replacement treaty and afghanistan, an upgrade for the military connections, but the most important part of this trip to moscow is going to be his discussions with vladimir putin. . @ @ @ n%@ )@ @ @ r @ @ @ @ @ @ now the core problem mr. obama' the core problem mr. obama is going to have in dealing with mr. putin is i think he has developed a sense he can do whatever he wants to do with nearly absolute impunity.

there's a long list of offense that bolstered this sense over the years. think it's also clear mr. putin has a chip on his shoulder about the size of the rock of gibraltar. and finally mr. putin believes that for now russia has the upper hand vis-a-vis the united states that washington needs to make the fundamental concessions, in other words, do all of the study. i think this feeling of powerful, over confident is not going to make it easy in moscow. there are three things i would start with in what i think mr. obama needs to convey to mr. putin in very clear terms. i start with georgia. once again we hear rumors of the possibility of russian preparations for war, to finish the unfinished business. this absolutely cannot happen. # last year as conflict was a massive blow to the security in the region and the world. obama must on the one hand assure putin that the georgian

president has been told there is no justification for responding to any russian prove racings with military force. and also to be clear about what other consequences are in the event that russia were to invade georgia again. iran, i think mr. obama needs to be very clear -- on the plan tone gauge iran the united states is prepared to take in the likely it proves intanning gent with its nuclear program. the come to jesus moment, so to speak, is likely to be upon us in the next year. i think the most likely scenario will have us coming back to impose very harsh economic sanctions. this is going to be the decision point where moscow would have to have its typical strategy of playing both sides and decide whether they are with us or against us. finally, afghanistan. obviously a very, very high priority for the obama administration. while the russians have been cooperative in opening the door to the transit corridor where

the northern distribution network, as the military refers to it and there's likely to be an agreement announced in moscow on the transfer of lethal material through russian territory, the russian position on our use of the military base raises serious questions about how moscow sees its interest. officially the crem lane proved last week the decision to allow us access, but their behavior going back to the beginning of the year suggests that really they don't want to see us there. and i think that moscow may very well prefer to maintain their position in central asia rather than see our success in afghanistan. afghanistan is a vital national security interest where lives of u.s. soldiers are at stake. and obama's got to make clear that any ambiguity of moscow's report is not going to be taken likely. there are a lot of questions about moscow as a partner with the united states.

but anybody -- i was in st. petersburg for the economic forum two days later putin apparently's decision to blow off russia's negotiations for a session of the w.t.o. i think raises these questions for all parties, including his own government, which in my view was caught completely offguard by this decision to enter in the arrangement and prosecute sue the w.t.o. that way -- pursue the w.t.o. that way. thanks very much. >> well, in the fine tradition of the think-tank i may, indeed, disagree with my colleague a little bit. i want to focus my comments on the second day. maybe after the hour that president obama meets with prime minister putin. i've been for the last several weeks involved in organizing what is a parallel civil society summit that's going to happen on the second day. it will begin on the first day. but we are hoping that we get

senior representatives to both governments coming to us on the second day. this is a different kind of meeting. we have about 75 american and russian experts coming together. americans primarily who worked on the u.s. coming together with russians who have worked on russia. so we have colleagues from the acin orderable -- affordable housing field, the human rights field, who work with me on trying to close guantanamo and torture and indefinite detention in this country. we have non-infectious disease specialists, work journalists coming together with russian working journalists to talk about new media. takes different model because typically over the last 20 years the united states civil society was supported -- with support from the u.s. government has really proached russia as -- approached russia as almost a problem to be fixed. we started with humanitarian asignificance tans --

assistance. we had democracy assistance. over time this assistance has been increasingly ineffective, unwelcome. and frankly it hasn't created the kind of space that we hope our colleagues would enjoy. and it hasn't increased their capacity. whether that's working journalists or in the human rights field or an environmental field. so this is a different kind of model. now, why are we doing this? we're doing it in part because we didn't want to see the summit, in fact, be only about arms control. this relationship is more than just arms control. and i think that in some of the statements that you've seen coming from the obama administration before they travel that they are very aware of this and that is their hope as well. on the second day we're expecting president obama is going to meet with a series of different parts of civil society. we hope that that includes our civil society summit. but it's also in response to some small incremental changes

