to decommission this. so those are not particularly -- and some of that is really sort of russian choices. and so you were saying, we're ready on all fronts, but on these issues, how do you see it specifically? where can russia go that will find a common premise for us to work together on? >> ambassador, how many hours will you give me to answer? because these questions are so loaded. let's start one by one. >> yes, please. thank you. >> syria. we haven't been working with the united states from day one when we entered the terrain, suggesting that we have a common enemy. that is, terrorism. it's not an abtract for us. you live behind oceans. we live next by.

we know any spillover from this region is more threatening to our security than to yours. we know also among other things there are estimated 4,000, maybe more. i do not know the exact numbers of the so-called russian speakers who are fighting on the side of al qaeda and daesh in this particular area. those people will return to russia, to russian speaking countries next to russia, and we do not have protective borders with our neighbors. it's a real concern. secondly, we also understand that the government of syria needs to be able to continue to preserve statehood because if it is ruined, the problems not only for syrians but for the rest of us, are going to be increasingly -- increasingly

more difficult, dangerous. because then if that kind of country will become a totally failed state, that would be a fertile ground for all kinds of terrorism expanding from the region as well. we know it. we have seen it. and we have seen it in our territory. how that kind of people who are spending their lives to build the holy caliphate. what they do, what they plan and how they act. we have tested it in russia. so for us, it was very important that we came first on the invitation of the government of syria to help to fight terrorists.

nothing more. nothing less. by the way, when asked -- one has to remember that we are there on a fully legal basis, unlike some others who flies their troops on the ground without asking permission of a legitimate government. but returning to the crisis in syria, we certainly understand, and here we agree with the united states and most probably even the latest disagreements didn't change it. that there is no solutions, stable solutions for syria that can be achieved through the use of force only. what is important is to have a legal solution. political solution that will bring all the syrians together. sometimes when i speak to my american colleagues, everybody speaks in a way that is assad against syrians. it is not. there are more than 50% of

people, if not more, who feel that it's their country, their president, dutyfully elected, and they don't want an alternative that is cutting heads off from those who believe in different sectors of religion. and we need to understand that there are two goals there. first is to eliminate the source of terrorism. and here we agree in principle in the united states. we even agree that in the united nations by aproving a number of security council resolutions that specifically call for even not allowing any safe haven for isil or al qaeda. and the second time i think is to help the sides of the conflict, the syrians to start

negotiating process because neither you nor us can tell the syrian people how they want to live in the future and who is going to be the leader. so there are two processes that we have been trying to harmonize with the united states. to some degree we thought that we were almost there on october 9 -- on september 9th when we came to an agreement with the united states on the formula of the -- very recent cessation of violence for a week for establishing a regime for a road that is going from eastern part of aleppo to the north in turkey to provide humanitarian supply. we have agreed that the syrian

government on one side and all the other positions need to leave the zone of the road. leaving it free from the presence. also establishing checkpointed. one checkpoint by the government in order to be sure that the caravans of humanitarian assistance that come to aleppo do not carry weapons. and one checkpoint by the opposition to be sure that there is not -- there was an attempt, but it's very telling as to where we are. what happened during this period of seven days, the opposition attacked government of syria forces 350 times within one week. when syrian governments -- i

think it was on the 12th and 14th of september, started pulling back their forces from the road in order to allow the humanitarian convoys, the opposition not only fired in their backs, they tried to take over the territory. the leadership said they wouldn't allow any humanitarian supplies there. what is happening, even today as we speak in eastern aleppo, one has to remember there are several parts of aleppo. the western part is under control of the forces being shelled each and every day from the eastern part by deposition. only in september the latest figures, 220-plus people killed. a third of them kids. and there is eastern part of the city that is controlled by al

qaeda. and the so-called opposition forces that do act together. sometimes they act against the government with the position being embedded in the al qaeda forces. more than 80% of the population that lives there want these people with arms to leave the area. but they cannot leave themselves. the al qaeda that is acting during this territory under several thousands of those is keeping order in a very, what we call in russia, iron fist. last week, 26 people who wanted to leave were shot by al qaeda. so we need to understand what is happening in aleppo.

it's not something that is portrayed sometimes here in a very simplified fashion. it's people on the -- civilians that are attacked by the government forces or russians. we never attack civilians. where we go after are the forces of al qaeda. sometimes we have been asking our american friends as to, where is al qaeda and where is the opposition that you keep telling us is not al qaeda. we never got any specific response on this issue. it would help to deal with the issue more precise fashion. but what we are after is not peaceful syrians. it's huge and deliberate distortions that sometimes we

see reporting the situation. we go after al qaeda, and i have always thought that in your country, which has always most would remember what al qaeda did in this country more than others. after seven days of continues violations of the arrangement decided it's -- enough is enough. what we saw as a result of it, not the pressure on the opposition, and our american friends promised us they'll make sure that what they call opposition will leave al qaeda and they will be separated from al qaeda. and it's something that had been promised to us since february,

march. has never been done. and this problem now is so distorted that unless you focus on what is right, you wouldn't be able to define what it is that you call constructive cooperation. when it comes to agreements that you wanted me to address, it's a different story. it doesn't necessarily connect it with syrian -- >> no, actually, i wanted to add there that one of the things that the statement, mr. putin said it was a result of unfriendly actions by the u.s. >> yes. >> precisely which actions of the u.s.? >> i tell you. first, i had to explain what is this agreement about. russia and the united states have produced a lot of plutonium for weapon purposes during the cold war. combined, it's 34,000 tons, i

think. some 12 years ago, maybe a little bit more, we start negotiating and agreed to declare that the plutonium that we have produced for weapon purposes wouldn't be used for these purposes and would be eliminated. there were a number of discussions between our scientists, diplomats. i participated myself in my previous capacity in all of this. and we were discussing how to eliminate it. our american friends were insisting that you can't dilute it because it's irreversible. you need to burn it up in nuclear reactors. we have looked at russian nuclear reactors. they are not optimized for that kind of functions.

