of electoral affairs in afghanistan and the way it reflects also the level of development of institutions in the country, i mean, it's extremely hard to organize elections when you don't know even what the population is. there hasn't been a census in a listening time. the numbers vary widely. a lot of checks and balances that could normally be put in place cannot be put in plates for the moment in afghanistan because their fundamental and quite far-reaching reforms that haven't taken place. we're still working with the legal -- a legal framework that is outdated. .

the kind of attention that these elections garnered, i think, made it even more complicated. those who argue that not enough had been done, a lot of exceptional things were actually done in afghanistan, particularly the ecc is not a body they you will find in other countries, where some of the members are international. i think that in 2004, there was a sense that this body was needed. it was put in place. and they have done great work. eventually, you know, we hope the country can move towards an

electoral process that is more on par with what we see in other countries. but in the meantime, i think that afghanistan has been quite open the putting in place some quite exceptional structures and measures. to make the process more -- for the future elections, to win back the trust, there are a number of things that can be done. i think the next elections will be difficult. >> thanks very much to each of you. i think we have this room until 12:00? that is quite a lot of time for q&a. maybe we can and early if some of you would like to have a chance to speak to some of the

speakers individually. that will still give us quite a lot of time for discussion right now. i would like to use the moderator's prerogative to ask the first question, and i will turn it over to the audience. i would like to focus on something you said, is about, in your topic. feel free any of you to answer this. it goes to the title of today's panel discussion, can afghanistan afford another a election? nobody was focused really on anything else except getting through the election. there is a sense of governing inertia from the afghan side of things, and the sense that international policy was being implemented in afghanistan, and the development of a new strategy on how to approach afghanistan.

we're about to go through another round of national elections as early as this spring, perhaps later this year, can afghanistan and the world really afford to spend a number of months going through a similar process, particularly if the difficulties and challenges that we faced last year are not properly addressed? another way to look at whether they can afford another election is from the financial point of view. how can they find elections this year? the election cycles in afghanistan, we can expect to see a national election either for this year's councils, something like 15 or 16 in the next 20 years. that will have notifications -- i like to put that to our panel.

feel free respond. and we can open that up to the audience. >> i mean, obviously, the taurus of the day of the elections is a choice that the afghan government has to make. the day is actually mentioned in the constitution, which is not something that is usual, and has been a big constraint, creating a number of problems. my concern, n.d., is that the electoral process -- indeed, is that the alleged moral process will take more time. the constitution says that every election will take place in the spring. all of them were held in the late summer or fall.

this is obviously not something that, you know, we have a strong opinion on. it is something that president karzai has announced, a rather ambitious agenda for himself and his country. when there is an alleged oral process, not very much else -- when there is an electoral process, the afghan government is going to have a way that. having elections in may will probably be very technically challenging. that is the decision they ahve to ma -- have to make. they have the right to postpone the election for security reasons.

if this is the right they choose to exercise, we could have a number of reforms that could be put in place. the government is going to have to weigh the costs in terms of the focus of the country and how much reform can be done. >> maybe just to add to that, i think one of the problems that you mentioned earlier is the process of decision making. whether the elections are in may, september, they are delayed one year, when you make a decision, you can get about governance in the interim without as much disruption. unfortunately, what tends to happen, you get this offer and counteroffer going back and forth.

you can't actually realize the benefit of the delay because they're always discussing it. there needs to be an honest kind of consensus developed by the international community that will be funding in large part, and the election commission itself. are we really prepared? the answer will be no. if you make a decision now that says authoritatively, yes, it will help to do constructive work in the interim. the larger question to you raised, john, it was legitimacy. that is certainly a lot around the presidential elections we just had. we will be interested to see what the parliament itself voices be opinion on. they're the ones up for reelection. if an election goes forward, essentially the same mechanism

as 2009, will the constituents say yes, i see you as my representative. or will they be marginalized? if that is the case, and only afghan people can decide that, then there is an interest in advocating for delay and also looking seriously at some of the legal reforms that they have the power to enact. >> i concur with both scott and isabelle. it is a decision that rests with afghan institutions. certainly with the national community. that decision making process -- we are the primary funders. at the end of the day, it is the afghan institutions that are responsible for the progress --

process. we need to focus on that. at the end of the day, it is the afghans themselves. the more that we can do, the better off everyone is going to be. to pick up on scott pose the issue of legitimacy, -- scott's issue of legitimacy, trying to describe as free and fair, at think we need to get into a certain sort of paradigm or metric in terms of elections in countries like afghanistan. it is seen as being incredible and inclusive for the population. you know, john made the point earlier that not just security issues have an impact on the elections, but people voting

with their feet. that is not a phenomenon that is strictly limited to afghanistan. this should not be seen as unusual. looking forward, what we need to do, we need to collect from the international community supporting the process that are responsible for it. we need to be working towards creating a process that the people themselves feel it reflects their will. that should really be what our objective should be going forward on this. >> why don't we open it up now? speak clearly and injuries yourself before we ask a question. maybe we should take two or three questions at a time and turn them over. i see one question here. these three up in the front. is there a microphone?

>> this is being recorded, so it would be good if you please use the microphone. >> i am with the afghan tv service, the voice of america. i would like to follow up on the issue of reform. how much does reform depend on the iec or the president's willingness to act upon the recommendations that were made very clear during this last cycle? >> i am from the middle east institute. perhaps we can go beyond the mechanics and process that we have focused on. is this a parliament that is electing what ever it is, to

look at the character representation, the effectiveness of the results, the effectiveness of the parliament. there seemed to be basic, larger flaws that are not going to be addressed at all. obviously, one of them is the nontransferable boat -- vote. it caused so much confusion and complexity, certainly. the second is the absence of competing political parties. it has a great deal of effect on the way that people vote. the kinds of consequences that you have involving popularity in particular. and the third is the absence of the census. it would enable us to see the kind of parliament on a

district basis. that existed in the elections that took place in 1965-69. it gave a focus on representation in large, provincial elections. >> john edwards. good morning, everyone. i salute the outstanding work that you will get out there. probably everybody here. it was an enormous contribution. i have a prelude to the question that is for all three of you. you will hold the afghans in very high respect. ultimately, it has to be there process. if i could make a very modest appeal with respect to the representative from the u.n.,

show them the respect today. it is a rare opportunity to talk to folks that really know, to show respect by being very candid. to call a difficult, it is far worse. when they go very wrong, there -- and they have advocated were the [unintelligible] their lives are at risk. we have elections coming up in may, so we should show respect for people that are there by being candid. in that respect, do you believe, all three of you, that the difficulties -- the fiascos -- scott came out and said that this really was massive fraud.

with the extensive damage to the credibility, there is some kind of investigation warranted. and afghans themselves -- from the model, it is crucial to have. the other question, particularly for isabelle, where was the u.n.? not your entity, but the experts that were so involved in the process. where were they during the preparation, and as the fraud was perpetrated. --? again, icily grant and scott for your outstanding work. -- i salute grant and scott for

a standing work. >> a lot to think about. i will let you fight amongst yourselves about who gets to answer. >> i love the opportunity to reflect. john, your point about oing -- going forward, etc. one that came out was from ndi. it was a road map for, their suggestion establishing something like a commission in kenya. and i think an initiative like that is a very worthwhile undertaking. i think it offers everybody what they're looking for, an

opportunity to reflect an honest and open, transparent manner. to look at what are some of the activities that could take place that are positive? others are already on this wavelength. i think my personal opinion would be that we can reflect very seriously. this would not be an international effort. this would be a joint afghan international effort. i would you in that direction buried i completely agree with the points that you made. -- i would point you in that direction. i completely agree with the points that you made. the whole political party issue

was near and dear. i think a lot of people were surprised. i am certainly looking forward to, in afghanistan, you're going to need political parties. they do not support that, and it is a detriment to party development. this is something -- and development of political parties is not want to take place overnight. -- is not going to take place overnight. they don't have the same connotation in afghanistan as they do here. i think we would see a parliament that, perhaps, would

be ablet o -- able to coalesce around issues much more easily and quicker than is the case at this opint in -- point in time. the question about the iec, it gets back to the last question. it would be fair to say, and i like to make this very clear we all -- clear. we all have -- it does not serve anybody the start pointing fingers, particularly at individuals or institutions. we all could have done a better job collectively.

those that take up the mantle will be talking to them about that. what has happened first -- improvements can and should be made, and we have to move forward. it is easier said than done. as a they have ignored that in order to be able to move forward. >> i agree -- you also asked how much of this is the political will in terms of reform. a lot of it rests in both of

your hands. it would have to be the president of the decision. there needs to be constructive reform. the 300,000 plus staff -- it makes a big decision to fix it. the political will or institutional will have a lot to do with this. i agree with grant.

forward looking, with afghan and international -- what happens so we can get to a political resolution of these in afghanistan? adding that as an achievement that we should recognize, an amicable agreement among the candidates that had the right to run off. this is what the government of afghanistan should be about. that is ultimately the bottom line. so looking at the future, how can this be more legitimate? i think that would be a good idea. you also ask, where was the un in this process? there were warning signs in the form of the voter registration process that i mentioned. the numbers were coming back

suspiciously in a number of areas, particularly conservative provinces that had very high female registration. that could have been looked at more closely. i don't fault anyone. there were warning signs, and i think looking forward, we must look at the patterns of fraud that we were able to uncover and look at it more broadly. practices or provinces are problematic. i think there is room to do that. and finally, i think brant said it well in terms of the importance of political parties , what rule will abdulla play?

