in. they have a very long name. it's longer than csis. for asean and east asia based in jakarta. he does work here on energy security and energy efficiency and coal technology and power infrastructure connections and etc. the doctor is a graduate of an economic development and policies from kobe university in japan. please? >> thank you very much. very good morning. i'm delighted to be here speaking to you about asia. for energy security. i would like to standoff by saying several challenges. that will give you a clear

picture of the security in that way. the way asia is thinking and u.s. and not america and europe has slightly different perspectives. that's why i want to start by the challenges we are facing. the conclusion will be understood by the many participants here. as you see that asia is growing into the economic growth that is exciting. given the economic growth. that growth has many challenges. not including the rising of energy demand. the rising of energy is not a good thing. we have to curb those energy demands. by various measures. and also with the growing population they have three points, 3 billion population. 600 million population and imagine how many population and united in terms of energy access. but clearly for electricity.

in terms of energy demand in the region actually by now and as a whole, that energy demand will grow by double from 400 million up to 8,500 million. in terms of energy perspective, the enormous issue of how they secure reliable energy in terms of the affordable prize to keep up the growth by how many more population will provide access to modern commercial energies. to say that i think this issue we are facing is, one is providing energy access. to keep energy securities and also the issue to keep economic growth. another point is we are at the cross roads that we have the environmental issues.

how actually as asia perspective and position in terms of energy security, i think it depends on how you look at the family here. they are experts on energy securities. it depends on how you look at it. in the energy mix in asia, particularly asia, you see among energy, you have fuel and you have coal and you have renewable. coal is very significant and in driving economic growth in asia, to say that they have really enjoyed coal in the past 60 k to keep the u.s. by now until you have a gas that could force another scenario of issue. saying now, we are not really enjoying the gas that they have

enjoyed. we do not have connectivitiecon. and much by import. all this production actually is very low. we will be mostly by 31% of imports. as you look at energy into coal, coal has a greater sayer in energy mix. more than 50% and continues to be almost 50% in energy by 2035. with the security perspective that needs to have a reliable delivery and affordable prize. so in terms of supplies stability for asean is cool. for donations to have very reliable supplies in the region, in that we have coal for strategy is important for energy

security for asean and east asia. i think when we are coming to the developments between how we are concerning the way the coal has been burning currently, the practice actually asean and east asia for a merging economy and poor countries, they are burning coal because of the current power plant has very low efficiency of the oil plan. but they have a variety of options there and including the clean coal technologies. by introducing the clean coal technologies, you can burn coal more efficiently and at the same time saving fuel and minimizing operation and maintenance cost. the key issue is the up front cost investments are higher compared to low efficient power plant. currently there is a variety of technology there. currently that japan having that

high efficiency power plant and china is emerging, but there is a struggle in terms of how those power plants are. in that regard, it's asean that expressed. we are not able to afford that cost. with that regard, my institute where i come from, we conduct the comparison with the return in terms of different types of clean coal technologies. we found that by using ultra super critical power plant, it really provides a worry term in terms of economic and benefits. with the 25 time frame period in terms of providing electricity for cheaper. they had the strong

recommendation. they can afford this kind of height coal power plant. the commercial life. they are not able to build the technology. with that context, i would say that this deployment of clean coal technologies are supporting that if the asean can afford lower cheaper technology that could get in so many years before it can change. there must be international framework in that regard to support asean and clean coal technology. particularly it would be a public financing. those up front costs and i think it's difficult to get whatever is by itself. the public financial support on clean coal technologies.

with that regard, i think it's very crucial. suppose that in the absence of the public financing, particularly emerging chinese company that they are ready to invest in a lower cost and also less efficient. more asean from chinese technology. the technology is available and we are not able to afford it. in that regard, i think i would like to say that any of these public financial supports and in that regard they will find the economy in the future. we will stop and take questions. thank you very much. >> thanks, doctor. our speaker batting clean up is

michael livman. he is the ge and power generation forecasting. prior to working for gi, they led the modelling efforts at the u.s. department of energy and office of renewable energy. thank you very much. i think michael wants to use a power point. daniel? >> thank you. and thank you csas for hosting and convening this interesting and important day. while the power point is being opened, i should say i noted with some dismay i was the odd man out and representative for microsoft didn't bring a power point. i don't know what that said. i will apologize in advance. i will have to look at my slides. i will echo the remark that is the doctor said about energy mix. they might have a few

conclusions. i will talk about energy security through energy diversity. i'm going to focus on the power sector. i'm not going to talk about transportation oil, but power sector. the first thing i'm showing is that this is the mix of capacity across asia. this includes china, india and korea and australia, etc. you can see the brown there. the wedge on the right. it increased substantially and my percentages are not that visible. you can see that the percentage currently at the end of 2013 is slightly more than 50% coal. the green box in the middle there at 5%. that's the renewables that are 2% in red. that's nuclear. you can see our projections show the beginning of a reversal of the trend for the last ten years. a lot is because of china. the great run up in coal in

china influences the entire asian energy picture. over the next ten years, some of that begins to reverse. more nuclear and more wind and solar and gas that holds its own. the next slide. across the different economies in asia, the growth varies and there different reasons for that. there different priorities, for example. they are nuclear in japan which is still figuring out what will happen to the plants off line versus the iceconomies. you can see huge increases in the rates of solar and wind, for example. the economies over 700% growth and the capacity for the next decade. coal is still growing and not nearly as quickly as some of the other options. and again, a strong push for

increasing role of gas. now, to get to this point, to get to an energy or power system that has more diversity this it and less coal in it, there a number of challenges that they will face. the first as was mentioned by the doctor, the fuel price. you can see on the left of these various bars, the coal price across the region. i have representative economies and that is lower than the diesel price and the gas price. the second bar is the price in 2024. the difference between $2 gas and $14 gas or $4 and $16 in japan. these are enormous differences. getting away from coal is going to depend on required concerted

and long-term actions. another challenge is referred to and really huge increases in electricity demand. all of the infrastructure cost that come with with that. you don't need to build the power plant and the transmission. there is a lot that needs to be built. despite that huge growth by the end of the following ten years, we still don't see the same energy access across asia that we see in japan or certainly not in the united states. for example, by 2024, despite the really unfathomable increase in electricity demand that we have seen in china and expect to see in china, they will have 2/3 the electricity than japan today to say nothing of asean and ibdia. there each more challenges.