so we told them that we will build a reactor, the so-called breeder reactor that would be very well designed in order to make efficient the process of elimination of plutonium. we had to build a facility to create the fuel that can be fitted into these reactors. the so-called mox fuel. something that u.s. government was insistent we should do 12, or even more, years ago. we didn't want to do it at that time because we didn't feel it was reasonable enough. it was enormously expensive. we were, at that time, promised a lot of financial help from the western countries. help never came. so what happened? today the u.s. government has been building your own mox fuel

facility. and in the middle of the process, and you haven't completed. you are somewhere in the middle. you seem to have decided to move to another direction. the one that we had discussed and the united states was insisting wasn't reliable because it's reversible. and we have completed the fuel fabrication plant. we've completed a very expensive, very good reactor that is well posed to burn these plutonium just to learn that the united states re -- this was an agreement that was created in different circumstances. it was a part of stechs we were taking, you and us, in order to reduce the threat of nuclear materials in all the forms,

including in plutonium. there were a number of circumstances that made it possible at the time. currently, first and foremost, you didn't do what you promised us. secondly, the circumstances have changed and the provisions in the treaty allow to abandon the treaty in circumstances crucially change. and the circumstances did change. we see a very hostile pressure on russia on the economic side. we see nato moving towards neighbor ap we see ballistic missile defense being deployed, and it's certainly posed to change in the long term, the long run, the nuclear stability

formulas for the future. we see the so-called global strike being developed in the united states that would allow you to act militarily any time, anywhere very soon. all of this is changing. significant changing the strategic reality for us. so we had to reconsider our participation in a form of an agreement. having said so, i would like to underline -- to use this plutonium for military purposes. >> i have to go back to the syria part. sort of finish off something that i was going to add there. there is a lot of opposition to the government, and we can talk about 50% or 80% or whatever.

even without the isis component. but how do you see this ending? some kind of normalcy is too opmystic a word. but a report from aung san suu kyi about the conditions that prevail. how do you see it even in the context of a noncollaborative u.s./russian effort. where does it go? >> first, noncollaborative. we haven't shut the door. we said, even with the decision of the united states announced that they are not going to talk to us directly on this issue. the agreement of september 9 is still there. we are willing to work if and when the united states start

working. i will use your word, constructively. first of all. secondly, i think that during the tough negotiations in many form, multilateral, bilateral, we have discussed almost any possible avenue to pursue. so what is important that the forces that are on the ground plus those who are -- one has to be honest, there are a number of countries very much involved, including by supporting, rearming and financing the armed forces acting as the government. so what is missing is a political will to start doing things that already are there.

as far as i'm concerned what is important is to stop the fight, but includes certainly their position to make the delineation between opposition -- that's american term -- the position that is being held and the al qaeda and isil because it's -- i think common understanding even today between assad and the united states that al qaeda is a threat that needs to be dealt with. the security council resolutions specifically points to al qaeda, al nusra in syria and al qaeda, an organization that needs to be extermina exterminated. and for the rest, we need to

start building an environment and format to start negotiating. we have tried. initially on the first steps toward the process of seeking a formula for peaceful negotiations, we even invited the opsigposition to moscow sevl times. and the goal was not to make them negotiate. the goal was to help them to learn that they can talk to each other. that they can talk about syria. that is their country. the syria that they share and they will leave for their kids, grandkids. and we -- so bit by bit, are moving towards, i would say, better understanding that negotiations are possible. and we had a couple of attempts

to start negotiations. but currently, we see that a group of the opposition, that is adamantly insisting on preconditions for the negotiations, for their participation and negotiations, has been blocking for almost a month and a half any threat of negotiations. but i think -- i think we need to continue. we can achieve negotiating process. if we can achieve that, it's not going to be easy. it's not going to be short. it's going to be painful. it will be with bumps on the road. >> russia will remain in syria and its rather large presence? >> it's not that large, but we are there under agreement with the government. we are there as long as the situation requires. >> i have some very, i think,

interesting questions that students will be asking. so i would like to take this moment. and one of them is sort of on the arms control forces side. so let me do that one first. is there an expectation that russia will reexceed to the conventional forces in the near future or is a suspension expected to last? if so, what would it take for it to re-exceed. what actions by the u.s. and nato are envisioned as part of the re-exession. >> that's a good question. the problem is it takes so much to explain what we suspended. >> true, true. >> because i've tried to be brief. we had an agreement on convention conventional force.

it had been negotiated during -- and nato on the other. it has created a panoply of limits, sublimits, quotas and everything that was designed to prevent the big offensive operation of either side unexpected. the warsaw pact ceased to exist but the treaty continued. what was happening, you remember, when germany was reuniting when soviet union ceased to exist. we promised that nato wouldn't be expanding. but in reality what was

happening is absolutely different. nato was expanding. a and nato started kind of pocketing the quotas of the countries of warsaw pact suggesting that, well, they are now members of western allies, nato, and so the quotas will be brought into different limitations. they were only increasing. so we have raised this issue. we convinced our american and west european friends to negotiate what was called amendment to the treaty.

so the initial agreement, plus amendmen amendments -- what happened if after we have signed the amendments, the u.s. and nato under different contexts that as we are concerned have nothing to do with the substance of the issue. they refused to ratify a treaty. so legally speaking, what we have left today and what allegedly the united states and others continue to implement is that treaty that was supposed to regulate the warsaw pact. however, the situation on the ground is absolutely different. currently nato forces are already training next to our

borders, 150 kilometers from st. petersburg. so what do you expect on us to return to that kind of treaty? of course not. the question is what it takes for us to return. being honest and serious, i do not expect the u.s. and the west being willing and interested in creating such a condition. because that's one of the problems i wanted to discuss and since you brought me to the issue, give me three minutes. >> sure. >> with your permission. thank you, ambassador. what was happening after the end of the cold war? there was a new space in europe in terms of security landscape. there were a number of countries of nato, 15 of them. russia, former members of the

warsaw pact, and we all wanted to decide how to build the security environment that was called all inclusive and bringing everybody together. and we did believe that it was sincere and possible. would you present a proposal on comprehensive form for security landscape that will be favoring all the countries of the continent, including russia. our western friends and american colleagues included, even didn't allow to start serious negotiations on this issue. we did propose several versions of it. i do not claim that it was kind

of truth -- ultimate truth in our papers. it was subtle ideas that we invited our western partners to sit together and to develop together in order to create a security system that favors security of everybody. but it never happened. and during this 25 years what we saw happening, 15, 18, 21, currently 28. nato has been move iing infrastructure and forces closer to our border, and it can hardly be called the kind of security system that favors security of everybody. what happened during the 25 years, nato tried and to some extent succeeded in taking out

by itself the security space in big bigger part of europe. b but it creates new dividing lines that are pushed to our borders and it's something that's a very serious problem in our relations and most probably one that will have a very, very long consequences. >> thank you. i'm going to just ask you kind of a general question and then a very specific and then open it up for the audience in a minute. based on all the things seen and participated in and the state of things today, do you think

america and russia natural allies or natural adversaries, and what are some of the overlaps of commonalities, and where do you see the major divides? we don't have to go decades into the future but just say next through the life of whichever candidate wins and the next four years, i'd say. >> let's start with our longer history. we never fought each other. we are close neighbors. people sometimes forget russia is the closest neighbor of the united states except for mexico and canada. it's only 4 kilometers between us. we have a history where we were

helping you sometimes by military presence during great times. we established a fort in california, and i love to go there because not only it's phenomenally beautiful place, but what amazes me, there's a fort, and there are rifles there and the curators tell me during the whole history of russian presence there, not a single cannon, not a single rifle was used for hostile fashions. they were used only to -- for me it's very symbolic. russians and americans, they are not only very similar.