he got a significant percentage of the vote. and will he use this to try to build a party? there are numerous attempts by different factions of opposition. that is a key part of any function of a political system. they did a very good job at the personal amount -- he got a lot of support that is unexpected. that would be one way to start building the party, so it is a good thing to watch. it is also an area where you can say, -- [unintelligible] there's definitely room to work on that.

to start with these questions, from my perspective of having been in new york, i spent some time in afghanistan. > there are very public disagreements within the un about how to handle that. there is a lot of attention and energy, it made it more complicated for the u.n. to respond to those problems. i think is important to remember that the u.n. has to be and completely impartial and processes -- anything that puts

unquestioned -- this impartiality in doubt, it makes it hard for us to do our job properly. what we are officially advocating throughout the process is to follow the process. i can't emphasize enough how exceptional institutions are. it gave a lot of power to some individuals to address the fraud that would of been very hard to prevent. that ties into something that a lot of people -- there is some confusion about how much of an international process these elections are. even in 2005 when i was covering

the eastern region, i saw the elections as very much an ongoing process. when you're covering a whole province, in my area, there were many problems. afghans were running the elections. they are certainly running the elections now. i don't think that the personnel on the ground could have impacted that so much. there is certainly advice that could have been given. overall, there was not a process in place. i think the process worked. the results that had to be an old were annulled. -- annulled were annulled.

we could've gone to a second round with these decisions. there is a decision to take matters into our own hands, but i do not think that is right. the afghan institutions did their work. i think the process worked. now to tie into how it could be done better, i think the question of the census, to me, it's interesting. there was a process that was supposed to put -- be put in place originally. all of these things would help tremendously in making the process more -- to make it a better process. the security question is key. i take it is very hard to conduct exercises that require a

lot of time. and also a lot of money. somebody has raised the issue, can the country afford an election financially? when a special committee requests more safeguards, do you safe -- the safeguards come at a high cost. they are really key to making the process more credible. it is more important that the people have trust in the institutions that deliver the reductions rather than trying to implement the voter registration system with by a metric features and iris recognition. this will not solve the problems of people did not trust the process. there are a number of key reforms -- i think the legal reforms are long overdue.

for instance, the authority under which the president appoints actually comes from a transitional article of the constitution. there were some efforts on the part of the parliament -- and i think this is something that should happen. this is, as grant said, and responsibility for everybody. i would not say it is not just the eic or karzai, scott underlined -- i think they have earned a voice in the debate. they can also pushing a number of issues. it has to be a collective effort. there is another role to play there, too, with the sovereignty of the country.

the problem with the reforms -- it would be a long time. the senses and the civil voter registry, a change in legislation would probably take a year or a year-and-a-half. it is hard to say exactly, but there are constraints that could be put in place in a shorter time frame. again, is going to depend a lot on the time of the election. >> i would like to make one quick edition. what we saw -- one quick addition. we saw in 2009 was of a democratic culture -- and the challenge of a democratic culture coming out of a civil

war after many decades. in our own countries, often, when we go to vote whether it is municipally, or statewide, they are either on a volunteer -- [unintelligible] these are people that you see a election after election after election. after water to a election cycles in afghanistan, can we really expect to have that level of understanding of that sense of civic duty and responsibility. it is going to take time. and also it won't be the same to

the same degree in 10 or 15 years that it might be now, but certainly, afghans that we spoke to as part of the election process -- they don't want to see institutions that respond to their needs. in many respects, those needs are the very same that we have. the want a secure, peaceful environment. they want economic opportunities for themselves and for their families, for their community. i think we are all working towards the same goal here. perhaps expectations are just a bit too high early on.

that transition is going to happen. i come away not pessimistic of although was a difficult process. i am optimistic about the long- term, you know, opportunities for afghanistan and the people of afghanistan. they're going to get there. they just need our continued support. >> just quickly, marvin, under question of a census. there was an opportunity lost. the levels of a security make conducting an accurate sense is very difficult today. back in 2002 or 2003, they were cast with running a census. it no longer exists. they did not get the funding or the impetus to conduct that. afghanistan poses population is branching from 24 million

people, a wide range. we don't know if any level of precision how many districts in the country, let alone how many people are living in the districts. it is something that gets highlighted this year when they will be district elections. let me turn a over to one question here, and we will go to the side. can you please come to the microphone and introduce yourself? >> thanks. my question returns to the title of the panel. i think that i am hearing, and i just want to make sure to give you the opportunity to confirm that this is correct, that

rather than making it a priority to improve the election process and capacity, maybe there should be something of a the emphasis on elections as a priority. perhaps the greater emphasis on other sources of afghan government such as governance in the sense of functioning security and economic development, i think brant distinguished between it credible elections, free and fair elections. the sense i am getting from a number of the comments just now is that perhaps afghans have lower expectations then the international did, and it was something -- maybe there was

international scapegoating of the election process for the frustrations with afghanistan policy. am i miss hearing that? ->> it is world wide node that the elections were fraught -- full of fraud. of course, the security -- my question is, what are the possibilities of having parliamentary elections coming soon?

>> i am michael with the rand corp. will be -- will they be held in addition to the administrative elections? because there was a kind of false impression after the 2005 election that went very well. perhaps, it was a lot messier than people wanted to a knowledge at the time. and perhaps greater attention to how these elections went. within the parliament and also the provincial council. it might have made people -- i could focus a little bit more -- i was wondering if you could

speak to the 2005 experience. i have a question about legitimacy. i am under the impression that -- [unintelligible] it was the international community that was fretting over the -- over what the elections were due to the legitimacy of the afghan state. i feel like there is insufficient evidence for afghan -- there are studies that have been done -- [unintelligible] they have concluded that it depends on who you ask. one of the other things that they point to is that it is kind of low anyway.

perhaps these elections did not do as much damage. we're electing a government, what is this going to be for everybody? and you can share your thoughts on the effect of the legitimacy of the afghan state. thank you. >> scott, feel free to start. >> let me touch on a few points. we look to other aspects of governance to improve legitimacy more than elections. i think that is a good idea, to not just say, well, the measure of afghan development or afghan democracy is the technical aspect of an election.

obviously, corruption will be the key word. that doesn't have to do with elections, but with the afghan institutions. i think it needs to be a comprehensive approach. were the grants used, it is participation. and maybe that is really the benchmark that should be observed and improved upon. low voter turnout, i the based on 2005 elections, i do not know how well it was reported, the working in afghanistan, the composition of the afghan [unintelligible] they have a lot of unsavory characters.

now i don't think that they have to do with expectations of what an election should produce. it is not understanding of whether you get an unsavory character or not. the really look to powerbrokers or international institutions to solve the problem for you. that is unrealistic. at the same time, not some much the process of 2005, but the results in terms of parliament census. and what kind of leaders you have -- that is the risk going forward. from this process in 2009, adding the publicity over the fraud and the investigation into it was very positive.

there might have been fraught or actors and the provincial -- fraud or actors in the provincial council. i just address several questions at once, but legitimacy -- they are much more outcome driven. do they understand how the process works? they see their votes or their attitude leading to an elected body. i will leave it at that. it kind of touches on a number of issues at once. and then, there are questions about council elections. i am not sure what their schedule is with that. i think it will be difficult to hold them in may.

they need to do more preparatory work. >> anybody else care to respond? >> what i would say is that, alexian's as i mentioned before, -- elections as i mentioned before, there also a reflection -- and they are also a reflection. i have no opinion on win the elections should take place. it is a decision for the government. there are a number of things that have the change in afghanistan. the government has recognized that. the people are expecting changes. but those will really make a difference.

i think security is at the heart of a lot of issues. a lot of other things will be possible. i would not say that we should work on improving the electoral process. whatever can be done should be done. we will not have -- not only is there experience with electro processes, which is that the only time can resolve, there are other factors that are still there. again, there has to be a balance on these other things, a realization that the electoral process will also be dependent on those other factors. if there are parts of the country that are not safe, the

elections are supposed to give everybody a voice. how do you reconcile that? it ties into the question on the lack of security. how will that affect the elections. there are always things that can be done. relearning the trust of the people in terms of being more transparent, saying what the transitions are, people understand what the process is going to be so that they have time to react. that can obviously affects decisions. and with the parliamentary race, you will have hundreds of thousands of agents throughout the country checking the process. it would be hard to imagine a

place where you have just one real competitor. if you have two or three agents in one area, it is the best check that the process can have on the district and logo elections. president karzai mentioned his intention to hold them. indeed, i think that there are a number of things that need to be put in place beyond the district boundaries. if we have a better understanding of the size of the population, it is something that should also be done, the mandate as to why they should be adopted way ahead of time so that the provincial elections -- their mandate was adopted after the nomination.