for example, how will japan replace the nuclear fleet and the portion that won't return? in japan there very high tariffs for wind. the wind producers get them and that's a posed to one to get the wind plan up. in korea it's very, very difficult to site the plans. china has lots of new policies to discourage or prohibit in some places and the sighting of new coal plants in coastal provinces. water use and power technologies require an enormous amount of water. there is pressure from agriculture and scarcity and issues. this is something that i think people don't quite appreciate. it's hard to power an island. first of all if you don't have

somewhere from which to move power in, you have to have more plants available to provide reliable power. transmission connections or gas connections is enormously difficult. in the non-island countries of china, you have these vast expanses. financing, you talked about how hard it is to build a heavy capex plan. the opex, the long-term operations get worse if you have foreign exchange issues. dollar denominated fuels and your local currency is weaker against that dollar than the cost of buying fuel overtime gets harder and harder. okay, so ge is a technology company and the solutions are mainly technology solutions. so one way forward is more gas and more efficient use of that gas. the chart i'm showing on the left is the increase or

projected increase in the natural gas supply in china over the next years. it's about a three-fold increase in 2025. how are they getting there? pipeline from the places and some of that is increasing liquified natural gas. the purchases from all parts of the world. some of that is in conventional gas and tight sands and unconventional gas resources. more gas available through china. similar story and not as dramatic for asean. also a technology story. in addition the super critical coal, they have combined gas plants for those who are not familiar with the technology. it's about twice as efficient as a coal plant. the very latest and newest and most efficient from us is called the ha and combined cycle.

it's a 61% efficiency. it was unthinkable. it's a dramatic improvement and how eshs efficiently you can use gas. next slide, please. >> another way forward. this is something that i think is going to lead to dramatic changes in asean. they are beginning to get around this. it's called a virtual pipeline. instead of the route where you have an actual pipeline on a huge tanker and a humongous facility from your l and g. basically you have the smaller l and g and a natural gas and you put it in the truck and you can use roads and barges to get it to where you need to get it.

of course if you don't have commitment to pipeline, you have the flexibility you get from origin to destination. the first one in indonesia we have indonesia's facility and you develop the pipeline and you commissioned recently the fuelled island power plant and it's about a 35% savings. and really incredible change in how gas is going to be delivered. it's quicker. months over years that displays lots of advantages here. some of the engines that can use the gas can also use biogas. with all of the biomass resources, we are talking about the remote islands and biomasses to gasify them and put them in the engines.

flexible power solutions that are modular and small. post the tragedy of fukushima, we can't think of nuclear without first questioning how it will be safe. one of the newer technologies that ge has available is economic simplified water reactor. it's not much less of a mouthful. it's now the safest reactor and design available. it's about a week ago past another review by the u.s. and nuclear regulatory commission. it's passive for seven days and twice as good as the competitor and simpler in that there far fewer. you don't need steam generators. you have fewer things that can fail. 20% fewer staff. all these advantages that we

need to consider rather than writing it off entirely. lastly in terms of the solutions we are offering, wind plants that are designed for land-constrained environments. one of two mega watts and that's a big turbine. you need power density from one turbine. this is a design that is made specifically for japan and it could be transferred with minor modifications. i think that's it for the wind slide and that's it. thanks very much for your time. >> excellent, thanks. i guess as a layman, one of the

questions that emerges almost immediately when i listen to the presentations, michael has suggested that there is a lot of nifty technology that is a lot cleaner than what we are using now. the doctor said we would like that clean technology, but we can't afford it. my question for any of you and particularly for jonathan, whether you know of financing that is available for emerging economies in asia that want to buy cleaner and even if it's coal, cleaner burning technology and can't afford it. is there credit out there someplace? >> yes. in the case of japan, japanese investment bank, they are now supplying furniture and support to asian countries to introduce high efficient coal and we have

many more schemes to help the open countries in asia to deploy. >> speaking from the u.s. perspective, this is a tricky landscape in a lot of ways. first of all, the landscape is never static. one of the things that we spent a great deal of time and focus on in some of the technical collaborations we have with international partners and industry domestically is on technology development and coming down the cost curve. you can see the different sweeps of technologies across the

landscape and how dramatic the progress has been. you see massive reductions in onshore wind and solar pv. the same is happening in concentrated solar power. of today and tomorrow, they are not identical. point two, there is a strategy issue that is an important one to grapple with. when it comes to coal technology, the united states understands that coal will be a part of the global energy mix and a part of the mix of the united states. today's share of coal in our

total fuel mix is significantly reduced from that which it was ten years ago. a drop from where coal has been about 50% of the u.s. fuel mix and today it is just under 40. there was a point a couple of years ago in response to the realtime movement of natural gas prices in the u.s. where a very surprising thing happened where you had coal and natural gas representing equal shares for a short time about 32% of our fuel mix. we expect that will be part of the united states and elsewhere. and this is true. and all things being equal, it is preferable to have higher

efficiency coal technologies in the market place. no question about that. the use to support non-carbon capture technology in the market place is not something that we feel is appropriate. why? because and energy technology perspectives and a document that was just released in the summer and it's a very appropriate the unrelenting rise in coal use without the rise. and they are compatible and they find a way to manage. the united states does not

support. and the multilateral and bilateral sources. and the least developed economies. and otherwise this is a conscious choice to try to put the emphasis in moving that emergence of carbon capture technology into the market place as we are doing in our own market. from that cost chain, this is broadly affordable. >> i would like to have the idea. i would like the idea in terms of how public has to die on coal

kind of things. i think perhaps we had to stick to the reality in terms of foreseeable future that in our prediction that in terms of coal power plant, it continues to get that in terms of climate change. we have the same concern and interest. let's analyze this reality and the lack of public finance on the cct. they find the financing system, but that system will link to less efficient coal power plant. this is what you will take if super power country like you is concerned on environmental issues, they carefully analyzed that. asean going to the power plant for the future, they are seeking

for the current available technologies for better environment. why they had to subsidize, i agree. they had to stick to the reality for that we need to have support. to make sure that until they have something that breaks through with the technology, asean cannot afford. i state that these assignments, asia does not enjoy it at all. in terms of the security with no gas demand continuing to have it there, but in terms of energy, coal is more reliable and provides energy to billions of people that call the most think that they are going to build up more power plant. i still stick to the public financing and to be more realistic and provide a better environmental issue. it's a global issue.

>> we will open it up to the floor. wait for a microphone and please introduce yourself. >> hi. i'm nancy from the carnegie endowment for international peace. like the world bank and being more reluctant to finance like the coal power plant. i was wondering if others might step in. and the brakes with the aiib. i would like to hear your opinions on that. >> does anybody have an answer? >> our concern is that the japanese concern, no public

support for what they have or something like that. they may have opportunity to finance those projects. in such a case, if those new institutions have the same discipline like focusing only on the height efficient, then it's okay, but if they have no discipline, just financing every new product, then it is quite a miserable situation. that will be increased.

