about which there could be some the think what congress was saying to epa, you may need to exercise your judgment. in fact epa did exercise their judgment, because it concluded -- >> there are two parts to this argument. one is what were they thinking if it wasn't cost? i see your answer to thatf think about that. but the second which i think your argument very much depends on, in my mind anyway is well, don't worry, because there is a way to take into account costs. so if in fact -- it is a lot of money, $9c billion. if you divide it by the population, you have $30 a person or a family of four of $120. that's a lot of"n money for people -- for some people. and you say, gee, you couldn't takew3 it into account ever. it begins to look a little irrgsal to say i'm not taking it into account at all. but you say never fear because they will take it into account when they set standards. and at that point i read the

thing about the 12%. now i've got the word "similar source." which then can refer me back to the categorization of two thingsé@ sass i say, maybe. then i have aside from that hey, here's what you do. when you're regulating, you look at the top 12 generators, and that's the minimum standard. so they might want to say hey, that's not right. i mean it's right, it says it. but if you go to the bottom 50 generators, you're going to see it is not going to cost $120 per family. it is going to cost $1,000 a family. and we have the epa saying we won't even look at that point i begin to say, oh my goodness, why? why won't you even look at it? you can say it isn't true, but why won't you even look at it? now the answer seems to be in that word" similar source" and

classes and is up classes. because were there such an argument. maybe the epa could say, don't worry if there is such an argument -- which there isn't -- we have the power here you should the statute to take itkbná into account. now, you know where that argument came from from discussion and thought in my chambers. now maybe it came out of the briefs too. but is what i say right? can the ephó take that into account or do they have to just blindly say if it is the top 12 that's for everybody no matter what the cost. in which case they can't take it into account ever except for the word "appropriate." now that's the argumentment -- >> can i make three points in response. the first one goes to the empirical situation in this case. then i'll go et to the theoretical question you asked. the first is this. $9 billion is a big number. this is an industry with $360

billion a year in annual revenues. you are talking about 2.5% annual revenues -- of annual revenues. and what congress -- and what epa concluded when it -- >> this doesn't talk about profit. >> right. this is a cost. the cost is 2.5% of ref flus. then what epa concluded was that aboutgk& 2% of electrical generating capacity could go offline as a result of it being uneconomic. so it is not a 50% or a 88% -- >> right. as soon as you've said that you've taken costs into account which is what they say they wouldn't do. >> now let me talk about the way epa, under this regime, does take costs into account. the first point i would make is that the situation that your honor described in the hype thete1 is ical one is an unusual one. the kind you discussed in your concurring opinions in whitman and -- in the normal case it is

not going to have that effect. it means this percentage of the industry has been able to meet this without an economic matter and congress is trying to force the rest of the industry to catch up. as ñ we know from multiple experiences as your honor acid rain it turned out the cost was vastly lower on industry than epa anticipated it would be. that there is a very great tepidcy to overestimate costs in that situation. the third point is your honor's point about subcategories. section 7412c1, which is the provision that governs the listing of categories. it mentions the availability of subcategories. the last sentence says -- >> i can have the page cite? >> 35a to the appendix to our brief. this is c1. it is the last sentence. it talks about the epa's

authority. it says nothing in the preceding sentence limits the administration's authority to establish subcategories you should the section as appropriate. in fact that is what -- >> can those subcategories apply to the minimum standards? >> yes. that's how it would work because you identify the category, then you generate the standard based on who is in the category? >> no. but i thought the standards are automatic. there are certain minimums. once they find on the basis of the study that these things should be listed i thought there is an automatic requirement imposed on -- which is the reason they're complaining. >> no. the requirement -- it depends on how you categorize. so if!u there were a situation -- let me just -- if there were a situation in which one segment of the industry was so vastly different from another segment of the industry in terms of its economics, in terms of its technology, then epa would have the authority to break thoseq

into two separate subcategories. then you don't contemplate the best performing 12%, which is what the standard is until you know it is the best performing -- it is the people you put in the category. >> the language does that. language that does that is the first sentence of three which deemed achievable, not less stringent than the emission control, that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source as determined by the administrator. that's what allows him to break it into: categories and apply the minimums to similar source. am i right? >> that's correct. and epa did that in this case. it broke out power plants that generate power of burning natural gas. it said that's a separate subcategory. >> where in the record -- where can you point me into the record where this argument was made or considered by the agency? as opposed to justice breyer's chambers. because it is a very important principle of administrative law that we will only uphold a rule

based on the arguments that were considered and addressed by the agency. so -- as i said it's not something i recall from -- >> of course, mr. chief justice. you're exactly right in stating that principle. but our argument in this case is that the question here is under n1a. n1a says epa shall regulate under this section if it determines that such regulations are appropriate and necessary. and therefore, when epa makes a judgment to regulate under this section, because it is appropriate and necessary epa is triggering all of -- >> you just said that the argument is right not that the agency made it. right? >> i guess what i would say -- >> it's not enough that the argument be right. the agency must have rested its decision on the point. >> i think that that the agency in the order not being challenged here did use the

approach. but beyond that whether or not -- it would be one thing if this were a case in which you had a situation in which epa -- or epa faced a situation in which 50% or 5%75% were going to face vastly -- >> general, can i sim mr. ify your answer for you? >> yes. i'd be delighted if you did that. >> all right. basically, you have consistently in your brief -- and so has the other respondents -- basically said, at the listing stage wefá don't consider costs. we consider it later. and everybody gave a few examples, whether this example was given or not is irrelevant. the issue here was, do you have to do it at listing. it's only some of my colleagues here who are concerned that whenñi you issue standards you never

consider cost. >> that's exactly right. the question here is whether epa's got to conduct a cost ben cost/benefit analysis whether it does the listing. >> at that point, the game is over. >> no, i don't think it is, justice kennedy, for several reasons. first, the standard under section emission standards once you've decided toist will list, that is0x:ur honor's question to my friend g?fq'eral lindstrom pointed out, that does take cost into account in that a segment of the industry does not -- >> i didn't understand that. i thought there were automatic requirements imposed once the plants are listed. >> once epa lists and defines the category for listing, then the automatic requirement that is applied is that everyone in the category has to match the

performance of the best 12%. >> where did this categories come from? i'm -- i really don'ti] like the fact that your friend onxd the other side was not permitted to plount an mount an argument in opposition to this categorization theory that justice breyer's chauxb)s devised. usually we have arguments on both sides. this is an argument i never heard of, and i'm not sure is it's right. but i certainly didn't know the agency to say, oh, we're just listing, but we're -- you know, we're going to categorize the listing. >> i understand your point about the focus or non-focus on subcategories. but the point that we're just listing, we say that over and over again in our brief. and in fact the petitioner's concede -- and this is at page 5 and 6 of the uarg reply brief --

that if this is just about listing, then of course costs are irrelevant. but it is just about listing. that is the way the statute works. >> you responded to the fairly dramatic disparity of your other friend from the other side, you respond with a different calculation that looks to --5a i call them collateral. ancillary -- co-benefits. and then the argument is raised that that's not quite proper because you're using your hap regulation to get at the

>> my chambers found it. >> yes. andqypñhere'sñi the problem with the argument. the problem with the argument is that -- it has two problems. one=ñ stlais that once epa concludes that a source emits a hazardous ousousqñ pollutant -- here the epaó[ concluded they're emitting unsafe. by the unambiguous terms of?; section 7412d epa is under an obligation to regulate all hazardous pollutants that the sourceñ emits and the d.c. circuit ino7b a case called national line 15 years ago -- >> no, no, i understand how the

end run works. i'm just questioning -- i'm just questioning the legitimacy of it. they would ( say, okay, you found a. had ap that you want to list, but you ought to consider only the benefits of regulating that. . you shouldn't consider the bootstrapped benefits that should be addressed through the other -- >> i guess the next pointwfpyé eav in the same national line case.

