is welcoming nato secretary-general to the white house today.

they will discuss a range of issues including ukraine and our mission in afghanistan. the meeting comes ahead of the nato summit in wales this september. secretary rasmussen talked about that summit at the atlantic council yesterday. this is just over an hour. so mr. secretary-general, sellout crowd. welcome, i'm fred kempe, president and ceo of atlantic council. secretary rasmussen, it is a huge privilege for us to welcome you. let me say back to the atlantic council. less than two months ahead of the nato summit in wales in

september. which in your own words, "will be one of the most important in nato's history" at a time when peace and stability are put to the test from eastern europe to north africa and to the middle east. this is also secretary-general rasmussen's last major public visit to washington in his capacity as secretary-general before former prime minister stiltenberg takes over in october. the atlantic council hosted secretary rasmussen for his first major public address in the united states as secretary-general back in 2009. while your tenure is not finished, we are extremely honored to book end your highly successful and distinguished tenure leading nato with this event today. back in 2009, it was then u.s. national security advisor

general jim jones who introduced the secretary-general and we are delighted general jones has returned today in his capacity as chairman of the brent scowcroft center to introduce the secretary-general. general jones, who has prior to his position as national security advisor led nato's military operations in his capacity as commander of u.s. european command as supreme allied commander of europe leads today much of the strategic thinking at the atlantic council. among his other roles at the council, he's been a dedicated supporter of our young atlantis sum mitts which have over the years become the primary public diplomacy of nato sum mitts and have been a means to securing a next generation of support and leadership for the alliance. we are very grateful nato will

partner with the atlantic council this year as well to link top transatlantic policy makers with future leaders from nato member and partner countries of the 2014 future leaders summit in wales. secretary-general rasmussen, not only has been supportive of this initiative, but has been very much an instigator and visionary behind the effort to get more young voices and more young strategic thinkers into the conversation. before i turn the floor over to general jones, let me say what one didn't have to say back in 2009. that is, if you want to tweet use the hash tag future nato to do your tweeting. i think secretary rasmussen, i think back then you were just starting your own twitter account, if i'm not mistaken. with that, general jones, the floor is yours.

>> thank you, fred, and secretary-general welcome back to the atlantic council. ladies and gentlemen, it's really a great pleasure for me to be able to introduce secretary-general rasmussen to this audience for his final major address in the united states. depending on world events, there could be others. i had the privilege of introducing the secretary-general here at the atlantic council for his first public speech to the united states nearly five years ago in september of 2009 while i was still national security advisor. i recall finally when secretary-general rasmussen addressed the council in 2009, he also spoke to a packed crowd in the council's old head quarters across the street. there were so many people in the packed room you could hardly turn around. very happy to notice that the council is able to welcome him back this time toi its new

headquarters. there might be more elbow room, but i'm not surprised he is able to address an overflowing crowd here in washington. in 2009, the obama administration was in the midst of a a rigorous strategic review concerning the war in afghanistan and the debate about how many additional troops would be necessary for the united states, its nato allies and partners to achieve this mission success. the administration invited the new secretary-general to visit washington for consultations about the ongoing u.s. review and to assess possible contributions of nato allies to the u.s. surge. it was a challenging time for nato and for the alliance and its allies, including the united states who were becoming worried from their already long commitment to a difficult conflict in a far away land. but despite these challenges, when the secretary-general came to washington in september 2009

and spoke here at the atlantic council, the administration had great confidence in his ability to lead the alliance through this difficult phase. he has certainly lived up to that challenge. at the lisbon summit in 2010, nato's 28 members vowed to stick agent through 2014 in afghanistan, at which point responsibility for security would shift to the afghan forces. under his leadership, nato stood by its commitments taken at lisbon. the alliance today concluding its combat mission, preparing to take on a post 2014 mission to train and advise afghan forces. secretary-general rasmussen will go down in the history books as having led the largest and longest combat mission in nato history in afghanistan. as the secretary-general returns to the atlantic council in 2014, the strategic context is quite

different than a mere five years ago when afghanistan was a dominant challenge for the alliance. to confront these evolving strategic realities, secretary-general rasmussen appointed nato's group of expertses ably chaired by former secretary madeleine albright to take a nato that would form a new alliance strategic concept. secretary-general led nato's response to not only the threat of extremism, civil war and instability on the southern flank, but also to russia's challenge to the liberal post cold war order in europe. all during the greatest financial crisis since nato's founding in 1949. in libya in 2011, the secretary-general skillfully positioned the alliance to respond to rapid events and to enforce u.n. security council resolution 1973. nato's quick action demonstrated the alliance's unique capability

to act quickly in a crisis and to integrate regional partners into alliance operations. in the aftermath of russia's annexation of crimea and destabilization of ukraine, secretary-general rasmussen has decided leadership since the end of the crisis during the cold war. he reminds our public nato remains a critical insurance policy for all members and remains relevant into the 21st century. this september in the united kingdom, nato heads of state and government will convene for what secretary-general rasmussen himself has called one of the most important meetings in nato's history. there will be the secretary-general's last nato summit before are former norwegian prime minister stoltenberg takes over in october. while secretary-general rasmussen's tenure is not yet complete, we are confident he