>> tom? >> my name is tom cutler, i'm an independent energy consultant and they had presentations that i would say are the long-term aspects of the changing calculus of asia's energy security. my question is on the short-term aspects of energy security in a region, let's say contingency planning for an oil supply disruption. the questions are, as the region prepared for strategic oil stocks or oil sharing plans for an oil supply disruption, is the institutional architecture of the region, the various international forum such as the

iea, a seesean, in terms of short-term crisis using tools such as oil stocks or sharing plans. if not, what can be done? >> thank you. that's a great question. and it kind of brings out the reality that simultaneously we all together have to do two things. one is manage the situation in which one exists now. the other is put in place the tools for institutional and technologically can help us move forward. i would say from the perspective from the issue you raised and

one where there has been promising collaborations that have gone on and not for a moment say it is sufficient. in some regards, to highlight a couple of examples of collaboration that has been under way, you could look at the work that the international energy agency has done with a number of east asian partners looking at preparedness and responses and what strategics reserves are in place. what one would do. how industry could meet the requirements and continue to provide for the population. thailand, for example, has been an active participant and has done a couple of emergency

response and hosted a region-wide engagement. china is another important east asian narn this regard and the world's largest importer. there i would say to be candid, we hope to find deeper collaboration going forward with china. china is building their own reserves which is an important step to happen. we think that there is a great deal of scope for technical and policy and other interactions so that china which has that enormous stake in the functioning of today's global oil markets can provide the transparency that is the necessity for all global participants including china to make informed decisions. we welcome the steps that the

chinese national energy agency has taken together with the department of energy to deepen collaboration in this area. we think it's a really, really important thing. institutional framework and good start. much more needed. thank you for the question. you yourself is the who understands more on this issue. actually asean, the talk about asean, we are trying to come up with similar requirements of 90 days that i think in terms of stockpilings and gas could be included, but this originally got the oil. asean, not many countries got the 90-day requirements. they are in the company level. they led them to 30 days and all

the same country like thailand stepped up and commit to 90 days. 60 to 90 days. except japan is having almost 200 days, i guess. china currently has a million and we understand that it would cause investments. one time i had provided that during the emitting. it's important that because when you build this structure, it's linked to the economy. it doesn't link to holding stock before 90 days.

it's important to look closely to each economy. and because there was a disruption within seven days and two weeks. in terms of structure and economy, they do not have to step up. they will look at the requirement and also how cost-effectively it is. that's not country. in the case of japan, with the collaboration of asian countries and in recent years, we have

talked with the neck nichl to how we can tackle this issue in a corporate demand. it's still in a very early stage. >> other questions? gentlemen here? >> the former state department more recently yesterday of wyoming. my question concerns nuclear power. we had would the panelist care to comment on the future of nuclear power.

also elsewhere in asia. >> to japan. as you know, there is no nuclear operation among and in the past, the portion of nuclear plants in the total supply with 32%. and for restarts with nuclear paparazzis. that's the safetiness of those and that's why we had the process of local people. they hope in the alley next year, we will have the restart.

20 have already presented the plan to ask for their approval to the nuclear regulatory authority. one by one the application will be examined. during this one, more will be restarted. they expect to what percentage we can lead up on the program. the clear dependency for long-term periods. >> the question, i want to say for asian perspective.

we do not deny nuclear power. it's always the option of the energy mix. that will require a lot of capital and also capital cost itself. it's very expensive and currently it's under the construction of the nuclear power plants, but thailand and malaysia considering. i think they are a public opponent to the nucleus in asia. it's very strong. i think we are concerned about the nuclear power in the future. we are working more on engineer response and preparedness in terms of that. it's support with the accident and how the country operated in

terms of they can have the asean member. this is one of the options, but it's not really now. it's four or five times. thank you. >> michael? >> thanks for the question. and the infrastructure that needs to be added to the grid. the system itself needs to be robust and hardened. that's one of the challenges. all of the infrastructure that comes with it elsewhere in asia. a and in india, we have been

encouraged with the current requirement of the visit signalling willingness to relook at the nuclear reliability law which is a major obstacle. i jumped in to take advantage of the question and link back to the frame of the panel which is about energy security. from our perspective, we feel strongly that the energy security derives from a high degree and systems including institutional systems around the energy economy. obviously other countries need to make their own choices, but we see a real value in a world looking for low and no carbon

energy solutions. we see a real value in the civil nuclear sector and see this as being an area that is full of potential for important collaborations also. to move the frontier and the technology when it's talking about small modular reactors and other new promising technologies that may be just over the horizon. >> we are almost out of time. is your question short? we have two or three minutes between us and lunch. >> this question is dressed to the doctor. >> can you identify yourself? >> i'm nina. i work for the children's national medical health system. you mentioned population. it's one of the things you would have to facedown the road. either double or triple. has your institute that you work with, has it partnered with any

department of health agencies to address this with the hope it would reduce the number of consumers and the demand for energy consumption? >> they do not have population policies in terms of having to -- we do not have the restrictions and because i am an economist, i am aware of the issue, but i think there is a

lot of public programs to providing us more safe and kind of mortalities and children and adults, but it's not controlled population growth. asean, actually there is a sector working on those. for asean and asia, not a particular type of issue. i'm aware that there no policies that is controlled in the population for asean itself. >> coming up on c-span 3 tonight, washington journal's interview with indiana university michael mcrobbie. part of the special university in the big 10 conference followed boy a series of events on prison issues including a hearing on solitary confinement and sentencing practices and a look at prison health care. you can see that starting tonight at 8:00 eastern.