that we've seen in russia over the last several weeks. what are these? president medvedev did his first interview with a newspaper where four of their journalists have been killed over the last couple of years. the interview itself is not remarkable but the fact of the interview was. he rue constituted his presidential council on human rights, which is populated by genuine human rights activists. and they've met and convened a couple of times. this is extremely welcomed from the human rights community. and engaging colleagues in moscow and the region, people who experience tremendous amount of pressure from the authorities over the last couple of years. their view is to act as if there is, in fact, some change. that if there isn't change, we're going to find out soon

enough. and so they're extremely glad to have american colleagues coming to meet with them in the six society summit. i think everybody hopes president obama and president medvedev will show up. and the idea to move from assistance to a pure engagement. we're going to see if that's possible. rhetoric in russia matters in the sense that if you think back 10 years ago, back 10 years ago this month, prime minister putin was then the head of the f.s.b. he gave an interview to a newspaper in which he talked about the problem with foreign assistance is that it's going to environmental movement n.g.o.'s. it means that they're in the employ of foreign intelligence. and after that statement a whole series of environmental organizations were investigated. and senior kremlin officials

have made similar statements over the years that have resulted in lights going on all over russia and investigations occurring. so a change in rhetoric matters in the russian context. it's not everything. but we will be looking to see if there is action that follows. and, you know, we'll see what this big experiment brings. i think with that i'll open it up. >> we're going to take questions on the moscow summit now. as i said before, we're going to bring in our other colleagues to talk about the g-8 and africa. i also want to mention there's some material that have been passed out to you, including a book about what's going to happen with policy following the bush years in africa. if you're in front of a microphone and you can identify yourself with a question, it would be helpful. >> francine keefer from the "christian science monitor." so obama's going to be giving a speech at this economics

university. and i wanted to ask you what you thought -- how that would be -- how much would be allowed to be broadcast. i don't have a sense of what is actually going to reach russians. and what you think it can do in terms of changing russian public opinion which is pretty negative itself about the united states right now. >> they've asked that it be televised. i haven't heard whether or not that request has been -- is it? >> well, what i heard is that it's going to be televised on our tv1 which is a cable network with quite limited distribution. it's not going to be televised on the major national russian tv networks. so in a very modest concession, sort of reminiscent of the chinese, bill clinton. >> this is a very important speech. he's got to do a lot of different things.

at the same time. you're right, the opinion of the u.s. is quite negative. but i'll tell that you in survey that we've done, there has been a difference between how people view americans and how they view bush administration policies. and i think the kind of message that president obama delivered to the united states as well as to international audiences where it's not only been a reset with russia, but he's been in the business of repairing the damage that's been done over the last eight years and how people view the united states. you know, that this is a government and an administration that's going to be much more interested in engaging, in talking to critics as well as friends and allies. and that they're working specifically on a series of changing policies that the bush administration adopted.

but the trick is that the kind of message that is very appealing in europe, i just don't know how it's going to play in russia. when you are admitting -- if the president does this -- i don't know -- the speech is being written out. it's not finished. if you're speaking about who we are in our journey, you know, we're not perfect. and the last couple of years haven't been very good. and generally the tendency for russia is not to admit any kind of weakness. so i don't know whether or not that's going to be seen as welcomed or not. i think he's got to do it. i think he'll be able to deliver that message. i don't think -- there's some disagreement among colleagues, but i don't think russians really know very much about him, to be honest i think even just talking about his personal journey is going to be important it challenges a lot of the stereotypes that russians have about who we are and our

history. >> to add a couple of words. i think it's great that he's giving the speech, in particularly at the new economic school. i personally have ties to it, given grants to it, working with the mac arthur foundation in the 1990's, we're working very closely with the director here at csis. but you guys have seen the polling numbers out of the university of maryland study recently. unfortunately it appears that according to these numbers that the russians are amongst the least receptive and most skeptical about positive change coming out of the obama administration. so i think he's going to be facing a pretty difficult challenge, considerably more difficult than what he faced in cairo. >> jonathan? >> hi. "wall street journal." i just want to ask about the issue of the missile defense installations in eastern europe