left behind a rich legacy of accomplishment which nato member nations owe him a debt of gratitude. as many of you well know, the atlantic council recognizes the secretary-general's rich accomplishments awarding him the atlantic council's distinguished international leadership award in 2012, where he delivered a moving testimony about his own personal investment in the transatlantic link. i'm delighted to welcome him once more to the stage on his visit to washington, perhaps his last as secretary-general. ladies and gentlemen, please join me welcoming the 12th secretary gent to the north atlantic treaty organization secretary-general rasmussen. thank you. thank you very much, jim, for that kind and very generous introduction. it is really wonderful to see

you again. thank you for your remarkable service as marine, supreme commander of nato forces and national security advisor. and i remember with great pleasure our cooperation during your term as national security advisor. you know nato from the inside. you know what it takes to keep the alliance united, and your commitment to the transatlantic relationship is firm and strong. thank you very much. and also a very big thank you to fred and damon and your dedicated team here at the atlantic council. i truly value your strong commitment and service to the

transatlantic community and to nato. fred, it is a great privilege and pleasure to work with you. you've done an amazing job in making the atlantic council such an influential forum in international affairs in washington and worldwide. the atlantic council shapes and informs an important debate on the challenges we face and the opportunities we must grasp in a world that is more competitive, dynamic and disorderly. through your tireless work, you play a key role in keeping the bond between north america and europe strong, now and into the future. we recently marked the 70th

anniversary of the d-day landings. a stark reminder of the horrors of war, but also of what is possible when our nations unite against tyranny. since then, the nato alliance has underpinned freedom, peace and prosperity across europe and north america, protecting our values, individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. today, those values and our way of life are once more under threat. we are surrounded by conflict, danger, disorder and autocratic

regimes. from the middle east to north africa sahara. rising tensions and territorial dispute in asia, and revisionist russia breaking international rules and undermining trust. but russia is not just trying to recreate a sphere of influence. it has dealt a dangerous blow to the international rules-based system we have built up over decades. and its illegal and illegitimate actions encourage other regimes to follow suit. the way to face such threats is clear. we must be confident in our values. reenforce our readiness and strengthen the transatlantic bond that remains the bedrock of

our international order. since world war ii, the solution to every strategic challenge has been transatlantic, be it the cold war, the balkans, afghanistan or 0 the financial cris crisis. american and europe working together, training together, and when necessary, fighting together. this is how we have protected our nations and promoted our values. but even the most successful relationship needs work. we cannot take our transatlantic bond for granted. we must renew our commitment and continue to invest time, energy and resources to keep it strong.

to me, the challenges we face, we need a truly integrated transatlantic community. a truly integrated transatlantic community. and i believe there are three things we must do. reenforce our economic ties. deepen our personal and cultural links, and strengthen our security. first to the economy. trade encourages the creation of wealth. it discourages conflict and conquest. it generates greater prosperity, and this in turn leads to

greater security as people do not want to put their prosperity at risk. so a healthy economy and sound security create a virtuous circle. in today's economic world the link between economics and security and between peace and prosperity is stronger than ever. and it is particularly strong in the relationship between europe and north america. together, we represent the most powerful economic bloc the world has ever known. but with the greater global competition, we need to work harder to ensure our prosperity for the future. a transatlantic free trade area

is a unique opportunity to reenforce our economic ties, and to lock in our prosperity. the trade deals currently being negotiated between north america and europe are the next step. and the right step. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will eliminate tariffs, cut red tape and open up new markets. it is potentially the biggest trade and investment deal in history. as a former prime minister, i know just how difficult trade negotiations can be. but we must look beyond the technical details to see the big gain gains within our rich and to

move forward because this is an opportunity we cannot miss, to promote growth, create jobs and improve our quality of life. we also need a new focus on energy security. much of europe is now reliant on russia's oil and gas. we have, so to speak, burned our way into a position of dependence. as we see in ukraine, russia is quite capable of turning off the taps. putting an end to that dependency is now of the utmost strategic importance.

european nations are already doing more to reduce this dependency. they are increasing their storage reserves, engineering where it is needed, and bringing in energy from other sources. we must also find new ways to generate, extract, and distribute energy, be that oil and gas or renewables. and we need to open our markets to each other. because if you have to depend on anyone, it is better to depend on your friends. and those friendships must be fostered. so this is my second point.

we have to deepen the personal and cultural ties that bind us so closely. 30 years ago i came to the united states as a guest of the international visitor leadership program. i can tell you a life-changing experience. it helped me to know and appreciate this great country and its people. as many people as possible should have that same opportunity. i want to further strengthen the personal bonds across the atlantic. so in preparation for our summit in wales in september, i asked young, emerging leaders from all nations of the alliance how they think we should do it.

and i would like to thank the atlantic council for facilitating this work. the results have been truly enlightening and valuable. one of the main recommendations of the emerging leaders is to enhance mutual understanding between the nations of the alliance through personal ties. and i think they are right. we need to increase our transatlantic student scholarships and exchange programs, to increase our scientific and cultural corporation, to appoint ambassadors to spread the word about the value of the transatlantic bond and of nato, and to form those lifelong

relationships that have bound our people together for so long. now, my third point underpinning everything we do is we need to strengthen our security. the english philosopher thomas hobbs wrote of a world without rules, a world without security. he described this world as having no industry, no movement, no culture, no society. of nothing but the continual fear of what violent death, of a world where the life of man was nasty, brutish, and short. security is necessary for us to

live free from fear, but security takes work. and for 65 years that work has been led by the countries of the nato alliance. in today's dangerous world, nato must be ready to respond to whatever threats we face, to act quickly whenever, wherever, and however needed. this means europe and north america consulting together, acting together, and sharing the responsibility together. i know very well that from this side of the atlantic, it can appear that european allies expect the united states to