our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates on c-span tonight at 8:00 eastern. the georgia governor's debate with jason carter and at 8:00, the montana u.s. senate debate with republican steve banes and amanda curtis. the south carolina governor's debate. nicky haley, democrat shin cent shaheen, independent steve french and independent morgan bruce reefs. thursday night, live at 8:00 eastern, the iowa fourth district debate between representative steven king and jim nower. c-span camp 2014. 100 debates for the control of congress. now the concluding panel of this all day panel and policy makers on asia. they look at security issues on

the asian peninsula. they have singapore's ambassador and john mccain's foreign policy adviser hosted by the center for strategic for studies. it's just over an hour. >> i hope you had a chance to grab a coffee and a cookie and absorb and see your director's speech. we are back on the record by the way. you can turn the cameras back on and any recording devices that

you may have. i'm the chair of the southeast asia here and it's a pleasure for us to introduce the third and last panel. ahead of the three summits in november. we have a terrific panel & sharing time and on my right, we have the new lly ensconced davi sheer, the secretary for defense in the east asia specific. he had come back from hanoi to do this job. david is an expert on china and

southeast asia. and next to him united states. and he also is singapore's ambassador to the united states, ashok mirpuri. he was most recently singapore's ambassador to indonesia. he has been singapore's ambassador to australia and kuala lumpur and has a long career in the singapore ministry of foreign affairs working on asia-related affairs. finally, a good friend and a real hero of southeast asia and asian policy in the senate is chris brose. he works with senator mccain in

his office. previous -- before that he was senior staffer in the senate armed services committee. chris rose through the ranks doing pretty interesting things, including writing speeches for and advising people like colin powell. he has spent a lot of time in asia, more than most senate staffers, unfortunately. without further adieu, what we want to talk about in this panel is architecture as it res to security. i'm going to ask my colleagues to kick it off in the order that we're seated in. and then we will open up the panel to question and answer. david, it's over to you. >> thank you very much, ernie. it's great to be back at csis. it's a great honor to be joined up here with ambassador mirpuri and chris brose. i have been in my job -- my must job at dod for almost exactly one month now. and i can tell you from my experience during that one month that secretary of defense hagel certainly has a very strong

personal interest in asia and east asia, given all of his history. the secretary of defense, the deputy secretary of defense, the under-secretary of defense for policy, my chain of command are deeply committed to the rebalance to east asia and we have seen that most recently in deputy secretary work's travel to the region. you will see senior level meetings and encounters this fall, including coming up security subcommittee meeting chaired on american side by myself and east asia assistant secretary of state danny russell in tokyo next week. danny and i will also be going to seoul before we go to tokyo. you will see a defense consultative talks with the chinese. you will see military consultative meeting and security consultative meeting with our rok allies. also in november, of course, president obama will be visiting beijing and defense issues will,

of course, be part of his agenda in his bilateral discussions with the president. again, the rebalance is among the highest priorities on my agenda as well as on my senior leadership's agenda. and you will see me focusing very clearly on rebalanced-related issues in my earliest days in my tenure. i'd like to share with you some of the issues that -- some of the big issues i will be focusing on, i think, as assistant secretary of defense over the next months and years. the first one is modernizing our alliances and partnerships. there's a lot on the agenda in this regard from the review of the defense guidelines with japan to the issue with our rok allies to updating the defense framework with india, which we mentioned in the joint statement in prime minister's modi's visit. and the fpa with australia.

all of these are issues in the strengthening of our alliance architecture in the western pacific. all of these will guide the way we shape our alliances over the next 10 to 15 years. we will want to finish strong on all of these agreements, successful conclusion and implementation matters. this certainly will set the stage for closer cooperation between the united states and its important allies in east

asia and the pacific. second, very important big issue will be working on is solidifying the military to military relationship with china. secretary hagel had a very good meeting with the foreign minister the other day here in washington. the foreign minister was here to, of course, review u.s. bilateral relations and planning for the president's trip to beijing. as you probably have seen in the strategic and economic dialogue, both sides recommitted to

working on a set of confidence building measures and we will be working on that set in advance of the president's trip to beijing. a third set of big issues we will be working on is knitting together allied and partner cooperation. evan medeiros spoke during his remarks of our partnership, particularly u.s. japan australia and u.s. japan india. but we want to have greater cooperation among our allies and partners in east area. we are gratified to see cooperation between japan and australia and japan and india. we are great to see diplomatic coordination between vietnam, the philippines and malaysia. all of this great will you strengthens security and stability in the asia pacific and we believe can contribute to

the reduction of tensions, particularly in the south china sea. another area i will be focusing on, of course, is strengthening u.s. defense ties. we have seen the establishment over the past few years of the admm plus. we have had great progress in building regional defense cooperation. secretary hagel certainly is very interested in his encounters with his counterparts during dialogue at the admm plus and most recently -- also recently in april in connection with the defense ministerial meeting. and we hope that's going to continue. of course, as we work all of these issues with our partners, friends and others in east asia, we will also want to be working with them to manage disputes and issues that generate tension. i don't need to mention how important maintaining security and stability, particularly in the south china sea, is to us. our position on this has been

made crystal clear on many occasions. it's going to remain a very strong focus for me and for my leadership in dod in the coming months. why don't i stop there and let my other friends comment? >> thank you, david. ambassador? >> thank you. congratulations, again, to you and csis for putting together this conference to look at some of these bigger pictures in the asia architecture and in particular security architecture. how critical it is for u.s. interests going forward. i wanted to look both at the big picture and as an ambassador here, it focuses on centrality. the main reason why the architecture is important is that the region has enjoyed a peaceful and secure and stable environment for several decades.

something that many of us in fact take for granted. and these conditions have enabled growth and prosperity, which is a key thing we want to see out of the asia pacific. the regional architecture is designed to preserve this. in this post-cold war environment, we are seeing dramatic shifts. that's where conversations about the architecture become important. the environment is shifting. southeast asia in particular is becoming more complicated as a region as we to reposition ourselves in the context of

washington and beijing's search for an equilibrium. it's complex. it's more than washington and beijing. there are other powers that continue to adjust the relationship with each other and with with rcn. tensions have risen. there are several potential flash points that have to be managed. that makes the architecture a very important for us to look at. neutral has played a crucial part in maintaining regional peace and security. i don't want to overplay this role in rcn's strategic weight. those of you who know rcn and region, you know this is the -- the central role is due to the fact that we are a neutral

platform rather than because we carry a strategic heft. in the neutral platform, rcn has offered a space for all major powers to discuss issues of concern, to build trust and to promote cooperation. what rcn has done has been to promote an open and inclusive approach. and welcomes engagement of all major powers. it's a critical part is that we are an organization that includes dialogue partners and other major powers with us. this is characteristic in all the mechanisms that we have put in place that is open, inclusive and outward looking. in particular, we value the contribution of the u.s. to all of these rcn-led forum. for more than 60 years, the u.s. presence has been a stabilizing influence that has underpinned the growth. there are -- we will hear this regularly -- multiple and overlapping structures of the

rcn regional architecture that reflect the diversity of the asia pacific region. from our view, this overlapping structure makes the framework more flexible and resilient. let me go through briefly each of the structures that we have in the security area. the first and the longest running has been the arf which was created in 1994 as a forum for security discussions that engage not just major powers but middle and smaller to preserve their stake in the stability in the post-cold war era. it's the only multi-lateral security group in which the dpk participates. another structure we have is the admm plus. which came into force in 2006. its establishment of the admm was really the commitment of rcn countries to have the military establishments to work together to address transnational