what the d.c. circuit said 7412d required them to do with respect to regulating every hazardous pollutant that the sources emit and what the d.c. circuit has said for decades -- >> right. >> -- this isn't an end run at all. it is just the normal way -- >> no. the issue that i think raises the red flag at least is that there is such a tiny proportion of ben if it from the hap program and such a disproportionate amt of ben if it that would normally be addressed under the criteria. so, yes, when you regulate one. it is a good thing if it also has benefits with respect to other pollutants. but if your basis for regulating what is the benefit from the co-pollutants that you get? >> oh. it's many many billions of -- >> do you remember how much it is? >> $30 billion to $90 billion. >> the benefit from the merry iscury

is $4 million? we get to regulate it because there is a $4 million impact of merry.cury mercury. but when we do we get to regulate it for a way that gives us 35 billion$35 billion in kwoftscosts on the other side. you begin to wonder if it is an illegitimate way of avoiding the quite different limitations on the epa criteria. >> i understand the petitioners have put the case that way mr. chief justice. i don't think that's a fairway to put it. when the epa did with respect to mercury was quantify one health benefit. there are page after page of charts in which the epa has listed other benefits that come from regulating mercury and hazardous substances that it didn't try to quantify. part of the reason it didn't is because quantifying those kinds

of benefits can be very difficult and challenging. frankly, that's one of the key reasons that congress adopted not only in 74 is it but under the motor vehicle program and new source performance standard the approach it did of not taking costs into consideration at the listing stage but only at the regulatory stage. >> could you tell me about the natural gas? you were cut off earlier. >> epa reached the conclusion that natural gas power plants ought to be a separate category. and because they didn't generate public health problems at the level that would make them comparable to the -- >> they were part of the listing but not -- >> correct. >> they were part of the listing but they were not regulated. >> yes, your honor. >> can i ask you another question about these subcategories. your argument is that under the last sentence of 7412c1, the epa

can create subcategories based in whole or in part on cost. is that right? >> i think -- i think it is more subtle than that. i think that -- it is not just that provision. there are numerous provisions within 7412 that allow for subcategorization. i think if there is such a vast difference in the technologies that the group of animal sirssalysts is using, there might be a basis to treat them as a different subcategory. >> i thought the epa said we are not going to take into account costs with regard to the listing. now they could have said we're going to take into account costs as to whether some categories should be lists and other categories shouldn't be listed. that's not what they said. they said we will no the take into account costs with regard to listing. we list all of these -- >> here's what they said

justice scalia. here's why they said it and i think this is critical. what they said was we think that it is appropriate with respect to power plants not to consider costs at listing and to consider costs at emission standard setting. the reason we think it is appropriate is because that is the standard, that is the regulatory logic that congress deems not only appropriate but mandatory for every other source category. so one would have to conclude then that what congress said was mandatory and therefore necessarily appropriate for every other category because inappropriate and even even -- >> that's how i understand their argument entirely. i did not understand it to say we can -- we can exempt some people from these minimize standards because we categorize

them differently. >> i think the point of the logic of epa's position here is that you make the listing decision decision, and then you regulate as nn1a says under section 7412. >> general, as i understood it -- >> please. >> are there regulations that set out the criteria for creating these subcategories? >> i'm not aware that they are. i just don't know the answer to that, your honor. >> so without them we really don't know to what extent costs are taken into these subcategories? >> i think that -- i do think that it is going to be based on differences in technology and operation, i think, from which you might be able to infer costs. but that's hypothetical in this case because this is not a case in which epa needed to confront that question except with respect to natural gas firepower plants which were so different. it didn't have the kind of prior

justice breyer's hypothetical raised. you didn't have that kind of problem. you didn't need to face this issue in these cases so epa didn't. if i can just make this point because i think it is quite critical. given that 7412's regulatory logic provides for listing based on health, emission standards setting based on cost, including consideration of cost and based -- and given that that's exactly the same logic under the nax program, that's exactly the same logic under the motor vehicle program, that's exactly the same logic under the new source performance standards program that if congress intended to mandate the epa cut so deeply against the grain and make such a radically different approach with respect to this one category of sources we would expect to see very clear legislative language to that effect. you would expect to see a direction to epa in 7412 to

study costs before making this judgment. >> let me ask about costs. there are economic costs. there are other costs. is it the agency's position that no cost can be taken into account? for example, it may find that a particular material has an effect on health. but it may find that eliminating it may have other effects that are even more deleterious to health. could that cost be taken into account? >> if i may answer mr. chief justice. i think that cost would be taken into account in the regulatory impact analysis. but not for the listing. that's right. >> thank you. thank you, general. mr. smith.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. we agree with the government that the epa was not required to engage in a cost/benefit analysis before making the initial listing decision to regulate hazardous ousous pollutants emitted by power plants applying the appropriate and necessary standard. i certainly want to acknowledge at the beginning, clearly congress did think that power plarnts needed to be treated differently differently. they gave them a three-year pause in which the epa was instructed to take account of the health effects of the particular pollutants emitted by power plants. it did this under appropriate and necessary standard. if i could address the issue of what those two words mean in the reading of the epa. i would refer the court to pages 226 and 227 of the national mining association appendix. what the epa said consistently throughout this record is we looked at two things. there was a claim made in the legislative history that these chemicals are simply not harmful

enough to require any further regulation, that their effects are negligible and they looked at that under the appropriateness rubric. they said these are harmful chemicals, particularly mercury. they also looked at the question of whether or not there were technologies available to regulate them. the necessary rubric was used to look at the post-acid rain health effects that persist. they said, a, these are harmful tell calls, harmful pollutants, and b, under necessary they'll continue to be harmful after the acid rain program has kicked in. that's how the epa saw the two different words and it is a perfectly logical way for them to proceed. >> who would have guessed? i mean that seems such an artificial division of necessary and appropriate. want to describe it again? i really didn't understand it. necessary means what? >> the claim -- everybody can see necessary means that there

would still be health problems after the acid rain program kicks in. >> appropriate means? >> appropriate was intended to meet the claim made by the industry that these chemicals already are sufficiently harm-free that we don't need to regulate here. >> why isn't that part of the first one? >> it could have gone that way, your honor. that's the way the government read them. >> that's the only way to read them. >> perhaps so. i think the key thing is the issues they were directed to study, the issue us that would control the listing decision were the health effects of the pollutants that come out of these power plants. they then deferred the issue of considering the cost to the second stage just as occurs with every single other source of the same 189 hazardous pollutants that they were dealing with. if i could pause here and just clarify one thing that happened at that listing stage. natural gas fired plants were not turned into a category, but they looked at the health effects of natural gas fired plants and said we are exempting

them entirely from regulation under this section under the appropriate and necessary standard because they simply don't emit. these chemicals in more than trace amounts and there's simply nothing for us to regulate. natural gas plants get taken out at the listing stage. we then have coal-fired and oil-fired plants as to which they begin to apply the subsection d standards. standards which were designed by congress to limit the emission regulation to reasonable amounts, designed because the floors are in fact limited to what has already been achieved by comparable plants in the same category. now there was some question raised about whether or not this categorization was something eha recognized it could use to affect the emission standards and make them reasonable. as far, as mr. brownell being a flojed acknowledged, they did create a

separate coal-burning plant. they then through this whole process looked at the issue of cat zor categorization. they started out with two coal-fired category. in the final rule there are four separate categories of oil-fired plants depending on what they burn and how they separate. this whole process of separating out these categories to produce emission standards that make sense and are practicable was built in to that process under subsection d. >> could you just clarify for me the categorization happens after the listing. is that correct? >> yes your honor. what they listed was all coal-fired plants and all oil-fired plants but no natural gas plants. then they go to what emission standards should occur. sometimes that's years after the listing decision is made. then they have a process of