defend them, but they're not prepared to defend themselves. but i have to say, this is simply not true. remember, during the cold war, european soldiers were confined to barracks. not so now. europeans have placed themselves in the line of fire in the balkans and over libya, in afghanistan. for every two american soldiers who have served, one european soldier has served with them. and many paid the ultimate sacrifice in our common cause. responding to russia's aggression in our eastern neighborhood, all 28 allies have

stepped up to the plate to re-enforce our collective defense. from the baltics to the black sea, we have more planes in the air, more ships at sea, and more troops on the ground. the united states took the lead, and its continuing leadership remains crucial, but most of the planes are european, most of the ships are european, and many of the troops are european. this is nato solidarity in action. truly all for one and one for all. but we must also plan for the

future and be ready to deal with any threats from wherever they come. so for our wales summit, we will ensure that nato is always prepared through our new readiness action plan. we're looking closely at how we deploy our forces for defense and deterrence, what combination of forces we need, where they should be deployed, and their readiness. we are also considering re-enforcement meshes, such as necessary infrastructure, the designation of bases, and prepositioning of equipment and supplies. we are reviewing our defense

plans, threat assessments, intelligence sharing arrangements, and early warning procedures. we also are developing a new exercise schedule adapted to the new security environment. and we want to further strengthen our nato response force and special forces so we can respond more quickly to any threat against any member of the alliance, including when we have little warning. but readiness requires resources. so i welcome president obama's proposed $1 billion european reassurance initiative. it shows the united states'

enduring commitment to the security of europe. now other allies need to strengthen their commitment. and i am the first to say that some european nations can and should do more. nato is an insurance policy. an insurance policy against instability, and all members must pay their premiums. and that premium has just gone up. at our summit in wales, i expect all alliance leaders to commit to change course on defense spending, to reverse the decline

and to back up their commitment with concrete action. estonia, as an example, estonia has shown that despite a severe economic crisis, it can be done. estonia has joined the united states, greece, and the united kingdom as allies that invest at least 2% of the gross domestic product in defense. and i welcome the commitment of latvia, lithuania, poland, romania, and turkey to do the same. and if all the european allies spent 2% of their national income on defense this year, we

would have another $90 billion to spend. that is the equivalent of today's defense budget of germany, italy, netherlands and norway combined. now, i'm not naive. i know we will not achieve this overnight, but at the summit in wales, we need to turn a corner, to start to see defense spending in europe rise in real terms for the first time since the end of the cold war. of course, national budgets have been under incredible stress, but things are changing.

public finances are coming under control, and our economies are beginning to grow. i know very well that increasing defense spending is never easy, but in light of the threats we face, it has become a necessity. but of course this is not just about what we spend. it is also about how we spend. we need to focus on what we really need to keep our nations safe in the 21st century. on capabilities and skills for the future, and we must do more together as allies and with

partners. in afghanistan, we forged the biggest coalition in recent history. 50 nations from many continents united in a single cause. and in all our operations from the balkans to libya, partners have made invaluable contributions. so we must maintain our political and military cooperation with them to build stability in the world. we must also do more to help those who require our assistance to reform and develop effective local forces. in wales, we will launch a defense capacity building initiative. this defense capacity building

initiative will allow us to help other nations build up effective defense structures and forces of their own so that they are better able to take care of security in their own region. and so we can project stability without always deploying large numbers of our own troops. so our wales summit will ensure that nato stands ready, robust, and resolute to face the future. ladies and gentlemen, we are fortunate to live in lands that are free, but freedom is not a

natural state. it has been fought for, suffered for, died for. to safeguard the flame of freedom, we must stand ready to protect and promote our values, stay strong, confident, and united, and strengthen our transatlantic community. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, mr. secretary general. that was just terrific. i'm damon wilson, executive vice president here at the atlantic council. we've got about 25 minutes to continue the conversation with the secretary general. first, let me echo the warm

welcome from fred and general jones for coming to the atlantic council for this. we're especially grateful as he's just come off the plane, arriving at dulles. second, to remind everyone who's covering this, either online or television audience of the hash tag #futurenato. and finally, before we begin our conversation, thank you for your shoutout to the nato future leaders. i think we have two of them with us today. one of our american delegates, gina jones, and our turkish delegate. they're both over here. terrific. thanks for being with us today. really important program, and thanks for your leadership on getting that off the ground. mr. secretary general, you just delivered a pretty strong message about how to strengthen the transatlantic bond and really capture the spirit of an atlantic council mission, that the solution to every strategic challenge has been transatlantic. and i think interestingly for secretary general of nato, you began this strategy by talking about the economy and energy, talking then about

people-to-people tie, cultural ties, and third only getting into the security components of that. so let me just start there, and then i want to get into today's crises. but as a nato sec gen, that's an unusual message to hear your leading policy point being t-tip. what's your rational for leading with messages that typically would be outside the scope of the alliance? >> if you read article two in the nato treaty, you'll see already the founding fathers stressed the importance of close economic ties among allies. and i don't think we have reached the full potential of that economic cooperation. of course, you could see the european union as part of that strengthening of economic ties among allies. but i would very much like to see a strengthening of the

