large extent? >> there is two points to that response. first, in the two largest cases prior to madoff case, the overwhelming majority of investors were in complete control of their accounts within 10 days of the failure. and we're very proud of that result at lehman brothers and m.j.k. clearing which collapsed -- >> i understand that. >> in this case the utter lack of records makes it very, very difficult to answer your question. there are still 7,000 boxes of records in the control of the prosecutor that is difficult to access and they aren't digital records. we're working with that as fast as we can. 71% of the people have had their claims determined. and we will get the rest of them out as fast as we can. the complications involve when accounts are tied to others and when accounts are tied to

insiders. when accounts are split. and those are very, very difficult accounting procedure. >> there is problems with getting the records from the prosecutor? is that what i am hearing? >> i think we have transparency back to sometime in the 80's but we don't have complete transparency on all the records. >> because? >> the sheer volume and it is one answer. >> what about the prosecutor? you said 7,000 records are -- >> tibbi believe the prosecutor on the ongoing criminal investigation still has a large segment of the records. we access those, but we don't have complete access to them. >> to try to give me a short answer, which i am sure the folks behind you and watching would be your anticipated -- in light of the constraints and the fact this is the largest case you have ever handled this and in light of the difficulties and a reasonable answer to a reasonable time frame would be, in light of all those hardships would be? >> a year. >> secondly, with regard to the

money and i think i was just coming in on this question as well. and the gentleman from new york was asking about the old fee and the new fee and what have you. the new fee that was out there, two questions. one, base and what you know now and i understand from the last answer you don't have all the information, but based and what you know now, is that fee an adequate fee to compensation that you are planning to pay out? >> the answer is yes, the fee is adequate to pay on what we anticipate paying as we understand the claim, sir. >> you have heard the testimony of the panel before you and i think some of the questions were along this line of in some of us would take that view that to go back to your point of helping the small investor should be more expansive than what you are intending to way out right now. if the definition of -- the third point of who should be paid and the question of saying that -- as the gentleman was saying over here before, again, i'm sorry, and it's not just the direct investor but one who has

gone through a fund and what have you and that point of saying it's not just for this -- each case could be a small investor. each case could only be up to the $10,000 in the fund direct or through one of the funds, and if the definition is broadened as to who you should pay out, would that fee be adequate to cover it for that? >> if the definitions are expanded in some of the ways we heard this morning, the answer is no. >> would you be able to come up with an estimation of what the fee should be to adequately cover that? >> it's probably doable, but it would be difficult because of the way some of the large hedge funds have their claims and how often how many iterations you would have to go koundown in term of treating individuals. it would be very hard. >> and i would suggest that if you could, is to try to give some sort of ballpark to least go to one of the other questions and i invited someone else and the brokers-dealers to come in

and if we were to go down that road, that would have impact on not only what you have to do and impact on who the fees would be assessed gwen and they might want to have some input on that as well. if you are able to do that. i see my time is up. i think some of the other questions were touched on and the fallback provisions and the -- i don't want to repeat myself on the other comment that i made earlier that we are obviously not looking for fairness that i don't know that you can get fairness, but looking here for the focus is the justice and realliance they made not on independent investment decisions but on what the government assured them through both this program after the fact and through the assurances that being registered and the fund is coming under the s.e.c. as well. thank you. >> all right. gentlelady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess my first question is to

you, mr. harbeck. i have only been around here for less than two year. but my take on what happens is basically that the industry gets a license do a lot of things and then fails at it and we're left to pick up the pieces. if you look at why sipc was created, it was created because there were huge bankruptcies that occurred in the early 1970's and money was taken from investors and we wanted to make investors whole. so sipc is created and as you pointed out for a long period of time because you thought you had ample funds, these brokers were only paying $150 a year. for 19 years they were paying $150 a year. you have increased it recently because of the madoff scandal, but i have one question, which is, i think the insurance

product is out of date. and i think that it's very important for you to go back and reformulate an insurance product that reflects the way people invest today. and people invest today through mutual funds and hedge funds and if you're going to offer an a product that has no relevance to today but had relevance to 1970, i don't believe you're doing your job. secondly, i have a question for you, which is if you are charging one quarter of 1% of the revenue, then that revenue that's generated by a broker to refill the fund, what would prevent you from coming up with a 1/8 of 1% of revenue to create a fund to pay the madoff victims some kind of compensation? there's nothing that precludes you from doing that, is there? >> it would have to be

statutory, congresswoman. >> you were able to make this change from $150 to 1/4 of 1% with no trouble, right? >> yes, by bylaw. we can only expend our money in one particular way to supplement the fund of customer property in the way that the statute describes. the bylaw says when the fund is in danger of reaching $1 billion or less, we could reinstitute for that purpose. but what you're saying is we would have to repurpose the statute to create a fund specifically for these victims. >> you are saying that would require statutory and you're a separate corporation and i am having a hard time understanding why you as a corporation can't

just decide that because of the travesty, that -- and because the ip insurance product that you offer is inawed kwat today and should have been reformulated anyway that you cannot create a new fee that would be imposed. it would be a modest fee, but it could help immeasurably a lot of people. >> we are a creature of statute. we are not a government orth, but the statute creating us is a federal statute. >> we're real great at passing laws and creating the entities outside of government to operate. and yet you have to come back to government to fix things. either you should be a federal agency where we have responsibility and the ability to act immediately or you should be an independent corporation to do things that you do independent of statutes. having said that, i have a question for mr. conley and

we're about to go for a vote. from my perspective and this may predate your involvement at the s.e. s.e.c., but having observed over the course now of these two years the madoff fiasco and the travesty s travesty that it has created not just for the american people, but the federal government and the s.e.c. failed. it failed miserably. when we had the whistleblower. us, i was astonished at the degree by which he continued to pursue this. i mean, he came before the s.e.c. five or six times seeking the s.e.c. to take some action against mr. madoff. and even when the s.e.c. went out to see mr. madoff, mr. madoff has now admitted that when the question was asked of him, who is your custodian, and he rattled off the name and he was convinced within next three

days he would be shut down because the custodian did not provide those services but the s.e.c. never even made the phone call to find out whether or not whether mr. madoff was operating through that custodian. from my perspective, the government, the federal government, failed miserably and the s.e.c. in particular. so my question to you is this, since we were responsible for this travesty, shouldn't we take some responsibility now in trying to make the people that were impacted by our incompetence and by our malfeasance by creating a fund to make them somewhat whole? and what would prevent the s.e.c. from doing that? >> congresswoman, thank you. i can respond in two ways. the funds that you talk about is

certainly something that congress could do if it determined that that was the appropriate thing to do here and certainly you could do that. and with respect to the shortfall that the failures that you've identified, that is something which the commission has recognized and takes extremely seriously. and since chairman shapiro has come to the commission, in fact, there have been numerous reforms that have been put in place that are directly responsive to what you have identified what is the inspector general's report which identified very serious failings at the commission. and among the things that have changed that on a going forward basis make sure that something like this will not happen again is that there has been the training of hundreds of employees to be certified fraud examiners. the requirement now addressing something that you raised here in all examinations of third party verification of customer assets that are held at by the

investment advisor or broker-dealer. and we're also hiring more people with particular expertise to make the examination teams much more effective and working to deploy more people to the front line and more investigators who will be there and be able to root out this fraud in an effective way. so all that has happened and there are greater rchls that are coming down the road -- there are greater reforms that are coming down the road. next week the commission will be voting on rules designed o particularly to address the situation of investment advisors and the custody situation that would encourage investment advisors not to have custody of and instead to have them with third parties to prevent the exact kind of stuff that went wrong here. >> my time is expired, mr. chairman, but i certainly think

we need to appreciate that going forward by the government inaction and we should really reflect on what we can do to make whole some of these people. >> i have a couple of questions. why haven't you thought about making a back assessment for the increases in the premiums in the future? you are going to punish the people who may not have been in the business when madoff was around and why shouldn't we put the assessment on the people who were in the business when it happened? and with the law professor coffee indicating that that would put an incentive on the dealers to be working more in conjunction with the s.e.c. and with your organization to see

this wouldn't happen because there would be a payment they have to make and in order to accomplish an assessment in future increase in premiums, would you need legislation to do that? >> yes, we would, mr. chairman. >> prepare that request and get it to the committee. the second request is not totally unrelated to the e'p+e spent a number of days about the legal representatives about 1,300 claims in 23 countries around the world. and they tell me that under present conditions to handle the claims that are out there under all the various laws of the 23 nations involved that it's going to take something like 30 years to resolve these claims. and i was going through the roughly $100 million a year in the trustee's fees that you prepared to pay out $3 billion over the next 30 years as trustee so he can be around to

settle the claims? and quite frankly, i think it's going to end up the fees are a hell of a lot larger channel the claims. what i am saying to you is, what are you doing in terms of establishing some sort of method of arbitration for international settlement of claims? and why shouldn't that be before the congress and shouldn't that recommendation be coming from your organization? you know what you face and you know what your problems are and that we're going to be doing more international business and not less. these frauds will continue to occur in the future. why don't we have a simplified way of getting the issue before an arbitration board or somebody on a relatively uniform basis instead of just spending this inordinate fees for trustees? i'm not against lawyers. i'm one moif owof my own, but dr $1.5 million a week, maybe they would leave the congress and take that trusteeship. naturally we would never do that, but seriously, can you make recommendations to the

committee as to what should be done to facilitate international claims of this sort that will occur in the future and are existing now that we can act on? >> the one thing that we have done on an international basis is to enter into memorandum of understanding with our foreign counterparts to sipc in case a brokerage fails in jurisdiction and w canada t united kingdom, china, korea, and taiwan. we seek to expand that. what you have suggested is far more complex, but i would be certainly willing to discuss it with any international expert that we can find. >> it is not a one-time deal. we're going to have these transactions and occurrences and let's not happened out fees to trus's the and lawyers that take money away from the basic account paid to claimants and that is going to happen in this

case and it's going to be a tragedy. mr. ackerman one question. >> i wanted to follow-up on the fist question that the chairman just asked. your response was that you're a creature of legislation. and under the legislation under which you act, you have a line of credit of $1 billion as i understand which can be accessed if fund is depleted and there's still a lot of money in the fund. if you did, and therefore, can act by resolution, high can't you generously and liberally pay out to the greatest number of people promptly as the statute requires, whatever money is in there and access your line of credit and at least have $1 billion and you don't have to wait for this legislative process to take place? everybody working on this and who are working hard and are

entitled to whatever money they're entitled to earn on being trustees and whatever, all this money every week, but they expect to be paid promptly. and if the people who are victims were paid promptly a couple of months ago, some of them could have ridden the surprise and some of them could have gotten 40% in the market right now. everybody is losing and double losing and triple losing here because of the delay. can you spend that out and request it by resolution or whatever? >> no. and the reason is the only people we can protect are those people who fit within the statutory definitions and -- >> which of your interpretations of that statutory message -- >> the same cases that have uniformly since 1973 held that with respect to fraudulent statements that are back dated d in all the of the cases

including the new times case hold that those claims are not customer claims and the fraudulent documents should be ignored. >> thank you. we're down tole less than five minutes before the vote. >> i would like you to come back to the committee with a proposal of providing an insurance product that is really going to reflect the kind of invest iing done by average american investors today that do most of the investing through fund. and who do not have the sophistication to know whether or not the actual stocks they purchased are indoed being purchased. that is where the s.e.c. comes to play. but we need a different product. the product that and the product that exists doesn't meet the needs of the american people. and what is 1/4 of 1% of revenue

actually generate? >> this year, and again, it fluctuates, through i believe's $480 million. >> $480 million. and you came up with 1/4 of 1% on your own and it could have been 1/2 a percent or -- >> may i suggest that calculation be made and supplied so we can get this wound up and get the members over to vote. the chair notes that some members may have additional questions for this panel which you may wish to submit in writing. without objection t record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to today's participants and to place their responses on the record. thank you, gentlemen, for participating and we appreciate it. and may i just make the request that i think all the members present right now and let's have a little better interaction between your respective organizations and the committee to get to the bottom of the substantive questions that have to be answered.

thank you very much for participating today's hearing if panel is dismissed and this meeting is adjourned.