i think you need some preparations on the question -- preparations. on the question of the 2005 elections, located where the parliamentary candidates were there for a number of weeks, there was a lot of interest, a lot of debate about the 2005 elections. like most politicians, they are quite competitive and eager to win. i don't think the u.n. had any of illusion that these elections are going to be easy. certainly, the elections in 2005

raised a number of problems. again, remember, these were the first afghan elections. they are still testing what will work for them. every election has had some fundamental changes in terms of where accounting is done the itc was part -- iec was put in place in 2005. there's been a lot of changes. not only are we talking about a country that has not have -- does not have a lot of experience, the rules keep on changing. i don't think you can expect any election to be smoothed for a while in afghanistan what do

afghans think about it? that is crucial. the results of the election must be accepted by the afghans, much more than whether they are accepted by a international community. i wish there were more studies were the afghans would like to see -- what they thought about these elections. >> a quick comment with respect to jeremy's question. i echo the scott's comments. wantonly to keep in mind is to be able to demonstrate progress from one election to the next. however the metric you wanted to use, people have to see progress that we're moving in the right

direction. in terms of the, you know, parliamentary elections, how might we improve? i think is important that we make this point, a very honest reflection on the process. in august of 2009 it used to go back to it -- and not just of 2009. it needs to go back to 2004 and 2005. it needs to go back to when they were written. we need to take a serious, honest view of what went on, and how the resources collectively can best be apportioned to

address the issues that need to be addressed. we will talk about district or -- we will not talk about district or municipal elections. one of the things that comes to my mind, to be frank, in 2004, 2005, [unintelligible] it may not have been to the same extent, but it was certainly reported on. in 2005, the issues were very [unintelligible] there was no transitional justice undertaking up to that point in time where people felt those individuals that were running, people's minds believed that these individuals that committed crimes should somehow be prevented from

participating in this democratic process. that tainted people's views of the process. many of the complaints we receive in 2005 did not do with the electoral issues or offensive -- offenses. they are violations of criminal activity. obviously, we had no jurisdiction. we had a very narrow mandate. we had to dismiss these. scott knows because he was there in 2005. there were very heart wrenching accounts of human rights violations and criminal activities over the past years.

that play a big issue. the other thing, too, to get it to the illegitimacy issue, -- to the legitimacy issue, and delegitimize are of these elections, somehow with dealing with the complaints that we received or initiated on our own, somehow we will write all the wrongs -- right all the wrongs. that is dangerous to put an organization in that position. and i think there and is probably, to me, one of the greatest feeling -- failings. we did work in this area, and not just education, but working

with candidates, more intensive basis. we work with political parties and the emerging political parties. and also working very -- he is still has not been studied very seriously, but looking at the public officials in the country. there was some training undertaken to work with inspector general's of the police. i am thinking specifically right now with the efforts of the institutions. but there are rules and responsibilities in the electoral process. it needs to be worked out in future elections. we sought and received many complaints.

while the president did issue a decree, i think it was a good step. i think we need to back up those words with concrete training programs and action plans so that people understand that authority and responsibility, there is a specific role in the electoral process. it is to support the process, not a particular candidate. a lot of the resources were improperly used. >> in just a quick observation to the last question raised by our colleague from rand. i think you made a good point. did the elections have not so much negative impact on legitimacy? why that is something i would probably agree with.

the illegitimacy of the government in afghanistan was before the selection process to place. and that the election served to certainly highlight that. it was the way the country had been governed over the previous year's that led to the large levels of illegitimacy that we saw. the large levels of fraud at much more of a significant impact. when i was here in may, there were very few people that were questioning the direction -- the strategy that he unveiled in march. a few months later, the levels of debate has shifted dramatically. you had people in congress say

how could you back an election like this? it is fraudulent. they're not covering big country properly. we need a credible partner in afghanistan. the election certainly had an impact on western opinion in western policy. but the afghan people already viewed their government with large skepticism. with that, why don't we take some from the back of the room. we in the back? can you come up to the microphone? right there. and right here. >> i am with [unintelligible] i wrote the political rights monitoring appointment. during that period, drafting the report, we saw taht the m - -th

at the -- that the media was not very engaged or active. what about the impact or lack of impact of the media particularly in understanding engaging? and not some much in kabul, but regionally. >> i am also with undp, the washington office. i am wondering if you can clarify, particularly isabelle, whether you think that the division of labor works effectively going forward, and looking back, in each case there might be less of each entity that would improve the next one. thanks. . .

>> i wrote an article about the lack of advocacy. i found out that most un security representatives did not really report a lot about how they work to include women in political processes. i wonder if you know some good examples from your own work or from the un in afghanistan that sets a good example for the afghan people. and if you have some examples of

how you and your colleagues are working to support the implementation of the resolution. thank you very much. >> does anyone care to tackle this question mark? >> i was in pakistan in 2007 and 2008 for the elections and in afghanistan in the 2005 election. one thing i found impressive was the development of the media between those two election cycles. my sense from talking to colleagues was that it was a very vibrant coverage, the

proliferation of television and radio stations, and it was a very lively coverage of the election campaign. one anecdote i could bring to the table is, just before i left i had lunch with an editor of one of the daily newspapers in afghanistan. he was telling me a little story about how they had coverage of the iranian elections the previous year. they were getting about 40,000 hits a day on their website. during the 2009 election, and after the order was issued and the decision came there would need to be a second round, they had created a special site on

their website for the afghanistan elections. suddenly there was tremendous traffic, 45,000 hits a day from iran about what was going on in afghanistan. many of the comments were about what had taken place and how afghanistan was now going into a second round. the comments being made, afghanistan -- our own country would suppress this kind of opposition activity. the government was very forceful in iran, but in afghanistan you were able -- the democratic process went through the way it should. he said it was terrific for him, a tremendous boost to listen to the observations of others, a next-door neighbor

about what went on. he felt very good about the process. i think the media in afghanistan, from my perspective, i think it contributed to a lot of awareness about what was going on and had a positive impact. i will let isabel deal with the question on the role of the un institutions. in terms of gender specific activities, i know that there was a gender unit within the organization that looks specifically at this. bcc did not really see complaints are challenges breaking out on a gender basis.

one of the problem because we were late in setting up, we did not have the opportunity to focus more on recruiting women to the organization, which we should have. we were up against time constraints, advertising, etc. unfortunately, we did not have a commissioner -- of female commissioner on the ecc in 2005. one of the recommendations going forward from 2009 will be to look at this and ensure that women are more inclusive in the organization, not just at the headquarters level but around the country. i think we have one office that

had to women commissioners and at male colleague, but by and large, we were underrepresented with women in the organization, which was unfortunate. given the circumstances, we cannot really do much about it. >> on the question of the division of labor between the different un agencies, there are many models throughout the world about how the un organizes itself in terms of supporting the election. the afghan model is slightly unusual in the sense that there is a security council mandate that does not have a military component. i am not sure if this is a

consequence of it. traditionally when we have a mission, that is usually the one delivering and electoral assistance. untp is our partner in over 40 countries now in terms of delivering it electoral assistance and has tremendous experience in doing so. the un has adopted an integration model which helps all the agencies work together towards a common goal. we are reflecting on how we could have worked better. we have to be quite open with the problems that internal strife created. we are quite aware of that.

i do not see a fundamental problem with the way the division of labor was in afghanistan in terms of electoral support. untp is well equipped to deliver the assistance. the un is still reeling from the attacks we experienced at the end of last year. there is a lot of reflection being done and how we can best support the country while ensuring that our personnel does not suffer or incur unreasonable risks. in terms of the involvement of women in the election, i cannot emphasize enough the admiration i have for afghan women and

women politicians, women voters. as a political adviser in the eastern region, i was in contact with many of the female candidates. i spoke to female candidates who had undergone a tax. -- had undergone attacks. one candidate was shot in the leg. these women went back to their campaign with an energy and courage that you can only admire. as much as possible has to be done to support them. we should anticipate the same problems that we have had for the next elections. there will probably be a need to encourage more female candidates. there will probably be challenges in recruiting the

appropriate amount of staff. there i think it is extremely important to emphasize the usefulness of having a female staff. a lot of people ask me, " isn't it difficult for women to work in afghanistan? it gives me access to more than some other international advisers can do. i can go talk to of men and women equally. i could go and talk to women who had not left their houses since they were born. my male colleagues could never have done that. in that sense it is very important to prioritize that early on. as grant said, there is a gender unit, but it was put in place

quite late and did not necessarily have the resources. in my experience i found that the best way to encourage women's participation is through peer support from other women. >> i will touch briefly on the northern issue. what grant said, media has developed significantly from 2005 to 2009. we all gave a series of talks in the different regions. good questions came out, and they seem really enthusiastic about that. the area for improvement is content. a lot of rumor is reported. i guess that is to be expected

to some degree, but the access and coverage is used their and being better informed about the process would be a way to improve going forward. i second heard comments about the courage and strength of women who do choose to enter politics. one anecdote about the determination of women to participate. i was talking to the human rights commission. they were saying it women were having difficulty campaigning because of the strictures on women. if their husbands to allow them to leave the house, still communities will be upset if women are out campaigning or posting campaign posters with their photo on them so people can identify them on the ballot. many women candidates or print

out business cards with their photo on it and their platform on the back, a few bullet points. this could be handed out more discreetly so they would not suffer harsh reactions because their posters were up like the male candidates. i thought that was encouraging, and that can continue. >> i should have known better than to think we might end the debate earlier. we will have one more round of questions. we will try to wrap up in the next 10 minutes.