and nato enlargement. i was somewhat surprised by the tone that was taken yesterday on the conference call in which he said, you know, we are not going to be offering any kind of reassurance -- we're not using the word reassurance. we're not in the business of negotiating away anything. we had been hearing that actually the obama administration might be willing to offer some kind of quiet, back room reinsurances -- reassurances on both issues. so i was curious what you thought of the tone and what the russians might be expecting on those two issues. >> a crack at that one first. the russians are plenty aware that the obama administration is less than enthusiastic about missile events in general. democratic administrations are

less enthusiastic about missile defense in general back to the reagan administration. they've clearly understood the tone that was on the campaign trail and subsequently. so they are going -- they are bargaining hard. it's still a possibility that the agreement to agree on the frame agreement could be torpedoed by a failure to rescue absolute reassurance that we've changed our policy. i don't think that's the case. think where the problem is going to come is down the road in december when there needs to be a signing of an agreement. there's not going to be any signed agreement about the replacement treaty next week in moscow. if the russians i think don't see, they will hold out signing that agreement later on in the year if they don't see some satisfaction on the missile issue. i think the administration finds itself kind of painted into a

corner on this defense as it's simply not politique right now to russian who's don't seem to be particularly interested in making concessions themselves. >> i am look at the comments right now. i think a lot of people thought the summit was going to focus on arms control on the first day that, oh, ok, so that means that it's basically reset but a reset back to the days when we mainly talked about arms control. the idea that, you know, civil society, democracy, human rights wouldn't be on the agenda. it's crazy. but to the point is that the obama administration is trying to set a policy that can walk and talk at the same time, they can address these other issues, but that it's not going to be done in the kind of tradeoff, do

this in order to be able to do that. you know, this isn't about -- i think that was the point he was trying to make. >> the other questions on russia? ok. we're going to pull in our other scholars. thanks to sarah and andy. if do you have questions on russia coming up, please contact me and we will put you in touch with these two. thanks.

>> good morning. we're joined by an esteemed panel here to discuss the g8, the trip to africa by president obama. on my left, heather couldn'tly, our new director of csis europe program. on my right, jennifer cook,

director of our africa program. and on the far right, ruben jeffrey, our new senior advisor who covers a range of different issues. we're hopefully going to be joined by our senior vice president, director of global. steve, right there. welcome, steve. i want to turn quickly to the panel. i just want to raise three quick broad points before doing so. and first, to the press and public, this probably seems like deja vu. a couple of weeks ago, april, we were talking about president obama going to the major summit in europe, discussing the economy at the g20. i think this shows the challenges of the g8 in general, the great flux that there will be another g20 summit in 2010. so the appropriate title for next week might be something more along the lines of g-question mark or g-fill in the blank. it's going to start with the traditional g8 but rapidly

crescendo to expand much of the globe. this has raised questions about whether the g8 is suffer from an identity crisis. but i think as today we look at the world we may need some institution that seemed to have a multiple personality disorder in the sense that the world is now a multi-polar but on different issues, multi-tiered and dimensional. the europeans troafer this as variable geometry. i think the italians deserve credit for tackling this head on. though i know from the g8 crime terrorism negotiations, it can be essential to add other nations but also makes it more difficult to get concrete actions, which raises the second point. whether it's the g2, g8, g20, g39, is it going to result in concrete action? i think even the most generous commentators on the g8 have often noted there's not much follow-up in areas like development or aid.

many of the agenda items, targeting the far doesn't future tore faction long after the current leaders have been in retirement. this raises questions on current issues like the financial crisis, whether it will move beyond broad statements to a consensus on things like stimulus trade or that statement saying no new protectionism, constantly say we go need to revise -- we saw the 17 of the 20 enact new protection measures. seen by chinese actions. these efforts to kind of shake and pump new life haven't yet produced new signs of life. the obama statements may provide more hope on that. the afghanistan, we have a new strategy for local funding to match the revenue with the troops going forward. but before we get to pessimistic, a lot of times summits very useful, particularly in addressing emerging issues. i think the example on this up sit why -- summit is probably iran where you look at weeks ago