>> alabama freshman congressman parker griffith announced he is switching party affiliation from democrat to republican and cited health care legislation, the economic stimulus package and other measures where he differs with the house democratic leadership. from huntsville, alabama, this is about 15 minutes. >> thank you very much for being here. i appreciate it. this is a big day, a big day for me. it's been a tough, tough decision for virginia and i and my family who have thought it out, but i just want to say thank you for taking the time out of the middle of the day. it's been an immense pleasure to serve the fifth congressional district of alabama this last year. as most of you know, i was elected by the people of north alabama as an independent conservative congressman. i am pro business, pro life, pro second amendment and have worked hard to support our space and defense programs and represent our alabama values.

however, as the 111th congress has progressed, i have become increasingly concerned that the bills and policies pushed by the current democratic leadership are not good for north alabama or our nation. and more importantly, they do not represent my values and convictions. while i voted against health care, i voted against cap and trade and two huge spending stimulus bills and i now believe that i have to go even further and stand with a party that is more in tune with my beliefs and convictions. for that reason i am announcing today that i am joining the republican conference immediately. this was not an easy decision for me. i only arrived at this step after much discussion, much prayer, and i take this step because i believe our nation is at a crossroads, and i can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue

legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into net. unfortunately, there are those in the democratic leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for the health care system, bad for our patients, and bad for our physicians. i have always considered myself to be an independent voice and i have tried to be that voice in congress, but after watching this agenda firsthand, i now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and for me to be true to my core beliefs and values, i must align myself with the republican party and speak out clearly on these issues. i have also been very concerned about support in congress for our defense and nasa programs.

these programs are not only important to our community, they're important to our national defense and future of our country. and our international allies. since selection to congress, i have fought hard to emming kate other members on the important of a strong missile defense program and we must give them more support if we are to maintain the lead in manned space flight. and while there are great democraticic sporters, i incrowsingly pined that my ally and fighting the initiatives come from within the republican party. as we move forward and continue to fight for the programs, i believe that working as a republican and joining with richard shelby, jeff sessions, joe bonner, mike rogers, spencer bachus and the rest of the delegation will allow me to be

an even more effective voice on these issues. i also want to take a moment to diskuz health care that is currently before the congress. and i spoke early and oufrn and i voted against it in the house. it appears today that this health care bill will pass the senate in one of the first votes of the new year and that will be on the health care package. i want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors. it's bad for the patients and the young men and women considering going into the health care fields. and as a doctor and as a republican, i plan to once again oppose to this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our economy, it is a threat to our nation, and it is a threat to our health care system. i know there will be those who

do not support my decision. i want you to know that it's not an easy decision to make. but i always remember that i was not sent to congress to represent a party. i was sent to congress to represent the people of the fifth district. after watching as congress continues to pursue policies that burden our children with debt and threaten our economy and someone who is deeply concerned about the future of the economy, i believe that joining with the republican party and standing up against these liberal policies is what is best for our country, best for alabama, and it's best for our children's future and it's best for the kitchen tables of the fifth congressional district. thank you very much for being here. i appreciate it. thank you. [question inaudible]

>> i have not hear from her. >> but you did have to contact her office? >> no, i did not. >> okay. are you concerned about the upcoming election? >> which one? mine? no, no, i'm not concerned about it. this is not about politics. this is about my convictions. the pundits and the handicappers, so to speak, the guys that say who's going to win and who's going to lose have said that i was going to win this election and so this is not about me winning or losing and this is about core beliefs and something i that i'm convicted about after seeing what's happened and this far, far drift to the left that's occurred in congress, there is no room in the democratic party for a pro life, pro business and pro second amendment businessman. these individuals like myself

are not being considered and this drift too to the far, far left and you don't realize how severe it is. we are at a crossroads and the distinction is not any clearer. it is time for me to make a decision and you can see from my votes and the votes that i have taken over the last year that i have tried to send that message to the democratic party and get back in the main stream and pay attention to what's going on in the health care bill that basically 2/3 of america is saying don't pass it, lever it alone, start over again, and they're completely ignoring the american people at their own risk. >> when you got to washington, what was the one thing that made you say, i need to switch parties? >> it wasn't one thing. it was a series of demonstrations of their

philosophy. it was a lack of concern about what main stream america looks like and it was time spent on a cap and trade bill that was one size fits all and it would absolutely devastate alabama's economy and make it difficult for us to recruit industry here. and they had no ear for that. it was a cap and trade that took up three months of our time while we were losing $400,000 to $600,000 jobs a month. we were on a theoretical concept called cap and trade and every month we were losing jobs. and so it was a series of events that led to decision. >> what would you say to the democrats? >> i think that will be the case, but i think the democrats elected me and elected an independent voice and someone

who brings her experience to a congressman and as an independent businessman and make decisions for him and his children and we must remember we're not republican americans. we're not democratic americans. we're american democrats or american republicans. and we need to be americans first here. we need to get back to them and i am going to represent them as hard as i can represent them and do what's right for the district. >> are you concerned about being called a flip flopper? >> not really. i have been called worse. >> right here? all right. i don't want to step on you, virginia. take a step back for us.

>> which camera is it? >> first of all, we got some questions from people who are very disappointed in the choice that you have made. what would you say to them? >> that is an expected reaction and if they give some time to this, they will see that i will represent the democrats and republicans very well and even the democratic party and alabama understands that what's happening in washington with the national democratic party really doesn't represent alabama and i think they will understand the decision. i ups the comment and appreciate each and every one of them. >> is this the first time you have switched parties or changed your mind about how you feel about politics? >> no, i think, i mean, yes, for the first time i have switched parties but not the first time i have changed my mind about

something that's gone on. my mind is pretty open, so i might change it. >> you are there in washington and get to see what's happening and obviously there are some things that you question and that changed your mind and was a fully thought out $87 billion with no accountability and we watched no negotiations go on with a.i.g. and huge bonuses paid back and coming right out of the pockets of ef american taxpayer and watched a leadership ignore thousands and thousands of job losses every month and continuing to pursue a stimulus package and continuing to pursue a cap and trade bill and continuing to pursue a health care bill when men and women were losing jobs by the hundreds of thousands. we have lost seven million plus jobs in the last year and we have not made any effort thus

far -- i was very disappointed when we did not fund the transportation and infrastructure bill this would have put thousand of people back to work. the stimulus bill did not have e-verify in it. we didn't even know whether we were putting americans back to work or un-americans -- or non-americans back to work. a lot of that disappointed me. i was willing to discuss it. i was willing to work with anybody that would listen to me, but i did not find that i had a place at the table. >> the state party called on them to return the donation. >> we would be happy to do that. absolutely. >> what would you say to the people here? whether they are disappointed and whether they support you in the decision that you have made? what are you going to give to them and your district? what can you bring to them that would be a positive? >> i think they have seen what

i'm able to do. even though i have voted against the administration on major, major initiatives and been able to bring millions into the arsenal and several hundred thousand dollars for a science building at the university. i know how to work across the aisle. i know how to work within a group. i'm going to bring to the fifth district jobs. i'm going to protect the jobs that are here. i'm going to make sure that everybody understands that nasa, that the space program that started in this district has saved lives all over the world. i'm going to make sure that even understands when you go in for a dual energy c.t. scanner that the technology took place out here at marshall. i'm going to make sure when off mammogram or when your wife has a mammogram, i will be sure that you know that the technology in the hubble telescope makes that mammogram even more accurate. and i'm going to make sure that

we fund thats spnasa. i have been and continue to be disappointed that we that went to the moon, we need to go again. i'm ready for a commitment from the administration and i have a group of people that i think will work with me to make certain we fund the programs we need. >> do you believe this party could play any role in the next election? is there concern or worry in your mind? >> i didn't make it for the political concern. i'll run a race and all of you who are here a year ago or two years ago know i love politics. i love to politic. i love people and i love this district. so this is not about politics. this is about a conviction that had that america is on the wrong track and that the leadership in the congress is taking us down the wrong road. i can run a race. i'm not worried about that. it wasn't about politics. >> thank you, everybody.

>> now a discussion about a recent meeting with arab leaders in kuwait. it was the 30th annual meeting of the gulf cooperation council with kuwait, bahrain, qatar,

saudi arabia, and the you nated arab emirates they discussed the military common and the man to create a common currency. the speaker is john duke anthony, c.e.o. of the national council on u.s.-arab relations. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> thank you, dr. winship. thank you, russell smith, and thank you for the generosity of allowing your facilities to be used for this occasion. thank you to the guests and participants who came to this session. there is, as you could infer or devine around the table from the introductions an array of expertise and diversity of specialization here borne of no end of empirical education on the ground in this part of arabia and the gulf. it is hardly a region that is synonymous with marginalia. this is one of the few places,

indeed, it is the only place on the planet that the united states have mobilize and deployed more troops and expended more treasure and encountered more casualties and three times in the last three decades than any other place on earth. and the significance is from that perspective alone and eight countries, seven of them are arab, one is persian, iran, and the vast majority of the energy, production, and exports come from the seven and not the one. this particular region is also one of the least well known amongst americans of the nearly 20 centers for middle east studies in the united states and there isn't a single course on the arabian peninsula and this

is the situation for the last 40 years. and there is a past amount of chicken and egg and most is from the u.s. government and from diplomats and foreign services and activists and analysts and as well as the services. in terms of the american private sector, the corporate world far outpaces knowledge and understanding and meaningful information and insight as to how these policies work and don't work and what are their need and their concerns and their interests and objectives and relations. and as a came of catch-up ball being played, of course, given what has been happening in iraq since march 19 and with the tens of thousands of americans fully deploy there had. and with those who work every