security issues. we then expanded this to have the admm plus. it has become not just a channel for dialogue but also an action-oriented avenue for defense ministers from the region and beyond to come together to discuss practical solutions. they have done exercises to pull together militaries into the operations. the third structure is the eas, which we are looking forward to next month which the president will attend. with the expansion in 2011 to include the u.s. and russia, it has brought the powers together. the key focus now for the eas is really to focus in consolidating for the future. what -- rcn is keen to have brought in is areas of functional cooperation, because these really -- this adds to the agenda and help to build on the architecture in order to keep the mechanism alive and healthy. it adds balance to the structure and ensures that the eas remains

a credible forum for constructive cooperation. various ideas in which the u.s. can play a roll in the functional cooperation areas include disaster management, education, finance, energy, which you spoke about earlier this morning. looking ahead at all these structures, a frequent complaint and almost criticism has been that all these rcn centered regional architecture structures have emergent into a spaghetti bowl that people find difficult to unravel. from rcn's point of view, the mechanisms each play a unique role. they reinforce each other to serve the common interests of maintaining regional stability and growth. the prospective of trying to rationalization the security

architecture into a single arrangement or to try to impose a hierarchy among them will be very difficult. if not impossible. instead, our view is that these regional structures and architecture should be allowed to evolve at their own pace as we improve ways to get better coordination and develop synergy among the mechanisms. in this regard, we have actually welcomed dialogue partners to give ideas for the future of this architecture and taking on proposals and how to improve the

existing frameworks. what is critical is that we must ensure that the regional architecture for all the reasons they have been successful is that rcn remains at the core. keeps a neutral platform and continues to reflect the diversity of the region and remain open and inclusive. indonesia has proposed a treaty. next week, the eas workshop and security framework will meet to discuss this further. these are some of the ideas of we are looking at how we can make this better. let me say a few words about the u.s. engagement. the u.s. has played a role in the regional architecture and remains a critical and unique component in the future. it's important for the u.s. to stay engaged. this must be broad-base and multi-pronged. the region appreciates the u.s.'s support and has come

across in the comments and speeches that have been made by u.s. leaders about how important the neutrality is. rnc and the u.s. share many strategic perspectives. we should work together to continue to build up the existing institutions and keep the architecture open. we also welcome the u.s. support for key principals like peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law, the right of freedom of navigation and the right of over flight. in conclusion, let me summarize the three principals that rcn looks at regional architecture. first rcn should be at the core in order to maintain rcn unity and cooperation. second, it should reflect the diversity of the region. it should remain open and inclusive. as there are overlapping

structures, from our point of view they make the regional ar i can -- the architecture should follow the agenda rather than vice versa. thank you very much. >> excellent. thank you very much. chris? you want to give the ambassador a round of applause? i don't want to deny that for you. it was coming your way. chris, over to you. >> thank you. thanks csis for having me here today. i'm extremely flattered to be among the company that i'm in. clearly, you can tell one of these things is not like the other. my first name is not ambassador. by way the making the point further i was telling dave earlier that i my my signature accomplishment on asia this year has been playing some small role in the confirmation of david shear. you can sort of see clearly what you are getting here. congress is not a participant in asia's architecture. maybe you can be thankful for

that. what i would like to try to do is give you a sense of how the hill is looking at some of these security challenges. we can back into the asia architecture question. what i would like to try to do is frame it in terms of two questions, both of which appeared on the cover of the economist this year. i think these are the kind of -- the two questions that are kind of overhanging. this was a couple weeks back, very plainly, what does china want. this is something -- as members of congress are looking at the region, they are traveling through the region. i would stress it's a small group. it's not extensive to the entire body. this say question that i think members of congress are

confronting. they want the united states to have and believe the united states can have and should have a very constructive relationship with china. they see all of the benefits and all of the common areas of cooperation between the countries. they recognize that -- there's a lot of up side there for both countries together. and yet, they look at a pattern of behavior that is concerning to them. the pattern of behavior is something like this. it's a series of actions that are not sort of purely diplomatic. neither are they purely military. they occur in a gray area. there appears to be a strategy of incremental creation of facts on the ground or in the air or at the sea. there's a concern, i think, that this is what we are seeing is sort of a long game, an attempt to incrementally move by move change the status quo

unilaterally, never in a way that's fundamentally trips a wire and triggers a response on behalf of the united states or others, but nonetheless continues to move the needle such that five to ten years from now we're all looking back and it's a very different region that we're looking at. and i think there's the prevailing view in the congress is, china thinks about its foreign policy. when people say, well, china surely, you know that you are causing other countries to gang up against you, to criticize you, you are driving them closer to the united states, i think these prevailing view on the hill is, there's intent there, even if we have to infer it from action.

that intent is perhaps unsettling, which is this to some extent does reflect conscious action. it's about more than the particular territorial claims that we can discuss today further. it's about a conscious attempt to challenge the balance of power and change it, about changing key elements or challenging key elements of the international order, particularly the peaceful resolution of disputes. and most fundamentally as american is concerns, it's a challenge to the american presence and historical role in asia and commitments to countries that we have either formal treaty commitments or otherwise. so i think the question that i think many members of congress and the prevailing view in the congress comes back to is, again, what does china want. the second sort of security challenge that i would point out may be somewhat provocatively also appeared on the cover of the economist. what would america fight for? fight is not necessarily to be used literally. but i think the point is, what does america ultimately seeking to do. what are we committed to doing? what are our red lines? and i think as members of

congress, congressional staff travel through asia, particularly ones who are maybe less experienced there, they are struck by a prevailing sense and pervasive sense of doubt and question about the united states. this isn't so much a question of questioning america's capability. there's a lot of capability economically, militarily. although, i think increasingly people are questioning that as we see the effects of sequestration and declining budgets. i think it's more a sense -- this is what people sense traveling through the region. it's a question of america's resolve, commitment, judgment. what it's ultimately seeking to do here.