they were talking about being new guests, starting a new dialogue. now it's sort of a 18 # and sanctions are on the table so it helps coordinate it in a rapidly changing world. and finally, i think this turmoil in the g8, g20 is indicative of a larger issue. weighs look at president obama an others -- and others looking to the 20th century institutions, some of the built in the 1940's to address 21st century problems. kind of like using an old dos operating system and trying to operate on the internet today. while people thought the financial crisis may reboot some of these institutions, we're seeing tensions turn more inward. i think a recent u.s. poll had the top priority of americans, foreign policy, defense, terrorism were all 1%, iraq i think was 2%. the environment was less than 1%. the economy was 38%. we had jobs 57%. so i think it raises the question of whether these broad statements on these actions by leaders are going to be backed

by real concrete efforts. you know, that cut to the economy or call for sacrifice. so with that i'd like to turn to heather and our other esteemed colleagues. >> thank you, steven. guess i'm going to provide the color commentary of the panel. as i looked at next week's g8 summit, my frame of reference as i go back to last year's family photo to see who's standing and who's still there and who's in potential trouble. and i think looking at our european leaders, we have a real interesting sort of set of agendas and priorities, and under certain elements of political durres. i think beginning with prime minister gordon brown, he has had a couple of very difficult weeks which were obviously brought on by the scandal of the misuse of government funds.

and were really solidified after the european parliament elections where he really took a drumming. his popularity right now stands at 25%. that's the lowest of the european leaders who will converge to the g8 summit. the question now is when will he depart from the scene? how will it happen? and the timing of that. so i think certainly prime minister brown comes to this in a much weakened state. prench president sarkozy also has had a two-year mid course correction. he has reshuffleled his cabinet -- reshuffled his cabinet. think you're seeing leaders make political adjustments to the economic crisis. he remains popular, 43%. but he has suffered some setbacks on his agenda. the conversation after president obama's visit there in june was the president didn't spend sufficient quality time with

president sarkozy. i think you're also hearing that refrain a little bit after president obama's visit to dresden. again, you're starting to see a lot of conversation about the personal dynamics between president obama and some of these select european leaders. and that's starting to dominate sort of the conversation over the substance. the chancellor was here on friday. had a very long and substantive meeting with president obama. she's facing national elections on september 27. but yet remains very popular, 60%. in fact, she's the second most popular global figure after president obama. so she actually comes into this interestingly three months away from elections, but she remains very popular in germany. her visit here in washington i think you'll hear a lot of the similar refrains around the table as g8. it is climate change all day,

all the time. and she's wanting to push as vigorously as possible for some very strong public commitments by president obama. and i'll touch on that in a moment. in that family photo from japan last year, you had the european commission president. he's still looking to do his job interview. he's not sure when he's going to do it and with whom. this is again in part due to the uncertainties over the evolving european institutional structures, preliz ban treaty and post lisban treaty. and finally, the best for last, prime minister berlusconi. it makes you smile. he has been in the news of late. i found it very interesting that the italian president recently called for a truce amongst italian press because they want

the summit to go smoothly. they don't want the words call girl splintering into the headlines. think the prime minister would welcome a slow news cycle coming out of the g8. they're trying to put to rest, if you'll recall, in 2001 when they last hosted the g8 summit, there were violent protests. a protester was shot and killed. there were a lot of internal dynamics following that death. and i think they want to see obviously a very smooth performance here. and, again, looking to popularity, prime minister better lesbetter less scoany ha. i think the italian politics have a capacity of the scandal. i think you see where it is affecting his popularity and his maneuverability. on italy, again, just picking up on a comment that steven said, you know, the italians as host

have to be mindful that they are sort of a poster child, if you will, for unfulfilled g8 commitments. and that's particularly true on development aid. think you will see certainly some public criticism, particularly from the humanitarian assistance community. they just have not. stalk pretty cheap. they haven't fulfilled their commitments. again, very briefly, the two things that i would look for. what european leaders are going to be looking for. climate change. and the big comment now is whether president obama will make a public commitment to the so-called two degree goal. that is ensuring that we will limit the rise of global temperatures by two degrees celsius. again, i think european leaders, and this is reflective of the miracle visit. i think you will see they will publicly praise the obama administration for great leadership. and obviously a very robust approach after eight years of