saying what are our categories going to be, we have to put out -- we have to get information at that point. what are the top 12% of the category, what are their emissions in fact? they have to report in they make a contemplation about that. >> aren't these just requirements above the minimums that automatically apply? >> no, your honor. the minimums are established by what the top 12% in the category that the epa has -- >> yes. but i'm saying the categorization that allows you to reduce some people and not to reduce others, that applies to requirements above the minimum. so -- >> your honor, the minimums are the things that are set by mathematical contemplation are the categories. everything else above the minimums is done taking cost into account under d2. expressly. >> yes. >> so the only thing that is done using not express consideration of cover the but consideration of cost indirectly by basing the regulations on what the top 12% are doing is

the minimums. and the minimums are thenal terred depending on what categories you established. that's the way regulations have worked for all of the sources they've regulated. that's the practical mechanism -- >> just to clarify for my own -- mr. smith, you categorize one way, minimums are down here. the categorize another way minimums are up there. >> that's correct, your honor. >> it can make a huge difference in terms of what the minimums are. >> there is a notice and comment pro process. they tell what the top 12% are doing. they then get comments in. as they happen here they make different categories in the final rule adjusting. >> how can we tell the degree to which costs are taken into account if they are at all without knowing what the criteria are for creating these subcategories? >> your honor, it is in the statute that they create the categories and applying this 12%. >> no, no. i thought the 12% came into play after you have created the

categories. it is part of the subcategory. how do i know how they create the subcategories. >> >> it is in the notice of proposed rulemakering. here are two categories, two oil categories, one coal category. what happens then is people that comment say we're so different from that category we have these special problems, we need our own special category. >> it is rule making after the rule making that applies after the listing. is that right? >> totally after that your honor. it is the second. >> your chambers did a wonderful job figuring it out again, your honor. >> the brief said, congress unam unambiguously required costs to be considered at the regulatory process. a few pages later they have the statute. so not surprisingly i read the

statute. and reading the statute leads me to think it works along the lines you just said. but if you did have the most expensive set of generators in the world, you would ask epa to create a separate category for them in which case the top 12% would no longer be in your category, and you wouldn't have to do it. >> that's what happened with -- >> now. what i'm asking if you think it is the system. that's what i read in the ut. usg think that's the system. but is there a treatise and an explanation that epa has put out so that it was clear that it was not made up with be that it is clear that this is the tis pem that system that they follow. will you refer me to a source? >> your honor -- the only source i can every roo you to -- perhaps the government can supply something else -- the notice of proposed rule making in which this process is laid out in exquisite detail. you can see comments come in, categories don't work, we need

different account goerzcategories, this he then produce different categories. >> excuse me. is there something in the administrative record when the epa adopts that? when somebody says you're not considering costs. that's a bad thing. we're going to the supreme court if you don't consider costs. the epa says no, we're going to consider costs whether we categorize the power plarnts. is there a reference to the administrative record where there is something like that? >> they certainly said your honor in those proposed rule making that we interpret the listing decision as being something that's based solely on health and not -- >> no no. that the listing decision is not based on cost. >> right. >> i want to know if there is anything there that says, but don't worry, because we're going to consider costs through the categorization process. >> i don't flow if they said that implicitly. this is a system that's been operationed for other sources since -- >> well implicit usually doesn't work when you are talking about an administrative record. >> your honor, they gave everybody the opportunity to attack the categories that they in fact proposed based on the argument that they were

impractical for them. >> but i thought your position was that you didn't need to consider costs at the first step and that that would include your initial category. >> no your honor. the categories are at the second step. the categories -- the only thing they did at the first step was say -- >> will but you didn't take that second step. >> they did, your honor. they categorized oil plants into four categories. they categorized coal-fired plants into various categories. and that was all done through a notice and comment process which led to different emission standards. >> you say that was done based on cost? >> yes your honor. what was feasible for these different technologies. >> how much money did that save? do we know how much of the $9.6 billion cost would be reduced by this categorization? >> well, your honor -- >> that's the pledge here. >> i don't have that calculus. i would point out it is important to recognize that something like 90% of that -- 90% of the capital costs which

is most of that $9.6 billion, has now already been spent. the industry is not experienced the kinds of upheels of that are being dedescribes. the rule takes effect in the middle of april. so the idea that the result here was somehow ludicrous or outlandishly expensive is -- is belied by the fact that industry is bringing itself into full compliance -- >> instead of going to jail. is that it? it may be ludicrous, but it had to be done. >> the idea that the $4.6 million benefit as the proper comparison is improper on so many levels. >> is the $9 billion a year recurring annually? are you saying that most of this is capital investment -- >> moefrt ofst of it is amortization of. cat tal expendcapital expenditures

that have been made.pital expenditures that have been made. the industry has been able to do this. the situation now as we are ready to finally have national standards which mean the states regulating in this won't continue to have mercury flowing across state lines as they have. we have this national highly competitive electricity market where some companies have marginal costs that reflect they are in compliance some don't. that's a problem that really needs to be solved. >> mr. smith, i just want you to finish your thought. the 4$4 billion they're referring to of mercury, the agency did not quantify all of the other costs for the other haps. correct? >> actually it didn't quantify many if not most of the costs former kri mercury. it causes all these other development delays cart yo vascular programs.

a lot of things mercury does. it is an extremely poisonous neuro toxin. the $90 billion is particulate reduction. some of the particulate that's reduced is in fact haps. non-mercury metals that go out in the form of particles. it is the acid gases which when they get out in the atmosphere turn into particles because they become aerosolized, they go into your lungs as tiny droplets. so all of those are in fact being taken care of in the controls of particulate. it is true that in controlling those haps you use the same technology and you end up controlling a lot of other kinds of particulate primarily sulfur dioxide which causes premature deaths. when they did the calculation they said they put these particulate controls in to control haps. it also happens to save a lot of

lives because of the sulfor dioxide that's not being controlled. >> was this the basis for the epa's decision? i thought the epa's position was doesn't matter how much the benefit -- how much the costs exceed the benefits we just will not take costs into account at the listing stage. >> that's correct, your honor. they did not consider the cost/benefit analysis tatat the listing stage. that's based on their reasonable interpretation of a statute which has consuedceded you don't do the cost/benefit analysis up front. for this came out of for 20 years epa wasn't regulating effectively and congress said we're going to regulate these things spewing out of the environment. they were given three years to prove there weren't health effects that were serious but it didn't give them the benefit of having a cost/benefit analysis

done up front or create all the discretion on the part of the world saying we don't think the epa should regulate this particular category. >> mr. lindstrom, you have four minutes replang. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. any subcategorization that's going to happen has already occurred. we're talking about the rule that's been promulgated. there's still $9.6 billion in costs that are being imposed on an annual basis -- >> it wasn't the question presented. is the question presented, not that you have to take that into account at listing but that somehow that ratio makes any emission standards wrong? >> the question is whether -- >> even if for some people it's really not that breaking to do it. >> the question is whether costs have to be considered under n1 when you regulate electrical

utilities. >> they do say it does when you regulate at the emission standard standard. >> what happens under 7412c is you got a listing decision first stage. then you've got a floor standard. then you've got an above the floor standard. >> that's not quite right. you're taking out the categorization. they don't establish the floor until they've categorized. >> categorization could happen here. my point is what happens under n1 these first two steps are merged. you make the necessary and appropriate determination when you look at not to list but whether such regulation is appropriate and necessary. that's the language in the statute. says is such regulation appropriate and necessary. so it is not just whether it is going to be listed. it is looking what's actually going to happen. that's why they made the appropriate and necessary finding at the same time they published the emission standards. they were looking at the costs ahead to figure out if such regulation -- >> you saying they purported to make the categorization decision

without taking into account costs? >> yes. any categorization has already been done and didn't consider costs. >> didn't consider costs. >> tlaeshg >> that's correct. this is an administrative law case so this turns or falls on what the agency actually did below. they've already actually made the determinations. they've said costs are not relevant. they've ignored an important part of the regulatory problem -- >> i'm sorry. they proposed categories and everybody had the opportunity to say it's the wrong category. correct? >> yes, your honor. >> and argue why it is the wrong category. >>nd a the categories have been -- >> and some people submitted complaints about costs relative to their technology and their kinds of plants. correct? >> yes, your honor. >> so it's not true that they proposed them. but everybody gets a chance to tell them, these are -- this

technology is different from the others, or this kind of plant is different from the others, and it poses a cost much greater than you are anticipating. >> i think we're already past that phase. any categorization they're going to do has already been done. >> you say it is already passed. it's passed because the final rule has been issued. >> correct. >> i'm talking during the rule making process. the rule making process does permit the agency to consider the cost of technology in setting up categorization. >> they have adopted the exact opposite position which is that costs do not matter. >> i thought we just heard -- i can't remember -- they said look, we have special ways of producing this -- our stuff and they're much more expensive so please don't put us in the same category as you put the other people in. okay? for purposes of figuring the best 12%. and the agency said right.