there are different reasons for this. obviously, i think there's the sense of people looking at our opinion polls. obviously, they can discern that americans aren't too into foreign policy at the moment. that may be changing. but there's a question of sort of national distraction to what extent americans are focused on this. there's also sort of the question of national dysfunction. the question of, look, america can't even fix its own fiscal problems. how much are they going to help us when we need them? there's that doubt that lingers out there. look, i would say when it comes to asia and security policy, there's a lot of bipartisan

cooperation. and it really is an area that is somewhat unique from other aspects of our foreign policy where i think there's broad consensus on the rebalance. that being said, i think there's a real question about whether the rebalance is sort of coming into being. that say sense that we hear as we travel throughout the region as well. is this more rhetoric than reality? i think part of this, too, is it's a question about the u.s. response to asia. i heard most of evan's speech. most of it i would agree with. i think the question is not is america doing something. clearly, america is. the question is, is what america is doing adding up to a set of actions unilaterally, bilaterally, that is you fundamentally impacting china's calculus as it presses out in the east china sea, south china sea. there's the other piece, which is that it isn't just about asia. our sense -- something that many members of congress have been struck about, how much in their conversations on security issues with asian partners, the topic comes back to ukraine and how

the u.s. is responding. or last year the response to syria. the crossing of the purported red line and the lack of oh follow-through. many people in asia asking what are the implications of this for us. maybe it's an unfair question. maybe it's oubds, but it's real. that's something that i think, again, many mongs are very sensitive to. so i would just say in conclusion the architectural issues we are discussing are important. there is a lot of potential for them to resolve these challenges, to clarify views and thinking. but age old problem. geo politics determines the capacity and ability of architecture to function. when it comes to the geo politics now the questions i try to lay out today are really concerning. there are questions and i think hear in this town we are seeking answers on, trying to come up with better answers on. it will overhang diplomacy and what we are seeing as the region comes together in november. >> thank you very much for those remarks, chris. thank you for the panel, for your excellent insights. i would like to start with a question and open the floor. the question is many have argued that the foundation of long-term security in asia is economics. i didn't hear any of you talking about that. i wonder would you agree or do you think it's sort of a separate channel that security thinking is linked to, but it's

not related to. how do you think about it? >> i snuck in one word that said economic. and economists throughout. you know how the whole thing. but, you know, they go together. because we have the morning discussion on the economic architecture. i didn't want to get into all of that. the key thing that obviously is there is tpp. it's top of the mind of every asia-pacific leader, whether or not they are in tpp. even those who are out wonder what it means for them and how can they get into it. those who are in obviously are in the throes of difficult negotiations to get it done. particularly for the u.s., the constant conversation that comes up is when are we going to get this thing done? it really is a key not just about the economic future of u.s. interests but the strategic engagement of the u.s. in the region. it's a test of how people see

the u.s. engage nmt the region. look ahead that's what we want to see get done. we have rcep that doesn't include the u.s. the community comes into force next year. it is a critical thing. >> i want to address your question from a slightly different angle by drawing on my experiences in vietnam. some people said the rebalance is primarily a military strategy. i want to try and counter that impression. in vietnam the rebalance and throughout the region actually certainly brings all of the tools together to pursue our interests in the region. in vietnam, we were pursuing, using the diplomatic tool the by using the core diplomatic particularly on regional issues within the multilateral context. on the economic side we are negotiating with vietnam as a member of -- as a tpp partner. both americans and vietnamese, i

believe, recognize that tpp is not just -- will not just benefit us economically, but it is strategic in many ways. finally, we very strongly promoted defense cooperation with vietnam. we see the fruition of our efforts in that regard with the partial lifting of the ban on lethal weapons sales to vietnam yesterday. so our implementation of the rebalance in vietnam certainly was multi pronged. again it relied on all the tools of state to pursue our interests. that's what we are doing throughout the region. the if there is uncertainty in the region it shouldn't be uncertainty about the u.s. commitment to continued peace, security and prosperity there. >> thank you. >> just a brief point. i agree completely with what

both dave and the ambassador said. tpp is critical to get done. without it, it will be a real problem the u.s. faces. it cannot be one dimensional. the challenge is if you look at it, it is a positive trend. i think the concern is the security trend may be headed if not in the opposite direction, not in the same direction. maybe not fragmentation but rising tension. this is something that was pointed out. can you continue to have economic integration when you have rising challenges. is that something sustainable or not? >> thank you. the floor is open. start here. this is a gentleman in the front. again, please tell us your name

and affiliation if you have one. i have a question for the secretary. you mentioned one of the -- related to the alliances. as you know, b united states and korea plan to announce an agreement when they hold the annual defensive ministers meeting this month. can you tell us about how close the two countries are to agreement at this point? thank you. >> we agree with you. we are discussing conditions based approach to op-con with our counterpartses. this will be an issue i focus on during my presence next week in seoul. >> right here, the gentleman in the front. >> thank you. great presentation. my name is ema skodin. i just would like to ask the other two panelists to answer to the extent they can the questions that chris posed. ambassador, in your opinion, what does china want and what would america fight for, in your opinion?

>> well, unlike members of congress, we don't know what china wants. they have become the number one trading partner for all the countries. we value the relationship being

built economically. tour is, traffic, trade, investment how to link the areas closer together. the question that keeps coming up obviously can you have economic integration when you have ongoing security tensions.

is there something that southeast asia discusses with the chinese. talking about the code of conduct in the south china sea, moving it forward. what we want to do again to use the asean platform to manage these tensions. tensions do arise. how can they work together as a group in the maritimes security space. not all of us are claimants. to work with china, work on the framework where there are certain rules that we all respect and move forward towards. >> i strongly agree with the ambassador on this.

it's clear i think one of china's highest priorities is to maintain an atmosphere and a situation in east asia that allows them to continue growing economically. i think that's probably among their highest priorities. the chinese want to the question is how you do it. that takes us to the second part of the question. among our highest priorities in the region is to maintain and increase respect for the international rule of law. this has been an issue in the south china sea and an issue in the east china sea as well. we will look to our partners and china to work with us to

strengthen the rule of international law in our interactions with the chinese throughout the rest of the year and in the future. >> thank you. i have a question. you have made an interesting comparison between eastern europe and east asia. i want the u.s. to adopt something like the attitude to the regional emergency in these regions. at least to watch carefully. public opinion or decided by any other factors? look, from where i sit, no. i think the policy that the u.s. is trying to follow in both places is consistent in the the sense that we are objecting to

what russia is doing in krain because they are violating the sovereignty of an independent country. there are different challenges but in some sense, similar. >> gentleman right here. >> you mentioned what would be on proeb's agenda when he visited china in terms of strengthening the relationship with china. also the u.s. just lifted the long-time ban providing lethal weapons to vietnam yesterday. will that create more stability or more unstability in the region? thank you. >> as i mentioned in my remarks, we want to create a strong stable military to military relationship between the united states and china.

road, rules of behavior. we are discussing these we hope to have something positive to we thought it was only appropriate as part of the partnership we look at lifting the given the growth of the relationship with vietnam. we believe this will help vietnam contribute to regional piece and stability. it will help vietnam in disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, for example.

we thought the current progress was sufficient for us to partly lift the ban relating to items relating to maritime security.