inaction on climate change. and they want to seize this moment. i think they want to ensure that president obama makes some really firm commitments. but they're also aware of the legislative and domestic agenda we have here. it coincided with the passing of the waxman marquise bill. they know this is delicate. i don't think they'll push too much on the public side but i think they will privately push president obama to make really strong commitments. and finally, look to the g8 statement on iran. you're starting to see some real shaking dynamics in europe on how to address iran. you have the british being extremely forward leaning, obviously shaken when nine of their embassy staff in tehran were taken. eight have been returned. one still in question. one is still held. you start hearing sanctions. you start hearing where a temporary recall of e.u. ambassadors. but then on the other hand you're hearing german and

italians issuing caution. so we want to see if there will be a strong, unified position coming out of the g8 from the europeans on how to proceed vis-a-vis iran so with that i will hand it over to ruben. >> in so far as the g8 meetings are concerned, there will obviously be a lot of discussion about the global process and international world economic conditions. while not the only theme, the only topic of discussion is going to be climate change, there's going to be major discussions on goods, environment, etc. the he will fabt in the room remains very much the state of the world economy. think of this g8 meeting and the attended participants, the g5 and the other countries in the national organizations who are going to be part of the series of meetings that will take place at the end of next week.

think of it as a bridge when it comes to the global financial crisis between london's g20 meeting and the upcoming pittsburgh g20 meeting. accordingly, the challenge for prime minister berlusconi and others is to make that bridge meaningful to endorse the work that has been done to date to support it, to give it new momentum and where appropriate to encourage new initiative and continued focus on important, ongoing work streams. in particular, should watch for sort of the following four things. what the leaders say about the state, the current state of world financial markets and the global economy. i think one can expect some guarded assurances as to the current state of affairs, i.e. some degree of stability has returned to global financial markets. and there is certainly data out there that would suggest the economic crisis at least in the

developed world has bottomed out and there may be signs of restored, albeit modest, economic growth. but there are going to be no victory laps. secondly, one can expect renewed and redoubled commitment to take the measures necessary to assure that the world economy stays on a path of positive, economic growth. which is to say commitments to do additional measures. if necessary, if there's a turn for the worse and continue to work at the ongoing problem of stabilizing the banking system and addressing the challenges of legacy assets and some of the major banking institutions around the world. out of that series of discussions will also be some reference to it. the finance ministers issued to weeks ago about the need for some forward-looking thinking on

exit strategies from some of the many extraordinary measures that have been taken today with which all of you are well familiar. third, there will be strong endorsement, one would hope and expect, of the ongoing work commissioned by the g20 but undertaken by various bodies including the oecd, the i.m.f., the financial stability board, in the areas of financial market, architecture, regulatory reform, the treatment of tax havens, efforts by other bodies to address the challenges of money laundering and terrorists finance. fourth and probably the signature piece, at least in this area of financial market development, economic growth, will be publication of the so hiefd called -- so-called framework agreement. it's a document that was mooted

at the finance ministers meeting. especially it's a document rumored to be some 60 pages but that provides intellectual and philosophical, conceptual ideas to a lot of the work that is being taken in more specific micro areas of financial sector reform, corporate governance, transparency of national accounts and macroeconomic policy, tax havens, etc. the theory here of the case is to step back and establish some common principles of behavior related to pro priority -- propriety, integrity and transparency in business and commercial and governmental conduct with the view that assuming people adhere to such standards and such principles it will be a lot less difficult to regulate and guide financial

market participant behavior going forward in ways that procludes or prevents a return to the kind of excesses that we've all seen, experienced, and are living through over the past several years and currently. but the idea of that conceptual document is to provide guidance, specific guidance, for the various work streams in corporate governance, integrity, financial regulation, tax compliance and data provision by various national governments. governance. again, to facilitate greater fluidity, greater transparency, and over arching theme to rebuild confidence of all of you and us and other market participants in the financial markets in their integrity structure and method of operation. this framework then would go to the work of the g20 to help

guide the ongoing work of the various subsidiary bodies of the g20 and i think set the stage for an even higher level of discussion on principles but also specific implementation issues in pittsburgh come september. >> i'm going to talk a bit about the president's trip to began i can't, which would be -- ghana which would be his first as president. i think this would be an opportunity for the president to lay out broad parameters of his africa policy which to date he has not yet done. i think aside from the immediate crises in sudan, zimbabwe, se somali and so forth on which he has spoken. emphasis will be on the need for strong, capable, accountable institutions.