>> my knowledge of afghanistan is rather limited, but i do want to raise a question. we are reaping what we so did to some extent. this is an issue of want to bring to other pose conflict countries. we are in a hurry to build up a constitution. we overloaded with processes that the country cannot deliver on. with afghanistan, in retrospect, would it be better served to have multi electoral processes? look at india. as late as 1980, you need to grow into your expectations and aspirations. this is something i just want to throw into the field.

>> i would like to get your opinion about the dynamics among the people in terms of the ethnicity, religion, and differences and divisions. if you look back at the presidential elections of 2005, it was divided. this time around we had similar candidates. i would like to ask your opinion in terms of contrast between the elections this past year and 2005. is there any indication that ethnic relations are the differences among people have improved in the past five or six

years? >> can you comment or give an assessment of the political management of the process? sitting where you were sitting, some of the political science that might have made your job easier or harder. what went wrong, and what should we expect coming in may? >> if you can keep your answers relatively brief, that would be helpful.

>> i think the first point is a good one, putting on too much, too fast. in the transitional period, there was so much that need to be done. i think it is recognized by many of the players that expectations of the heart of the international community were perhaps a bit high, and that carried over to expectations by afghan, that we would have fully functioning institution on all these different levels at once. when that did not happen, there is a bit of let down, and that lays out in the electoral world in terms of lower voter turnout and other things as well. management of expectations and being more realistic about what can be achieved in a particular time frame. people are bearing in mind that

that needs to be communicated as well as the new administration takes office. a great question about that ethnic interaction. i did not study it that much in 2005. it was certainly the elephant in the room as we went through the debate about fraud and going to a runoff. there were dark rumors that some are unhappy and preparing to protest if things do not go their way with their candidate. i do not know how realistic those are. in the end, there was not in a major incident. i did not feel there was any real flash point that was about to go off or that was narrowly averted.

my anecdotal impression is that there were ethnic candidates but there were not really ethnic divisions that came out in public debate. in terms of political management from washington or other international players, it was certainly relatively minimal if anything at all in terms atecc's operation. we got support from the international community in terms of our process and our decisions. throughout, we were processed based, and following our procedures and applying equal criteria to all complaints was our number one goal. i think the acceptance about -- are finding it's hopefully reflect that people did

recognize we are acting according to the law and according to procedures. in that sense, the support we got, saying these are the decisions and the afghan government should and ultimately did abide by them. as people saw in the final days leading up to karzai's announcement that they would have a second round, it was shown to be quite limited. from the complaints, i think the rules for well respected in terms of the international community have an interest in the process.

>> on the question of the overload of processes in afghanistan, what i would say is that obviously a process was started. you can question whether that was the way to go. it is hard to go back on things that have now been experienced a few times. from my limited experience in afghanistan, i think that as in most countries in the world, citizens like the idea of one- man, one-vote. it is a fairly simple concept to grasp. it is quite appealing. i think the problem is that often, first elections raise a lot of expectations that cannot be fulfilled. to be frank, in afghanistan on a provincial level, most of the power is still held by governors who are not elected.

the level of change that the citizens have experienced after elections was obviously disappointing. i think there is a reflection or some conclusions that people have reached on that. it raises questions that are broader than the elections. on the dynamics within afghanistan, i find it interesting. i come from belgium, which is ethnically divided, particularly in terms of politics. in afghanistan, it is fair to say that voting is still done largely along ethnic lines. there is always a frustration on the part of the ethnicities that are lesser in numbers, because you have a sense that your chances of winning the top posts

is limited. that is where a lot of work has to be done in terms of power sharing so that every group deals included -- feels included and it feels their rights respected. although there were fieldfears, particularly when there were only two candidates left in the race, that some ethnic violence could develop. i have not seen anything overly worrying, but i think there is something to say about the responsibility of the government now to make sure that every ethnic group finds its place. >> in terms of the question on the constitution, we should not forget that we had international and afghan agreement on the bond process. that had very specific

activities, time lines within it. there was a lot of discussion afterwards that maybe that was just -- that process was too aggressive, but it was a process that we stop to and worked through -- stuck to it and worked through. the good, the bat, and the ugly. we all deal with constitutions and parts of them that we do not necessarily agree with. you have to move forward. i do agree that it heightened expectations by all parties in terms of how progress was going to carry on after that was fully implemented. >> in terms of the question on ethnicity. i would go back to the earlier question about political

parties. this is where political parties are really necessary in a place like at to get beyond the identification of merely belonging to one ethnic group over another, and balancing are having an individual speaking on your behalf, as is the case in this current system. looking more at what people's needs are on a geographic basis as opposed to splitting it out on ethnic lines. that is where political party development in afghanistan is really required. in terms of the role of the u.s. government, at least from our perspective, i would like to say that the u.s. government is extremely responsive to the

needs of the ecc, as were other international donors. they were very engaged in what we were doing and made very clear that they totally back the work of the ecc. specifically, we had challenges in terms of establishing our organization across the country. the un at times was not the most responsive organization from a procurements perspective. those times where we had lax in getting things out, we turn to usaid and their partner to provide us with some support. we were provided with that in an extremely timely basis. both in terms of personnel as

well as in terms of resources to help us get offices up and functioning. we had a very good relationship, not just with the u.s. government but with all international donors. both collectively working through the un, but also on an individual basis with our organization. >> unfortunately, we have gone a couple of minutes over, so we will have to conclude the discussion there. thanks to all three of you for what was a very interesting discussion on a subject that is not going away anytime soon. with the elections coming up later this year, this will be on the news and on people's minds for the upcoming weeks and months. thank you all for coming out to our first public event on afghanistan this year, the first of many. the next begins in about 90

minutes on the state of public health and afghanistan. you are welcome to come back for that. please sign up outside with your e-mail address so we can keep you informed of future public events. thank you for coming today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> afghanistan's logar province is a mostly agricultural region.

davidaxe alex followed the troos there. >> is a pretty populous districts, a farming community. 90% of the folks there grow wheat or corn or raise animals, goats and sheep and cows. traditionally they grow much of the food that the people of kabul et. it is about a two-hour drive. a year ago, there were 100 americans in lobar province. there was no local development

work, no training of the afghans. now with reinforcements that have enough troops to do some works. the colonel there in the province decided it was going to identify the population centers in logar that are most amenable to working with the coalition to take the damage of that favorable attitude, to get in there and do some work. he put most of the troops there in the most friendly population center. the idea is to do good work there so that word spreads to some of the less frilly communities that if you get along with the coalition, then you get stuck. he calls it the extreme makeover afghanistan program.

>> part of extreme makeover is just trying to improve the everyday way of life. some of the civilians -- we have established a little bit of a security bubble. this is a location where we have had a good response from the local population. a general good-natured for the government's. within this security bubble, we provide basic services, a micro grant of money 3 the cerp program. we ask them what they need most, and they try to identify what they most need.

it is something very small and effective straightaway. baraki barak is a fertile area of agriculture, so it is perfect. >> you are expanding the security bubble in trying to reach into communities where you do not have a large presence. >> military patrolling is envy. we show the villagers that have given us a warmer welcome, we are rewarding them for doing a good job. the other villagers who are currently being partially influenced by us and partially by the enemy, it creates a situation where we want them to pick one side. you either take the government

of afghanistan, or you pick the taliban. >> everybody pretty much in logar province is a former, or they work for formearmers. in one way or another, everybody is associated with agriculture. it is one of the bread basket provinces of afghanistan. if you are going to reach out to them, you have to speak like a farmer. was the u.s. army has done is turn the company size army outpost in to the sort of odd, agricultural commune dressed in military fatigues. the local capt. their hosts a meeting with the local agricultural associations, trying to get the problems

farmers talking to each other so they can cooperate on the things like shipping their kids up to kabul for sale.. >> they ride out in the morning and sit and talk with the afghan farmers. the idea is just to find out what afghans in logar really need and to provide that. the way it was described to me is that so much reconstruction resh -- summitry construction is providing things that the local populace does not actually need. instead, the coalition provides things they think people would need. they never bothered to ask. there is a lot of school building or road building going on in communities that don't

necessarily want schools or roads. maybe they are homeschooling their kids, or they can manage education on their own. may not look like western-style education, but it is good enough. one thing is just to ask the local populace what they really need. what can we give you that you cannot give them resumed that you cannot give yourself question ou? it is all agricultural stuff.