okay. separate. did that happen? >> yes. >> all right. then how would you do that without considering cost? because their basis was those people were saying our costs are more expensive. >> we don't know how they -- i don't know how they did it but they've said throughout that we're not considering costs. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. with congress out this week, we are featuring american history tv in prime time. tonight a seminar on the closing of the civil war in 1865. at 8:00, the battles of sailor's creek. followed by a look at the battle surrender and leprosies of the battle of appomattox. that all begins at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. next, the potomac institute holds a discussion on the terrorism threat outlook for 2015. panelists include former ambassadors, military leaders and international relations scholars. this is almost two hours.

ladies and gentlemen, if i could have your attention. i'm michael svetnam, ceo for the economic institute for policy studies. it is my distinct honor to welcome you today to the 17th annual seminar on international cooperation in combating terrorism. the potomac institute has been privileged for almost two decades to be an organization in the washington, d.c. area focused on the study of science, technology, and how it is affecting our society and our security around the world. in particular, the institute from its inception has been

interested in and engaging in the study of how terrorism has been used as a form of warfare or social disobedience, if you will, by many around the world for in fact centuries, and how today we might find ways of more effectively dealing with this scourge through cooperations between governments, law enforcement and military organizations. today we, as i said, welcome you all to the 17th annual review of combating terrorism and international cooperation in doing so and we have with us today i think one of the most enlightened and in fact engaged and scholarly groups that you can imagine on this topic that represent not just the countries that have been affected by terrorism but those who have worked together with united states, and and amongst themselves to deal with this issue for quite some time.

we'd like to highlight the work at the potomac institute on terrorism is focused in the international center for terrorism studies, headed up by professor alexander. and out of this organization comes many publications and studies and we host several seminars every year on all suspects of terrorism globally as well as domestically. our most recent publications, and yona has averaged at least one per month for the last 40 years -- in february our sixth annual review of terror incidents in north africa and the impacts on the peoples in that part of the world. and a review of europe's political situation and how that is affecting the use of terror by those that are -- that feel disenfranchised or for whatever means are causing sichlcivil

disobedience in that part of the world. we produce at least one document per month all year long and averages one or two books per year. we are very proud that we host several seminars on all suspects of terrorism. we welcome your review of that on our website. we'll be glad to provide you sum ryes of sumaries ofsum summaries of all of that work. at this point in time, 17 years into the potomac institute gathering with you every year to discuss the real of terrorism in destabilizing our society it is unfortunate that we have to recognize that the world is one of the most -- in one of the most unstable positions it has been in a very very long time

due to a large extent to the use of terror and terror tactics, techniques, by various groups around the world against the governments and societies that we look to to protect us. there have been more incidents in the last year, year-and-a-half, than there were in quite some years before that. many people of the world are in fact terrorized as they haven't been for many years before. as we have developed our techniques for dealing with terror those who use terror against us have consequently, unfortunately, mod gidified and grown their capabilities to terrorize us. this calls for all of us to not just study it more but find more effective ways for dealing it and limiting the impact of terror on our society. so we hope that you will take the time today not just to hear what the enlightened panel has to say but to also engage with them and to once again commit yourself and all of us to dealing with this issue as

effectively as we can for ourselves and for our children. with that, i'd like to turn the program over to professor yona alexander who most of you know -- i hope. if you don't then you probably shouldn't be here because there isn't anybody in the world of terrorism studies academically in the world that doesn't know about professor alexander. he has published over 100 books. he has been studying terrorism and the effects of terrorism all issues surrounding terrorism, for more than 40 years. and he is what we consider one of the greatest assets that the human race has on this aspect and on this topic. we are privileged to have him here today. he will chair this program, introduce most of the speakers, and it is my privilege to introduce you today professor yon hachlt alexander. . >> thank you very much, mike for your introduction, particularly

trying to stress the nature and the intensity of the terrorist threat and what can we do about it. what i would like to do is discharge a few academic, i think, requirements. first of all, to introduce our distinguished panel. first, to my left, to your right, is professor bonnie jenkins. she is both a diplomat and scholar at the u.s. department of state coordinator for threat reduction programs in the bureau of international security and on proliferation. i would also introduce her a little bit later on. so she will be the first speaker.

next is dr. abdel aziz political counselor of the embassy of the republic of egypt. and a former charge d'affairs of. then we are very pleased to have the ambassador from the embassy of libya. she is the charge d'affairs and she will introduce the views related to libya. we are waiting for the ambassador -- former ambassador of pakistan to the u.s. and he is directly currently at the institute in south and central asia.

he will be right with us very shortly. and next is ambassador theodore katov, former ambassador to the ginmore is on his way and able to speak. is there? well, you're quicker than my eyes, but at any rate, you're very, very welcome. we appreciate that you came all the way from richmond here. and he is going to speak, and then, of course, to make some closing remarks, general alfred gray. as you know, the 29th united states marine corps, and the chair of the board of regents of

the potomac institute. i think that before we have the speakers deal with the issues, a few footnotes. first of all, i'm delighted that we have in the audience many diplomats, ambassadors or representatives, academics and so forth. we appreciate very much c-span and other media representatives for bringing our discussion to a wider audience in the united states and internationally. traditionally, academically, we like to express our sympathy with the families of the victims of terrorism throughout the world, as well as to send a

message of solidarity and support for international cooperation in living with terrorism, and of course, this is our mission. first to learn the lessons of the past and to try to anticipate future trends and provide some, hopefully, best practices recommendations for counter-terrorism strategies, particularly related to international cooperation in living with terrorism. now, if i may, i would like to mention some key questions, because if we look at the history, the historical record, the historical lessons, if we go back 43 years ago, i recall very vividly when the united nations placed on the general assembly agenda to deal with a specific

item which they called measures to prevent terrorism and other forms of violence which endanger or take innocent lives or jeopardize freedoms. 43 years ago, this was the message, and 43 years later, we're still struggling with some key questions that i hope that perhaps we can clarify today. one is, who are the terrorists? who are the perpetrators? two, what are some of the causes that motivates them? and thirdly, what can we do about it? i think what's very interesting to mention at this particular

point, that as we speak, there is a coalition being formed to combat terrorism, which i believe is very similar to the concept of nato. in other words, from original to global or interregional security concerns and to provide that kind of support. as we speak, as all of us know, an operation called operation decisive storm is actually being mounted by the arab countries and some non-arab countries in order to live with the issue of yemen. this is historic, and certainly we're going to deal with that. now, if i move on to the record,

mike referred to it, but let me mention very quickly. one, if you look at the data, the statistics of last year, we had some 11,000 incidents throughout the world. in other words, it is an increase from prior years up to that in general. literally the first three months of this year we see the escalation throughout the world, all the way from egypt and libya and syria and pakistan, nigeria and so on and so forth. it seems to me if this strength continues, unfortunately, 2015 will be recorded as the bloodiest year yet since 9/11. mike mentioned one of our recent publications related to terrorism in north africa and

the impacts regionally and globally. we do have copies for those that might be interested. let me just mention that we're covering a broad area all the way from elk security, for example, the ebola crisis, and i think in general we have to look at the record. and the record of last year, 2014, for example, there is an increase of 30% in north africa over 2013. again, if you would look at 9/11, from 9/11, you look at that particular vision which really underscores the nature of the threats, there is an increase of 800 percent, and so on. so they were going to discuss several of the countries in the region.