and i think very importantly civic responsibility, civic engagement by civil society, youth engagement and so fonch. he will likely speak to his own campaign and his own history in community organizing and so forth. there's a strong concern that the rollback in democracy would be seen over the last decade. country that we thought were on a fairly good democratic trajectory, kenya, madagascar and others, had seen serious setbacks in the last couple of years. that's very concerning. and then obviously the cases of continued egregious governance. zimbabwe, nigeria, sudan and somalia. there may be a focus in this administration on those country that are making progress. but like kenya, madagascar, even like ghana, are still fragile and need attention and support. pardon the voice.

at the g8's, all of these founding countries, the new economic partnership for african development, who will be present, as well as the leadership of the african union, the new economic partnership founded in the early 2000's was moved by african leaders to take responsibility for governance and so forth. i think he'll use that opportunity to reinvigorate african leadership on the questions of governance which has been neglected over the last eight years or so. he'll have a strong emphasis on food security. i think steve morrison is going to talk about that major initiative that would probably be a large focus within the g8. and a refocus on agriculture. despite the expansion of u.s. engagement in africa over the last eight years agriculture and sustainable food security has been missing from u.s. policy.

really since the late 1970's when we did do much more in that front. the food crisis last year woke a lot of people up to this issue. i think we're going to see a shift in food security from kind of emergency measures to hopefully longer terms, sustaining engagement in building african capacities in agricultural growth. surely there will be a strong emphasis on health, education, and social services generally. building on the strong focus on h.i.v. within the bush administration, this administration has agreed -- more than doubling under the bush administration to help. and broadening the scope in that to malaria, t.b. and importantly maternal child health and family planning services. again, areas in the expansion

under the bush years got kind of push add side and shouldn'ted -- shunted aside. so i think broader health issues and challenges and how do you build health capacity over all to lift all of those and not simply the h.i.v. aspect. finally, i think a strong emphasis on partnership with african countries and strong, stable, capable african countries on the security challenges, where there are many conflict in africa, the counterterrorism issues, and then kind of the looming and new emerging challenges. west africa has become a major focus in the narcotics transfer route. that's front and center in johnny carson's mind. a climate change, obviously, one of the smallest contributors to global warming but will be among

the most vulnerable there. why ghana on this trip? i think this is an opportunity to highlight a country that has a significant and fairly steady progress along the democratic track. it's a country that in the 1980's and early 1990's, suffered a whole slew of coups and instability, which is kind of your typical west african state and has kind of really pulled out of that now had five successive election that have been deemed free and fair. the most recent one was very closely contested, very tense in instances, came to a runoff between the two elite contenders. and the opposition party eventually won which is a major turning point, i think. it came in at the same time as obama did to office. and so it's a chance, again to kind of highlight a success rather than the per petal --

understandable but unfortunate focus on crises. i think the president, too, will highlight america's long-standing history with ghana. ghana obviously was a key hub in the slave trade, make a visit to the coast castle, which i think will be a very moving experience. it was a key hub in the slave trade. ghana was the first country to declare its independence from the colonial powers. the president drew a lot of his inspiration from african-american civil rights activists, particularly marcus garvey. on the governance issue and health issue, ghana has demonstrated it's investing in its people. it's one of the few countries in africa that has met the pledge which all african countries made to invest 15% of its budget,

g.d.p., into health. and it is doing so, although there are still major challenges, particularly in maternal child health and rural health access. ghana is also a millennium challenge corporation compact country. it's received $547 million compact over a five-year period. it's chosen to use that money and craft its compact focus on agriculture, rural development infrastructure and training, all of which fit with the security theme. it has discovered oil and is likely to produce -- begin producing oil not on the scale of kno nigeria but significant r ghana in 2012. that's going to be a major challenge to the institutions and mechanisms, oversight, competition with communities and so forth. so that will be something to highlight. finally, ghana's seen as an important partner on the security front. it's been a regular contributor

to peacekeeping operations in africa. under the previous president, led a number of regional meddation efforts. he flew to kenya during the crisis there. and in those kind of large continental issues ghana has definitely punched above its weight. the questions of sudan and somalia will surely come up. i think sudan, there's some confusion. i think there are conflicting messages coming out of the administration on what the administration sudan policy will be. i think there's still a debate going on within the administration on how best to move forward. does it respond to pressure or do we try to craft policies, engagement, incentives and so forth? i don't think that debate is resolved. different elements of the