>> you guys worked on the vietnam issue on the hill. was there bipartisan support for that?

>> it we want to see further progress on the vietnamese part. we thought current progress was sufficient to partially lift the ban relating to items relating to maritime security. >> you guys worked on the vietnam issue on the hill. was there bipartisan support for that? >> yeah, there absolutely was. this was something we had been working on. it's not maintained in law or statute. didn't require an act of

congress to ease it. the administration rightly wanted there to be political support for this. we wanted the congress's reaction to be favorable. i think what we were able to do, senator mccain introduced a resolution back two weeks ago. had on it as cosponsors, senator pat leahy, senator corker. very key leaders of the senate when it comes to asian issues. asia policy issues. so, yes, there was a very, very good degree of bipartisan support for it. it's just a question now of building further upon them. >> the lady here. >> my name is nadia with the liberty times. first of all, i would first like to ask, taiwan is asking for the u.s. to build submarines. first of all, i would like to know has any decision been made

from the d.o.d.'s point of view? do you think this is contributed to the stability or the security of this region. thank you. >> of course, the u.s. remains committed to providing taiwan with the defense articles it needs to maintain its security. i have been strongly committed to this throughout my career. particularly during my stint as the director or as the deputy assistant secretary of state for chinese affairs in the state department. i continue to be strongly committed. no decisions have been made yet. as part of our overall on this and a range of issues.

>> thank you. i'm david carl, a business consultant. another way to look at this. actually reflective of factional struggles within the relationship. robust bureaucratic actors that are resistant to party leadership. i have a colleague in beijing who sent me a message last week that he heard rumors of an assassination attempt against president xi.

i'm wondering if instead of china like a strong state capable of foreign policy. >> i have no doubt the domestic political considerations contribute to the chinese foreign policy decision-making. i have no doubt that strong bureaucratic interests also contend for influence within the chinese governmental firm meant as they do here. as they do everywhere. part of the chinese aren't transparent about the decision-making.

defense relations. part of the effort at engaging the chinese in this area is to help them increase their transparency. that will be part of the goal in pursuing these confidence-building measures. >> the wonderful speaker from the president's executive office, dr. evan medeiros. he sounded positive about the ability to get tpp done. i wish i felt as confidence as he does. what's your prognosis i mean

probability. what's the prognosis? what are the biggest obstacles to getting them done? domestic policy here in the united states? >> no country is more in the game on trade than singapore. ambassador? take a swing at this one. >> i heard a tpp will be cone by november. they never specified a year. we have been hearing it every time we come together for an apec meeting. i wouldn't hazard a guess of when we are going to get it. how long it's going to take. very different type of economies. one large. the world's largest economy and a small island state.

it took a long time to get a bilateral free trade agreement just between two countries. can you imagine the complexity of 12 countries including the world's third largest economy. including countries like vietnam that had to make significant economic changes. canada, mexico. covering 40% of the world gdp and not just trying to get an agreement among that u be bilateral agreements among each one as well. you look at the complexity of that. you can understand why it's taking some time to make sure we get a good agreement. when you want to have a 21st century agreement that's what the expectation is. we have to make sure what we get is something that is useful for everybody that makes sense. you need to give the negotiators

a bit of room rather than deadline after deadline, november after november. they are working to get it done. the leaders have given directions of what they would like to see done. we are hopeful that as soon as it's ready, there is no reason to keep it away. just trying to understand and appreciate the complexity that goes into putting this thing together. as i look at the process, i'm sympathetic to them. given what they are trying to achieve. >> i can say a word on the domestic politics piece. part of the challenge is it's regrettable that the senate didn't give the administration trade promotion authority. an added challenge to the complex negotiation that's ongoing is that if you are a

trading partner of the united states are you putting your best offer on the table if you don't have to negotiate with congress afterward? i still think it can get done. it's too big to fail. when it gets done, not clear. what i would simply say i think politically speaking whether this happens there is a window of time to do this in the beginning of next year. if there is the will the agreement to do it, once you slip past that the challenges you get into american domestic politics, where you get into the primary cycle for presidential politics, that tends to play to the extremes. you don't want this to drag into next year so it gets wound up into american political cycles spinning up again.

>> my name is matt field with nhk japan. this is for assistant secretary sheer. you mentioned you will be going to tokyo and they are unveiling a set of guidelines. i was hoping you would share details with that. particularly if you could touch on that it would be great. thank you. >> we certainly welcomed the japanese cabinet's decision to review the collective self-defense issue. we welcome any opportunity to strengthen the alliance and for japan to play a stronger roll in the alliance. i will be going to tokyo with danny russell. we will there hold a session we'll chair for the u.s. side a session of the ssc as well as the sdc.

it's our expectation we'll release the interim report on the guidelines. not the revised guidelines themselves but an interim to map the way forward for the ultimate revision of the 1996 guidelines. >> for those who don't know, >> for those who don't >> for those who don't ssc and sdc? >> securities subcommittee. sdc is the security defense committee. >> i didn't mean to put you -- that's not fair. >> you should see the book he got when he went to the pentagon. it was probably two encyclopedias. the gentleman in the back here. i'm sorry to put you on the spot. >> this is a question that from your perspective what is the

most important aspect of this process? and what's the most important aspect or issue from the united states perspective in this whole defense review process. how do you think this review will contribute to the regional security? >> i'm going to answer the second part of your question first by saying a strong u.s. alliance is a foundation, a keystone for overall regional security. that's been the case for decades. i expect it will be the case for decades in the future. to keep the alliance strong, vibrant and up to date, we review the guidelines. that's our aim in doing so on this round. >> right. the gentleman back here in the blue shirt.