transatlantic economic ties. i think that's very much in accordance with article two in the nato treaty. so it's legitimate for a nato secretary general to also speak about t-tip, the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. because economics and security are interlinked. >> i think that's an important point to point out for folks that wouldn't have assumed and understood what article two covers. let me turn to the issues most immediately at hand. you've been working on the wales summit agenda for a while. you've been talking about preparing nato to be fit for purpose ever since it was clear that the alliance would be drawing down its forces in afghanistan and potentially moving away from being an operational alliance. and yet now you have two pretty compelling krooi seize on nato's frontiers. one in the east with russia undertaking aggression in ukraine. and you've been pretty plain spoken about that. but also on turkey's frontier, another nato member, with what's

happening in not just syria but iraq and isis. i think you said in your remarks here at the beginning that we're surrounded by conflict, danger, disorder, and autocratic regimes. so how have these two immediate crises, which weren't frankly part of the planning horizon for wales, how are these impacting your agenda and shaping your agenda heading into the wales summit? >> both of these crises will have a major impact on our agenda in wales. obviously, russia's aggression against ukraine will put a lot of emphasis on the need for a strong collective defense. that's why at the summit i hope we will adopt a readiness action plan which will improve our ability to respond swiftly if

needed to defend and protect our allies. so maybe you would expect, then, the summit to be very much focused on the situation in the east. but at the same time, we have seen the evolving crisis not only in syria but now also in iraq. but i could also mention libya, north africa as examples that the alliance must never become a one-dimensional alliance. it's of utmost importance that while we focus on strengthening collective defense to protect allies against a potential threat from the east, we should not forget other security challenges from the middle east, from north africa, even from cyberspace. so the wales summit will focus on the broad range of security challenges and address all three

nato core tasks. territorial defense, crisis management, and cooperative security. >> if you think about what's playing out in the east in ukraine, it's clear that the alliance has taken quite a few moves to reassure and to reposition forces to many of the eastern allies. but what about ukraine itself? what about the eastern partners, if you will? right now it's clear that the focus from the kremlin is on ukraine or moldova or georgia and less so poland or romania where the alliance is taking actions. how do you grapple with what are essentially nato's eastern partners? >> we have decided to step up our cooperation with our eastern partners. ukraine, we have a nato ukraine commission, and we have had several meetings recently, also

with the new foreign minister, and we have adopted a comprehensive cooperation program. so you will see enhanced cooperation between nato and ukraine in the coming years, including military cooperation. it remains to be seen at the summit how far we can go, but personally, and i'm very outspoken about it, personally i hope our defense capacity building initiative could also apply to ukraine. but we will see. >> what would that entail? what is the military-to-military type relationship you would expect as part of the defense capacity initiative? >> yeah, i think it's clear to everybody that the ukrainian armed forces need modernization and further capability development. i think nato has expertise at its disposal that could be used to reform and modernize the ukrainian armed forces.

but we have also decided to enhance our cooperation with moldova. by the way, recently we saw moldova take a significant step by providing troops to our k-4 operation in kosovo. we have decided to develop what we call a substantive package of cooperation elements with georgia. so with all our eastern neighbors, we want to step up our cooperation in the coming years. >> but we're not quite ready for enlargement. is that the message coming out of nato headquarters right now? >> now you put it in a negative way. i would put it in the positive way that we continue to take steps within our open-door policy. our door remains open to european countries that fulfill

the necessary criteria. and of course, it will be the summit -- it will be for the summit to take decisions, but we're preparing, as i said, a substantive package for georgia and as regards montenegro. we will open and intensify talks and foreign ministers will assess at the latest at the end of 2015 and decide whether time is ripe for inviting montenegro. i think it strikes the right balance to ensure our open-door policy remains credible. but at the same time, we don't compromise on criteria. >> let me just follow up on the defense capacity initiative in libya. is this initiative in part a reflection of lessons learned

from the alliance in libya? this was an operation after all that nato wasn't planning for, and at the end of the operation, we've obviously seen real difficulties in libya. we have a terrific amount of work taking place here at the atlantic council on the channels of governance and security in libya today. has that directly informed this new effort, this new initiative you announced today? >> yes, indeed, but i would broaden it and also add afghanistan as one of the lessons learned in that respect. seeing retrospectively, i think we started our training mission in afghanistan much too late. we didn't start it in earnest until 2009. i think we should have started much earlier. it's much better to train and develop local security forces. politically it's better to give the defense of afghanistan, for instance, an afghan face, and

economically, of course, it's a better deal to make local security forces capable to take responsibility for security, then to deploy our troops for a very long time. so afghanistan is an example. what we have seen in libya is an example. and actually, last year, we received a request from the libyan government, a request for assistance to help them build their security sector. we responded positively, but for well-known reasons, it's been a bit difficult to implement that positive response. but we stand ready. so once the libyans are ready, we're ready to assist them. >> let me shift the gear for a minute before we turn to the audience. you referred to the alliance as an insurance policy for its members and that the premium's just gone up. i think what i took away is a pretty strong statement you offered, that at wales you

expect all alliance leaders to change the course on defense spending. that's a pretty big goal i think you've laid out for the alliance. you mentioned president obama's announcement of a $1 billion european response initiative. and it's been clear to us as we spent time up on capitol hill that there's a strong sort of political instinct that it resonates. people understand the challenge that we're facing from russia. there's rational behind that. but i think they've been skeptical and concerned about whether european allies will step up to the plate with their own investment and resources. you've just put -- raised the bench pretty high, i think, in what you articulated here. do you see the momentum? do you think that you are on a path of actually now recovering from the bottom of where we've been in the recession on defense spending and reversing that trend? >> i see a momentum. i wouldn't suggest that it will be easy. on the contrary, i think it will be uphill. but because many countries are