administration kind of emphasizing different aspects there. and then somalia, which is looking -- the u.s. has just committed -- not significant but committed to helping the transitional, very weak transitional, federal government there to what end it's not entirely certain that government is hanging by a threat right now. and i think it's going to be a major impending challenge for the administration. i'll stop there and answer a few questions. and quickly, steve before we open it up for questions. >> thank you and good morning. i'm just going to offer some comments on the food security interception, what's going to happen at the g8 summit. this will be a very prominent piece of what the obama administration will be pushing on the development side of the

equation. there will be a considerable amount of discussion around the health initiative. but the food security piece has been pushed quite hard within the g8, the prepatory steps leading up to the summit. i'll say a bit more what that means in the background and why this has surf fassed. the review that jennifer and i completed with an aid of a number of other authors, the review of u.s. africa policy and the bush administration. you might look in there because in the course of that year-long effort of reviewinged what happened in the bush years and what was likely to happen looking forward in the obama administration, we flagged at that time the notion that there was an argument in favor of renewing -- of the u.s. renewing its commitments in making a priority of rural development and food security as a central feature of u.s. foreign policy engagement with africa and

beyond. and in fact, that has turned out to be true. there's several reasons for that. one is simply the logic is that we disengaged in the early 1980's. donors, u.s. and others, disengaged and walked out of this sector. it's now intensively reengaging. the obama administration announced that the g20 summit, the billion dollar 10-year initiative, as secretary clinton is expected to roll out a strategy around that, prior to or around the summit. it's going to be the central subject of discussion, food security, long-term reinvestment in agriculture as a solution for that. it's going to be a central dimension of the g8 meeting with the african leadership, which will include nigeria, senegal, egypt, south africa, libya.

so there's a sense that's driving the u.s. policy calculations that there was a disengagement. there's chronic hunger. we've seen all of this exposed very dramatically last spring as food prices spiked and fuel prices spiked and you had food riots across the couldn't nent and elsewhere. and it was becoming clear that there needed to be a strati for changing -- strategy for changing the way we do our relief towards more reliance on local purchase. but beyond that to reengage in the terms of ag productivity, infrastructure, research and education, renewing university exchanges and public-private partnerships. those are going to be the big themes that are put forward along with trying to make sure can you find worthy africa country partners that are going

to pick this issue up and push on it. there's a sense that this is an area that's been neglected, essential for stability, for getting us out of the food relief forever mentality that we settled into. today we put about $1.2 billion a year in emergency food relief into africa. until very recently we were putting about $60 million a year in long-term rural development. we're now moving to $100 million a year that will be going toward that. you'll hear more detail. as another factor of important background to this, the obama administration's building off of a surge of interests that has been building over the last couple of years here in the united states. you have senators lugar and casey leading an effort on the senate side. matched on the house side by representatives mcgovern and emerson and others. you had a major effort undertaken by the chicago council of global affairs and partnership with the bill and melinda gates foundation.

the foundation on its long-term development side. that is a top priority. they're putting $1 billion a year into development. this is one of their top priorities. the chicago council pushed this. there was an elite, high-level effort. they delivered their report, the preliminary report, during the transition to the obama administration. they followed up with a full report. shortly there after early this year it's been embraced, taken up. there's been a large mobilization of non-governmental and activists entities. the one campaign, the bread for the world, there's been a lot of related efforts. this has gotten strong support at the world food program and others. so we've had this unusual mobilization here. and it's been embraced and moved forward by the obama administration as a priority. we're going to see it front and center at the g8.

and it will be twinned it will be sort of side by side with the health initiative. it will also be used as an instrument for reinventin usaid. the development has been hollowed out, neglected, needs to be reconstructed in a deliberate fashion. it's turned back towards rural development, long-term investments. it's going to be one of the avenues for doing that. i'll just stop there. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i'd like to open it up to questions right now. >> i just wanted to follow up on two things. you mentioned the climate change thing. dot other g8 leaders like what the president is doing and congress is doing on climate change or do they just like it because it's more than bush?