day in bahrain for the heads head of america's fifth fleet and those who are administering the numerous defense cooperation agreements with the six countries and as well as an earlier and the earlier facilities agreement between the united states and oman. to be sure there is no comparable defense cooperation agreement or access to the fails agreement but it is not to confuse form with function. know there isn't something in the realm that there is with the other five countries, there is at once a longer engagement and intensity and extensiveness of involvement in terms of strategic issues there than arguably all the other g.c.c. countries combined. the question of the day here is with regard to where does the

gulf cooperation council fit into all of this matrix of global, interregional, and the national die nam ini die nam in and -- and die ndynamics and ch the history of so many previous pan-arab attempts at regional cooperation and unity of one form or another. this one has already outlasted all of them save one. that being the league of arab states and in september 1944 and came into existence with the stores open in february of 1945, months before the founding of the united nations. and indeed at the united nations conference founding in san francisco, it was the americans

who were the host and the most out of their depth and because of all the international and regional organizations of the last century. the one that was best known for which the united states conceived but did not join was the league of nation. it was americans as often as not going over the the delegations of iraq and saudi arabia and of egypt and syria to ask how they had gotten up and running the regional organization. some see this gulf corporation council that came into being on may 5, 1981 as a desubtraction or distraction from the league of arab states. in the early months and weeks of the intis tense, there was admittedly no small amount of animosity and jealousy and resentme resentment, suspicion, and distrust. it is in keeping with the

charter of the legal of arab states which does include individual efforts between two or more arab countries to form building blocks upon which larger platforms of intergreat lakes and coordination and collaboration and cooperation can be forged subsequently. it's also in keeping with the united nations which has a whole separate chapter dealing with the encouragement of regional organizations. while the five permanent members of the u.n. security council have assured they can look out for their own interest and need to protect their concerns, there is comparable guarantee for the others and hence the encouragement of the regional organizations that can deal with issues hopefully and effectively without referring them to the united nations security. this one when it came into intis tense was seen by 95% of the foreign affairs specialists in

washington as a security organization. as a defense organization. why? because the iran-iraq war had broken out and was 10 months underway and looked as though it was going to continue for a long time. that was the lens of the set of prisms and the northerners and southerners from beyond the region per seavered why it was coming into being and how it came into being. and there's some truth that was linked to the context and the context had to do with iraq and iran and not only what they were doing just then and posed a threat of death on their doorstep and what they had learned from both of them in 19 1976. most historians are not able to recall that in oman in the fall of 1976 and stepped up and to explore that and among eight

g.c.c. countries and they have been ahead of the pack in terms of what is there and iraq and iran played the roles of the bullies and you could barely get a word in edgewise if you are not an iranian appointed iraqi there. vinls who attended the conference told me when they tried to intervene were told to shutup and each tried to do the others as the rightful in the gulf if there was to be one and geopolitical and stemmed from 400 years from them with the portuguese, the dutch, and the united states. and there was a train rolling

down the track but not one reported on. and this was a functional train and the gulf countries and from the t tut language of 1961 to 1971 when they were all free of british foreign affairs and defense relations and between 110 bilateral agreements on everything from trade and investment and technology and cooperation and civil aviation and educational exchange and no one knew where the copies were. there was no central archive or documentation center. and so those who were not into politics so much but into civil service and engineers and administrators and customs officials were already working on the side and meeting privately and usually in kuwait to try to find a way in which they could establish a regional organization for their economic and technical and modernization

and developmental objectives and the iran-iraq wars outbreak gave them the cover, gave them the catalyst and the pretics to proceed without either one of them. and many were furious that these pivoted among the most forlorn and forgotten of the the policies that had been neglected and the last to develop and stolen on them in term of an organization that had such great promise for arab cooperation and integration. it was appropriate that it was established in abu dabai although the last prep poir meeting was in oman and the other prior to that was in saudi arabia. in saudi arabia this was where the three countries were jilted

that wanted to be allowed to play a founding role in this organization. one was iraq and one was jordan and the other was yemen. even though now we're 29 years down the road, people continuously ask me and others why isn't yemen or iraq a member. when is iran going to become a member? and they settled this issue almost from the beginning when they coined the phraseology as to what this was to be and what it was not to be. it is an organization comprised of six member countries whose environmental and cultural and historical and religious identities are beyond dispute and they share in this key phrase a similarity in forterm the forps of government. they had overthrown in revolutionary fashion all these kinds of hereditary regimes.

and this is why they were kept out from the beginning and why they have been kept out ever since and have little in the way of prospects of being invited to be members in the near term. we come to this in the discussion period if you like. at the same time, being present at the creation of it, the deliberations for the entire founding summit wore on civil, administrative, bureaucratic, technical issues. no one went anywhere near military or political issues. until the final session when everybody was looking at the watches and wanting to get out of there and you could have heard a pin drop. he said it is all well and good and we will have ourselves to blame and our grandchildren will blame us if we do not build a

fence around all that we have achieved in the past two decades and link that fence to economic and it bothered a lot of people he took that stance, but within five months everyone was saying the same thing out of their mouths and this was not the first time he stood alone and was visionary and took a strategic position that the others ultimately came around to agreei agreeing. so it does have a defense aspect to it. on the other hand, it is off to the side. it is a way from the headlights and for the g.c.c. proper, the foreign ministers meet four times a year and absences are not accepted and this means they have met 120 times to build up the degree of comfort and trust amongst themselves and diminish

what otherwise would have been extensive distrust and the ministries of defense meet once a year and the meetings are classified and their deliberations and this is their intent and we looked next door to the case of iraq's population equal to all six of us combined and with the population and combined and opportunistic and ambitious and the other reason for the economic interest in addition to the greater functional and when they asked them and the answer was simple. and people's material needs and

amongst their wants and needs and these are the people in the middle east who have been the last to develop and the latest and through the cprocess that we're here to a degree and in the united states or elsewhere that we can see from the americas and we think is within reach. and what the european union has done and is doing we think check emulate and tailor and adapt it to ourselves. here is the unusual aspect, though, with regard to the european union success, ponder the following. ponder the implications of each one. when it began, it also began with six countries in 1951. when it began, it already had a

foundation upon which to begin to build, namely the cold and steel community where there was economic and technical and specifications of standards and industrial and cooperation amongst the founders. consider the marshall plan had come into being of 1947 there and that all of them with the recipients to repair and restore as quickly as possible the war damaged economies and ponder the implications that the treaty organization was established with a full fledged member and guaranteeing the security of all of the member states. and not one of the circumstances or factors or forces of the related phenomena applied when these six came together. if you look at it as a glass half full and empty and leaking,

one can focus on how remarkable it is that it has you can seeded in spite of not having the forces on the one hand and the fact thefted three major wars on their doorstep and one of them continuing as we speak to the present. and what happens when a g.c.c. meeting takes place? the first is a review of everything from the previous summit and the rulers immediate the other supreme council once a year and four times a year and the economic strategic military defense issues and report on what has been achieved and give credit and thanks where they were due and why the task proved elusive to move the goalpost from the deadline down the road and who needs to do what, why, how, and when. they also turn to the region

specific issues and not necessarily in the sequence or to the degree we think would be logical and appropriate. two issues akreszed before any others and these are the two oldest. one is the u.a.e.'s issue with iran still in occupation and forcefully so of the islands and the second with the unsettled and outstanding issues between kuwait and iraq. these are the first two. so in the manner of concentric circles, they focus on the member and then branch out again in geographic concentric circles in this case to iran and iraq in different ways in terms of the threat that each is seen to pose to all six. and then to yemen, which is on

the peninsula, and then after that, not before, after that, to the arab-israeli conflict and some of the issues pertaining to india and pakistan and afghanistan. that is the sequence. that's the emphasis. that's the priorization of how they're focused on it at that time. and with regard to iraq, one would be surprised that they speak about iraq less at the summits than one might imagine or expect and a reason had to do going back to 1976 in their memories of iraq's view towards all six of these countries. their forms of government, their lesser degree of development, their lacking in agricultural sector, their lacking in industrial sector, they're lacking the leadership and the drive and the energy of the baath party.

and they're not having fought in a war like iraq did with iran and suffered as many casualties. so this suspicion about iraq's ultimate intentions, not just towards kuwait but all the others there is one aspect of it. and the same with regard to iran. but it also has to do with march 1975 and if i had to say one single agreement that is the strategic blue of all six of -- that is the strategic glue, it is the algiers accord of 1975 that took place in the echos and wakes and shad dose of western and increasingly american talk about doing the unthinkable of utilizing force and mobilizes and deploying force to the oil fields and the gas fields of the gulf because of the world economic situation and the oil embargo that had preceded it until march of 1974. the first article of what they agreed to in algiers in march

1975 was noninterference in one another's domestic affairs. if you can believe it looking in the rear-view mirror, saddam hussein and the sharif of iran signed that agreement and held to it solemnly for the first four years until khomeni returned to iran from paris in early february of 1979 and broke it from the first day and every day for the next 19 months before the iran-iraq war began. author: and that particular principle is as valid now in their minds as no division amongst them that i can concern until today as it was reaffirmed on march 6, 1991. perhaps coincident tally but in a nice, complementary way, the same evening that george h.w. bush spoke before a joint session of congress and called for a new world order, the six

g.c.c. countries plus syria plus egypt called for a new regional order because the one that had existed since camp david has been shattered to smithereens with the iraqi invasion of kuwait there. . . there is no discussion about ahmadinejad's hawk jets -- prospects, for the exact same reasons that i gave before, of not giving inner -- ron any

pretense to interfere in their society to any greater degree than iran already has over the last 30 years. with regard to yemen this time, yes, they did address yemen, but in a unanimous support for saudi arabia's position as well as the yemen government's position. going over and beyond what has passed for conventional wisdom or establish thought regarding what has been happening and what has not been happening in yemen. you have something profoundly different and less than what the media has made it out to be. the words crisis are advisedly use. this particular crisis, thus far, or yemen pales in significance by comparison to five previous crises that yemen

has dealt with over the last 80 years. the first being from the late 1930's and early 1940's, when they had three years of drought at the home of bin laden and his family. and when the japanese invaded indonesia and dried up all the remittances from indonesia, nothing like that has happened since. in 1962-1967 civil war in northern yemen. or the war in the south between 1964 and 1967, with the british had more soldiers in the field at any time since they had left burma. or the civil war 1984-1994, when the south try to succeecede, and

many countries backed it. newcomers are forgiven if they do not see things with that kind of context or background. with regard to palestine, is the issue that most emotionally is the cause in people's hearts. it is also the issue with regard to which the united states, their protector of first and last resort, is judged more in an indicted way than any other issue in the region. it is because it is seen as the largest issue, and packing so many other complex. it is because it is the most pervasive issue, at the levels of the youth and those who are illiterate and watched the

television and read and are aware of what has happened and has not happened to and for the people of palestine, especially when an operation was launched by the israelis for some 23 days in the gaza strip. how is it that a country of 303 million cannot get these that humanitarian supplies into gaza with this 1.5 million people in a stretch of line -- stretch of land by miles wide by 25 miles long? no one has the easy answers for these. especially when people speak about the rule of law, and the fact that there are 300,000 people in the gcc countries to brad to what it from american universities, half in the social

sciences and the others and arts and sciences. there are no americans as of yet who have graduated from any of the six gcc universities. there is a limited -- there's an imbalance of appreciation for one understanding the other. every day since 1975, there have been more americans-trained in peace in the cabinet than in any american government institution combined. they are able see the constraints under which the american government lives and must operate. we do not see a comparable degree of understanding toward their options, which are far fewer than ours.