still struggling with weak economies -- and it is, of course, important to cut deficits and stop indebtedness. indebted countries also, too, are volatile. so it is part of security policy, a sound security policy to also pursue sound fiscal policies. but having said that, i see a positive development in europe. i mentioned in my introduction countries that have already decided to reverse the trend, and that's not just hot air. it's really commitments based on broad political agreements in the parliament. estonia has already achieved the 2% goal. latvia, lithuania, poland, romania, turkey have promised to work in the same direction within a timeframe spanning 2017

to 2020. and i think more will follow. in addition to that, it would also be important if nato allies would commit to fulfill the nato benchmark of spending at least 20% of their defense budget on future equipment and research and development. so it's not just the size but also how money is spent that is important. we will focus on both issues at the summit. >> i think as the hill deliberates how to respond to this $1 billion request, it's important to get that message up there. let me turn to the audience and take in some comments and questions in our remaining time. let me start here in the front, and i'll pick up a few. let me maybe collect a couple, if i may. please introduce yourself for our audience. >> i'm the former conductor of the national orchestra, but i

also happen to be an independent adviser. i was in iraq for nine years or so as a political adviser. my question concerning the current situation in the middle east and focusing on iraq, if and only if there was an initiative of awakening similar to the situation back in 2006 that are not necessarily under the control of the central government -- central legitimate government in baghdad, and if such groups or such initiative requires the assistance of nato directly, would that be something that would be of discussion or consideration? >> thank you. let me pick up ambassador hunter here as well. >> thank you very much, secretary general. i liked the idea you started with economics and moved to security later on. but as you know, the

relationship between nato and the eu is imperfect. is there any chance between now and wales or afterwards to get -- i'm going to use a strong phrase -- the three recalcitrant countries to allow these two institutions to work together? also, an idea that's been around a long time, to have an extra half day after the nato summit to bring the european union leaders in so there can start be some kind of active, serious coordination between the two institutions for common purposes. >> terrific. maybe you take these two and we'll pick up a few more. >> yeah. first on iraq, if i understood the question correctly, it was, in essence, could we imagine nato assists iraq upon request. >> awakening initiative, very

similar to the tribal system community fighting back against isis. similar to 2006. >> i don't see nato engaged directly in iraq. but as you know, the iraqi government has requested assistance from individual nato allies. pray ma primarily from the united states. as regards nato, we are focused on providing effective defensive protection of our allies. in this case, of course, turkey in particular is very much focused on the security situation in the region, and i visited recently and we discussed it in depth.

we've also had consultations within nato upon request from turkey. that's how i see nato rating now. on nato/eu, you're right. we have not reached the full potential of a nato/eu cooperation. but having said that, i would add that we have made a lot of progress during recent years. when it comes to operations, we coordinate and cooperate seamlessly in theaters where the eu and nato operate together. so from a practical point of view, it works quite efficiently. when it comes to capability development, we have achieved a lot of progress. the european defense agency and allied command transformation norfolk work very closely

together, and i think i could safely say that we avoid duplication and waste of resources through close coordination, and i would say an efficient division of labor. finally on political consultations, here i think we have the biggest problem. because of these well-known topics and disputes, it's sometimes difficult to organize joint nato/eu meetings. there's one area we are allowed to discuss in formal meetings, namely bosnia because the eu operates a so-called berlin-plus operation, which means that the eu can use nato assets to conduct their operations. so in such an operation, we are allowed to have formal nato/eu meetings.

and while bosnia, of course, is important, i could easily think of other issues that warrant close nato/eu cooperation. but even in this area we have seen progress recently. actually, we have had two joint nato/eu meetings on ukraine. so it's an example that when the situation so warrants, it is possible to find a pragmatic way forward. so all in all, i wouldn't provide such a bleak picture as you did, ambassador. i see some light. but there's still progress to be made, and of course, ultimately we need to find a solution to the cyprus conflict. >> so let me move from a former nato ambassador to former nato

secretary, who's with us today, wes clark. >> wes clark here. so it looks to me like in ukraine they're fighting back pretty effectively right now. but what is nato able to do to help the other countries deal with the internal challenges that are present in the baltics and in countries like bulgaria? do we have a role in that, or are we seating that to the eu? >> in terms of inside nato countries themselves. let me move to this young woman right here, please. is there a mic on that side of the room? oh, it's in the back, sorry. >> thank you. leandra bernstein. my question is, you've created quite a narrative as far as russia giving an enemy image, and it's just questionable whether creating that image of

russia is intended to reinvigorate somehow the nato alliance, which has seen a lot of, in certain analysts' views, defeats in the 21st century in particular and significant struggles economically and likewise. so is this creation of russia as a boogie man an attempt -- a defensive attempt to try to pull the alliance back together? >> let me go ahead and pick up the ambassador as well. here, please. >> secretary general, you mentioned the necessary conditions for the enlargement of the nato. could you describe more specifically what the necessary conditions are? are they measurable? and will enhanced cooperation

cover those necessary conditions? and as a result, will it pave the way toward the nato membership for the countries? >> we'll come back to you, mr. secretary general. >> first to wes clark, what we are witnessing is maybe not entirely a new kind of warfare, but we call it hybrid warfare. a combination of traditional methods and more sophisticated, covert military operations combined with sophisticated information and disinformation operations. and you're right in pointing to the risk that such hybrid