>> we are conducting agricultural surveys. it will give us a chance to show them that these are services we can provide for them, and hopefully we can turn these villages into pro-coalition areas. we are asking what type of crops they have what kind of fodder they use, do they vaccinate their animals, just to get a better understanding of what type of agricultural services that would benefit from and what services they have currently. >> we are going to split off into two sections. we will move up here in question these guys.

does he have any of his land that is his own acreage that he farms? >> he says he has right here. >> does he have any animals that he cares for? can he tell me how many donkeys, chickens, sheep? [speaking foreign language]

>> he says he has like nine donkeys. >> does he have any chickens are sheep? i would like to ask him some questions for a survey we are doing. i would like to go back to our truck so we can conduct the survey, and either tomorrow or the next day you can come to the district center. we will be running agricultural and veterinary services. any of his friends who are farmers in the area can come. [unintelligible]

>> does he read any of the tools he is is performing? -- does the rent any of the tools he uses for farming? the? rent mean -- do you know what rent means? light borrowing it from someone else? >> while i was in baraki barak, the afghan government opened a new district center.

the district local governments are all in the same compound, so it is easy for afghans to know where to go when they have a problem or want to seek out the services that local governments should be providing. the governor arranged a big ceremony and invited a bunch of dignitaries, both foreign and afghan dignitaries to fly down to inaugurate it. there was a bunch of speechifying and they beat the east -- and a big feast. demonstrations like that are important in afghanistan because there is a tradition of local governments. the more pomp and ceremony you have, the more attention you draw to this thing. it is not like they take local

government for granted. they do not think about it at all. it is a nonentity. their attention needs to be drawn to the fact that they do have a local government. they have this facility and they have a district of government. it is very important for local government. the idea is to create security, to prime local afghans for a better relationship with their government, and then to keep that government into gear and had it do things. frankly, it needs a building in order to do that kind of stuff. the district some governor, an appointed official, is sort of the mayor of baraki barak district. he is supposed to be the goat to guy for local government issues. -- the go-to guy.

there are a lot of governance issues, not just corruption at the oveupper levels. the obvious is to get him acting like a real mayor. in this case, the resources are mostly coming from the u.s. army and the coalition, but at least you can put an afghan face on it by putting him out in front. the state department since then district support teams, roughly a dozen guys, mostly foreign service officers. they are experts in governance. the head of the district support team is named ron barkley. he chases down the seventh governor and a side-by-side, they hang out with the army.

wherever the army goes, they go with them. as the army interacts with local afghans, the sub governor is they are putting an afghan face on it. ron is there to babysit him and encourage him to act like a mayor rather than a strong mama. >> the village elder is going to collect the names of the people who still need power and take them to the suburb governor. >> it is time that we start from the bottom up, the village level, and were up toward governments. we have been doing top down from the central government down to the province. that is working, but it is slow and there are a lot of hindrances to get the money and projects down to the districts.

this whole idea with the district support team is new. it gives us the opportunity to be here and shake hands with the sub governors and the local village leaders and then go from there. >> we try to help local government figure out how to govern, i guess. >> that is exactly right. they have great concept, but it is so limited right now. we are trying to say what you are doing is good at that level, but let's expand from the village of to the district. people will see it is evident that the government of afghanistan is doing something correctly, that there is something happening in their village in their district that is being done by the government of afghanistan.

>> what is your typical day like? >> it varies. you are not sitting at a computer every day. you are out almost every day. our district governor comes in on mondays and stays through friday. we have a limited amount of time. he loves the evenings, so we go over and have a meal with him pretty much every evening. at that time, when you are just sitting around sharing a meal is where you are able to really make inroads as far as understanding what they are trying to accomplish and helping them understand what we are trying to accomplish. >> what are the biggest challenges in your job? >> it is slow, because you realize that if we just try to do a project on our own, we are limited. we can go out and do something

and have a quick impact, but it does not multiplied. it is like a concentric circle. it just stays in one little area. we are trying to take that little concentric circle and expand our into the villages that are around. there are tons of villages in the baraki barak district. what i see this week is that we have gone from throwing a project out, it is limited. there have been 20 to 25 milliliters that have come in. they may not agree with everything, but they are nodding. they go home, and they represent another 20 to 25

people. the word gets out quickly. >> corruption is a huge problem in afghanistan. everybody is corrupt. not everyone agrees on the definition of corrupt. this of governor in the district is a pretty good guy by local standards. he is trying to grow local institutions, trying to get out and talk to his constituents. if you ask him to react to the idea of corruption in afghanistan, he will use colorful metaphor is involving fruits and nuts. he will cite correction as the biggest problem in afghanistan. as it turns out, he is also getting a cut -- he helped

arrange a contract and got 20 grand. he says that is not corruption, that is just the way we do business, and besides, i need that. so everyone is corrupt, but not everyone agrees on what that means. >> your father needs to work with akim, and they nominate the project at the district center. >> the u.s. army and logar province does a lot of survey work.

they go out and conduct surveys of farmers and they go out and meet up with local clan leaders and with the imams at the mosque'es. just like with the farmers, you have to speak the language of the local people, especially in the countryside. you have to meet them on those terms. the u.s. army is giving out what they call mosque kits, packages of paints and loudspeakers and carpets, things that afghans can used to refurbish their mosques. the army will say we have these kids to offer, and we will give you a kid if you agree to certain things -- we have these kits to offer.

once there is an accord reached, once you have the local leaders agreeing to certain terms, the army will give them this kit. they ask the afghans to come to the army outpost in pickup the kits themselves, to get them thinking in terms of reaching out to their own government. they pick up the kit and take it back. the army waits a few days and goes to see if the kit has been installed. many afghans in communities are scared to install them, because they believe that will mark them as collaborating with the coalition. so they sit on the kits and make a lot of excuses when the army rolls thein.

>> we are visiting a mosque in a village. we gave him a refurbishments kit earlier this month, and now we are checking to see how the improvements are going. just tell him we are here to check on the refurbishment kit we provided him. he gave it to the people? which specific person did he give it to? is he available to speak with us today?

[unintelligible] has he said anything regarding when he plans to return to make improvements to the mosque? [unintelligible] so he is going to speak to the elders when they decide to start? let him know that as soon as they do start working on the moscowmosque, that is when he is

allowed to come to the district center and start receiving a monthly payment. with that money can continue with the improvements. >> what are we doing? are going to visit? separately, we went inside one mosque and sat down. there was some talk of an ied exploding outside the mosque. the imam blamed that on the taliban. when local afghans say taliban, they might actually be describing the taliban, but it could also just be a local criminal network or an al qaeda cell. the afghans call everybody taliban, whether they are actively taliban or not ticket

>> it does me no good to fix this or have these windows fixed if the bomb blows up. if you are looking through the window that is broken at the place where they put the bomb, you should understand that when you see them put in the bomb, you should tell somebody. at this mosque, the army decided that they were not going to help this moscsque until the elders turned into a local bad guys, which is essentially the whole point of providing these mosque kits. you entice them, but the condition is, you have to be on our side. you can see the elders mulling over that decision. it is not a small thing to turn in a taliban team of scary guys. >> i am sure they have a valid

point. their mosque was damaged by the ied. it is a trade. it will be pointless for us to fix it if it is just going to get blown up again. they have to take some responsibility. if they know who to go to, if they can go to the sub governor and express their needs, that is good. they can come to us and express their security needs. it is a trade off.

>> i am sure there is definitely a link between that and the police department, or they would be taking care of it. we will see if the governor wants to bring it up with the chief of police. i think it would be up to those guys. >> one of the days i was in baraki barak, an reconstruction team held a veterinarian event at the district center. this was an event that was organized by the americans, but in collaboration with this of

governor -- this of governor and with the cooperation of local vets. the army carved out a big space in that this compound by the district center and set up fences and tense and put out the word to the afghans in surrounding areas that free veterinary services were available. basically we are providing minerals or vitamins to the healthy ones and inviting people to bring in the sicker ones to provide basic medicines like warming are other treatments -- like worming or other veterinary treatments. they sometimes bring their animals inside for more in the winter. we want to make sure the animals are healthy and do not have any disease. >> it provides another instance

of where the government's is working to help the people in baraki barak. it brings them into the district center and shows them is a place to receive help. >> we want to help you, but we cannot get your animals here. we cannot give you the medicine to take to them. you have to bring them here. >> the gate opened at 8:00 in the morning on the day of the vet clinic. it was slow going for the first few hours. just a couple of kids showed up, our people showed up without their animals, not willing to commit. this was going to be one of the major outreach programs for convincing local afghans that their government can work, and we are here to help and we should all work together. this was a big thing. it all depended on the afghans showing up with their animals to get treated. what we learned later is that on

his own initiative, a local afghan got on local radio and said everybody come out right now. i don't know who he was or in what capacity he was acting, but it was a brave thing to do. he said everybody get out your, and they came, hundreds and hundreds of them. . .

babbitt the >> safety is always a concern. you cannot advertise it weeks in advance. you get leaders and called. you're talking about a day or two before you can let the population now. >> we of 1, 2, 3, 4. i want to bring more in, ok. >> what the long-term effect will be, it is hard to said. it is hard to say that have the metrics for judging this kind of outreach. certainly a lot of animals got

treated. does that mean that the & r on the side of the local government? -- does that mean that 10% are on the side of the local government? you cannot judge that. by those matters, things are getting better. whether you can draw a direct line between things like this or the security, it is hard to say but something is working at least temporarily and at least working on a small-scale. >> david acts was with the u.s. army. you can go to [inaudible] c-span.org to look at more.

>> next come on president obama comments on today's unemployment figures. then analysis the from the senior business editor on national public radio. and then comments from the federal reserve bank of richmond. >> now available, "abraham lincoln," our book on the 16th president. from his early years to his life in the white house and as relevant today. abraham lincoln at your favorite book seller. learn more at c-span.