we trade in 1128 categories of goods and services. these country traded only seven. there's a massive imbalance in terms of strategic economic resources and opportunities. more specifically, what did they agree to on this time and what they've fished -- pushed the envelope further on this time? if to deal with the issue of a monetary union, a common currency. it was in ways that may have had an american finesse, but there was an agreement that saudi of red field would be tasked with the technical procedures and allow all laws and the administrative system that would be required when and if a common currency comes in the past. they were able to liken the

serious of this by comparing themselves with the european union, which now has 29 members and only 17 having signed on to the euro. countries like great britain wanted to have both, remaining wedded to the pound sterling and also excepting the road. -- the euro. sometimes the last an artist are the slowest things to die. there is comparable reservation on the part of some 30 monde -- on some. oman has territorial integrity hard one at a hard cough. they also have the closest, most intimate experience with the

british of any of the six gcc countries. there was reluctance on a matter of critical -- all principle, the degree to which the country's indebtedness can be an except -- acceptable percentage of its gross national product. and the european union countries focus on this as well. oman found this unacceptable because being a last to develop of the six, it recognizes that they have to borrow more than the others in order to catch up faster than would otherwise be the case. the uae also has shown reluctance, because they thought they would be the headquarters of this new monetary authority. not everyone can be the

headquarters. bahrain and kuwait decided -- found it easier to side with the saudi arabia, not least because they are all from the same extended tribal federation, not least because they have longer cooperated on these kinds of prickly geopolitical issues, but the uae and oman are as tight as can be. we will come back on that. the electricity grid also was agreed to and switched on. it has been switched on twice as the last summer. this has been coming since 1986, 23 years it took to bring this public it -- particular project to completion. having to do with no end of technical details, science and research, petroleum and minerals, canadian consulting

firms, judging the technical feasibility of the economic merits, but finally it exists for four of the six gcc countries, but four in the north. there are two oberland 400 megawatt cables that go from kuwait. there are two that go from saudi arabia into bahrain. the switching station or the modern thing of the central station are the three relay stations in saudi arabia. why did they do this? so as to protect an image of forward-looking, infrastructure- looking, trying to find additional ways to raise themselves economically, tried to work in advance of power outages and shortages, tried to show that they were willing to share what they had with each other, trying to reduce the

economic out late for having spare capacity, because all six would have to do that, whereas now they can reduce their spare capacity by 50%, and that protect some $4 billion in savings as a result of just making this, even though it is taken down that long. related to that was an agreement on a pan-gcc railway. correct me if i am actually in error on any of this, it is not yet to salah, the southernmost province. and it will not necessarily hug the coast but it will parallel the coast, and therefore in eastern arabia, northeastern arabia from kuwait all the way to oman. and here they are thinking in ways that i do not hear or see or read any americans thinking in terms of the revival of railways use.

there are always four railway projects in saudi arabia that are further down the road than this one. but this one has a long-term objective of linking up with africa in the southwest and linking up to the e.u. through north africa. much of the inspiration is coming from talks between the chinese and russians over the past several months, were vladimir -- the russian railroad transportation minister has met with his chinese counterparts, and the russians want to develop northeastern russia, which is under tantra but rich and strategic minerals, but russia does not have the financing and the capitalization ability to underwrite that strategic ship in its economic strategic objectives. china is offering to finance it

with all sam and and samantha's >dollars -- with local sam -- uncle sam's adnd aunt cement the's dollars. that will include a special operations component. the radically and strategically, it would match the special operations component that iran has. i will answer any questions, including the gcc to the best of my ability. [applause]

[inaudible] >> dr. anthony, iran is -- was including in last year's meetings but not this year. why? >> it was not included in last year's. it was in the year before last. the only two * that iran has been included has been when qatar has been the host. they've been pushing the envelope. on the two locations, it was catarrh that extended the invitation.

-- it was qatar that extended the invitation. >> how are they using their economic and political capital to pressure the united states to be an honest broker in the arab- israeli conflict and to champion the cause of the palestinian state that strongly? >> i am not aware of there being any effort to pressure the u.s. there are difference of agreements among the six. their investments have been traditional and they have been conservative. largely they have been risk averse. this would apply to kuwait's seemingly more risky investments, early in british petroleum, kuwait, which used to be the gulf oil companies and

oil installations, property and atlanta, even those would seem to be conservative and traditional it risk free, in contrast to some of saudi arabia's which are even more traditional and conservative. the total amount that they have a vested -- invested abroad is roughly $1 trillion. half of that roughly is in the end -- is in the united stats, and there's been no economic pressure since 1974, the last arab oil embargo was terminated. there has been an interlocking of financial and economic an increasingly commercial linkages through a degree of interdependence and mutuality of benefit and representative for property or reciprocity of reward that was probably not even dreamed of two decades ago. as well as the number of american companies based in the d.c. -- the gcc region have increased themselves by 50% in the last five years.

they are up from 500 companies to 750 companies. in the gcc region. at the corporate level and at the intergovernmental level, there is a greater degree of strategic similarity been there is competition and adversarial relationships then there are -- and were there before. not withstanding, there is papillote -- there's popple pan- gcc concern about the way in which arabs and muslims are treated in the united states. they're written and joked about , and there talked about negatively on the pundits and talk shows. the existence of 400 american films, all of which depict arabs and moslems in a backward, menacing, threatening, untrustworthy manner. despite all of that, they perceive their interests to be more with the united states among the great powers than any

other collection of competing powers. at present, and for some time pass, and likely for the immediate foreseeable future. if all the because at the defense level there is no comparable coalition for international group of countries that want to provide the necessary deterrence and defense capabilities until the situations in iraq and iran are more stable and secure and predictable than has been the case. >> let me pose a double barrel of question, following up on that. one question we have asked, what did the gcc states want the indicted states did to about iran? are there private statements? do they differ among themselves on this? and how do we communicate their views to the united states government?

>> that is a very good question and very relevant in terms of the summit. going back to the non- interference of other countries, the accent was on an iran complying with an abiding with all international instruments, trees, and agreements to which it is signatory. that put this in the international as opposed to "iran must stop doing this" on the inside. they reiterated their belief that iran is within its legal rights in terms of the not clear reparation treaty, and that all countries have the right to peaceful nuclear development for civilian purposes. as to the differences, one of the prime minister's there said, "we find the american and european as well as the russian and chinese process thus far to be flawed, because it does not

include us." if there is an attack on iran's military infrastructure facilities, we do not see iran striking back at china or russia are the united states. we see ourselves as the easy targets. we are minutes away. we are opposed to anything that would accentuate a scenario whereby we would be the victim's of any use of violent force by israel or the united states for the two combined. more than a few have that same analysis, because at least two foreign minister shared this with me. once said that they came at it differently. "it is because of where we sit in our own historical and strategic difference relationship with iran." oman has a different view of

this, and the reasons are that it sits directly across from the straits of hormuz. iran on its side of the straits is ringed with anti-aircraft missile batteries. oman is more concerned with this than any other state. oman is also the beneficiary of iran sending 20,000 iranians to amman, never more than 3000 at a time. they help quell was arabia's long to sustain civil insurrection in the past 100 years. there are no territorial disagreements between iran and oman comparable to the claims of iran towards bahrain.

comparable to the potential claims of iran about catarrh regarding the offshore oilfields, comparable to the iran about dubai and kuwait, comparable to or ron about saudi arabiaosaudiman -- saudi arabia. oman needs to be seen as the aberration, but because of its own strategic interests. oman is for not interfering any further, but the other gcc countries have the language that they shoot -- that they used in their communique. >> please tell us about the gcc decision to form a regional security force. is that real rhetoric? it was when to finance it?

the bullet that is a good question. like another other wishes -- like other achievements. at the end of the liberation of kuwait in 1991, one of the gcc countries proposed that there should be a pan-gcc force built on top of the one that already existed in northwestern saudi arabia, to 100,000. i met these posers -- proposers, and said it was the same size of the one of -- one of the iraqi republican guards. this would give iraq or iran paul's to try to threaten us. but then when they put it under the microscope, three country said, it is all that we can do to build our national armed forces and defense posture. we're not doing that well.

we're not doing a fast enough or effectively or economically. to add another burden that simultaneously we try to build a multi-national force, is just too much. we would build first and national defense establishment, and from those strengthen national establishments, we can been think of having something more ambitious. but on the deployment force, beyond the rhetoric, because it is difficult to see where that is coming from, something that the united arab emirates and others have mounted, training and special operations. it takes a while but you have to begin somewhere. >> you mentioned yemen's special relationship, and yet it's

continued exclusion, from the gcc. can you will elaborate on the agenda item on yemen. was the and amend government present? -- was the yemen government present? what role did any such represented the play? and is there any discussion of significant economic assistance to yemen or directed within human? >> good questions, all. i did not see a human representative at the summit. i have seen some that previous ones, but i looked and ast and saw none. and no one said that there he or she is. the former prime minister of south yemen was supposed to have come but he was nowhere to be seen. one leader is no longer in oman

but indiana. other representatives of various groups in yemen were certainly not present. as to the kind of assistance, the reactions, and the responses by the gcc, there were four members three years ago at a donors' meeting in london where $4.3 billion was pledged to alleviate human's widespread economic difficulties. that has yet to make its way through. each of the donors has their own reason. like the feasibility studies, lack of institutions, lack of transparency, too much corruption, or capital intensive vs labor-intensive. there's a lot of divergence in the region. however, this last september, at one of the quarterly gcc

ministers meetings, they committed $1.8 billion as latest three months ago. i have not seen that written up here, but just this last september. and in saudi are a arabia alone provides $1 billion a year to yemen. there has been a joint commission for some time now, begun under the chairman of saudi arabia's crown prince, but $1 billion a year has been pumped in there for quite some time. and saudi arabia's 80 yemen was recognized by the world bank and the imf as greater than all of the eight coming from the world bank, the imf, the dutch, the germans, and others contributing to yemen's economy. there is a knee-jerk objection of it being a full-fledged member of the following ground. i gave one -- that came into existence on the ashes of the very kinds of regimes that have

the inherent right of self protection in their minds. there is as well the reality of human's demography. 27 million people -- 130,000 village, 200 people in each. they have only 200 people in the village, no school, no road, no electric power, no sewage system, if you have no clinic. so what each of the gcc meetings, with a country that has these kinds of needs so dramatically in contrast to the others, it would distract and delay and preclude easier consensus. the deal has been, let's help them, but not off the books .