again, there are many terrorist groups involved in this. some are regional, some or foreign fighters and so forth. so i think we're going to go both with the domestic situation, the internal situation as well as the external support of violence in that particular region and elsewhere. i think what is really important for us is not only to identify that threats but also to develop, as i indicated before, some best practices to deal with the problem. we do have some suggestions in our report. you can look at this, and again, this is only one region, and mike mentioned also the report on europe, and particularly, i would also like to mention the study that we completed that is

non-production on nato, living with issues in europe such as the ukraine, afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. it gives me great pleasure to introduce the first speaker today. as i mentioned, ambassador bonnie jenkins. she has a very rich background. i'm not going to go into details or the bios over the speakers. i will only mention that she covers a great deal, i think, of areas all the way from the global security agenda to weapons of mass destruction, and i would say, at the very rich background working with many universities and she published

extensively. i ask ms. jenkins to provide some context for the discussion today. thank you. >> i think i'm going to stay here, if that's okay. thanks to -- thank you for inviting me, and to the organizers, and it's great to see everyone out here today. i know we have distinguished panel here, so i'm going to try to keep my comments brief. my work in the government really focuses on ways in which we can keep weapons of mass destruction materials and weapons out of the hands of non-state actors. so my perspective in terms of international cooperation in combatting terrorism is that it's very important to have

international cooperation. the only way we can really address the problems of terrorism is to work together on a global scale, to work bilaterally, multilaterally with partners. and the work that i do really does foster that effort. it fosters ways in which we can develop programs to actually make sure we do not have opportunities for non-state actors to. the u.s. has really developed a number of tools and initiatives to address this issue. whether they are through international organizations, working with international organizations, whether it's working through certain initiatives. whether it's working on the ground bilaterally with countries. there are a number of ways in which we have focused on while you're trying to follow individuals around the world who may actually want to get access to precursors, legal material so they could release it for harm.

there is a number of things i work on at state department in this arena s. one is, i've worked since 2009 on a nuclear activities summit. which i'm sure some of you have heard of. it's an effort that started in 2009 by president obama in his first speech where he announced anti terrorists is the worst thing that he faces. he mentioned we'll bring in security experts to deal with this issue, recognizing that in order to prevent nuclear terrorism, you want to prevent the access of nuclear security issues, there was one in 2010 here in washington followed by the 2012 summit and. there will be a final of the format to be placed at a time to

be determined in the united states. through these nuclear summits we have worked with 54 leaders working to provide commitment, communiques and other efforts to ensure that states who are working with us are doing what they can to secure nuclear materials. we've done this through a number of national commitments. there have been a number of what we call gift baskets which are commitments by countries or particular areas of the nuclear security. and we've done it through communiques as i said. and in 2010 we had something called a work plan, which is about a six-page document that outlined activities countries could do to secure nuclear material. so through this process of the nuclear treaty summits, we have been providing ways in which we

can consolidate, get the material, get rid of excess nuclear where we can work together and incorporate. we need the eu and the u.n. to get together to prevent terrorism in the future. there are a number of setups, and you will be hearing a lot about the upcoming summit in a couple months. one other aspect about international cooperation is recognition that we need to work with not only governments but entities outside the government as well. there is a process of working very closely with industry and ensure we help. and security, we're talking about all the others exist

around the globe to make sure we prevent nuclear terrorism. another entity is something called the g-7 global partnership. this is an initiative started in 2002 and the turnedunder the chairmanship of canada and the main focus as the title entails the global partnership against spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction. that was so wmd did not get in the way of state non-run actors. it's been in existence since 2002 and it was set up to be a 10 year commitment amongst the g-8 members with the united states putting in $10 billion matched by 10 billion of the other members. we now have 28 members of the global partnership. it was extended in 2011 to include looking at all areas of

wmd. for the first 10 years the main focus was russian nuclear submarines and russian chemical weapons. we spent over $23 billion in the first few years at the global partnership. now the global partnership is looking at all areas of chemical, biological, nuclear and chemical weapons to prevent those from getting into the hands of non-state actors. and as i said it now has 28 members who are a part of this initiative. some of the activities that the global partnership has been engaged include under nuclear and radiologically security the physical protection of nuclear materials, securing the transport of the nuclear materials. radioactive security, prevention of illicit nuclear trafficking, material management, verification and compliance and work on ex-board controls. -- export controls.

in the area of biosecurity, there is work in securing an accounting for biological pathogens, deliberating reinforcing biological non proliferation instruments like the weapons convention and the safe and secure conduct in biological sciences which we sometimes called chemical culture. in destruction, the partnership members have completed the projects remaining of the kizna projects, of the assisting in libya and declaring to assist newly declared stockpiles. ukraine has been one of the members of the partnership. it has been a member since 2003. as a result f recent activities in ukraine we have been meeting and working with ukraine and trying to address some of their

cbr threats they have right now in the security arena. as we look at 2014, which is one as we look at 2014, which is one of the questions in this panel, 2014 was an interesting year for the global partnership. as i mentioned, the global partnership is now a g-7 entity. last year during the -- of course was president of g- at the time but it was decided they would no longer be part of the g -8 so now it was a global 7 partnership. however fortunately germany took over the chair at the g-7 summit last year. and so we've been having meetings again as a result of that. there's been a lot of work, as i said in syria. it was really all global partnership members that were involved in the destruction of the nuclear weapons. denmark, finland, sweden, canada

and others are all global partnership members. they all played a significant role in destruction of chemical weapons in syria. and as i said we've been working with ukraine on some of their issues. and looking beyond, there will continue to be work on cbi security issues in ukraine, and and the bio security area we'll be continuing to focus on bio security projects. i should also mention one ore area getting a lot of attention is something called the global health security agenda. for those who don't know what this is, it is an effort started last year in the united states with a launch in washington d.c. the focus on how do we try to address infectious disease threats and reduce threats like i bole. this is an effort started in february last year. so it was of course prior to the ebola -- the txattention that ebola received. but the focus of the global

health security agenda led by the white house is reducing threats and now 44 countries are working on this effort. it is both a security effort also a human health and animal health effort. it includes law enforcement. and as a result in the united states required number of departments who have traditionally not been working on threat reduction programs are now involved because we're looking at infectious disease and how to fight infectious disease from a prevent, detect and respond lens. which means that brings in a lot of different departments in the united states. we've been working on this effort with a number of countries. as i said 44 countries are now involved in this effort to try to reduce infectious disease threats. and there are a number of actions these 44 countries are looking at. this is an activity that the global partnership is also working with. and as i mentioned the nuclear securities summit which was focused on nuclear the global

health security center is very similar and focused on the bio area. there are quite a few things we're engaged in in trying to ensure weapons of mass destruction do not get in the hands of the terrorists. these are just a few of them. i can go into detail of any during the question and answer period but with so distinguished guests on the panel i'll stop now and turn it over to the next speaker. thank you. [ applause ] thank you very much. our next speaker is abdul aziz. formerly he was a chair in the embassy in egypt in syria between 2012 and 2014.