>> now president barack obama calls for a program to help create tens of thousands of new clean technology jobs. his remarks, following the announcement that the economy lost more jobs in december and that the unemployment range was unchanged. >> we are making clean energy. the jobs numbers are a reminder that the road to recovery is never straight. we have to continue to work every single day to get our economy moving again. for most americans, that means jobs. that means whether we are putting people back to work. job losses were 1/10 of what we were experiencing in the first quarter. in november, we saw the first gain in nearly two years. last month, we lost more jobs

than we gained. the overall trend of job losses is pointing in the right direction. we have to continue to explore every avenue to accelerate the return to hiring. the recovery act has been a major force in breaking the trajectory of this recession and stimulating growth and hiring. one of the most popular elements has been a clean energy manufacturing initiatives that will put americans to work while helping american gain the lead when it comes to clean energy. it is clear why such an effort is so important. it is how we will reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

unfortunately, the u.s., the nation that pioneered the use of clean energy, it is being outpaced by nations around the world. it is china that has launched the biggest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient. we spearheaded solar technology but we fell behind germany and japan and producing. almost all of the batteries that we use our manufactured by japanese companies or in asia. because of what the steps like what we are taking today, we will produce more of them here at home. i welcome and am pleased to see a real competition emerging around the world to develop these kinds of clean energy technologies. competition is what fuels

innovation. i don't want america to lose that competition. i don't want the companies that yield to be built overseas. i don't want it to be invented abroad. i want our country to be what it has always been, the leader when it comes to a clean energy future. that is exactly what this clean manufacturing energy initiative will help us do. it will help to close the gap that has grown between american and other nations. we are awarding $2.3 billion in tax credits for american manufacturers of clean energy technologies. companies that build when turbines, solar panels, and assemble cutting edge that it -- panels. it will loslaunch approximately 17,000 jobs. at the same time, this

initiative will give a much- needed boost to our manufacturing turbinsector. it will take an important step towards meeting the goal. this initiative is good for middle-class families, security, and our nation. many will receive tax credits could tell because of the tax credits, the composites will not only be able to expand an existing facility and will not only be able to build a brand new facility in nebraska but it will be able to hire over 200 workers. it is my hope that similar stores will be told across america because of this initiative.

this initiative has been so popular is that we have a more qualified applicants than we have been able to find. we have received the request for nearly three times as not boss as -- as much funding as we could provide. i've called for investing another 5 billion in this program which could put more americans to work right away building and equipping clean energy manufacturing facilities here in the u.s.. of the letters that i received, i hear from americans who are facing hard times. americans lost your jobs, they cannot afford to pay their bills, they are worried about the future. i am confident that if we harness the ingenuity, we can look to gain the lead in

clean energy worldwide. thank you very much, everyone. >> the senior business editor at npr joined us to analyze the unemployment figures. a surprise. i think that takes everybody by surprise. gosh, that's a lousy number because we had 11,000 lost in november. there was real hope there the economy was gaining momentum. and really in recent days there's been a changing in attitude of a few days ago people would have said, well, maybe we lost 30,000 jobs in

december. and in recent days optimism has risen so much that people thought it was up to zero or maybe even a gain. if we lost 85,000 jobs in december that's not encouraging at paul. host: what effect will that have? what will we see happen? guest: it's important that these things bounce around a little bit. maybe you just had a little bit -- we got a little alead of ourselves in november. maybe there was too much hiring done in november and people decided to lay off again in december and wait and see how the economy was shaping up. so maybe this is -- the trend is good but this is a one-minute blip. still if we go to the capital right now and we went to some democrats' office there are hairs being yanked buss this is not a number you want to come into the state of the union address with. it's definitely -- i think will

be seen politically setback. besides politics but people's lives. 85,000 jobs were lost. host: and isn't holiday hiring makes it high? guest: the labor department tries to take that thing -- that noise into account. you know, what you really were hoping for there is we would get some momentum, a springboard into the new year where if we had -- if you had come out and said, you know, we picked up 10,000 jobs, that would have i think caused a little bit of euphoria on wall street. and this is just going to be a bit of a downer. host: ok. as the report comes out from the labor department, we're getting the associated reports in real time. a sharp drop in the labor force, a sign more of the jobless are giving up on their search for work. kept the unemployment rate at 10%, the same as in november.

analyze that for us. guest: again, when people start feeling more optimistic they actually come into the labor market. so if they're not hearing that their friends are getting jobs, if they don't see any help wanted signs, then maybe you say, maybe i'll stay home. even though we lost 85,000 jobs we didn't get a higher unemployment rate because the job pool -- the labor pool didn't grow because people are still that discouraged. and, you know, sometimes people just think, you know what, i am going to shovel drives for the winter. i don't feel like leaving the house. gas is so expensive. i am not going to drive around looking for work. host: it actually effects the national economy? guest: it helps hold down the guest: it helps hold down the unemployment

so that we had a better looking number. how many people are sitting at home underemployed, and not getting raises, not getting bonuses. this is a grim picture for workers. this is an ongoing problem that the administration has to address. host: grisorevisions showed that the economy actually generated 4000 jobs. guest: these things can bounce around. we thought in november that we were losing jobs when in fact we had picked up a little bit in november. that can contribute to white december was not a good month for job creation. to the degree that anyone was going to do any hiring, maybe

they did it in november. maybe they are taking a wait- and-see attitude. maybe some businesses to decided, small retailers might think that this turned out to not be such a great christmas season. people might be starting to close down some businesses. s a government of the corporate, by the corporate and for the corporate. and also our national news media is owned by corporate. and that's why -- the real problem is nafta, unfair trade practices. we shipped out all our manufacturing jobs and government jobs create debt, manufacturing jobs create wealth. guest: you know what, one of the things about nafta, though, is that initially a lot of manufacturing did go to mexico. that's the north american free trade agreement that joined together canada, the united states and mexico into a trade zone. initially it did seem that some

manufacturing was going to mexico, but a lot of those jobs in mexico actually ended up going to china and other parts of asia. i don't know. i guess it's argue ble -- argue -- arguable, those would have an impact on manufacturing in any case. and certainly technological change as factories become more automated they just use less workers. there are all sorts of arguments in that. host: minnesota, lynne, democrat. caller: my name is duane. host: are you from minnesota? caller: yes. how comes the government don't want people in poverty to get out of poverty? host: what does that mean, dwayne? caller: i'm a disabled veteran

and live with my mother or my mother lives with me. if i make any money over -- basically if i make any money, they're going to cut my veteran pension completely. ok. i'm also on social security. ok. if i make over $800 a month they're going to cut my social security. so you can't make any money at all if you're sitting in a place like i am and me and my mother can't make it right now the way it is. guest: well, first of all, i want to thank you for your service if you're a vish. we appreciate what you did for the country. on the issue of government benefits, i think that's what needs to play out this year. there are big decisions to be made on deficit spending. on the one hand government doesn't want to spend too much because they have we have this deficit problem. on the other hand we are frying

to take care of vicious, take care of people who are disabled. so congress has some tough decisions to make about how much government funding we can afford for social causes like that. and when do we just focus on debt reduction? i think that's going to be a tough issue in the coming main. host: maine, joe, independent line. we are talking about the economy with marilyn geewax. caller: yes, hi. do you hear me all right? host: please go ahead. caller: i just want to make the point here that seems like this -- no one seems to bring up the fact that 40 million, 50 million jobs have been lost to communist countries. they are basically doing all the work now that we did here. secondly, that all of the jobs we had on this green, they are all going to be made in china. there are no jobs coming back to this country. they're gone. i've been watching them go since 1977. even earlier than that we've been setting these things up. and the point is our country is

basically been taken over by the stock market. they just wave their hand and it's an economic devastation. communities, cities, everything is being wiped out. you've watched it being tosh down and ripped apart just so the more they devastate the bigger beamer they drive. guest: that's another issue that again congress and the white house will be dealing with is anger about the bonuses we're starting to see for bankers again are coming back. wall street's been making money and yet we're seeing these very dismal jobs numbers. so there is -- the economic argument is that if wall street makes money and companies are expanding then we can -- there's more money for companies to invest and expand plans, invest in workers. so a good stock market is good for the country. but there is this gap, a real lag between employment and profits on wall street. jobs are always a lagging

indicator. i looked what happened back in the early 1980's when we lost jobs, especially manufacturing in the 1981-1982 recession. it took four years to get back to a fairly decent plabe market. once the stock market started perking up by late 1982 but it really wasn't the job market that perked up until maybe 1986. so you always have this real plag of good times on wall street and hard times for workers until the jobs market catches up. again, that's another political problem. do you pass legislation that cracks down more on bonuses on wall street or for bankers or that sort of thing or do you get out of the way, try to hope that the market works quickly and that the successes on wall street fairly quickly translate into jobs for average people? host: what congressional action -- you talked about limiting bonuses. what effect would that have on

job creation? what else can congress do to further job creation? can they do anything? guest: there are political arguments that are sort of -- you can make complick arguments in different direction -- economic arguments in different directions. if you say to bank of america you need to stop these bonuses. i met a lot of americans working in shanghai who were basically investment bankers, venture capitalists. they feel mobile. they can pick up and leave new york and move to shanghai and have a very good life and maybe they do their work over there. there's some fear if you crack too much down on bonuses and wall street that people will pick up and move to elsewhere and we will lose even that. so that's one argument. but other people are making a strong argument that really the problem in this country is the