>> i have a a question. deploying a third missile defense into south korea now is controversial. so would you clarify the stance on this issue? additionally our asia pacific commander, admiral locklaer's last week that he endorsed the military taking steps to fuel an rcbm that could be a threat to the u.s. and washington based this week that north korea has completed a major upgrade of its main rocket site.

so would you evaluate is this an imminent threat actually? thanks. >> we are always concerned about developments and the expansion of a north korean threat to stability on the korean peninsula and we are always discussing that very closely with our counterparts including their developments in the missile area. we have made no decision on the korean peninsula. we have not discussed thad deployment with our rok counterparts, but we discuss generally the issue of the missile threat to south korea and we look forward to working with our rok ally to meet any

potential missile threat to korea or to the region. >> i want to inject a question. i was involved in a couple of the meetings while prime minister modi was here from india. i have to say the energy around the visit was incredible. we really haven't talked much about india. i wondered if -- you know, a lot of us who work on these issues think the new power shot is looking coming over the south pole over australia and looking at both oceans, the indian and the pacific. what are the prospects for india to be a player now under modi and this new emerging security architecture across the indo-pacific? anybody care to take a swing. >> i think prime minister modi's visit to washington was very successful.

those of you who read the joint statement noticed there was a very strong defense component. the two sides agreed to renew the now 10-year-old defense framework and we will be addressing ourselves to that issue with our indian colleagues soon. at senior levels. we held the first round of the defense trade and technology initiative just before prime minister modi arrived. this is an effort to increase our defense technology cooperation with the indians under secretary of defense for acquisitions and technology. frank kendall is very interested in pursuing this with the indian side.

i think he will be visiting india in the near term. i think this is an important aspect of the relationship. we are ready to move forward on it. we also discussed the desirability of increasing our overall military operation including in exercises. i would look to for a stronger u.s. india malobar exercise in the future. perhaps with japanese participation as well. these are all positive developments in u.s., india defense relations. we'll be looking to carry forward on the momentum of the very successful visit here by prime minister modi. prime minister modi will have his first outing next month in

myanmar. india plays an important role. we bring them in economically, politically, strategic discussions. even before prime minister modi took office for some time, each one of the structures has them as a key player. it's how i think the general expectation is while they will play a role in the region, the prime minister will focus on domestic, economic issues as all political leaders do. we encourage them to play an active role throughout the region. >> i will say briefly, senator mccain and i had the opportunity to meet with him after he came into office. we were struck that there is a lot of opportunity for the u.s. and india to gain altitude in a

partnership that over the past few years has lost quite a bit of it. hopefully the meeting here is a good first step in that regard. i think our hope and the hope that's shared in the congress ry ambitious, that we'll have the sort of genuine strategic consultation about how we view the world, what we want the world order to look like, and really sort of bring it back to those kinds of questions. obviously, the sort of domestic priorities that the ambassador mentioned will be very important for india. the u.s. can make a huge contribution on that and really be sort of a partner of choice for india. but i think when it comes to the issues we're talking about here, one of the things that we're also very pleased to see is the extent to which india is building its relationships with other countries in the region. the india-japan relationship is obviously the one that's got a lot of focus. we see that as hugely valuable,

and the u.s., japan, india, they can really build that tri lateral out, put strategic content into it and p put content into it. i think that would be an enormous positive thing. >> one of the real advocates and practitioners of developing modern asian architecture, former foreign minister rudd talked about constructive realism, in a sense that the keel for him in all of this discussion of regionalism, and regional architecture is really the need for countries to find a common narrative that focuses on public goods, that he could use to build confidence. i found throughout the day whether we're talking about economics or energy or security issues, that the panelists in general agreed with kevin that

that's where you -- that's where the progress is going to be made. and i think -- i hope you'll join me in thanking this panel, and thanking everyone who put the program together. [ applause ] thank you all for coming. and have a good afternoon. coming up here on c-span3 tonight, washington journal's interview with indiana university michael mcrobby, part of a special series on universities in the big ten conference. and that will be followed by a series of events on prison issues, including a senate hearing on solitary confinement. also a discussion on sentencing practices and a look at prison health care. you can see that starting tonight at 8:00 eastern.

president obama has appointed vice president biden's former chief of staff ron klain to oversee u.s. efforts on ebola. here's what dr. anthony fauci of nih had to say about the ron klain appointment today on radio station wtop. >> it is not a czar. it's an ebola response coordinator is the title for ron klain. he's a highly experienced, highly talented manager. he's been chief of staff for haven vice president gore and vice president biden. he will be coordinating the interactions among a multi-agency endeavor that are involved, each which have their own responsibility. the dodd is involved, hhs, homeland security, and on and on, multiple agencies, which

need some coordination. right now, that coordination had been coming from the white house in the form of lisa monaco who is the homeland security adviser, and susan rice who is the national security adviser. they have really important day jobs to do, like isis and other things, so the reason is we need coordination, and i think ron is going to do a terrific job on that. >> see dr. anthony fauci's full discussion on ebola later in our program schedule, and online anytime at c-span.org. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition for midland high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a five to seven-minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. the videos need to show c-span programming and show varying

points of view. go to student cam.org for more inrmation. grab a camera and get started today. now the chinese vice minister of finance talks about the u.s. economy and china economy. the vice minister's remarks from the peterson institute of international economics are about 90 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i know you've been with us all day today, and yesterday. it's been an exciting event here, but none perhaps as exciting as right now. yesterday we had the secretary of the treasury of the united states, jack liu with us. today we are privileged, and i believe about to be thoroughly informed by guangyao zhu,

forgive my pronunciation. mr. zhu has been involved in china's international economic relations at the highest level for a long time. he graduated from finance science research institute of the ministry of finance of the people's republic of china, he was the executive director of china at the world bank group, he was assistant minister of finance until 2010. my predecessor fred bergston had a counterpart in vice minister zhu, as the other side for a while. we're now very proud to interact quite frequently with vice minister zhu, here and in china, as well as around the world, as he leads china's international economic diplomacy, its positive agenda for the g-20 and the

u.s.-china economic relations. he's also very prompt man. so let me invite the vice minister to give his remarks. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, adam. and i am so grateful to be here today. i hope all of you there will continue for the peace cause. and of course, that's fred be bergston. with his help, we organized the apec center. and the g-20 also, g-7. i appreciate this working relationship with the peterson institute. and professor, a long-term

relation for his contribution to promote the u.s.-china relations. we appreciate your contribution very much. you contribute to the global efforts. i deal with you and others. so next year the paris meeting should be successful. and the world bank. and your contribution to the development, we will all remember that. and many from here, and media friends, i hope that we can have candid discussions, to discuss the real situations, the global economic challenges that we

face. and also the political challenges we face together. i want to report to you how we evaluate current economic situations. everybody knows just two days before the global forecast of the 2014, from july 3.4 to 3.3%. and that's a continual downgrade. so many times we change the forecast for 2014. but it really reflects the economic situation now. and we say after six years, the

momentum has broken. the international crisis, recovery of the global economy is very fragile. and we really face a challenge. the economic growth is the problem. and we must see the issue from the structure of the economy, and we must recognize that it is impacted by the geopolitical. so we see this as a real challenge for the global economy. that's the number one appointment i want to report to you. and number two point, i still worry about very much, after