so he obviously has a great deal of experience and knowledge. also elsewhere in the region, and i would like to mention that also he worked at the united nations regarding a project of african peacekeeping operations, and he has a phd in international relations from helsinki university in finland. >> let me start by thanking the organizer for organizing this particular event. and, of course, special thanks to the professor who i know has put a lot of effort for this event to take place. i think the best way to discuss the issue of international cooperation to combat terrorism

is to try to start with a global image of terrorism today. starting from africa, by all means, i think boko haram, the terrorist organization in nigeria is now rooted deeply into the nigerian society compared to four or five years ago. not only this, boko haram has gone through important transformation process. it started out as a nigerian transformation and now it's organizations working very effectively in other societies like cameroon, niger and others besides nigeria. i very much recommend that you read this excellent report. professor, you are mentioned about terrorism in africa in 2014. it shows clearly their figures

and numbers here that terrorism is a growing threat in africa, whatever area of africa you are talking about. if we move to asia, there is a rebirth of al qaeda and taliban in both afghanistan and pakistan. a report shows that these two organizations are now adopting more efficient approaches to recruit more young people in both countries. if we move to the middle east, we have of course isil, the so called islamic state for iraq which is control ingling large areas

in iraq, mosul and large areas in syria as well. they are active in countries like libya, like egypt. i was trying to gather some info about that recently, and in the last 30 months, 16 organizations showed their support to isis, and 16 organizations are working in 16 different countries. some of them are a majority of muslims, and some others were non-muslim majority like india. if we move to europe, recently the eu preparedness said there are 4,000 fighters, european fighters fighting alongside

isil. 25 of them are already back home. they are back home with better knowledge, better skills and better networking. if they want to use this knowledge and skill as a network in conducting more terrorist organizations in any european society. i once asked a u.s. security expert, is it the same with your country? and he said, no. fortunately, we don't have thousands of americans fighting alongside isis. we have a couple hundred only, but this doesn't mean that we are safe because it takes only 10 to have another 9/11. the point i'm trying to make here is that we are facing a global challenge, not a declining one. and this is, i think, the first

lesson we should know about our enemy. the second lesson is we are facing a transnational threat, so no country can face or combat this threat on its own. we need to bait regional as well as international coalitions in order to fight this threat effectively. the third lesson is that we need to have our objectives as clear as possible. are we aiming to degrade these terrorist organizations, contain them or eliminate them? depending on our objective, we will be able to define the ways and means we're going to adopt in order to find terrorists. a fourth lesson, i think, is time. time is of crucial importance.

professor alexander mentioned that i was in charge of affairs in syria for more than two years. this month the syrians are celebrating the fourth anniversary of their evolution. let me remind you that in march 2011 when this evolution started, there was not a single terrorist group, not a single one, because the community was hesitant to support such a revolution. now we have isis, we have boko haram, we have over 10 organizations in syria. i hope we, the international community, are not making this mistake again in libya. that's why, in egypt, i would urge the security council to adopt a resolution to enable the libyan government to combat terrorism. finally two days ago, they

adopted a resolution in this regard. i hopewell have the courage and the will, the political will, to implement these two resolutions. the final lesson, i think, is the military tool to combat terrorism is, of course, very important. but it's not enough. we've been calling for revolution in zlaublg islamic thought recently. the need to revisit the islamic thought and develop a counternarrative for the idealogy of terrorist organizations, in order to show the young people in islamic

societies that this is a interpretation of the koran and a sort of manipulation from the organization organizations. and it's sort of in order to listen to these terrorists' narrative and to come back to develop a counter one, translated into local languages, put it in a book and go distribute it in schools and mosques and local communities in order to make sure that the right interpretation of islam is there. fighting the finance of terrorists is also important. to make sure terrorist organizations are not controlling oil refineries or

border crosscrossings they are not getting ransoms, they are not collecting taxes or receiving international financial support. socioeconomic development is also important. recent studies have shown that it's much easier for terrorist organizations to recruit young people who are jobless. for example, egypt is recruiting so now you have powers inside development, and we need to make sure we are creating jobs hand in sana in order to make sure we are creating jobs hand in hand with fighting terrorists groups in sinai. finally, stabilization and human assistance is also equally important. tomorrow we have a very important meeting for international donors in order to

raise funds to support syrian refugees displaced. we have 16 million people suffering only with the city and -- syrian nationality. if we had the iraqis and others the picture wouldn't be so lonely. i think i will stop here. we can get back to these points during the q & a. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. we're moving down to mrs. bogogees. embassy of libya. not only a foreign policy expert but also an engineer, educator in human rights advocates. and clearly many of us are very

much interested in that you use particularly to clarify the confusion about libya at this time. >> thank you very much. let me first thank the potomac institute for organizing this event. thank you, professor yonah alexander. ladies and gentlemen, honored guests, it's my pleasure to make a presentation about libya and what's going on and our vision for countering the wave of terrorism that we've been hit by lately. each day, as the future of libya is being discussed by various

parties in mo morocco the fears battle for my country's soul and democracy continues to be waged in streets and different towns. we in the world cannot wait for the formation of a new unity government before we act in a strong united front against this scourge that is terrorizing my home and my fellow libyans. ladies and gentlemen, as i stand before you here, young men are being recruited into joining extremist groups and shipped across borders to come and create havoc in my country. right now as i am speaking to you, men in my country are dying while trying alongside our military troops with many support and resources to fight

back the new evil that is trying to steal away our dream, our values, our culture, our history and our worth. ladies and gentlemen, as i'm talking before you here, weapons are being delivered to terrorist groups. funds are being provided across borders to buy them more weapons, to fight our young democracy and prosperity. to fight tolerance, to disrupt and send messages about our peaceful tolerant religion, to fight the same human rights in the international conventions and charters that we are all in this room signatory too. to reverse the right to life,

the right to freedom the right to good living and to good education, and the right to free from oppression, submission and correlation. today, as we look on what's going on in the world, we realize terrorism knows no religion and does not restrict themselves to borders. terrorism is the same anywhere and committed by the same persons across the globe. however, they do exist in communities and societies where they have a bigger risk to thrive and do harm. citizens have been deprived of, am empowerment of women and youth economically. and where economic rights have been abused for too long. we know today the importance and impact of reforming the global

economic systems so that all people have security to bystanders' recalls and is paramount to each core of human values. tolerance respects human rights and to one another. the deprivation and lack of political will to inform, to enforce social justice is one of the most important reasons for making countries fall into the web of terrorism many and radical movements. the excise tax carried by at home by tryst terrorist groups. the confusion of libyan activists, military personnel.

it only supports reports of terrorism and libya we fear. libya is a gateway to africa, europe, and the middle east we feel that a global task force needs to work on a proposal to produce an international charter that deals with radical movements and terrorism. those have to change in order to control the spillage of weapons and funds into the hands of terrorists. nations have to support their support. neighbors who come and go and of mutual interest is at risk. we need to work together to

enforce older and keep our world safe and stable place for the future general rigss to live in. it's our responsibility as pardon policymakers and the possibility of the weak come and goes and to put together a charter that regulates the flow of arms, drugs, money and to those countries that are weakened by it. that's not enough. and ngos, and communities, alone, is not enough. it's hardly fair. in libya, we committed to work with the world leaders, and policymakers, to end corruption and make sure human rights are not violated. we are committed and persistent in the pursuit of an economic

stability. in our country that will lead to better living standards to our people, and that will not impact negatively on the region and the globe. esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, you are all aware today that libya, among others nations is fighting a vicious war against terrorism and radical thinking groups. this is not a threat to libya alone. i emphasize that. and i say it again and again. and it's not a threat to its people and future prosperity and progress alone. but to the whole region. and to the neighboring european economies and the economy of european countries that rely on our oil and gas and on africa, and this will impact negatively on the strategic interests of the united states of america. we invite and will support strongly all research work and

civil work to further shed light on the precursors of terrorism in order to find the best ways to contain it. and fight it. ladies and gentlemen, we have a difficult fight to endure that requires putting all of the resources and efforts to make the outcome a winning one for the sake of humanity and history. the history of the world is filled with agonizing encounters. let us try to change this history forever. our children, your children, the world's children deserve that much of an effort. thank you.