warfare could be used against some nato allies. for instance, in the baltic states, taking into account the russian doctrine that they preserve the right to interfere or intervene to protect what they consider the interests of russian-speaking communities. and as we all know, in particular in estonia and latvia, we have quite substantial russian-speaking minorities. bulgaria is another case. but still, we know for historical reasons that there are special ties. so it's a relevant -- it's a highly relevant issue. we are dealing with that. we will address this particular issue as part of our readiness action plan because it is also necessary to be ready to counter

such hybrid warfare. having said that, and also in response to your question, is this purely a nato issue? no, it's not. it goes beyond traditional military means. as i mentioned, it also includes propaganda information and disinformation operations. and that goes beyond traditional nato operations, so i think it's an excellent example of an area where we need close cooperation and coordination with other organizations like the european union. but i could also think of other organizations. but it is of utmost importance that we improve our ability to counter that kind of warfare. now, on russia, there's no --

first of all, there's no need to develop or create a specific picture of russia to reinvigorate our alliance. i think it's quite obvious to everybody why nato is needed. we need a strong collective defense to protect our populations against any kind of threat. so i would argue that it's russia herself that creates a particular picture right now. let me remind you that in november 2010 at the nato/russia summit in lisbon, we decided to develop a true strategic partnership between nato and russia. we have done a lot during the last more than 20 years to develop a constructive cooperation with russia. because we do believe that a

positive engagement with russia is the right way. forward. just to discover that russia sees it differently. and if you read the russian military doctrines, they point to nato not as a partner but as an adversary. so it's russia that creates this particular picture. finally, on the open-door policy, well, let me put it this way. at the end of the day, it is a political decision, whether the time is ripe to open for membership. we are in close dialogue with applicant countries. for some of them, we have developed what we call a

membership action plan, and within that membership action plan, we define certain reforms to be carried out, certain criteria that must be fulfilled, and as regards montenegro as an example, we have pointed to reforms of their security sector as a particular issue, and we will now focus an intensify our talks with montenegro on that specific issue. so the aspirant countries know very well what is needed to enter the door. >> mr. secretary general, if i may, we're coming to the end of an hour, but i'd like to ask you a question to help wrap up our conversation today. even as we talk about looking forward this fall to the end of your tenure when you step down, you have an enormous plate, an enormous agenda still on your

plate. but i wanted to ask, as you think back on your time as secretary general, when you first came to the atlantic council in 2009, you said something that struck me as i was looking back. i have to straddle the atlantic with one foot in europe and one foot in north america. when europe and north america come together, i'm comfortable. when they drift apart, i'm the one that feels the pain. so if you think back over your tenure as nato sec gen, where have you felt the most pain? what's been the biggest challenge for you to manage as someone who represents both sides of the atlantic at one time? >> but i haven't felt pain. i'm quite comfortable. i would argue we have seen a closer transatlantic relationship during my tenure as secretary general.

you have, of course, seen our operation in afghanistan, and as jim jones mentioned in his introduction tonight we decided on a search in late 2009. the american decision was followed by a european commitment and also the europeans searched in libya 2011. you saw the europeans take the lead, actually, for the first time in the history of our alliance. and i have experienced during my tenure as secretary general that we have had more political consultations in the nato council than we had in the past. also, following the new strategic concept in which we declared that any ally can request consultations on any

issue of interest. so we have had a lot of consultations also on issues where we didn't have any intention to intervene as a nato alliance. but we have seen the north atlantic council as a forum for a very intensive transatlantic dialogue. so both when we're speaking about operations and when we're speaking about the transatlantic dialogue, i think we have seen a closer cooperation developed during those five years, and that's why i don't feel pain, but i'm quite comfortable. >> terrific, terrific. well, i apologize for those of you whose questions i was not able to take. i want to remind those of you that are watching online or through television, if you want to join the secretary general in wales and you're under 35, we're recruiting right now for our nato future leaders to travel to the nato summit in september.

please get your applications in at www.atlanticcouncil.org. thank you, mr. secretary general. thank you to your team, who's been terrific to work with as well as the atlantic council team. it's a delight to have you here at the atlantic council on the eve of the summit. please join me in congratulating the secretary general. >> thank you. [ applause ] nato's holding its next summit this upcoming september in wales. nato secretary general rasmussen

today at the white house meeting with president obama. coming up this afternoon here on c-span3, we'll have live coverage of a senate hearing on european energy and russia's exportation of its natural gas reserves. that's scheduled to get started at 2:30 eastern. again, that's live here on c-span3. and tonight, the house veterans affairs committee holds another in a series of hearings looking into the treatment of veterans at va health care facilities. this one specifically examining the whistleblowers who report on inadequate services to veterans. live coverage starts at 7:30 eastern over on c-span2. you'll also be able to weigh in with your thoughts both on our facebook page and on twitter using #cspanchat. news this morning that the white house will request $3.8 billion in emergency funding from congress to deal with the influx of unaccompanied children crossing the u.s. southern border. on thursday, homeland secretary

security jay johnson and health secretary silvia burwell will testify about the president's request. c-span3 will carry that live beginning at 2:30 p.m. eastern. tune into book tv this weekend for the harlem book fair with discussions on the state of african-american literature, multicultural book publishing and the black arts movement. live coverage starts saturday morning at 11:45 eastern on c-span2's book tv. next, the state department's ambassador at large for war crimes talks about the steps the u.s. and international community are taking to prosecute members of syrian president bashar al ass assad's regime as well as the opposition. stephen rapp formerly served as a prosecutor which tried former liberian president charles taylor. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, good