unfair distribution of wealth. that there's so much wealth concentrated in the stock market, in these bonuses, and the highest paid executives have done quite well and you look at the average wage and it's weak. the average person has not gained a whole lot in the last decade or so. what we're seeing on n.p.r. and our facebook page, people are writing in, there's a sense of -- we've had more than 3500 people gone to the facebook page talk about their experiences. as i've read through these things i see people saying, we just downscaled. we just adjusted. we're living in a smaller house. we have less stuff. we have one car now. whatever. they are just adjusting their expectations to lower. and meanwhile on wall street they're not particularly adjusting their expectations. they want those big bonuses. so i don't know. you are at an interesting point in the economy where there's this big gap in the for funs

where a lot of people on -- fortunes where a lot of people on wall street are making money. politically how do you respond to that, hew will people feel about it? these are tough questions coming up in the 2010 elections. host: where there surprises on where the new jobs are? fwoip i think if there's -- guest: i think if there's a surprise in there it's maybe -- i guess -- how can i put this? one of the things we're concerned about is the jobs are growing in places that you would think. health care, education. you know, a lot of those sort of service sector jobs that will start to come back. i guess the thing -- i looked at it, hmm, i hope there's stiffle a lot of innovation out -- still a lot of innovation out there because we can't all be nurses and teachers and go for the safe jobs. we really need people to be the

next microsoft. we need somebody to creates a new google that ends up hiring 10's of thousands of people. we need more innovation. one of the sections was the tech sector. will we have new ideas coming out of that sector? i think the thing to worry about is, are we going to -- so many people have been so harmed in this recession in terms of their jobs that we hunker down and say go for the safe jobs, i will do what i know will lead to a job. instead of saying i want to be an entrepreneur to go out and start a new business that someday will hire fens or hundreds of people. -- tens or hundreds of people. when we keep going, hunker down and take the safe jobs, and i certainly understand that, but we need to spur that entrepreneurial spirit to create the microsofts of the future that will hire tens of thousands of people. host: do you foresee given that

the report, the labor department's reported 80,000 jobs lost in the month of december, 2009, do you foresee federal reserve doing anything? do you foresee a statement by the president? do you foresee the stock market dropping today? guest: likely things to happen. maybe if you were someone who was wanting to get a loan, it's hard on the people that aren't getting jobs. for you, maybe this is good news because it probably makes it less likely that the federal reserve will raise interest rates. the fed has been sort of hanging back, keeping interest rates very, very low. and waiting to see what happens with the economy. if we had had, say, 85,000 jobs added, the fed might say, time to start to inch up interest rates a little bit. so this news tamps down the desire to raise interest rates. and so if you are somebody, a small business, someone who wants to, you know, borrow money for whatever reason, lower interest rates are in

your best interest. so that's good. i think probably plit -- politically, yes, the white house will respond to this news. and for the stock market, you know they're crazy. who knows. the likely thing is they anticipate so much. it's always hard to make predictions before the markets open. the futures was waiting. everybody was waiting to see what this report would say. and my sense is i think this is going to be disappointing and that it could harm the stock market. however, having said that, if you talk to economists long enough you know there are two hands. on the other hand, some people might interpret this as good news because there is a little bit of a growing fear about inflation coming back. as i was talking about gasoline prices. if the jobs market takes off too quickly then maybe we drive up inflation. the demand for energy increases.

the demand for, you know, gasoline to drive to work starts to increase. so some people who are worried about flaring up inflation and rising interest rates, we had already seen some interest rate hikes in china, maybe the market will interpret this as good. we can have lower interest rates and less inflation for a longer time while the economy more slowly builds towards a turning point. host: portland, oregon, gene, republican. you've been very patient. you are on with marilyn geewax of n.p.r. caller: yeah. i just feel like the media, there's such a divide in the way that people believe now. you have the democratic belief system, you know, as i can see it is that government is the answer. and then you have the republican belief system that the private sector is the answer. or the entrepreneur spirit is the answer. what i -- i've been in business

for 30 years. and what i see happening now -- i have friends across the u.s. there are so many businesses that are on the verge of closing even just from the fear of new taxes like here in oregon we are going to have a new tax that's going to be what they call like a gross income tax or something that because all the corporations aren't paying. and so the thing is when you have that kind of media that's promoting a certain belief system on most of the networks and then you have the other side which maybe is the glenn beck side which is giving numbers that are saying these things and then these people are saying these things, isn't there a fact that in the government today that there's a socialistic view which means the government is better to run things, and there's a capitalistic view -- guest: on this controversial about taxes -- on this

controversy about taxes, i hear from both sides there are some people that are very concerned about rising taxes and that could discourage business. that could prevent people from wanting to earn more because they don't want to hire marginal -- higher marginal fax rate or higher property taxes. taxes are obviously a burden on individuals and businesses. but i also hear from businesses who are worried about things like infrastructure. they also want government to keep spending because the roads are too crowded and the bridges are falling down. so some businesses and some people say, no, we really do need to keep up those -- increase our tax revenues because otherwise we have this terrible crumbling infrastructure problem. and ultimately a failed transportation infrastructure system is going to hurt the economy more than higher taxes right now. so again that's something that politically people have to work out. right now, what do we need more? spending for infrastructure, to improve our roads and to create jobs, or do we need lower

taxes? key debate. host: associated press story, stock index futures tumbling after the government reported they cut more jobs than expected. the labor department said the unemployment rate stayed at 10%. 85,000 jobs lost last month. more than the 8,000 expected that you talked about. the report signals that many jobless people are giving up on their search for work. dow futures are down 34 or .3% at 10,511. what does that mean? guest: well, the psychology matters. back to what i was saying. even though this number is -- when you look at a job market of 131 million jobs, 85,000, you know, sometimes they revise these numbers, they're not -- host: as we saw earlier. guest: statistically, if you're one of the sfistics, if you are one of the people that lost your job, it feels pretty painful. if you stand back and look at

the big picture the economy, maybe they'll revise it next month and it wonet quite as bad as we thought or whatever, but psychology -- won't be quite as bad as we thought or whatever. do they want to buy appliances this year? time to buy a new washer or drier. people are so discouraged they are not looking for work, if employers are still laying off people, that's bad psychology to start the year off with. so i think that's what the stock market is going to respond to, is that there's this real concern that, oh, man, we are not out of this yet psychology and that's not good for investors. host: what other numbers besides the jobs lost or gain, what figures do investors and economists look at? guest: now the big attention will turn to the corporate earnings season.

the year ended december 31 for most companies. not everybody is on that fiscal year. but most corporations will start reporting what happened in the fourth quarter. and again this is that kind of complicated scenario where it may be that all those job layoffs will boost profits. maybe companies made money in the fourth quarter because they're squeezing so hard. we've seen tremendous increases in productivity. corporations are just literally telling people, work harder, work faster. and because of the fear of losing your job people do work harder and work faster. also, there's new technologies to help you become more productive. so we may be seeing that even though they're laying off employees they aren't necessarily having less output. so if we continue to have these productivity gains where we're -- we have a lot of output, that may lead to profits for corporations. and that would spur wall street and they'd be happy and then

maybe that would eventually trickle down and all that. it sets up a cycle. you need to look at when the corporate earnings start to come out in coming weeks we'll have a better sense of the overall direction of the economy. host: just a few more minutes left with our guest, marilyn geewax, who grew up in youngstown, ohio, close to cleveland, ohio, where loretta is on the line. please go ahead, loretta. caller: oh, good morning. host: hi. caller: hi. it seems as if the republicans that are calling in they want to blame obama and the administration for the problems that we are currently going through. but these problems were based on the eight years of fiscal nonoversight, the wall street golden parachute pay scam where the more executives screwed up

the higher his pay was, we gave away all of this tarp money that was supposed to save the little people. guest: well, again, these are political arguments as to what started this, but certainly in the midwest, the trouble began a long time ago. i grew up in youngstown. the steel mills started going down in the 1970's. and it was hit by that recession in 1981, 1982. things got better for the region in the 1990's. in the recent years, you know, it's political arguments as to who was at fault. the thing was the midwest, the area around cleveland, detroit, those areas have really taken a lot of manufacturing hits with job losses. and probably still more to come. so there's a lot of good reason for people to be angry in those areas about, and whoever you

want to blame, well, that's a political argument. it's certainly true that there are just real problems with employment in the industrial midwest. host: missouri, carl, independent line, you are last for marilyn geewax. caller: i am last. and i'm going to -- you there? host: we're listening. caller: be short on time. first, let me say this. i'm 75 years old. i have masters in three business disciplines. my i.q. is at genius level. i built businesses, sold businesses, worked for multinational corporations. .

caller: the united states became the no. 1 country in the world in income inequality. when that happens, the masses of people do not have enough money to buy the products that they make or the services. guest: again, this inability to purchase things, the lack of demand we're talking about, it is one of the key factors to watch here is going to be the gasoline prices.

every time the price of gasoline goes up 10 cents, $14 billion comes out of consumers' pockets. that is money you could have spent at a rest on -- at a restaurant. instead you're putting it into your gas tank. if we want to boost demand, that is the work -- the worst thing we cannot is rising gas prices, and yet that is what we're seeing. it may be the same scenario as the w, that the economy took a fall, it will bounce up, then go back down again. if we have a lousy job market and rising fuel prices, that could increase the likelihood of a w recession, a double dip. into the new year, the estimates are that it is a 10% chance of a double-dip. maybe the chances have risen.

host: if people want to see your work on line -- guest: we would love people to go to npr.org and get comments. and also at npr's facebook page, you have an opportunity to tell us about what happened. there are great stories out there. host: to use them on the air as well? guest: we also follow up on the stories and just listen to the conversation. i've done a great deal of reading those comments. it gives you a great chance to look what happens around the country when you hear what people are saying about the job service. host: is your website easy to navigate? guest: npr.org -- just look at the jobs think it is right there on the front, i hope. kr.d 8

. >> tomorrow, we will discuss issues concerning the muslim community and the attempted bombing on christmas day. janet adamy talks about the work to update to the house and senate bills. then we will have a discussion about the new credit card rules which go into effect in january.