separately, and a bilateral way. saudi arabia has been doing this, but so that oman and the united arab emirates. the leader of the rock -- of the united arab emirates believes that his ancestral roots were from yemen. and so he gave thousands of yemenis citizens said the ship. and on the omani side, the building of a road that had cost hundreds of millions of >> from linking oman to the impoverished provinces in the eastern part of yemen was all undertaken by oman. there are nine gcc committees, until about five years ago,

members of only two or three. yemen is offering 2 million of its labors to work on the gcc projects. that is a big offer any could meet some of the gcc countries' manpower needs. but they're not well-educated and they are not experienced in the ways that the gcc economies need. does that give you a feel for that? >> how does the railroad development you described play against dubai's role as a financial sector, in light of the default? does this represent a shift to an alternative form of economic activity? >> i am not an engineer and i am

not a conductor and not an economist either. it is seen as an added to the -- as an added to the, and not as competitive. and then it is also seen as competitive. what i say here comes from two of dubai's leading economist and decision makers. both of them have told me that when salalah is connected to this road network, and it is not at this point, in terms of the feasibility planning, we see ourselves losing up to 20% of what we have now. why? because of the traffic going into the cult, it is going to the markets in iran by way of dubai, it is a two were to go to

the gulf. -- is a detour to go to the gulf. if you think of the geography, it is a day and a half detoured, with all the fuel, monetary savings, plus you have to go through the hormuz strait will go up lloyd's of london will take you to the cleaners. it takes up to three days to offload or on load, another day and a half to get out to the regular shipping lines. dubai has made out extraordinarily well all these years, but when it began, oman was locked down into its guerrilla war, and national security trump's economic

development eight days a week. oman could not take advantage of its geographical advantage then. but it remains to be seen how long dubai can hold its commanding lead. decision makers calculate they will lose 20% when that happens. they can offload at salalah and take it to athens and places beyond, and not ship with a degree that they have done thus far. >> let me go back to the human question and come at it from the other side. in the final communique, the yemen position is coupled with a prior statement about saudi arabia's rights to defend its territorial integrity, its cultural integrity, and how would you respond to so much of

the western reporting and other members of the gcc seeing the threat of saudi arabia from the immediate the sport -- and meet the speech from yemen? and the other question, whether there is something approaching a war here where the shi'a threat is being staged from yemen has a serious threat to the kingdom? >> it is difficult to know because it is in the most remote regions of yemen, the northernmost regions. it is not far from the sadr and -- the saudi arabia and south. it is also one of the most inaccessible in saudi arabia. much of the information that we're reading may be skewed because it is coming from second

hand or non-empirically validated people on the ground. we know one person that we worked with for national public radio who went there. the aspects of it being a proxy war, of ron being extensively or even minimally involved, i have yet to see the evidence. all the saudi arabian i've spoken with as well as the yemeni deny that. some of the many implied that. they allow one to infer that. it certainly does get your attention when they make the claim or insinuate that iran is behind these rebels. i do not see it, myself, unless you say that because people in iran cheered when they hear a group of yemeni rebels gave

saudi arabia a blow, that would hardly count as operational assistance or something that could be a deal maker or a deal breaker. >> what is the future of alternative energy sources among the gcc countries? does the u.s. uae set the stage for establishing a peaceful civil nuclear power generation inside the gcc and beyond? >> these are great questions. i what about erlich addressing that one. yes, indeed, it is being discussed in the following context. the country focused more on it than any other is kuwait. two reasons. when the disaster happened in 1986, there was an international

fund under un name -- u.n. auspices to help relocate the 200,000 people in the chernobyl region who are displaced for health reasons and had to be read located three kuwait was a major contributor to that fund, and the fund managers delegated kuwait to the minister -- to administer it. kuwait has been in to the nuclear issue since then. and research to the kuwait institute for science and the kuwait university and elsewhere, they have come up with the equivalent of double hulled vessels. after the spells of the exxon valdez, the notion that if holes of great oil tankers can have double hulls, the first when can take the blow of an accidental iceberg or a mine, but the ship would sit right because it had a

second hole. their view on this is that that is worth looking at, if you are concerned about the contagion and the radiation possible effects from the chernobyl-like disaster. i have sat with the meetings where they have discussed this, and the kuwaitis are the most alarmed at those meetings because there have been people from the other people there -- the kuwaiti research has led them to conclude that if there is any accident at the plant closes to that goal, but one which the russians contracted suppliers of the fuel, that this would immediately have a contagion effect of psychological proportions that was limited only by the imagination in terms of people not even entering the gulf. because kuwait has no pipelines

out of the gold, oil or gas, or anything else, and is totally dependent on that 600 mile route to the exit to the gulf, it sees its power plants shut down and its whole nation. kuwait is into the nuclear aspect is a way that is less publicized. the agreement is one part of how to go. kuwait is tinkering with another one. kuwait's energy situation is in contrast with saudi arabia and qatar. it is mostly a derivative of oil. well as thicker and has more pollutants and the sulfuric content there is more damaging to the environment. in this age of green, leaving a more cleaned in bimodal put it -- footprint, they are serious

about it. and why it has been discussing with iran and qatar using gas as opposed to continuing to rely on oil for its energy needs, and the nuclear at the same time, to prolong the oil and gas reserves, to have a cleaner fuel, one that would not be as damaging to the environment. saudi arabia, and the summit that we went to in december 2006, pushed through a resolution were by all six would cooperate with the international atomic energy agency in paris for peaceful nuclear development purposes. and when we ask, why did and why in that way, the answer was, if you live next door to a neighbor and your neighbor just bought a shotgun, what would your neighbors think if you did not

buy one also? that was too clever by half. but the reps it -- but there arrested that was as close as i've seen a more hawkish element in the u.s. government seemingly intent on bringing our rundown on this particular issue. meetings that some of you in the government, you sat in the same ones i've satin. people on the nsc said no enrichment is to be allowed in terms of that area. we are way past that. we're also pass the mid september deadline, but you see these several ways of approaching the use of alternate energy fuels. and the area between kuwait and iran are believed to be yet discovered deposits of oil and gas.

kuwait is seriously leading in that direction. >> i will let you want to sit down. does the movement toward a common goal currency also represent a step toward moving the gulf currencies away from being paid to the u.s. dollar? >> the short answer is no, and so with a long one. but there is a context for this. four years ago at the summit in the united arab emirates, inflation was rampant in the region. the gcc countries have less than 12% in place and then, which is unusual for them. some had 16%. of revisiting this. kuwait has been the wisest all along. where is all the others to nominate their currency to the

american dollar, kuwait has a basket of currencies, which protected. even though the american dollar is the biggest egg in that basket of -- in that basket of currencies. the consensus is that they will remain pegged to the dollar, in part for the reasons that i've done mobile 4, half of their investments in united states, and most of the world's central banks hold large amounts of u.s. treasury instruments in their reserve currencies. they know that they are not out of step in that particular regard. and they also believe that over time, it will allow americans to expand their perception of us as just being gas stations.

that we are also countries, and not just objects, but also actors. we're not just people who can be manipulated and exploited and taken advantage of, but people who deserve a seat at the table. they were able to push this point in the last year. in october of last year, just before the election, the assistant secretary of the treasury went to every gcc country but one. it was saying, what can you people do to help us with this crisis that we have here? there has been a positive response from kuwait, from catarrh, from the saudi arabia, from the united arab emirates, and their hope that people will see them as financially supported and a neighbor of america's supreme status in international financial institutions and as a world superpower to continue. that is what they bring to the table. america needs it, they haven't,

and what they present is as to be there at the landing, but not at the takeoff. they demand to be there on the takeoff, too. >> we're going to take two more questions. if that is all right with you, dr. anthony. what is the gcc stance on addressing the human-rights issues, which appear on american media, and the second question is, why are the gcc countries' purchasing large blocks of farmland in africa? >> on the human-rights one, that is a sensitive one as it would be for any country, especially when the concern is coming from the outside. it down to the point where the european union, at the last summit, they halted what had

been their negotiations with the eu's since 1987. they agreed that they should have a free trade agreement and they started meeting annually in 19873 but they put no demands on the eve of countries with regard to interfering in eu countries domestic affairs. the eu countries did put demands on the gcc countries. also a modern train mechanism as well, in the gcc countries. the gcc countries rejected those across the board. it was an amount of reciprocal respect. in the interim, they have said a free-trade agreement with the european free trade association in september of last year, and assign one with new zealand and singapore. no such talks to my knowledge with north america as such. that is a human rights 13 the

second thing was -- >> purchasing land africa. >> another good one. some of your young enough to remember the debate between jimmy carter and gerald ford. 1975, when carter and ford were contesting the presidency there. one columnist said, governor carter, if the saudis ever put an oil embargo on us again, what would you do? what i put immediately would proclaim was a food embargo on them. you could have heard a pin drop between washington and the area. it was a strategic issue again. this is when a broad and their businesses that did not exist before. they expanded their chambers of commerce and became the world's seventh largest exporter of wheat, okay?

inside one decade. they became famous for exploring other exports. they did it at great cost to their own natural water resources. they have now said that they are going to stop that. we will purchase all of their and necessary food imports, because of this -- value of water. it is a gamble in two ways. they do not have any control over it, in other countries. and it is a gamble in terms of what you do with the middle class of hundreds of thousands of people do you have created, who worked in these cooperatives? they had the world's two largest dairy farms. these are questions that have implications once you get to the implementation area.

and it is not justice gcc countries. -- and it is not just the gcc countries. baking get their food supplies cheaper as well as labor and could use for cost. >> let me ask a third one, a question now will also open up for your wrap up statement as well. what specific action with the gcc states wish to see from the obama administration to begin actualizing the promises of the president's cairo speech and his other initiatives toward the arab and islamic worlds? >> in the communique, the one that was implicitly directed in that area was to end the siege of gaza. it is seen as an act of war in international law, and it is

been going on for 2.5 years. and not a single dwelling that was bombed last january has been rebuilt, its own testimony of people's concern, why can the united states not at least get an exemption from the year's rally government to americans going into gaza? they have no answer for that. and they would ask an outsider, what is the answer for that? those who are graduates of political science and international relations and a light are prone to say that we understand that all politics are local, in that the president came to the white house at a time of severe national as well as international economic crisis, financial crisis, liquidity crisis, and he has to get america's economic and material house in the order before he can do anything there. on the healthcare issue in particular, but also jobs creation, they are willing to

cut significance lack there. but at the same time, they think that the israeli policies in the short term and the long term are self-defeating, the gaza has become in many people's view an open-air prison. is not as the west bank, or use the phrase that people do not live by bread alone, people do not always die at once. sometimes they die from this cut, this slice, this humiliation, this wound, this century until the father or the mother says to the children, pack up your suitcase and we're leaving for the children and grandchildren. we cannot take it anymore. that happens on the west bank. they did not show up on anybody trader screen. but in gaza, you cannot even get out. let alone get them.