afternoon. welcome to the atlantic council. my name is fred hof. i'm a senior fellow at the center. i'm delighted to see such a large crowd this afternoon. i think that one thing that everybody in this room can agree on regardless of political orientation or anything else is that on days like this in washington, d.c., it's a good thing to have indoor work. on behalf of the center and our cosponsor, the public international law and policy group, i really would like to welcome you to this discussion, this conversation with ambassador stephen j. rapp on war crimes in syria, the challenge of promoting

accountability, and protecting civilians. if you'd like to join this discussion online, please use the hash tag #acsyria. we very much welcome the cosponsorship of the public international law and policy group. a pro bono law firm whose leaders have participated in a blue-ribbon committee that has prepared a discussion paper for a forum, a tribunal that could ultimately prosecute syrian atrocities. the reason we're here, though, today is to hear from a former colleague whose work i admired and continue to admire very much. ambassador steve rapp. steve is the ambassador at large in the department of state for

war crimes issues. he heads the office of global criminal justice, and he's had this job since september 2009. among other things, he served with distinction in prosecutorial roles having to do with atrocities in sierra leone and genocide in rwanda. on a personal note, i'll say that from march 2011, when this syria crisis began, until september 2012, when i set aside my own duties at the department of state, steve and i were colleagues in the search for both political transition and accountability in the context of syria. i admired steve's dedication and energy very much. i believe that as a general matter, we are much better

served by our public servants than many of us realize in this country. in the case of steve rapp, i think it's particularly true. this man is a true believer who brings energy, dedication, and determination to everything he does. but more importantly than my admiration, i recall very specifically that your work was deeply admired by the secretary of state. our format today will be that of a discussion. we'll start by giving ambassador rapp an opportunity to describe his mission for the united states government and the main challenges he faces in trying to accomplish that mission. he and i then will have a brief conversation after which i'll

open the floor up to your participation. and our goal this afternoon is to conclude at 3:30 sharp. so steve, welcome. we're deeply honored that you could find the time to do this, this afternoon. and i'd like you to get things rolling. describe your mission, describe the things that are keeping you from accomplishing it in, say, the next 20 minutes or so. >> okay. and that's a tall order, but first of all, just generally. my office, now called the office of global criminal justice, been in the state department now for 17 years. david shefer is the first incumbent and was established in order to further our policy of accountability for mass atrocities and led u.s. engage the with the yooug slav yan, with the establishment of the

court in sierra leone, kam bone ya, and elsewhere. also our engagement with the international criminal court, not to join but increasingly to assist and support on a case-by-case basis as we can internationally in order to fulfill the goal of holding those leaders responsible who have committed the worst crimes known to human kind. in the last 20 years, a lot has happened in this area. indeed some have said it's the most dramatic change in the international system, the fact that people like president of yugoslavia are brought to justice. in the hague, charles taylor, whom i personally prosecuted, former president of liberia, convicted of crimes against humanity and war crimes and sentenced to 50 years. prime minister of rwanda and officers of the military and of that government and of various state organizations that participated in the genocide of 800,000 men, women, and children just 20 years ago right now. those individuals have been held to account.

and as we deal with what has been done, we look at other situations. some past and sadly some very current, like that in syria, where the documentation from the syrian observatory on human rights is more than 162,000 people killed since february, march of 2011. i mean, numbers now greater than in the former yugoslavia and in sierra leone. and in terms of the conduct of the government, of the assad government, a war against its own people beginning with shooting peaceful demonstrators today to the dropping of barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods and over time to the torture and murder of thousands of people in state custody. of course, it's not just they that are doing the crimes there. they started that activity, and the vast majority are their responsibility. now we have other groups in the

armed opposition committing other horrors. beheadings and hangings of the innocent in public view by groups like isis that have now spread their poison into iraq. so the challenge in my office, the challenge for all of us that believe in justice is, how do we take the lessons we've learned at these international tribunals, how do we fulfill the expectations of the victims and the survivors of what's happened in syria? there are different ways to do that, ways that we already are, ways that we already can affect the situation. they're not as satisfying as they might be, but we're looking at every possible alternative, as you discussed and as the public interest group law and policy is also working on. but first of all, we're doing a fantastic job of documenting what's going on out there. you'll remember when we were at the friends of syrian people in

april of 2012 in istanbul, secretary clinton announced our support for documentation for the establishment of an international center supported by our government and now at least 40 other governments that is also supporting groups in the field that are collecting documentation. they're actually rounding or getting close to gathering more than a million pages of documents. it's incredible to believe, but this -- the syrian government has a mania for documentation that we haven't seen since the nazis. certainly an example of that are these caesar photos, so-called, because of my colleagues done in january. since that time, these photos have been made available to law enforcement agencies around the world, and they're being analyzed. to date, what those guys said

was there in january is there. evidence of thousands of individuals tortured to death, individuals that have been strangled and mutilated, gouged, burned, starved. and i've seen hundreds of these images. and on their faces, you can see the agony in their last hours of life. but documented with a card, with a number of the death, and in the thousands of individuals in order to prove to somebody, yes, indeed, we did kill that guy and we killed him with -- in a truly horrible way. they were arrested people and letting them go in order to sort of discourage others, but now we see this intense effort to murder after torture with thousands of victims. question is what can we do about it? we can document it. we of course have a commission