and secondly, on protectionism and free trade, dot other leaders -- do the other leaders view president obama as the protectionist was in the campaign or the free trade or he says he is now? >> thank you. i think i'll address the climate change. maybe steve and reuben, you'll want to talk about the protectionism i think there's a complete recognition of our european leaders that president obama is quantitatively and qualitatively different on climate change. but they are concerned about particularly, the waxman-marquee bill that it didn't go nearly as far enough. i'm not technically capable but to go into a brief description, the bill has u.s. committed to reducing by 17%, the carbon reduction target at 2005 levels.

what the europeans have asked farce 20, 20, 20, meaning a 20% commitment by 2020. but they're using 1990-base levels so if you take what the commitment is in the bill and you take it to a 1990 level, it's only a 4% target. europeans would like to see a much more defined and robust target. this is write think you have to -- the europeans acknowledge they have to give president obama some domestic space to work this process out here. in a way, all of this is leading to the climax of the copenhagen climate conference in december. the european leaders see the g8 summit as a huge marker. they've got to see some stronger commitments. they're very fearful that they're just going to run straight into december and they're not going to see some hard and fast targets. so, again, i think the message

here, you're going to see the european leaders publicly praise the president for his leadership. and rightly so. i think privately they're really going to drive to see where they can go they want to seize the moment, seize the momentum, and see these commitments. climate change, and this is write think we have a different prior advertisation, is just one of the number one priorities for europe. our agenda is very, very full. it is important. but for the europeans, it's just critical. steven, i think i'll turn to you for protection. >> reuben, on the trade issue? >> remember, that the discussions on climate change will take place in the major economies meeting format which ch will be on the last day -- which will be on the last day of this whole series of proceedings. that involves not just the g8 it involves all the major economies including india, china, everybody else. so it's important when one thinks about the u.s. position on all of this yet one has to

recognize that the european position, while amongst european countries is broadly consistent, it's very different from where other countries are. therefore, the u.s. plays an absolutely pivotal role in trying to bridge gaps and facilitate some kind of, you know, agreement, even if it's just principle short of a commitment. i'm not sure based on commentary that -- in past practice that one will see a commitment, maybe one won't. what's very much on everybody's mind is that this is one of the last major groupings of the world leaders before the copenhagen summit or the meetings at the end of the year. >> just briefly on trade, i think there was a lot of trepidation going in at the start of the obama administration where where he was going to go on trade.

we've seen a lot of great talk about reviving strayed about moving -- reviving trade. think the question is going to be will there be action and have they missed this window with trying to push the climate trade legislation, health care, all of the items on the agenda. they've made recent statements about moving forward. but the real risk we run here -- we have to remember it's not just the g20. the south korean president will be there, which had the u.s. in limbo for over two years. the real risk within the e.u. is getting close to signing an f.d.a. the real risk is while we kind of can't get -- the trade agreements are stalled, the rest of the world moves forward. there's over 300 agreements out there that exclude the united states. are we going to wake up and see the u.s. trade leadership gone? i think the obama administration as it indicated good intention but the question is, what is the time frame and how do you prioritize? >> [question inaudible] >> i think they have a better sense that he's more open

towards trade than was indicated in the campaign. i guess it's hard to get a sense. and i think they would share this about what priority it is in terms of an agenda. other question? that said, thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> in a few moments, your calls and comments live on "washington journal" then a discussion on iraq with a former c.i.a. intelligence officer.

and after that, experts on what president obama can learn from history. >> this weekend discussions with presidential advisors from richard nixon to george w. bush. tonight at 8:00 eastern relations with the chief executive. saturday morning at 10:00, getting congressional and public support for presidential agendas. and then lessons learned. that's sunday at 4:25 p.m. eastern. all on c-span. >> these place reez mind me of modern -- places remind me of modern cathedrals. >> walter kirn, princeton, class of 1983, would like to see a few changes to the higher education system. >> i think, for example, princeton flol if i should be on the -- philosophy should be on the web. think these wonderfully concentrated islands of talent

and wealth should be opened up to the larger society not kept separate which they still are. i can't understand why. >> walter kirn, the under education of an over achiever on "q&a." you can also listen on x.m. satellite radio or download the c-span podcast. .