-- get in. they're very resourceful and resilience. were they allowed to leave, many of them would go to other climes, but if there is no release, if there is no escape, you are building a powder keg which is bound to explode repeatedly, and you have no one to blame but yourself. i fail to see why the u.s. at a minimum will not stand for this humanitarian issue, especially when the american school was bombed and gaza by the israelis? and the u.n. institutions -- the head of one of the un agencies said that they gave the israelis to court and so they would not make a mistake. that was the wrong thing for us to do because they took a bull's-eye.

>> ladies and gentlemen, we will wrap up this afternoon presentation. dr. anthony, any final word beyond that? i like to thank you all for being here. if you have not had the opportunity on the way in, leave us a bit look -- a business card so that we can continue to tell you of programming and win our next activities will be scheduled. also to let you know that all of our activities, both those in the past and those upcoming, are listed on our web site. particularly those of you who are interested in the dimon questions, we have a couple transcript, audio, and video of a program that we did just 10 days ago on capitol hill. it goes into great detail of yemen and all the materials from our october policy makers conference are up on our web site, as well as information

about all the council's and programs. also, we want to thank c-span for being here today to take this program. and i am told that it will be rebroadcast this evening at some point, and perhaps in the wee small mouth -- the small hours in the morning as well. we hope you might take a chance or let others know also. a videoconference of this presentation this afternoon will be up on our web site in short order. please allow was a bit of leeway for the holiday season and the fact that our staff was is no more to be in the office than your staff wishes to be in the office at the holidays. with that, holiday greetings to all. thank you for being here. if you have further questions, dr. anthony would be more than happy to stay afterwards to speak with you. thank you, dr. anthony. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next on c-span, a report on the war in afghanistan from general stanley mcchrystal, the head of nato forces there. then the house hearing on efforts to preserve dna evidence in rape investigations. followed by a hearing on bernie madoff's ponzi scheme, and later "washington journal." >> we will discuss the u.s. prison situation. the chairman of the national transportation safety board will discuss federal safety investigations of accidents in aviation and public transit.

the ceo of that remain foundation will talk about micro loans developing the end -- improving the economies of developing nations. >> c-span christmas day, a look ahead to 2010 politics, including the cantor --eric cantor and david gregg reported a discussion on the role of muslims in america. later, of former cia intelligence officer on u.s. strategy against al qaeda in afghanistan, and starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, remembering the lives of william f. buckley, jr. and senator ted kennedy. >> the commander of nato forces in afghanistan, general stanley mcchrystal, liz a deadline -- visited ottawa. the u.s. committee to sending an additional 30,000 troops to afghanistan, bringing the total

to 90,000. they announced the planned withdrawal beginning in july 2011. >> thanks. i am always concerned when someone introduces me to knows me. thank you for letting me be here today. ladies and gentlemen, i want to think that conference of defense associations institute for allowing me to speak before such a distinguished audience. before we talk about where we're going, it is important to talk about where we have been and where we are. and also talk about my relationship with canadian forces. of course american forces go way back. in partnership with canadian forces. we have led together, we have

bottomed foreign battlefields together, but it never comes home until you have done it yourself. and over the last years in afghanistan, and in this most recent command, my esteem for the canadian civilians and military that take on this task is extraordinary. so was i going to more prepared remarks, i will tell you that i am not an unbiased observer here. the international security assistance force is a coalition of 44 contributing nations, and they have committed themselves to a strategic partnership with the people of afghanistan. not that is pretty amazing, if you think about it. that is 44 nations, and the people to represent them, committing themselves to somebody else. that is not for money. it is not for some other game

accepted is the right thing to do. and many other nations that are part of the coalition have had to be held before. they have had other nations come to their assistance, as my own did. and so to me, is particularly poignant that 44 nations have come together to help the other nation is to try to shape their future. -- as they try to shape their future. canada's part in this partnership is been extraordinary. in terms of sacrifice, they have sacrificed much more than any other nation. 136 soldiers, civilians, and a diplomat have paid the ultimate price. hundreds more had been wounded. .

brigade took the lead in maintaining security for the city of kabul. by 2005, efforts in southern afghanistan started to become more critical. you canadians were one of the first to volunteer to help in the south. under the leadership of colonel steve bowes, they took command and today, it is one of the most innovative team building for the

most strategically important city in afghanistan, kandahar. canadians continue to play a role in maintaining afghan security forces, training teachers, clearing land mines, vaccinating children, providing loans and providing engineering expertise for critical infrastructure like the dam. and it's helping to shape the future for afghans. in 2006, under the leadership of dave frazier, the task force took command of regional command south. today, under canadian leadership, task force kandahar, commands to secure and stabilize kandahar city, our main effort on the ground in afghanistan now. i know i can sometimes feel as though canadian efforts in

afghanistan are underappreciated. that's not the case inside afghanistan. we have the courage and determination of canadian forces are an inspiration. many countries have devoted a significant proportion of their national resources to this mission in afghanistan. and canada's absolutely a leader in this regard. this includes the young men and women you send abroad who are willing to pay the highest price to defend the afghans and the rest of us from threats that flourish in an unstable afghan state. we owe those troops our support, but that support must be informed by an understanding of the situation, the mission and the chances for success and it's in this spirit of promoting that level of understanding that i'm here today. let me talk about the situation in afghanistan as i see it.

and we must approach our attempts to understand the situation in afghanistan with a degree of respect with a complexity of the environment. i commanded forces in afghanistan in every year since 2002, but i will tell you i still have much to understand. it's best to approach this with determination and a great degree of humility. the coalition has been at war in afghanistan for eight years. the afghans have been at war for 30 years. they are frustrated with international efforts that fail to meet their expectations, whether those expectations may have been unrealistic or not, they still have frustrations and there is a crisis of confidence among afghans towards their government. we also are faced with a complex

and resilient insurgency that has multiple components to it that can assure the taliban and the network and the group are three of the groups that are opposing the government and they are not a single group, but they operate in general concert together and are joined by smaller insurgent groups and form a threat to the government of afghanistan and the future of the people of afghanistan. there is some external support from outside states. that can help the insurgents and does. and then there are clear ties with al qaeda and other transnational terrorist networks and that is part of the critical threat to the rest of the world. despite this challenging environment, i believe this mission is achievable, and i believe that for several

reasons. first is that the afghans are resolved to win this fight. we often talk about the graveyard of empires and desire of afghans to throw out all occupiers. they don't view us as occupiers but the coalition is there to assist them and taking their rightful place and responsibility for their own security. it's imperfect to be sure, but they view us as a partner to help them get to where they need to be. the insurgency we face is resilient and lethal, but it is not popular. it doesn't have a compelling narrative or deep popularity with the people of afghanistan. it is grudingly accepted where they can establish control. and we have had success where we

apply security and follow that with the correct approaches of governance and development and help the afghans build a future, we see success and that convinces that we can apply that success across the country. our strategic approach was really based upon a number of things. and we finished and i'll discuss in a little while the process that got us to that, but the core that is to partner with afghanistan to provide them with time and space to assume their own security and to shape their own future. we're going to do this by disrupting and degrading the taliban's capacity, denying them access to the afghan population and strengthening afghan security forces. doing that will help deny al qaeda and other transnational terrorist groups the ability to use afghanistan as a safe haven

as they did before 9/11 and as i'm sure most of you know many of the 9/11 hijackers trained inside camps inside afghanistan. i believe that the mission is now empowered with a greater sense of clarity, capability, commitment and confidence. the clarity is critical. as many of you know, i took command in june of this year immediately began an assessment as i was directed to do by the nato and secretary of defense. and following that was a detailed review of that assessment both in nato and inside the united states government. that was rigorous and also invaluable. assumptions, questions, recommendations were looked at hard and so i now believe we have come out with greater clarity of what we think, why we

think it in the direction we're going and that is important for all of us. with the decisions made recently by president obama and other members of the coalition, we have forces moving forward now. by this time next year, i believe we'll have indicators across the country, hard reflections and metrics that will make it clear to us that the insurgency will be defeated. i believe about six months later than that, by the summer of 2011, we can make that same progress clear to the afghan people that the insurgency will not win. and i think that that's critical. that is the critical point, because this will be decided in the minds of the afghan people. success or failure. and when they determine success, that will be the critical point

for us. i think that the beginning of a drawdown of combat forces as announced by president obama for july, 2011, provides an important sense of urgency for all of us to include the government and people of afghanistan so that they can take appropriate action to take part of their shared responsibility for their future and for their security. at the same time, i also think it's clear, as has been stated by president obama and others, that our long-term partnership, our strategic partnership with them is critical and provides a supporting role for them as they move into the future. i think that increase in capability has been important as well. because the clarity that we have achieved now must be reinforced by sustained pressure across multiple lines of operation and part of that is the coalition is

much more capable than we were even a few months ago. as outlined in our initial assessment, it was not all about additional forces. it was about how we operate, changing the focus of how we operate. we've done some organizational changes. we have stood up an immediate joint command, which will lead the commands, which was sorl needed and freed my headquarters for up and out engagement. we have shifted the focus of how we operate towards counterinsurgency more widely across the force. to be honest, canadian forces really led the way on this and we're operating in this way effectively in canadian ground forces in a way to protect and partner with afghans, which is a good model for the rest of the force. and on the civilian side of

that, the development and governance aspects of that have been key. so to a great degree, we are leveraging the example of canadian operations to date to help move the rest of the force. we published a number of documents that support this. one is a tactical directive and that governance the use of lethal fires, air, artillery and ground fires and the intent is to remind ourselves and remind the afghan people that we're there to protect the afghan people not just from the enemy but from all the things which could harm them, ununintentional grond force action. and it reinforces for them our intent and that is for their welfare and that's been key. additional forces are go to go give us additional capacity.

it will let us train the afghan national security forces at a much faster rate and achieve a higher level of professionalism. we will partner with them. and canadian forces are leading the way. when we talk about partnering, what we mean is the afghans aren't subordinate to the coalition force, don't work for the coalition force, nor are they junior partners. standing shoulder to shoulder, the intent is that coalition partners bring some of the things we bring, levels of professionalism, technology, medavac, other enablelers and the afghans bring, the fact they are defending their own country, and together the partnership is strong and together we get stronger and the afghan national security forces can continue to improve at a faster rate with that partnership. that's different than we have

done in the past in most areas of afghanistan. we don't operate separate. we aren't fighting separate wars but fighting shoulder to shoulder to do this together. it's imperfect yet, but we are moving in that direction. and you can find places in afghanistan that fall short of my intent and desire right now, but other places, as i went out on our thanksgiving, i went to a location to visit troops. one was an army, no hot shower because the generator was broken. they didn't complain about that. what they did is pull me aside and said, this partnering, this works amazingly well. he says these guys are doing great and together we are doing great. why didn't we start this 11 months ago. and that was a young sergeant. i didn't ask the question seeking that feedback. he grabbed me and for a young sergeant to go up to a senior

officer and just volunteer, that was pretty extraordinary. so it's that kind of feedback that i get that reinforces my level of confidence and why this -- how we can and must do this is so important. the bottom line, we're going to reverse the taliban and do it fairly rapidly here. contributions of canada fore shadow what will happen in the months ahead. we are focusing on separating the insurgents from the people, particularly in the south, and that's where the bulk of the canadian forces have been. the key isn't how many taliban we kill, the key is keeping them away from the people. we really want the taliban to become irrelevant and rejoin society. this is not a fight to the finish, but a fight for the minds of the afghan people.