>> thank you very much for your insights. we will come back to the discussion to raise some related questions. we're going to move on to our next weeker. we are honored to have ambassador husain haqqani. as many of you know was the ambassador of pakistan to the u.s. from 2008 to 2011. and he's currently a senior fellow and director of south asia, central asia program at the institute. at the same time she's also director of the center of international relations and professor practice in international relations at boston university. in addition to his very distinguished diplomatic and academic work, he's very well known as a journalist, written extensively on international affairs throughout the world.

mr. ambassador? >> thank you very much. it's such a pleasure to be here in such distinguished company. i will keep my remarks relatively short. terrorism we all realize is an international problem, and it needs an international solution. post-9/11 there appeared to be a global consensus and at that point almost every nation in the world said that it agreed with the notion that no grievance and no injustice in the global system justified terrorism. yet almost 14 years later we find that terrorism is not only alive and well, but thriving in many parts of the world. what, exactly, has happened in these almost 14 years? many of you might recall donald rumsfeld, the secretary of

defense, writing a memo on october the 16th, 2003, in which he acknowledged a long, hard slog in afghanistan and iraq. he said that america, with its might, will prevail in both countries where it had gone to war after 9/11. but that it would be a long, hard slog. in that memo he posed an interesting question to his staff. and the question was, quote, are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us? we can all now, with hindsight, answer the question that no, in fact, i'm one of those who would argue that the very notion that you could capture, kill and deter terrorists purely by military means was an erroneous notion.

the very fact that two wars started and resulted in major american involvement caused the situation in which, instead of building a true global alliance against terrorism as a concept, what ended up happening was the unleashing of constructive instability in a manner in which the construction has yet to come and the instability has all man manifested itself all over especially, the greater middle east. the weakness has been that america, which was supposed to be the global leader in this effort, went from one extreme to another. one administration was primarily depend -- depended primarily on military means. the other actually wants to completely back away from using american power against global

terrorism in any significant way. especially in the greater middle east. global terrorist ideologies continue to flourish. terrorist financing has been curbed, to a large extent. but the terrorists are ahead in terms of being able to innovate how to move money. and the most important thing is that the global order now has two challenges. one, states that continue to harbor and sponsor terrorists, and two, failing states -- or are being hijacked by terrorists in an increasing number. technology, such as the internet, are being used by jihadi extremists all over the world for recruitment purposes without a counterstrategy in place. above all, while the people involved in terrorism got identified by osama bin laden,

who everyone knew was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, while they have been identified, and sought, and brought to justice, there is no global method to be able to prevent -- take preventive steps to make sure that those who are emerging as the terrorist leaders of the future can actually be identified and stopped before they organize. isis for example took many people by surprise. if somebody had actually been studying and understanding and analyzing the geology that was taking place in the crucible of syria and iraq, people could have actually identified that a new organization was emerging. so in a way the war against terrorism that has been fought has actually been against the terrorists that attacked us yesterday, and has not yet been

moved in terms of stopping the terrorists who will emerge tomorrow, and the day after. the accountability of state sponsors of terrorism have been far from complete. in fact, too many compromises have been made. and the result is that there are many states that have got away with sponsoring terrorist groups, and making distinctions between terrorist groups. terrorist "a" is my ally because he attacks my neighbors. but terrorist "b" is my enemy in the united states, and therefore i will go after some of these people, arrest them, and send them to guantanamo bay. so this haphazard approach to global terrorism has resulted actually in increasing global terrorism rather than diminishing it. now there's a positive side to it, too. if you are in american, you feel comfortable that there has not been an attack on the scale of 9/11 on american soil since 9/11 and that is a positive. but the downside to it is that the terrorists continue to multiply in other parts of the world and it's only a matter of

time before they actually get their act together to be able to mount the kind of attack here that they did before. because after all, remember i as a young journalist covered the war against the soviets. many of these terrorists who later on became part of al qaeda used to slit the throats of soviet soldiers. most of us didn't think much of it. after all they were going after the enemy. no one at that time did an analysis of what motivates them to be so, shall we say inhuman in the treatment of the enemy. many of the methods that were used later on in other parts of the world were developed actually in afghanistan. this included many of our governments. then, when al qaeda emerged and decided that they would conduct attack the united states its initial attacks were relatively smaller. if you remember the 1993 attack

on the world trade center was a -- not a major one. it didn't bring the building down. in fact it was executed very clumsily. the man used a rented truck and went back to collect his deposit on the rented truck. which basically brought him on the radar much more quickly. the terrorists had a methodology of learning from their mistakes and they kept improving their methods. that's how 9/11 became possible. al qaeda was formed in 1993 but the preformation took place during the war against the soviets in the 1980's. it took them about a decade and a half to be able to conceptualize and execute the kind of attack that we saw on 9/11. other jihadi group emerging right now will take a long time. so, the comfort that my american friends sometimes feel over the

fact that there has been no attack of the magnitude of 9/11 on american soil is cause for comfort. i think it actually not sufficient reason for comfort. the global terrorist groups continue to organize and those scenes of ideological conflicts are also conflicts that are relevant to all of us. what is the way forward? for one thing, i think that the hemming and hawing over what causes terrorism on the definition of terrorism. even this year in the united nations some of america's closest alliesy siesy sies debated as they do every year on the defense of terrorism. countries don't have to be

occupied and militaries don't have to be moved completely to do this. but, states that have been sponsors of terrorism and that continue to partially sponsor terrorism should not be let off the hook for the partial good they do. a lot of the allies of the united states that are partly sponsors of terrorist acts should not be allowed to go scot-free simply because they are allied in some other functions and in some other actions. global terrorist ideologies need to be identified and combatted. as far as the muslim world is concerned, this ideological debate is going to involve

primarily muslims, and there's no way. no way that the muslims of the world are going to accept a definition of their religion offered by people who are not members of our faith. i would advise against, for example, the white house trying to tell me that islam is a religion of peace and that they do not represent a violent ideology. let us figure it out. keep out of this debate. lastly i think that we and failing states that are being hijacked by nonstate actors need support in building the state structure. but again that is not going to be easy. there will be conflicts between states that will have to be resolved. countries like yemen which are failing states will end up being the -- the arena of jockeying for power for other regional actors. and here the international community will have to figure out how to be able to play a

role that has to be a way that the great powers of the world can get involved without necessarily repeating the mistakes that they think they have made by intervening overwhelmingly in afghanistan and iraq. there has to be a middle ground between sending large numbers of troops for long periods of time, and not doing anything. just as people are waking up to the threat of cyberwar fare, i think they should also wake up to the threat of cyber recruitment. because jihadis do use the internet far more effectively. i have always wondered that the country that was able to come up with the recipe for sweetened fizzy water and make it into an international drink purely through marketing, why is it so unable to market the idea of opposition to extremism and terrorism in the muslim world? a question that requires,

dr. alexander, a conference in its own right. thank you all very much. [ applause ] ambassador haqqani i wanted to mention since you dealt with radicalization of religion, of course many countries, the academic would, your book on pakistan between the musk and the military is a important, i think, contribution to our understanding and of course your work now with the institute on the journal, the current trends in islamic ideology is very important, as well. i would like to move on to our next speaker, ambassador theater kattouf. as i mentioned earlier, he was formerly the ambassador of the united states, the united arab

emirates and syria, but he also served with great distinction in kuwait and baghdad and sanaa, and riyadh, as well. and he received many, many awards for his many contributions. also economically he served as a fellow at princeton university dealing with some of these issues. ambassador kattouf. >> thank you, professor alexander, for the opportunity today to speak with such distinguished company. on current efforts to combat terrorism. terrorism is not an abstraction. to those of us who spent our careers in the u.s. foreign service. and i spent my entire career either working in or working on the middle east.