we have many, many interests. and on some issues we have been able to work even in the worst times of the cold war. let's take nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. we did so much together, and if it weren't for us, probably we wouldn't have today the treaty extended for eternity. if it weren't for us, there wouldn't be a number of arrangements that reduces the materials. we're cooperating on space. you might remember that there is an area where russians and americans, they risk their lives together. rely on each other to survive. they do scientific missions together in a very critical

environment, and when your shuttle program went down, your astronauts are reliably flying on the russian rocket boosters. and i've spoken to russian and american cosmonauts so many times. it's mind boggling to speak with them as >> because they have different psychology. they work together and they believe in what they did together and they prove to be immune. the arctic being one of the areas that might be many others.

we have been able even to work together in a very tense moment, recent moments. just trying to remember the age of chemical weapons in syria when the u.s. government was considering to get involved in military campaign against syriaful we proposed the solution that was for both countries to work together and we have been able to remove nuclear chemical weapons from syria and the time of war in the very tense situation. i know what it took to remove chemical weapons and we're here together and interested in

symbolic moments and carrying the staff and russian and i think chinese also. and military maybe where protecting your ship. so it's amazing what can be done if we and you feel that we want and can work together. but political life isn't that simplistic and we bump into problems that shouldn't approximate be that way but they do and the current state of affairs between us is certainly very unfortunate in this respect. >> i was going to raise china but maybe it will come up in the qs and as and i wanted to in my part of it the dialogue up here was from one of our experts and they say how do you see u.s.

russian relation differing depending on which candidate? hillary clinton or donald trump wins the u.s. presidential election. i'll trying to get around you. i don't want to say anything. and have the first cut before we turn to others. i know this interest and kindly keep the questions brief. and identify yourself. student, please. student a johns hopkins university. my family is from ukraine so this question hits close to home, the question i have for

you is, what is the russian federation currently doing to ensure the protection of minority riots? specifically crimea during the current temporary national situation? >> i don't see anything temporary about the situation in crimea. there was a decision to leave the country that was stolen from them by the coo and the national context occurs very strong and certainly for crimea we're

predominantly on the russian speaker because everybody speaks in ukraine perfect russian but they also think russian and they didn't feel comfortable to leave in the country that has taken away from the government that has taken away from them. and the normal part of russian part that speaks in ukraine. there was a decision made by them that one has to remember and made by them as we have embraced immediately. when it comes to minorities i think as the they're connected

with ukraine, and the national identity in crimea that existed in the ukrainian time including the equality of the languages to be used in crimea and there are three russian ukrainians. so i think that they they are protected specifically better than anything prior to that but what was the most important is they enjoy the same rights as anybody in the russian federation. >> yes. please wait for the mike. >> thank you. my name is chris barns.

i can't say anything with confidence. >> your next visit. earlier this year, former chairman of the senate armed services committee sam young and it's the highest level since at least the end of the cold war. but from your perspective do you agree with that assessment and if so what that means. >> it's sickening and colossal

thinker especially in the area of nuclear issues and i demonstrate the view and it is hot because even with the current differences i had, i think that we have enough reasonable people on both sides. and the quality of the relations is certainly the lowest point. and miscalculations have increased. especially the armed forces.

and sometimes -- how shall i put it in a polite way, a strange way where to show the strength of the united states. and say that 100 meters from the checkpoint 150 kilometers from st. petersburg. and force can be employed against russia. it creates a lot of that to be prepared for anything. and reinforcing our presence.

we see the long-term convention. we see your navy russian and baltics closer to our military basis. and tomahawks and antiballistic systems and i don't know what else. it's next to our doorstep. you remember there were a number of complaints that we are flying to each other too close. that we are even requested to

fly with transponders on. we propose negotiations to have made american aircraft fly with transponders so so far we haven't been able to engage. and the number next to our border by nato has increased dramatically and the number of overflies by next to our borders, not in our territory, territorial space but the number of intelligence aircraft flying is not the exact numbers but it's traumatically increased. so we all in russia see it with concern. and we're strong enough to protect ourselves.

but it leads to additional efforts to prepare for that and that is certainly raising the chances of dangers i would say of difficult situation. >> the question on this side, yes. >> i have two questions. the first one is about -- >> would you introduce yourself in english. >> i don't have an affiliation. thank you for your comments. my question is, two questions, first one is about the bombing of hospitals in aleppo if you could comment on that. what is it's stance is and what is going on and the other is about security in europe. would you see any good alternatives to nato and if you were to start from scratch how would you organize security in europe? thank you. >> short questions.

>> yeah. hospitals if it suggests that we have morning hospitals i cannot agree with that. we are bombing well defined targets that combine in the sites of groups of terrorist acting. we do not bomb hospitals. what we see on these screens are pictures that are are certainly very painful to watch. but i do not accept the notion that we are bombing hospitals. more over what they are showing -- if there were some medical, they were designated in hospitals because the hospitals are designated. people that overfly know it and

here we do not know what it is being shown but it is very determined to present it where they give hostage to 200,000 people. it's wrong. it's false. and the second question i apologize -- >> europe. >> europe. >> nato. >> that's a phenomenally interesting question for which i am not sure that i have an answer because i have never seen a situation where nato wasn't present in europe and and my colleagues asking is russia

going to join me and nato wasn't able to accept us in no because we're different but because it will change it's character completely. and i would have started working on the agreement that not only include which is important enough but try to build an economic space, human contact because you cannot solve all of the issues between the states

only by regulating arms. what is important that people talk to each other and understand what the others are are and i would repeat once again what the others are not because there's so many circulating. especially now in the times of internet and we have tried something similar with eu and started negotiating a number of common spaces. and it wouldn't approach anything with these situations. why our relations are so fragile, because everybody agrees so many things that are common.