mentoring efforts of canadian teams, mentoring teams that work with afghan forces as i talk shoulder to shoulder. and we are helping to build national institutions in afghanistan. and again, it's hard and it's two steps forward and one step backwards, but it's forward. there are development initiatives that provide jobs and education that advance long-term economic growth. candidate after has made a particular advancement in education with 50 schools in kandahar and programs that increase teachers and literacy. and dalla dam is hope for afghan farmers. afghanistan has plenty of water but it doesn't have the ability

to get water where it's needed. with correct water management, afghanistan is one of the most agriculturally rich countries in the region and can be an exporter of food. but with the destruction of irrigation systems and other infrastructure, they have less capacity now to distribute that water effectively than they did in the 1970's and we are helping them get back toward that. the dam is a great symbol for the afghan people. commitment i think is key. increased capability translate to credit built in the minds of afghans. they want to know that our intentions are to help them and they want us to prove that we can also delir deliver on that. commitment displayed by coalition nations and stepping up to short-term requirements has been key. and that resolve will be critical in the months ahead.

given the clarity, capability and commitment we now bring to the mission, i'm confident we have the right strategy and resources. we can't allow that confidence to overwhelm the accurate assessments we owe our leaders and citizens, but we should not allow doubt to blind us to the real prospects to success at this particular moment in time. i'm particularly confident because we have experienced a dedicated coalition forces. another general and i talked about earlier, we aren't the same forces we were in 2001. we are more mature. we are more experienced. and we are closer partners and i think that's a strength that sometimes is underestimated. we also have afghan partners ready to partner the same with us and take on greater responsibility. but most of all we have the reality to lead the afghan

people or the international community want afghanistan to become a sanctuary for terrorism and violence. one final word before i take your questions, ask what kind of enemy he would prefer to fight if given the choice and in a poleion was quoted as saying a coalition, which as coalition commanders, a big concern. and clearly operating as a coalition contains some challenges. there are cultural challenges, language challenges, all kinds of challenges, but we have 44 nations and everybody brings something different and everybody brings strengths to it. i'm convinced we are much stronger as a coalition than we would be as individual nations or individual soldiers. and this has been the searing lesson for me. and it's also hard for the enemy to brand a coalition as evil.

they can brand a single nation or even a couple of nations, but hard to brand 44 nations, particularly small nations who would otherwise have no reason to operate in that part of the world as anything but with the best of intentions. now, that 44 nations is together but it's backed up by young men and women more than 2,800 canadians and their partners that they share the task with. if i go down to southern afghanistan, as i do many times, if you look them in the eye and ask them about the mission, you have no doubt about what they can accomplish. i'm fortunate and honored to serve with all of these great people. and i thank you very much. i'm pleased to answer your questions. [applause]

>> i just want to say that there is a media opportunity that has been arranged after the question and answer period in the drawing room directly over there. so i would ask the press and media to refrain from asking questions during this period. for those of you who will be asking questions, time is relatively short, so please, no significant preamble to the question, yet, please do use one of the three microphones. bill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sir, under your leadership, the military, the international military effort, the alliance in afghanistan is becoming more and more well integrated. but the political angle, the -- there are a lot more -- there

are many, many nations with their policy and diplomatic and development fingers in the pie and it seems to me that perhaps the major weakness of the international effort in afghanistan is the -- establishing the collective will of the countries, of the governments, of the many efforts that are not purely military in that country. what success are you -- and it's not entirely your responsibility but you're stuck with it. what success are you having? and do you anticipate having in trying to get everybody onto the same sheet of music? >> yes, sir. it's not my responsibility, but it's our responsibility to help enable that. on the civilian side, greater coordination and focus is

needed. there are a tremendous number of nations and organizations trying to do the right thing, all playing instruments, but we need to be a symphony to be effective. to the degree we can do it, what i asked our forces to do is that every place, enable, encourage, do everything we can to help pull that effort together and there are great efforts being made in kabul under key civilian leaders. we on the battlefield have more capacity to provide security and provide enabling things. so that's what we are trying to do. i think that's a key ingredient for the international community to get to for success. thanks. >> bob, i see you at number three. >> i'm from the royal canadian regularment. you have a large challenge ahead

of you. if you had two wishes or two requests to make of the allied forces you have under your command, what would those two wishes be. i'm thinking force structures perhaps, caveats, equipment sweeps and so on. what would you advisor like to see that might make your job a little easier? thank you. >> nobody ever offers me wishes. the first -- and that's a great question, because the first is, as much operational flexibility as possible. we are all trying to fight an effort where sometimes we have to mask forces in an area or sometimes mask capabilities and that gets to the issue of coordinating civilian capacity as well. people can do a lot of good things, but if they aren't brought together, you don't have the principle mass.

so the first thing i would ask for is as much flexibility as possible to move forces, to operate in a correct way. and i understand -- i'm not critical of anybody or any nation, because this is our business, but that would be the overwhelming one. and i never get one wish. >> move to microphone number one. >> good afternoon, general. i work for the department of national defence. thank you for taking my question. i was wondering if you or your advisors have a chance to read rachid's books. he says there is demographics, poverty, government oppression and tradition of the islam is

creating an environment where groups such as the taliban and the islamic groups are growing in influence. is the current political strategy in the region short-term thinking in so far as we sustained dictatorships in asian restricting people's rights to express their traditions? i would like to ask if you agree with his perspective and do you see the logic in his argument that the region needs to be developed economically in order to turn the tide against islamic militancy. is this the way to address the

region? >> i do read his books and then i go into a deep depression after i read his lates book. he has an awful lot to say. i think what i would say is, i think what we are doing, particularly in afghanistan, is reflecttive of what we need to do and that is to offer people a chance to shape their future. there is responsibility that needs to be borne by everybody and the afghan people, for example, have a responsibility to help shape their future. we can't do it for them. if we did it for them, it wouldn't be theirs. what we can do as a world is provide them a chance to shape their future. when they do that and this is where i agree, we have to offer young people in those countries some kind of hope. we have to give them a sense that they are not faced with regimes that are oppressive or

social systems that don't allow them to make a living or a reasonable life and that means for men and women. so we've got to give them an opportunity to shape something that's fair for everybody, not necessarily democracy as canada has it, but something that is still fair. so i think there is a lot to what he says, but i go back to my belief, there is a lot of responsibility on the people of each society for their own future. >> go to microphone two and request again that the preamble questions be quite short. >> good afternoon, general. sarah taylor. if i were an afghan, i would be planning to spend the next 18 months inflicting enough casualties to keep the war unpopular in the west other wise lying low and focusing on intimidation of the afghan

population, which has been termed as strategic patience. assuming the taliban do take this approach, how would you address it? if we see a fall off in violence in the next 18 months, how do we know it's to your success as opposed to their withdrawal and waiting for 2011 and your departure? >> absolutely. you have hit the core of this. this is not a military struggle that is going to be won directly. if violence goes down, that doesn't necessarily mean we are being successful, although it is a necessary present requisite for success. if we can get violence down and get taliban influence over the people reduced, then what we do is we provide time and space for several things. we provide time and space to for

afghan national security forces so they can provide security and provide time and space for the government of afghanistan with partnered help and provide governance and give people the opportunity. that's the breathing space in which they must establish their legitimacy and convince the afghan people that that's the way they want to go. if we can give them something they value, then it becomes more durable. if the taliban then come back in a more aggressive posture, they will run into something that is harder. this is what makes counterinsurgency difficult. we are trying to build something with resilience and they are trying to tear it down. and so they have a more difficult time coming up and making their case if the government of afghanistan people can offer hope to the population.

>> the congressional research service recently estimated something in the neighborhood of 50,000 additional civilians will be helping u.s. forces. what role do you see they playing in your operation? >> we will try to keep civilian contractors as small as we can. many of those contractors are afghans and they are hired for logistics functions and that's not a bad thing because they are supporting operations and helping the economy. in many cases, it is developing different processes and companies that will help them in the future. but i think we have tried to use contractors to reduce the number of union forms we need. so there is a balance there. we have to make sure that we don't bring in an excessive number of contractors from

outside of afghanistan who are expensive, tremendously expensive, but displace potential afghan jobs. so that is the balance there. and they are resented to a degree. a certain number is necessary, but we have to keep that as small as we can so we give afghans the opportunity so they develop their own capacity. >> you mentioned in your remarks, general, about outside support for the insurgents. i would like your comments on the strategic report. >> the insurgents get support from the outside, but it's not as some people might view it. it's not like the muge dean.

it is the opportunity to operate in neighboring states with a fair amount of freedom of action, pakistan being the most. but i think it's important that what we try to do is partner with neighboring states, pakistan, iran, china have no stake in a taliban success here. in fact, i think a taliban success is not going to look like taking the whole country but civil war. i think it's important we continue to stress to those nations that we ought to have a shared interest in stability in afghanistan under a government that is representative of the whole people. >> i'm an undergraduate student. united nations had to curtail

activities in afghanistan. with the swell of numbers, could you comment on what you see the role of the united nations being in the coming months. >> the role of the united nations must be large. they should be the primary element that is coordinating donor nations' efforts at development. they bring credibility. they bring international credibility that i think is very, very important just like they do when they participate in elections. i'm hopeful they'll return not only with the staff that they had, but continue to shape the staffing that they have there so as we increase security in areas, they have the ability to operate effectively and partner with the afghan people. because, again, they do bring an extraordinary amount of credibility to the mission.