>> our final speaker today took of the spot august 1st, 2004, as the seventh chief executive of the federal reserve bank of richmond. -- our final speaker today took office on august 1st, 2004. as a member of this committee, he was resolved and the decision making process that determines not only the fed funds rate but decisions that affected interest rates in general, foreign exchange rates, employment and the general prices of goods and services. many of you were here last year didn't hurt him as he started in this role. we are looking forward to hear, what he has to say about 2010. -- many of you were here last year and you heard him as he

started his role. >> thank you for that invitation. it is a pleasure to be with you. like to thank head of the maryland bankers association. it is a pleasure to share the stage again with [inaudible] i understand some call him the [inaudible] of economics. unfortunately, i did not get to see his presentation but i did ketches assertions. i fear that mine might not live

up to it is in quality, i will try to make up for it in modesty. when i spoke to you last january, economic activity was contracting quite sharply and i thought it was a reasonable expectation to see growth in the second half of last year. despite that, there were substantial uncertainty about how the contraction would play out there was a possibility of a deeper and traction that i thought i could not dismiss. in the end, however, we did see a positive moment in a second half of last year. there was real gdp growth will succeeded 2%. most economists expect to see a determination made that the recession officially ended in

the middle of last year. that is good news. the level of economic activity is still below where it was a couple of years ago. unemployment is quite high. many households and firms are making do with far less than they once did. moreover, there are substantial challenges for the economy. having said that, i do believe that growth will continue this year and that incomes will improve. in marks, i will focus on the national economy. i will touch on some important economic challenges that we face. i speak only for myself and not necessarily for my colleagues. when i spoke last year, i went back and read my remarks.

i spend a fair amount of time on some factors that appear to to contribute to the boom in housing and housing finance that preceded and appears to have precipitated the recession. the list included historical strong growth and productivity which passed through to growth in income. low long-term interest rates. ted of logically driven improvement in activity. -- a technologically driven improvement. a regulatory regime which might not have adequately contained the moral hazard associated with the perception in the marketplace that many large financial institutions including the government sponsored finance intermediaries were too big to fail. i'd been not intend to discuss these at length.

i have done that over the past year or so. ayman mention them against the -- i mention them to warn against having one single cause. there was a plunge in housing construction which followed the boom. housing prices almost tripled. by 2005, evidence was emerging that the run up had gone too far. vacancy rates began to rise in late 2005. measures of home construction and sales activity began to fall precipitously. home prices began to climb. that reduced equity. that led to a rise in defaults and foreclosures. the layoffs in residential construction dampened growth in overall household income and thus dampen growth in

consumption spending. that caused the rest of the economy to slow. any expansion officially ended in december, 2007. the recession that followed was longer and deeper than any we have experienced since the 1930's. i can give you a lot of statistics but i will confine myself to one. the number of people employed as fall by 7.2 million through november. -- has fallen by 7.2 million through november. the contraction in economic activity appears to have ended last summer. the data we have received indicates that activity has generally improved. i will discuss those who have the most evident improvement. i will start with housing. sales and construction activities hit low points and have risen modestly since then. single-family housing starts have increased 35% and new-home

sales have increased by 8%. there are signs that home prices have bottomed out as well. one index of existing home prices rose 3.9% from may through october. even with these gains, new housing construction remains well below the pace required to accommodate population and income growth on a sustained basis. that is to be expected given that there appears to be substantial over investment in housing during the boom. what i expect residential investment and many others as well, it will no longer be a drag on gdp growth. a lengthy time of adjustment might be necessary before any growth in residential investment is warranted. consumer purchases of cars and

trucks began to fall off in 2007 and then fell sharply in 2008. it increased ferry gradually before the cash for clunkers program boosted sales. the subsequent payback was smaller than many analysts had forecast it. sales have improved steadily in the past four months. sales are belong -- below the long-term trend. just as with housing, it looks like automobiles will no longer how to be a drag on gdp growth and it should be positive contributions as well. real consumer spending resume an upward path last year. in the third quarter, consumer

spending increased at a 1.6% annual rate. many economists are expecting a larger advance in the fourth quarter. consumers are by no means it in an exuberant mood. the rise in savings has gone to over 4% and it reflects a combination of apprehension about future income prospects and a desire to rebuild wealth that was depleted by the broad erosion of home prices turned to the recovery in equity prices and the stabilization has contributed to the income and consumer spending. consumers forgiven a bit more confidence in their income prospects going forward. -- were given a bit more

confidence in their income prospects. firmness in business, spending on capital goods might seem in congress given the low levels in many industries but capacity does not preclude the emergence of profitable opportunities to deploy new equipment and software elsewhere. to reduce costs and to drive increases in productivity and improvements in services and activities. i expect businesses and services to improve. in addition, the broad, there has been a world wide rebound in economic activity which is boosting demand in our export activity. they were falling at a nearly 30% annual rate. the real experts increased out at an almost 25% annual rate.

recent estimates suggest that real gdp grew at a 3.5%. this is the most rapid growth in several years. the part of that reflected an inventory swing. inventory liquidation kept production below final sales. the shift towards inventory accumulation provides a temporary boost to gdp growth. that petition will necessitate the hire of new workers will add to household incomes. consumers will respond to growing in comes with higher spending. that is a typical time in a pattern immediately following a recession. there are signs of improvement. industrial production increased

significantly since the low point in june of 2009. the mid sever rebound was significant and did contribute. -- the midsummer rebound was evident the survey based indexes that we have have risen substantially last year. that indicates that growth in manufacturing activity has spread broadly. a new orders component of those indexes have registered even more. this is that the highest level since december, 2004. one element supporting the recovery is a significant improvement in financial conditions that has occurred.

corporate borrowing costs have and -- decreased significantly. many major banks have sold stocks and they now have the capital to support new lending even if conditions turned out worse than expected. we do here anecdotes' frequently about business owners being turned down for credit. it is important to recognize that many people will naturally face tougher credit terms and a soft economy because their revenue prospects are likely to be uncertain than they otherwise would be. the proper benchmark is the ability of the banking system as a whole to supply inappropriate quantities, not any individual banks. any could be shrinking their balance sheet. i am not aware of any evidence

that the industry is inefficient or inappropriately constraining the ability of credit. there are areas where we faced major economic challenges. commercial real estate is taught. construction is falling, vacancy rates are falling. owner equity positions. mortgage-backed securities have taken losses with more on the horizon. it projects are scheduled for refinancing. some community banks are now facing rising delinquency and losses. no one expects a quick reversal of these trends. business investments, business

investment is likely to be a sizeable drag on u.s. growth in the near term. more worrisome is the labor market. i just received the report to this morning. the number of people employed has fallen in 23 out of the last 24 months. the unemployment rate has more than doubled to 10.0% rate in december. wages are under pressure. average earnings were up only 2.2%. about half of the rate of increase we have seen in 2007. as overall economic activity continues, employment will go to an upward trajectory. we have seen improving labor demand and an increase in the average workweek. the rate at which employment is falling has declined significantly since early last

year. even the most optimistic forecasters do not expect a rapid improvement. we will need to carefully monitor employment and earnings for an extended amount of time. let me put to the whole picture together. the economy will grow to a reasonable pace. housing should recover from a depressed state. it should be stable through next year. consumers should slow down spending. software should make something of a comeback. these should overcome a continuing drag from commercial construction. i am often asked how economists had and be so upbeat in the light of the challenges that we face such as the severe weakness in the jobs market, the low level of residential construction activity and the declining level of commercial construction.

there are problems coming out of every recession turned dow. we always recover and quite often more rapidly than many expect. if you look into the details, some common elements are apparent. i already touched on one. there is the behavior of individual consumers during the recession. many workers lose their job during a downturn and suffer greatly, and much greater number remains employed. many of them will take the precaution of cutting down on spending and deferring major purposes -- purchases. as the recovery takes hold, these workers become more confident about the future job in income prospects.

they began to spend more of their income. many firms will find it prudent to reduce capital spending but as demand revives, the same firms will see the increasing number of viable investment opportunities for themselves. in short, and deferred spending during recessions creates. demand by consumers and businesses that will bolster spending once the recession ends. the future is always uncertain. the labor market could recover more slowly than expected which would restrain consumer spending and dampen growth. household incomes and confidence could rebound more vigorously than many expect. consumer spending could expand more briskly. these are standard risks on either side coming out of a recession.