people are similar. we are the same. we both live in huge spaces. it's a similar way and mentioned at the highest point i think four or five years ago in recent history our trade was $39 billion two ways. that's less than 1% of american trade. so if there's technology, you are not an important part either and many others which are significantly more important.

the context is at the end of of the cold war our makers don't want to talk. even in the cold war we had the changes between the congress and russian parliament. and we have the situation. i have been to alaska and people are come plaining that in the past they were visiting each other with the neighbors in the eastern part of russia. there were so many changes and gun. even the supreme courts in the soviet union change experience and change today beau.

and then nothing. now the commission that was bringing together the executives. what is left as a result and multidimensional relations. >> that hotline is there. >> i hope that we're not going to use it. and makes it so immature in the future. >> so the reset was not quite what one should have expected. >> this commission that i was

referring to several times i believe long enough to know that creating a bureaucratic system doesn't necessarily translate but we have exchanges between professionals and i saw a number of areas where we were ferme fermenting changes and something i have not heard of in the past proves to be phenomenally interesting for both sides. we have a huge country that's been united. long, long ago but very, very big. you were working on regional levels. a change between specialists that were mutually reinforcing

and so many others. >> i saw a hand way at the back but please wait for the microphone, yes. >> thank you. your version of why russia did leave the cfe treaty and i just thought it would be good to say and to remind to the audience that what was the timing of russia, it was sometime in spring 2008. months before russia would intrude the territory in august of 2008 so i think it is worth

while looking as the time line when russia abandoned the treaty and what followed afterwards and why russia did so. thank you. >> can i respond? >> yes, please. >> there's two issues. one the treaty that have never been allowed to beat the amendment because the amendments haven't been put into force and still progressing in terms of membership, pocketing and pocketing and pocketing. the other issue and the events today -- thinking they'll return to it and what happened was a

president who is now on a wanted list by the georgian government. launch an attack against the citizens of georgia in the middle of the night. don't shake your head. look at the history honestly. i did. i was working on this issue. i came here in september 2008. i think we'll take one -- your next appointment. thank you plflt ambassador. >> thank you for your presentation. thank you for hosting us and enabling us this opportunity. i'm a proud alum and i'm obviously u. s. russia relations

are tense. one factor contributing to that, rightly so, is ukraine. ukraine is a country with it's own culture, language, history, national identity, world view and the reason there's russia-u. s. tension over ukraine is russia does not want to recognize ukraine as a separate culture people and sovereign state. moscow did not even exist and so moscows gold has hit over ukraine and of course we saw demonstrated by the ukrainian people themselves. >> literally and figuratively that flag in their hands. my question is 10,000 people have been killed in this

senseless war. >> right i agree. >> including your russian soldiers, including acquaintances of mine who have left their stable existences in other cities to go and fight as volunteers to defend their homeland. my question is, when will russia pull it's troops out of ukraine and my second question is, in the beginning -- >> i think we need to stop there please. >> no, no, wait. >> only because otherwise. >> my question is sir at the beginning you said we he do not interfere in the international affairs of the u. s. and that's important for the people here to understand. last week ball balm confirmed that the kremlin was behind the hacking of the dnc and other significant u. s. institutions and people. some people, some smart people are suggesting they have intelligence that russia is laying the ground work to sew confusion around our election next month so can i please have

your reaction to mr. obama's claim, thank you. >> okay. one by one. on ukraine. we consider ukraine to be a sovereign state. great nation. we consider them our own brothers. we're so intertwined. there's so many families in ukraine that are russians. there's so many families in russia that are ukrainians. my father was born in ukraine. my mother was born in ukraine. i spent some time in my childhood going to school not far. and i understand pretty well what ukraine is and we do respect ukraine as a country. what we want to see happening is that they stopped bombing their

own people and start talking and that would help them to see ukraine as their home and not as something because they speak russian. that is the biggest problem as far as we're concerned. when it comes to the statement of the intelligence about russia, i have told you and i repeat it, it's not correct. and when it comes to the implication for the elections in the united states it's something that i am not planning to discuss. we have seen a number of statements by our colleagues in american intelligence on a number of issues that were not proved by the history. i can give you a number of examples. the white powder in the security

council. biological weapons in iraq. we sold statements that a week ago bombardment of syrian troops and was based on the false intelligence after several days of intelligence and exploration on the train. >> thank you for coming. we hope that this is a process that will continue that you will come back. the issues certainly are important and not always resolvable and sometimes some what contentious but i think they're very critical. to have this discussion and dialogue. so thank you. >> thank you. [ applause ]

director of the center for politics in the university of virginia discusses his predictions for senate and house races. then smith talks about his document tear on the fight against isis. the documentary focuses on successes, failures and challenges and she'll talk about her new book with the connection between candidates and the media and the future of conservatism. be sure to watch live at 7:00 eastern. join the discussion. >> wednesday a look at community policing issues. the cato institute is hosting a

panel looking at traffic stops, police militarization and that's live at noon eastern on cspan. a new survey looks at american political culture in 2016. and voter dissatisfaction with the economy and electoral politics and political leaders learn about the survey wednesday when we joined speakers at the university of virginia and advanced studies and cultures. live on cspan 2. >> cspan created by america's cable television companies and brought to you by your cable and satellite provider. >> on the economic and political

challenges facing middle east nations. this hour long event was hosted piano the center for strategic and international studies. >> folks coming in and filling in the audience while we're waiting. i wanted to say welcome to all of you and thank you for coming. this is the first for this year. and i'm very pleased to welcome him. i had the privilege of being his student. i was working at csis and it was the first time i had an opportunity to interact with the diplomatic community and he became my mentor and i learned more than any other diplomat in washington but i think that that doesn't set me apart. i think that half of the diplomatic core would say the same thing. this is a man of exceptional

experience and intellect and has the capacity to frame both the details that matter but also put in a strategic context that becomes invaluable to understand any of the forces that are playing out. remarkable diplomat and remarkable individual. obviously he left here to become a foreign minister and he was needed for larger things and now he is retired but he's hardly retired. he is very active and we pleaded with him if he would be willing to come and share with us his insights about the remarkable developments in the middle east. how we should be thinking about them. i know for myself. as much by his perspective as i have been. please welcome the foreign minister. >> thank you.