and so it's a area that's very familiar to me. some of us have unfortunately experienced terrorist attacks firsthand. all of us have lost friends and coworkers to this scourge. though many of us share similar tragic experiences, we, not surprisingly, come to different conclusions about what is to be done. most area specialists encounter terrorism experts believe that the u.s. government's approach must be nuanced and multifaceted. that is, it needs to involve not only the military, but the state department, usaid, homeland security, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, soc power and public awareness, and i could go on, but you get the idea. the principle debate seems,

however to often -- or too often in my opinion, focus on how large the american military response should be to terrorist threats. we -- i think seem to exaggerate sometimes what a military response can do. so, this afternoon i want to focus on what the balance should be between our military response, and the many other tools and policies available to the united states. let me clearly state that my 42 years of involvement with u.s. policies in the region have made me a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences. even president george w. bush once famously said in a presidential debate with al gore that u.s. foreign policy needed to show greater humility. yet after two inconclusive wars that lasted for a decade or

more, iran is arguably left as the dominant power in iraq, and the taliban is poised to make a comeback in afghanistan. many of the principle architects and proponents of these wars mock the obama administration for missed opportunities to intervene more forcefully in syria, and for not having left a residual force indefinitely in iraq. indeed even some former senior members of the current obama administration state much of the same thing. some weeks ago i was watching one of the sunday talk shows and heard former secretary of defense leon panetta assert that matters might have turned out differently in syria if only the president had extended more and earlier military aid to opposition fighters there, and carried through with his threat

to hit assad's forces after he crossed our self-declared red line concerning the use of chemical weapons. let me add that secretary panetta has given great service for decades to our country and i have admired him for long from afar. moreover, some of my own colleagues who i deeply respect share his opinions. but the question to me is this, which syrian opposition forces should we have more forcefully backed? the opposition in syria was splintered into literally hundreds of small groups that lack a central command. the muslim brotherhood initially dominated the syrian national council. even prior to the emergence of the nusra front in isis, there were other islamist groups in the field, including the taliban like afrar al sham that one of my colleagues earlier mentioned. was our goal ever to replace a corrupt, bloody bathist military

regime with a barbaric and tal rant and bloody islamist regime? how does that serve u.s. interests? by the way, we had many years to train iraqi armed forces under relatively ideal conditions. how well has that turned out? relatively ideal conditions. how well has that turned out. the iranian initiative has been spearheading actions in tikrit and elsewhere against isis. why did the iraqi armed forces come apart so rapidly when isis attacked mosul, leaving their weapons behind. those who want to argue the counterfactuals need to explain why this time it would have been different. my takeaway from focusing on the middle east north africa region for many years is that these countries are not ours to win or to lose. the peoples of the middle east have developed cultures and value systems that are not

largely consonant with our own. and we have to recognize and respect the differences. they have yet to decide clearly what role islam will play in their constitutional government. who is sovereign, god or the people. the u.s. and the west can encourage those whose values such as pluralism, tolerance and inclusion are closer to our own, but it is not for us to impose those values on them at the point of a gun. it is shear hubris to expect every society will achieve our level of social and political development overnight. indeed, many of them don't want to. and we ourselves are always going to be struggling to create a more perfect union. the neo conservatives and their supporters who never believed in social engineering at home, never thought anything of going halfway around the world to spread democracy.

why are we not doing more to support tunisia, which is doing all the right things. it seems to me that all the intensity is about what is going wrong in the region. here is tunisia which could be perhaps the greatest rebuke ever to the islamist fanatic, and the bloody dictators of the region and yet you hardly read about the country. except, of course, when there's a terrorist attack as occurred at the bardo museum. so what is to be done? first, we need to quit exaggerating the threat terrorism poses to the homeland. the 24/7 news channels have to fight for ratings so every lone wolf operation in europe or the u.s. is an existential threat to the u.s. and the nation. it was thought necessary to virtually shut down the entire city of boston to catch or kill

the tsarnaev brothers. after 9/11 washington suburbs were terrorized by two non-ideological assassins who chose their victims at random. and killings have occurred with alarming regularity, such as the horrible tragedy at the elementary school in newtown, connecticut, and at a movie theater in aurora colorado. each year tens of thousands of americans die from influenza and are killed in auto accidents. yet it is death at the hands of terrorists that haunt our thoughts and our dreams. the terrorists could hardly hope for more. that's exactly what they want. they want to provoke a disproportional u.s. military response. another u.s. president famous

for a failed prolonged war is lyndon johnson. when running against barry goldwater in 1964, he stated that we shouldn't be asking american boys to do what asian boys should be doing for themselves. unlike president george w. bush he overreached rather than following his own good advice. the struggle occurring in the middle east and north africa is existential. but it's not existential for us, and not even for our western allies. it is the governments and the peoples of the entire region that are the most threatened. groups pledging allegiance to isis that was said in 16 countries. after two major wars, the cancer has metastasized. the u.s. needs to calibrate the help it offers to indigenous forces who are willing to confront isis militarily and otherwise. there are many groups in states that deserve our help.

p but we have to keep in mind that there are also groups, that those groups and states often don't share our exact interests. and in many cases, we should not lend ourselves to advancing, for instance hateful sectarian agendas, or get involved in the middle of a sunni-shia struggle. that is not for us, as ambassador haqqani eloquently pointed out. we should be willing, however when we find those who are willing to fight this scourge to provide military equipment, intel sharing with logistical support, training, including for special operations and in some cases air support, and as we saw recently in yemen, search and rescue. but i think we have to ask ourselves, how would it have been received in the 17th

century if the turkish sultan in istanbul had sent the janis terrys to fight the war between catholics and protestants. it was so bloody it could have wiped out a quarter to a third of the population in central europe. most of the civilians in the area where it was fought, before the war was concluded by the treaty of west failial, which set up the system. i'm just saying. thank you. [ applause ] >> i have the privilege of introducing a very special guest this year. this is our 17th annual review of international terrorism cooperation, and we've invited and have with us today governor jim gilmore the 68th governor of virginia. a supporter for a long time. he's been a little bit of

everything, from an army officer to a prosecutor to an elected attorney general, on many corporate boards the air force academy board, so on and so on. most importantly, however, he's been appointed to many congressional and presidential boards overseeing topics as diverse as is history. but even most importantly, something known as the gilmore commission. which in 1999 was pulled together to assess the united states' ability to deal with terrorism. the gilmore commission existed not just throughout '99-2000 but well past 2001. and with that, the gilmore commission was the venue if you will, for the first line of advice strategy, on how to deal with a brand-new global war on terrorism. governor gilmore was the author of this nation's strategy for dealing with terrorism throughout the early 2000s, and

he coined, i believe he's one who should be credited with coining the term international cooperation on terrorism for the good of the united states. it's with great privilege that i introduce to you governor jim gilmore. [ applause ] >> michael, thank you very much. i'm struck by the story that the ambassador told about the terrorist who rented his truck and went off and blew it up and then went back for the deposit. at least he was a capitalist. i guess i'm your politician here today. i was the one who was invited to participate with these distinguished professionals who have spoken with you here today. i think that i was invited because michael suggested because i chaired the national commission of the advisory panel on terrorism. and weapons of mass destruction on behalf of the united states. that commission was established in 1999, and we served until 2003, five years of work, that

can be found on the rand corporation web page under gilmore commission. i was also, after the three years that statutorily it was expected to work, the governor of virginia at the time of the 9/11 attack. and as everyone knows two states were directly attacked that day, new york, and virginia. because the pentagon is in virginia. so actually i ended up being for a while, a war governor and had to do the things necessary to protect the commonwealth, and work on behalf 6 the people of the state. the german air crash comes to mind. the terrible, terrible thing we just saw. and it struck me over the weekend that the 150 victims who were on that airplane were actually still victims of 9/11. because all those processes in that airplane cockpit had been put into place to prevent terrorists from getting into the cockpit.

little did they know that it was going to be reversed on them because of this type of mental illness, or whatever motive that we will ultimately discover. thoughts people died because we are engaged today in the global challenges that we're facing because of the tactics that are being used. we've seen it in copenhagen, where the effort there was to try to enforce a certain approach towards the muslim faith. and a likewise in paris where a certain effort was being made to enforce a certain approach to the muslim faith, which was to not be critical or challenging in any way. boko haram which is now trying to legitimate kidnapping, rape, slavery. isis, which is probably the worst example of all, where we are seeing beheadings people thrown off buildings, people being trapped in cages and burned alive before our very eyes, all the modern akrout rements of western civilization