>> general mcchrystal, a number of observers have commented on the importance of tribal politics in afghanistan. you have noted the need for good governance and stability if we're going to make any progress in extricating ourselves from afghanistan. what do you see as a means for bringing the pashtun -- who are a large group in afghanistan, more into the government in responsible positions? i think it's not unfair to say that they're prime aerially lined up on the taliban side at the moment. >> the pashtuns are actually very well represented in the

government. they are about 42% of the population. president karzai is a southern pashtun. minister of defense and the army which is 42% pashtun also represents ethnicically about the balance and we work with our afghan partners to do that. your point is well taken. the importance of tribes is significant. the tribes have been under assault for almost 30 years. tribal leaders have been killed in huge numbers. president karzai and i have talked about that as he provides reflections. so in areas where tribal leaders have been targeted by the taliban in many cases or supplanted by warlords, what has happened is you have an unnatural dynamic at work for afghanistan. i think what we do as we go

forward, we have to provide that time and space and recognize the role of the tribes. we can't pretend that they aren't part of the political and social fabric of afghanistan. they need to be part of that. and that's where we talk about whereas afghanistan crafts the government model that they need, tribes need to have an appropriate role in that. again, we need to recognize it's not 1979 again. it's going to take some time for the tribes and tribal leadership to be able to regenerate the kind of health they had some years back. >> i would like to thank you. among all other things i would like to thank you for, for being in canada today, because keeping the international cooperation strong is as much of a challenge for you as it is for us afghans, as any other challenge.

and i think we feel it among all the things and the challenges we have to address, keeping the international community committed is very crucial. in canada, has been absolutely exceptional. your presence here, your recognition of the canadian sacrifice and goal is as important, i believe, in this country as it is, my recognition as an afghan. thank you so much for helping me do that job. [applause] >> i'm a retired diplomat. i would like first to echo his

thanks for being here today. it is great to have you present. you have spoken about the importance of the united nations on the development side and spoke about the importance of tribal issues and the importance of neighboring countries. all of these things -- all of those organizations and people would be part of the ultimate solution to any conflict which is a negotiated settlement. as you are familiar with the rand study and others, that is how conflicts end. you have also spoken briefly about the possibility of continued civil war in afghanistan, which would be the ultimate tragedy. i wonder if you could speak a bit to the other side of the equation to the process, both at

the internal and regional level that is needed to negotiate a peace. >> i agree. this will end with accommodation between people, i'm not saying political. accommodation between people who have a disagreement. and on the very senior level in negotiations at the leadership of taliban and government of afghanistan, that is the government of afghanistan's business. and we would support that in anyway we could. but that would be president karzai and his leadership to make that kind of effort and be part of that. thus far, i haven't seen tremendous willingness to sit down and talk, but that could evolve as well. and i think it's important as we show strength with the afghan people and they realize that military victory is not attainable, then, i think it's

possible people will get more willing to talk. that said, everything below very high level we're calling -- we're calling re-integration and providing afghans to talk into afghan society. there is tremendous potential there and tremendous number of members of the insurgency right now who have indicated to the government of afghanistan and others their interest in coming forward. i think one of the things we have to understand is that must be a government of afghanistan program, must be under a government of afghanistan policy, but it can be enabled tremendously by coalition efforts. we could provide resources because what we see are taliban fighters who would like to leave the fight but want to be protected from coalition forces, their current opposition and want to be protected from their current comrades in the taliban.

so they come in and they know that they and their families are not going to be harmed. they also want an opportunity. and many of the taliban fighters may have been involved in this for a tremendous amount of time and may not have a livelihood or the kind of connections that do that and to the degree we need to work with communities to give them an option because there is nothing more dangerous than a fighter with no other option in life. if his identity in life is carrying a gun and has no other option -- and finally, we all want to be respected and it's important as a a fighter makes a decision to lead the fight, we recognize most fighters did it with intentions in their minds were well founded and therefore, when they make a difficult decision to leave the fight, what they need is to be given the opportunity to have respect

as an individual and come forward with honor so as not to be treated otherwise. all of those go together. and i think it's very important as we go forward we understand that. this is not a fight to the death . it is a fight to where people will say, what is best for afghanistan and how can i contribute to that? >> talking about the challenge between the so-called three d's and whether you see an opportunity -- for example diplomatic surge or development surge and what might that look like. and i want to follow on the earlier question here. i'm thinking about the senator who you will know as is true with so many leaders has a

spotty past but has a significant role in the afghan human rights commission and has some opportunities around disarmment related to his religious role. and i'm wondering how you think about integrating that important element in terms of welcoming people back into the community from the hold of the taliban. >> i think when you talk about someone like the senator, that what we are recognizing is where afghanistan is now and not where we wish it was, but where it is and who the significant personalities are at this particular point. in the 30 years of conflict, people do a lot of things that

at the end of the 30 years, they may not want to do anymore and in some cases wish they had not done. i think what we've got to do is rather than focus on the 30 years past, we have to focus on 30 years future and what are going to bring people willing to come to an accommodation and in some cases people who may have been corrupt or done things on the battlefield that aren't drawing a real conversation. and i think we have to be willing to bring them in and look people in the eye and say what are you going to do in the future and not what you have done in the past. is that fair? thank you, ma'am. >> thank you, general. my name is david harris. i'm interested in the question and subject, but in some ways it

doesn't speak its name and that is the increasing subspecialists about infiltration and penetration of the u.s. and other armed services, whether recruitment at home by islamic extremists and moderate muslims have expressed concerns about this not just on the military side but also in reference to general infrastructure, including government. could you share with us some of the concerns and what we are all best to do in relation to anticipating this kind of  problem. >> security in any organization is vitally important, not just security of classified documents but security of each other. on the other hand, i think that sometimes it is also better to accept a bit of risk to avoid overreact r reacting. and i think if we overreact, if

we were to go into racial profiling or the kinds of loyalty checks that sometimes countries will sometimes revert to, it may hurt than it helps. so i think what we got to do is try to balance the two, realizing that at any given day, almost anybody can either betray their country or friends and family. but we can't start with the assumption that they're going to do that. and this allows me to go into -- we had incidents in afghanistan where afghan police or afghan military have at times harmed others. but we have never had an organization do it, just individuals who take acts. so it's a troubled individual. i think it's the same thing. >> i appreciate the complexity

of the insurgency and the safe haven issue. talk about the operation's cooperation with the military to couple with the strategy on the other side of the border. >> as a military commander, my responsibility ends at the border with afghanistan and pakistan. so that's not my operational area. that said, i have a partnership with the pakistani military, the chief of the army staff there and i see him and talk to him very routinely and have a very good relationship with him. because in my view we have shared strategic interests. there is an ongoing insurgency in pakistan. they are assisted by other groups, al qaeda. and there is a whole insurgency going on in afghanistan. the two, afghanistan and

pakistan, is truly going to be secure unless the other side is successful as well. we have shared strategic interests with afghanistan and pakistan, the two countries. we do meetings where the two generals and myself get together to talk about big issues and mechanics, how do you coordinate security, how do you coordinate operations on the border. we are doing better and better. it's not perfect, but it's better. we have border control and coordination centers and things like that so it is my hope as we continue to do this we have absolutely coordinated strategies so as pakistan goes after their security, afghanistan will do the same. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next on c-span, a house hearing on efforts to preserve d.n.a. evidence in rape

investigations. that's followed by a hearing on madoff's ponzi scheme. and later, "washington journal." >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," u.s. president system. and then the sentencing project. the chairman of the national transportation safety board will discuss federal safety investigations of accidents in aviation and public transit. and c.e.o. of the gramine foundation looks at microloans can help developing nations. "washington journal" live here at 7:00 a.m. c-span. >> "abraham lincoln," a perfect gift. it is a perspective on lincoln from 56 scholars, journalists

and writers. "abraham lincoln," in hard cover and now in digital audio to listen to at any time. learn more at c-span.org/lincolnbook. a senate hearing on the backlog of d.n.a. evidence in unsolved rape cases. tens of thousands of rape kits across the country have not been tested. we will hear about the survivors, who provide incentives for local law enforcement agencies to provide rape kits. this lasts about an hour, 45 minutes.

>> judiciary committee is holding a second hearing on the groundbreaking act. and the justice act include the debbie smith backlog reduction act which authorized significant funding to reduce the backlog of victims so they don't live in fear against language that is historic. now we're going to examine some disturbing reports that despite the important progress we made to ensure justice for rape victims that too many jurisdictions, large number of kits are still untested. when d.n.a. evidence taken from rape victims can be used to find and convict criminals, instead it sits on a shelves, rape victims are victimized once again and our communities become more dangerous rather than safer. that's not acceptable and we have to fix that problem. since we passed this important

law in 2004, the debbie smith act has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars going to states to test d.n.a. samples to reduce backlogs and i have worked with senators of both parties to ensure full funding each year and i compliment those senators in parties. and i welcome debbie smith and her husband to the committee once again. she lived in fear for years after being attacked before her kit was tested and her perpetrator was caught. debbie and her husband rob have worked tirelessly to ensure that others do not experience that ordeal. on a personal basis, let me just mention, debee, you and rob and i have talked so many times. i'll say it again, thank you for being here.

rob, thank you for being here. the two of you in my circle of friends, i put you right there, two people i admire greatly. the research is one thing i have heard again and again that should be of great comfort. debee smith program is working and has made tremendous gains across the country. i have heard from the justice department, the states, law enforcement and victims' advocates. the debee smith grants have led to significant meaningful backlog reductions in jurisdictions across the country. the director of the vermont forensic laboratory described to me how federal funding for testing in a case manager

position has resulted in elimination of all back logs in vermont and the efficient use of d.n.a. evidence to solve cases. i hope our little state of vermont will be an example for other jurisdictions. i also know that he was clear in saying that vermont's success would not be possible without the federal funding for the debee smith program. having said all that, it's clear we would not be here today if it were still not a problem. despite the good strides made, significant funding, we have seen alarming reports continue. the study last year found 12,500 untested rape kits in los angeles alone. while los angeles has made progress, other cities are now reporting backlogs. the justice department released a report and found that 18% of unsolved rape cases, evidence

had not been submitted to a crime lab. the justice department is one key component of this problem. a sample that could help make cases instead of sit on the shelf in police evidence rooms that never make it to the lab, then the money does no good. police officers have to understand the importance of testing this vital evidence and must learn when testing is appropriate and necessary. and too many jurisdictions, rape kits are taken from victims. rape kits helps law enforcement get criminals off the street and they are just sitting there as untested and that is unacceptable in any jurisdiction. another way, the backlog problem in some jurisdictions show we are the victims of our own success. the effectiveness of d.n.a. testing, the availability of substantial funding for testing

have led to more samples and cases being sent to a forensic lab. labs face difficult questions on priorities when there are limited resources. we are beginning to learn of possible solutions to these different dynamics. there must be national standards, protocols and best practices and clear guidance to police officers about rape kits and other relevant d.n.a. should go to labs. every jurisdiction should have real incentives to provide comprehensive training and put into place guidelines for the officers to handle evidence. we must ensure communication and compatible technology between the labs and should re-examine regulations and then retested in government laboratories. that costs time and money and slows our ability to reduce

backlogs. i thank you, senator, a former prosecutor for her help in putting this together and her leadership on this issue. many committee members on both sides of the aisle are committed to fixing this. senator kyle from arizona worked closely to get the debbie smith act passed. let's get to the bottom of the problem. there is no question in my mind we can solve it and there is no question in my mind we will solve it. senator sessions. >> thank you, chairman leahy. i am firmly of the view that we are not as a nation investing enough money into the kind of forensic evidence gathering capability that can help us reach the best way to fight

crime, particularly crime like rape which is repetitive, people tend to be repeat offenders and i believe we should do a lot more about that. i'm not happy with our state and local governments. it's always been frustrating to me that we do -- have increases in law enforcement for this and that, but not enough for forensics. and it's just not d.n.a., there's fingerprints and forensics for the guns and firearm cases and all other scientific evidence that often backlog and don't go forward. even simple drug analysis cases that often delay prosecution for months, many months simply waiting on a chem is report to determine if the substance that the individual had was illegal. .