>> thank you, good morning, everybody. thank you very much. as you can see from john's introduction he's not only a superior -- not only of superior intellect but also a much better diplomat in how he presents people than i am. to tell you the truth i gain tread men douse knowledge from coming to his breakfasts in my nine years in washington here and talking about the region and you are going through an active role in the region at the time and things were happening also in -- here in america. so i want to thank you for that and thank also john for his friendship for many, many years. many of you i know so i'm not going to start recognizing you all because we'll spend the 40 minutes mentioning names and i don't think you want me to do that. have come to you to speak about our region and hopefully help engage in how we work together

as we move forward. the point of departure is like the world, the middle east is going through a change. our change is more fundamental than in other regions. for particular reasons that i will deal with but change is occurring and that has to be our point of departure so while dealing with the past and the present is important it's also very important to look forward and see what we do in the future. over five years have passed now since what we call in the arab spring or the arab awakening started and it frankly took all of us by surprise although it shouldn't have because the basic reasons for it has been percolating for well over a decade if not two and i will summarize them quickly. first, the substantial and significant democratic change. population in the middle east doubled in over three decades

and it reached 30% of the population. with that rapid urbanization. people looking for jobs. polling the money as you would say here and that wasn't always a rational systemically managed -- well, managed process and therefore you saw unemployment increasing, particularly with well educated and those that had university graduates. that is a recipe for people wanting change and for frustration and people who are educated and know how to create change so it shouldn't have been surprising that this was going to happen. the other element that's extremely important globally but also in our reach was the communication revolution. the fact that my grandchildren or everybody i knows can can get information that they want to

get, not through government sources. not through a centralized source of information and they can also connect an contact anybody they want. this in effect broke the monopoly that middle eastern states had on providing information but it also broke the base eck tenants of centralized government which is communication. the governments in the region were not changing their management style to deal with a society that wasn't centralized. wasn't going through a pyramid scheme but was frankly moving horizontally. and the results of all of that were two significant, if you want, deficits that i think were extremely important because many of you will say, well, the whole world is changing and technology effects everybody so why did it

create such a mess in the middle east. why the volatility and violence and so on? because of these two deficits. the first is the managing change deficit. as i said, you have gorvemental stagnation and i'll give you just some examples of it. in the countries where we saw what we call the arab spring, all of them republics, the term of office was between 30 and 40 years even though they were going through election cycles. so you were basically having ruler stagnation. i don't mean this in the personal sense but you get government stagnation because the system is repeating itself over and over again and that created a system where the governance authorities could not cope with the changing landscape

that was moving and changing so quickly. the second reason, equally important, but the second deficit, frankly, was what i call a national security deficit. both in the military and political sense. this shapiro negotiations institue sense a result of arab states and beyond arab states in the middle east and particular arab states for generations. from the atlantic down to the gulf crossing my country as well. depending on foreigners for their material, national security concerns, in other words, heart security and or their political security as well. now again i can go on and give you a list but i'll take my own country example. but it's something that i know. started off an move toward the

west. after 52. we move close to the soviet union. at the time. toward the west. if you go toward the north africa. you'll see it was western europe mostly and the west. and you'll see more soviet union and then you go down and that lead to a dependency factor which defined and limit their capacity. our capacity to teal with our own national security issues. and if you look at the national security capacities of the non-arab states in the region. turkey, israel and iran in particular. you'll see their capacity is higher and the arab regional states. and in points of time they have a super power. the other point frankly is if

you're depending so much on foreigners. and when there's a problem or an opportunity the priority interest and agendas will come into play and it's only a domestic issue and if your stability and your security, your success and your failure effects somebody else's interest and you brought them into the game so why is what you see in particular becoming so complicated with domestic regional and international issues all coming into play because all of these people are players and they have made the mistake and bringing them in too far and i'll not an isolationist. and they need to be part of the world and i always promoted egypt reaching out and engaging people so nobody is calling here

for isolationist but the proper balance between what you need and where you compliment your interest has to be proper between what you can afford domestically and what you can do regionally. don't regionally or internationally. and priorities are mixed and they'll help you and regional powers will define their terms so this national security imbalance complicated the agendas but also lead to regional aggressiveness. particularly by the non-arab states. this is two deficits in play. it shouldn't have been a surprise that what we saw was resolutions rather than

evolutions. and weakness in policy making. faif years since the awakening, anybody you talked to in the region, you'll sense a level of frustration others argue that change is so difficult and maybe change sbad and status quo was a br option and the third group believed that change is a big conspiracy by some people in the region and others abroad.

it's been a learning process for all of us. over a three or five year period especially with the two deficits. we're going to move forward and i think it's going to be tenuous and ups and downs and upwards because of domestically regionally and don't generalize when you talk about the arab spring each one has a come machine element because of the variation and the balance here

are more domestic others are more regional and a third party has become domestic, regional and international. the common element however the results of instability and people are trying to define who they are. that's really what you see in common even if they speak different variations in arabic or other ethnic languages but the attempt to define identity is the really the main challenge. there's tension that people like to call fundamentalism but should we move forward or backwards. moving forward or backwards. there's tension should -- i'm a practicing muslim and i'm proud of it but should i be -- well i can argue three things, arab,

egyptian or muslim. that's being debated. now mostly throughout the arab world and a little bit also in asia and there's a third identity about the national and ethnic identity. am i arab or kurd? even if you look at the iraqi example specifically, in the new constitution it talks about iraq in the arab world because they have so many ethnic constituent sys they wanted to make sure that they didn't exclude anybody by saying they're an arab country so the issue is also seriously to play here. now with all of that there is an overarching issue here. if we start defining ourselves differently and develop systems

of those that are different. then what you really have is a direct challenge between the nation state order and the ethnic or non-nation state order. how are you going to define wrours? is this the muslim world or muslim states in the arab world. what elements do you need to do and how do you define national security and so on and so forth. i underline this point you're seeing here a very dangerous challenge to the nation state order in the middle east and that should not be taken lightly and i don't see enough focus on that internationally or domestically. and since we don't like to do things easily and because of the two deficits i mentioned you also see a very large number of nonstate actors.

and the civil society and i'm talking about mostly extremists and terrorists and they are part of the game. trying to feed on the frustrations that exist in the region or the imbalances and take advantage of that. isis is just one of them. my final two points on this issue of identity or challenges. the region is trying to define what actually the goal of religion in society. it's a much more religious society than many parts of the world. but what actually is that role? is it simply an issue of faith? or is it faith and culture? or is it faith and politics? and when i use the term role of religion, i actually mean the larger meaning of this. but it ib colludes the issue.