of inquiry, which we've strongly supported and which has been supported by the human rights council with 40 or more of the members. only a couple dissenters council, 40 or more members establishing this commission of inquiry that's been documenting the horrors there. we have denial of humanitarian access, rules of law in effect for 150 years where you didn't target ambulances, doctors, nurses. now those people are targeted. they are in greater danger than civilians. paul panero said in geneva, almost like impunity has found a home. my job is to make sure that that ends and there is no impunity

and individuals are brought to account. what can we do now? first of all, it's important to know when wets this documentation, we see victims of nationals of other states has already been shown, whether they are north or south, national authorities like our own can have jurisdiction of these cases. people can be charged who are in that hierarchy, which is relatively easy to show, 24 facilities torture murders in place. who was in command? who were individuals depicted in the photos above the bodies. that kind of evidence can give state ability to prosecute those. i mentioned charles taylor senior, i got 50 years at the international level, his son charles taylor, jr., made the mistake of flying through miami, florida, picked up by immigration, u.s. officials. eventually they found out what he had done in liberia torturing

people to death, tried by a jury in florida and sentenced to 97 years and today serving 97 years in federal prison for crimes he committed in liberia. those cases can be built. the signal is there's not going to be any place to shop or visit your family or children, you're going to face consequences. that's something we can build on already. beyond that we want to see about justice in syria in the future hopefully with peace and part of peace. the idea of liability has to be essential. it's impossible to imagine a syria that would go forward with those that have been responsible for killing or torturing thousands of individuals. what we build and plan for in the future with the syrian people has to be something with appropriate culpability. international approaches.

we tried to go to the security council with the united nations with french allies, a vote with the icc 24th of may, 2014. you know, you've got -- call them soviets, shouldn't do that at the atlantic council. maybe that's okay. acting like it, russians and chinese vetos that block that referral. there are other alternatives. we can talk about ways they can be developed. other places creative. for instance, i mentioned cambodian case. the cambodian case in general assembly ask secretary-general to negotiate with cambodia, hybrid court, following up on that. extraordinary chambers in

cambodia with enter judges, national judges, leaders of the khmer rouge. in chad, you had a leader accused of killing thousands and of torturing tens of thousands in power. he fled to senegal. now senegal entered into an agreement with african union by reason of senegal, able to put together african union and an extraordinary chamber to try crimes committed in chad in the international court in senegal. ideas i think need to be explored. we're not endorsing any of them in terms of u.s. government. we want to work with others, particularly syrians, particularly those involved in this and others in the region to begin building for the day when this evidence will be presented in a court of law and when the

individuals responsible for these crimes will be tried. >> terrific. steve, as you look at the situation in syria, as you compare it with other cases you've been involved with, do you see anything peculiar about this particular case. anything special or is it all just the same pattern auto you've seen in sierra leone. >> as i indicated earlier, another aspect remarkable is people make more effort to cover their tracks, to refer to acts of killing and torture with euphemisms, to divorce themselves from the chain of command. that happens to some extent in syria, groups that may go out and commit horrible hand to hand violence. they are directly tying that to

the regime would require evidence, which i think is there. as we see with the caesar photos, government and security services and those involved in this complex structure of political power in that country don't really hide their tracks. i think it gives us a lot more to work for and with in the future. the idea that somehow this is all going to be swept under the rug, that these kinds of crimes, these kinds of horrors are going to be forgotten is impossible in our world. those that worked in the field, part of governments around the world will press until the day of justice arrives. >> on that day, whose call is it ultimately? you hear learned discussions about accountability,

reconciliation, justice, all of this. what is the role of the syrian people in all of this? what's the role of the international community? in the end, how would you envision a decision being made to move forward on the basis of this enormous volume of documentation that's been accumulated. essentially for syrian people. do keep in mind there are certain crimes that go beyond national concern. the world in 2005 unanimously adopting a responsibility to protect said that every government in the world and the facility of international organizations and other states are responsible for preventing genocide and crimes against humanity and cleansing. clearly we've provided in cases

like prosecution of milosevic and others at the time wouldn't have wanted that charge. perhaps people in some parts of the country didn't want that accountability. when the crimes are so extreme, there is no out. as secretary kerry said at london sexual violence summit, when it comes to these mass crimes, like the crimes of sexual violence that are committed as crimes against humanity, there is no amnesty, nothing ever written on paper and agreed to by anybody would prevent prosecutions of those crimes. so we have to recognize that very real reality. at the same time, however, when a society has gone through these kinds of convulsions, one does not want everyone prosecuted. one doesn't want -- in iraq,

successful, a baath party here, too. we wouldn't want it here. we want ways people have been followers, sort of marched into this can redeem themselves and reconcile with neighbors. we want those who are authors of these crimes to face consequences. the pattern international with countries fair and balanced system want to do it themselves, that's always our preference. sometimes more senior leadership, make sure more fair and balanced process, look for international organizations, mixed courts to be involved in that kind of thing. for the larger group of individuals, lou for national institutions. those institutions need to be ones that are representative of every community. obviously as we clearly see in

syria, sunnis, christians, kurds, other communities, they have to be represented in that judicial process. that's one example. even after bosnia we worked at establishing state court war crimes at the national level with judges from the three major communities, but also with international judges there for six years so when victims came in and looked across the room and saw the investigators or judge, prosecutor or whatever, that was somebody from the other group, they made it. they might not have been confident, fearful, when they see internationals mixed in, they realize it's a good chance those prejudices have been checked at the door. so there are advantages to that kind of international participation, particularly in a mixed sense. we'll see what works here. what i think is important at the very least people recognize this is going to happen