and my last point is we need to find a way as we determine our identity, as we deal with the challenges of other identities and we need to find a comfort zone with power shared and that frankly is not only applicable to the arab world and applies to israel, turkey and iraq and i expand on that and the issue of holding power and sharing it at the same time, the region still does not have a comfort zone in that respect. >> where do we go from here? first thing, anybody that thinks it's going to be fixed quickly, should leave the room, fraikly.

it's not. so it's going -- and if you're interested and you want to make an investment it has to be a strategic investment. not something where you think you'll get low hanging fruit. which you may but it's not going to last very long. it has done reasonably well in the transition from the father to the son and it's dealt with these issues reasonably well frankly, it's not -- the story hasn't ended but they have done reasonably well. if you look at algeria, they have their problems a decade or two ago and they are just for natural reasons clearly going to have a change of leadership over the next decade so we'll see whether that will lead to a reemergence of the old problems or whether that transition is done smoothly. tunisia, what happened there was essentially domestic.

not regional or international. we all applaud tunisia because they had the ability to find compromises among the political trends in their country and it's something that they deserve applause for frankly. at the same tile t story is on going and what -- something that is alarming is if you look at the strength of the movement in tunisia it seems illogical given the secular nature of the country and they were much more progressive early on in the region compared to other arab countries. after that, why are there so many tu theunisians leaving the country going to isis. so there are larger problems that need to be dealt with, but

they're on the right track. so i applaud what they have done but one needs to look at these things more deeply because they're not about the symptoms. they're about what the disease is or the remedies are. and when i felt with this i was trying to figure out whether i wanted to call it the fail state or a nonstate. that's not two good options frankly to deal with. but look for, i believe that if one wants to see reversing track or getting back on track to creating a state system, the first test will be are government authorities able to execute authority on land.

it won't be about consensus. it is such -- there's so much chaos there, our first indication that we may be on the road to solving this is can a government body decide okay i'm going to police this particular area or i'm going to manage this area? the second, frank hi s the politics. i think it's imperative for the government and general for field marshall in the east to find some political compromise. even if it is gradual. clearly with his recent achievements in the east has more political weight than he had in the past and on the west side t government exists there or a government exists there. neither side can show conclusive authority throughout the

country. and we're in the middle east. not egypt per say but we're all talking about is one side going to lead this or divide it into -- is it going to be divided into east and west? north and south. or for that matter are they going back to the mark. it's so fluid. people don't know what the options are. i'll keep my eye on exercise of authority by the government as the first step. if you don't have that, all of this is frankly theoretical discussions. is this room for compromise or should be between the east and the west? for either of those to occur, the important element here is to try to contain the ability of non-state actors and unless

somebody helps them do that, it's not going to happen and i don't see one party taking on that burden alone. so my suggestion is we should create a un-arab league, possibly african union force. not to manage libya, but to monitor and manage the borders. as a first step to allowing the government authorities to slowly be able to manage what is happening inside. and frankly, algeria, egypt, should naturally play a prominent role here. it does not mean that they should put forces inside libya. i'm not suggesting that. what i'm suggesting is we need to mon for the borders and since they have long borders with libya, they're naturally part of this game and it should be, frankly a un arab league,

african union force. i was going to skip egypt but i didn't think it would be fair to john if i did that, so i'll talk about egypt for a second. look, egypt is going through a fundament fundamental sociopolitical and economic situation. all of the numbers are egyptian but they apply to the rest of the world and we're trying to do that at a point in time when all of our borders are on fire. all problematic. so it's not -- the egyptian case was domestic. it's not an egyptian issue or geopolitical issue and for us to be able to solve all the questions i raised it's not easy when you look across the border and there's a problem on every side of it and i would joke frequently when i was foreign minister that my nightmares were more pleasant than my days.

first of all they were shorter and they ended and they weren't real. but that is the problem today. how are we going to, for example, respond to the economic needs or the need for security or the protection of our influence because it's of interest to us in the region. not only am i trying to define myself domestically but i also have borders on fire all over the place. this isn't taken lightly and people don't think there's an easy model to apply here. maybe just give you two pieces of information. from '52 to 2011, 60 years, you have four presidents. from 2011 to 2016 we've had four. that in itself shows you the amounts of change an the different forces being in play here. now it's not the whole story but it just sort of is one easy

example of understanding the magnitude of this. we went from a system of long stagnation to now at least from '11 until '16, until '14 with the elections to a system where the sense of authority broke down. everybody had an opinion in egypt and that's fine but everybody exercised the authority and that's not fine. that was in a run that in the past you always knew where the sense of authority was. there was, for decades and decades we saw an erosion of public politics and emphasis on centralized government and that shifted to a breakdown of authority and to this day, we rea pleuralistic society that needs to develop pleuralistic political ethics. a system that emotions prass everybody. everybody that is ready to put it's nationality as the primary definition of his commitment and

to follow the constitution. now as we do the institutional changes people want to have a different one in a sense. we have close to 3% population growth rate. i can't imagine to reach the objectivesor the responses to that kind of growth. with very strong challenges to our forces of income because of the five years that occurred. tourism, exports and we need to

grow for a number of years just to meet demand and we can't do that by taking traditional steps. it's important for us to take decisions and focus on projects that give you my professional career, which is quite long, we will always discuss using substance, well they decided to use subsidies, at least on energy and for 35 years we were discussing and never took the step. they put in a new vat tax.

it is important because what's important in this case, not as actually the income from the tax, but it starts defining the informal economy, which is almost equal to the official economy because the tax, you get the tax benefit incrementally if you participate, this, i think, is a very important issue. and security today is much better than what it was two years ago or four years ago. there are still problems on the western border with libya and there are problems with certain areas in the sinai. and unless we also deal with that, we won't reach our goal. but there is progress. now, where i think we can do better is as each from one p challenge to the other, it's important to enunciate more clearly what is the political and economic agenda, what's the vision, not the goals, what's

the vision? what kind of country are we trying to achieve so that we can all figure out whether the benefits or the cost each one of us individually are worth this process. and then also the projects, but i really believe it's important to understand that there are monthly stake holders, now. so it's enough to send a memo to those who have authority. everybody has a piece of the authority, so public discourse on vision is extremely important. i think we have -- well, we finished the road map, in other words we haven't -- like the parliament, we have a new constitution and all of those are important steps forward. we need now to see an ak tiff vibrant political system where all of these bodies are engaged and fulfilling their obligations. at the same time respecting the

separation of powers between one and the other because that's what will allow the checks and balances to function properly. and i under line this both the importance enunciating policy and the separation of powers because while i was joking about the challenges, there are of such a magnitude that if we don't get political public support for them, it can be very difficult to take the difficult decisions that are required, domestically or for that matter to regain our role regionally in particular and the reason it's on fire that's what would require public support of whether we decide to live active and to live on or in africa and so on. if you talk to any egyptian, i smile at some of you looking up

at me, talk to you about the importance of us gaining -- regaining our role in the middle east. i think it is important not only because it's something proud of. it is in egypt's national interest to preserve the nation's state system. we promote ourself as a nation state not as leader, not as indians, kurds or this or that. secondly, our leading role is always important. it wasn't about that. it was about being pioneer and developing new trends and peace of war and pushing new social concepts, well, women had the right to vote in egypt before switzerland. and people forget that, but that's actually true.

and war and peace in the middle east was basically defined by egypt. we need to regain that and the way we did it in the past wasn't by promoting policy, it was by having a country that others in our region felt was a model that they would like to em late. we never went around telling them they had to do what we did. they wanted to have the arts and sciences and music and education that they found in our system. so the beginning of regaining our own is creating for the egyptian people, 21st century modern society that they are proud and others would want toim lat -- to emulate, not necessarily 100%, but in different forms. and that i think something that

comes very closely with this issue of enunciating policy, domestic and region. let me spend a few minutes on foreign policy. four or five days after i came into office, i had the press conference, because i believe in the importance of speaking to the people and projected what i thought was the elements of egypts new foreign policy. two revolutions. what is the common word in both of them, freedom. what does freedom mean as foreign policy, you can either isolate yourself or have multiple choices. either or. you can't be a foreign policy player with two -- importing food and energy and being dependent on nags until kurt issue. you can't have one. you can't be free unless you have multiple options.

so the first point we made then. and it's still the policy today. we will defend the june 30th revolution, that's point one because that was imminent and urgent. secondly, it was to ensure we had freedom of choice and foreign policy. that's why we did not and we said this publicly and we say this today. we did not say we wanted to replace america by russia or china or by japan. we wanted to develop relations with russia and china and japan to give us more choices and consequently be healthier partner for all of these. so this point of diversifying your relations is extremely important point and it remains today a core issue in egypt's foreign policy. the second, frankly, was to regain our regional focus. we cannot claim to be the leaders of latin america. we k but nobody will believe us. so, seriously speaking, where can we actually have influence

and be taken seriously and where is it a priority for us in our neighborhood. regaining our foot hole in africa is extremely important. we continue to try to do this. i would like to see in egypt's foreign policy a wider, clearer explanation of scenarios for the future, what we expect to happen in the future and what -- how we would like to deal with it. i think our society is strong enough, healthy enough and has the depth to engage, or at least lead that discussion. it's -- it remains the only country in the region, especially in our book, but in the region generally that has interest from the rightful to live on down to the gulf and will comment and has commented

regularly on everything from war and peace in our region, climate change, social issues at the un and so on and so forth while most of the countries, for understandable reasons, started off with priorities immediately close to them. so i urge my colleagues back home and i do this publicly, there's no secret, that we are the only ones who have the ability to put forward options and business for the future they don't have to be accepted by it, but they should set the parameters for the discussion as we move forward. and i would like foreigners to look at each of them that way. i say this in america in particular, because americans have tended to look at egypt for decades and we have, occasionally, made that mistake of projecting ourselves in that fashion, as well egypt is the country that made peace with

this. we are and we did that for our own national interest and it still is in our national interest. but there's more to egypt to that. there's more things happening in the middle east than that. i will argue that egyptians need to promote themselves as the country that made peace first, but also the country that has influence on abc and d and this is how we look at the future. i remember in my past function, especially as a diplomat, when we talk to our colleagues in the west, they wouldn't bother to smile or pay attention. now, even as foreign minister, when i would talk about a new proposal, they would look, nobody really knows what the future is, we need to be the ones leading the discussion about that. syria, syria also was originally a domestic issue. it wasn't a go political issue or international. now, it is the worst humanitarian disaster in history

and it has that go far beyond and can influence the shape of the middle east completely and was the present actions between the u.s. and russia can go well beyond that if anybody miscalculates. i would add that i don't see any end in sight. i don't see an end on the battlefield and no battlefield success will bring all the forces together and lead to resolution. at the same time, there are no regional claims, arab or nonarab, directly or through surrogates that can resolve this on their own. the super powers, obviously, can't solve it on their own. so the logical answer, therefore, is if and when -- if

and when resolution is going to have to involve the two major powers, at least, russia and america, is going to have to involve a number of the regional players, as well as, of course, the syrians, not necessarily in that order, as well as the syrians. they can't solve it. the regional players can't solve it. and the foreigners can't solve it. it requires a grand bargain. and i don't see a grand bargain developing in the next six weeks or for that matter until you have a new president, possibly, a new administration. but this will drag on, i, nevertheless, for the sake of the hundreds that die every week in syria or those that move from their homes, i nevertheless, would highly recommend. and again i say this back home, even after your elections before

and new president is inaugurated. fears on both sides to see what is the ground rules here and are are we going, i don't think anybody in america thinks he can solve this alone and i can tell you from my meetings also with russians, they know they can't solve this alone either. and nobody has sort of the magic wand. it's not going to bed with one proposal on the table. so i would urge all of you, as i do my original colleagues, let's try to get some quiet diplomacy on going until we have a new record president and then we need to look at grand bargaining. yemen was also initially a domestic issue. the efforts by the u.n. are, frankly, the only in town. it's not a particularly active game, frankly. it's become now a domestic

issue, a sub regional issue in the gulf. and also an issue that involves tensions between the -- arab gulf countries and iran. so, again, it won't be resolved -- it will only be resolved either if you have a sense of fatigue where the parties feel this is simply costing too much to continue and therefore let's look for a compromise. or you get -- you have a rebalance and who has influence and who doesn't influence in the r region and that can't happen quickly. therefore, the real issue is the political rebounds, i think, and i've said this before, for the middle east to stabilize, yemen is just one example, there has

to be a serious dialogue between iran and saudi arabia and there has to be a serious dialogue between turkey and egypt. but before you start tweeting, i don't see either of them happening very quickly. and i actually believe that what's necessary is something the americans use to tell me very frequently and i would oppose, are some quiet confidence building steps from the iranians towards the gulf states and also from the turks towards egypt. and to try to build up little bit of the deal with the lack of trust that exists, so over -- so over time we can get into a more serious dialogue. many talk about the arab spring, but they forget a major component of the frustration and anger that exists, which is lack

of palestinian country, palestinian state, the lack of resolution for palestinian, while quiet on the ground in comparative terms is only so because there's more blood happening in other areas than in that theater, in particular. but it is the longest on going and it will continue to create problems for us in the future if we don't solve this. personally, i don't see progress, but i don't see a solution, except for the two-state solution. either we find ways to move forward towards the two-state solution, or are we going to end up with a one-state solution. i don't think one-state solution will respond to the national aspirations of the parties involved. but it should be -- one should be very carefully. we've gotten to the point where, you've got the choice to make, you want to keep your national

inspirations, it has to be in two states. you don't want to engage in that, you want to play with demographics and it will be a one step, but you can't kobt to have people under occupation for a century. now, to get there, i suggest the following. as an interim step until, again, you finish your elections, but that's not the only problem frankly. so just four points, package of four points, first of all, i want the palestinians and the israelis to announce that they support a two-state solution based on 1967 boundaries or territories, let's put it that way. that's the first. because i, frankly, question whether the support is there, particularly with the -- i don't think that present government and israel believe in two-state solution. that's point one. give me re -- point two, is

let's have direct negotiations between the israelis and palestinians and while they're occurring, security corporation between palestinians to continue and settlement activities should stop during negotiations irrespective of the legality of settlements or the arguments about settlements, but in order to move things forward. i would hold these direct negotiations under regional auspices with super power support. specifically, i would home them under egyptian auspices, our relations with israel are good, our relations with palestinians are good. they would have to have endorsement from america and russia. they can't be resolved simply with regional support. i will give them a 12-month term maximum.

now, these three points, i would add to them, the fourth, which is to give this a little bit more sense of purpose. i'd want these four points to be put in a security council resolution, simply saying you're doing to negotiate directly on the auspices of egypt, russia and america for about 12 months in the meantime while you do that, stop settlement and continue the security corporations. this would be the basis for what we do the next 12 months and the basis for the next administration. it's not a solution, but i'm very worried about ignoring this problem for too long and one will wonder, why are they shooting and throwing stones and so on and so forth. let me close with very few points. first of all, again, what's happening in the middle east is

fundamental. and it is very serious and institutional and it's composition, it will take time. don't assume that things can be resolved quickly. you can't ignore it. the region is on the preface of imploeg -- imploegs. but we need to be wise and patient without being complacent. we cannot afford apathy or complacent complacen complacency. i would urge arab countries to remain to look forward rather than backward. take a larger role in defining their own destiny, particularly on the management of the societies and national security issues. and it is imperative for the

leaders in the arab world to put forward models or 21st centuryicentury states with strong kablts to deal with the threats for tomorrow. you won't be surprised that i would emphasize and reiterate that i think egypt can play and should play a prominent role in this respect. i would urge the united states since i'm here, when i go to russia, i say similar things but different nature. but they're the same. i would urge states to adopt a three dimensional policy in the middle east, first you should embrace a strategic approach, not a tactical one. these issues won't be solved tactically. so you need to embrace a strategic policy, one that is focused on enhancing the domestic and regional capacity

of your friends and allies. so that they can play a larger role in their own future. while at the same time providing the necessary support for threats or major challenges. long-term capacity building should be the doctrine that you embrace in the middle east rather than quick fixes or immediate returns because they won't have a lot of shelf life wherever you want to keep them. secondly, to everybody, arab, u.s., international, we need to keep our eye on the nation state system. if we allow the system to break down because it's easier that it divides syria into three sectors, that provides libya into three sectors there are more imaginable. they are different any way, they

are different. but they are part of one country. and i would argue that the african union, one example, and it's -- its founding document, basically and correctly blame europe, but took the position that in spite of all of these failures and faults, it is more dangerous to try to redefine borders and redefine nation state system than it is to move forward and look towards the future. again, i under line while world war i conspiracies, or conspiracies, you've all admitted to that. i don't think trying to dismantle the world is the best way to move forward. and i won't stop in the middle east, by the way, if you start doing that. let me start with those points and i'm open to any questions.

thank you very much. [ applause ] thank you very much on those comments. i'm is senior vice president. i direct the middle east program and also have the chair in global security and go strategy here in clris. as we contemplate quickly going to the audience. i want to pick up on the idea you expressed about egypt being the model and egypt being the kind of place that egypt would want to come. you described a much more decentralized world and much more decentralized arab world, where old patterns of governance don't work as well. but egypt has had centralized

governance for a very long time. people has said it comes down to the need for egypt and irrigation. how do you think egypt now has to think about decentralization to become the governance model, the economic model for the rest of the arab world. >> well, let me start by saying i think it's important that we all admit, including egypt, but all of this that it's occurring. the issue is it occurring in a managed fashion or not. the fact that anybody in the street today can convey information and therefore effect public opinion is decentralization of information. so i think we have to go beyond the idea that we can prevent multi stake holders. egypt is a large country with big problems so there will have

to be, and i support this. a strong government, but it's the management of governance, not the form of governing. we have repeatedly talked about decentralizing municipalities. we have talked about giving more authorities to governors locally. and, frankly, i think that's the way to go. now, so my response to that is, one, everybody should stop assuming that they can prevent centralization, you can't. so let's manage it in a proper fashion. and it's going to take time. i mean, we have some laws on the books in egypt that go back almost as long as america exists, frankly, it's not doing to happen over night. that's why i said, let's be wise and be patient, but let's not be complacent or hypothetical. >> throuank you. we have some microphones if you wait for the lady over here. >> first of all, thank you, this

was a fascinating talk and we all learn from it. my name is mindy, i'm vice president of ngo global peace services. i don't need to tell you that economic issues have one of the triggers of the arab spring and the concern of young people that the future looks bleak. shimon, paris, i'm sure in your long career, had a vision of technological sharing among some of the countries in the region, of course that would be egypt. where do you see the economic power in the coming years, the future for young people. what are some of the creative initiatives going on to give them a sense of investment in their future and in the growth and strength of egypt. >> that's an excellent point. the egyptian government has put a lot of emphasis on implementing projects and frankly it's an