the presentation this morning with greater facility certainly greater insight. i am privileged to have the choice to say a word this morning from the perspective of somebody who served in lived in and remains associated with egypt. it is a key partner of the u.s., a longstanding friend of this country for many decades and a serious partner and player in the peace process. the first point i make to all of you this morning seems rather self evident. that is there is no issue in egypt that has quite the importance of the palestinian-is really issue, nor is there an issue of quite the same significance as the question of the peace process. this question of israel and

palestine for the many decades since the late 1940's it has played center stage in government policy, public perception, and the wake of officials and political leaders from the dialogue of the country. . .

the issue of palestine and israel is complex from the stand point of any egyptian -- it is first and foremost a question of justice. the egyptians look at the question of palestine as an injustice committed and continues to be committed. it is a matter felt at all levels of society. it is an issue that can affect streets on cairo. it can threaten domestic stability despite the size and strength of the security forces in egypt. it could force the government to give the question a certain amount of latitude and safety to the population at large. second, the force have taught

egypt a vitally important lesson. that is that the egyptians cannot bet the farm on the resolution of the palestinian question for on over committing egypt to the question of palestine. egypt must, and the consensus is quite broad, maintain peace with israel. third, no egyptian regime can risked fighting a war with israel, much less losing one and have a serious prospect of staying in power. if you want to put a fine point on that, egyptians are highly likely -- aware to the fact that they feel fortunate that they lay claim to the cyanite which is a sacred part of the jewish -- egyptian national

territory. they do not want to put it at risk again. nor do egyptian statesman of this generation look at the question of palestine and believe that it should be allowed to block the tips fundamentally -- egypt's fundamental ties that the peace with israel makes possible for egypt. it is highly sensitive to the palestinian questions and abilities to become embroiled in radicalism inside egypt into lively fear that the fundamentalists will take advantage of it and use it against the seated regime. it is for this reason among others that the egyptian government remains a deeply distrustful of hamas.

when you stand back, it is not only the issue of palestine in justice and injustice or what ever of its the powers of egypt perceive as the relationship with us. it is also the longstanding view of egypt that it is a great nation of the arab world and that egypt must be front and center in carrying the politics of the palestinian cause forward. to lose control of that would undermine the position of egypt as she sees herself as a key player and a leader in the arab world. markell words, the egyptians do not believe -- mark my words, the egyptians do not believe there is a settlement in the offering to the palestinian problem, not a settlement -- they believe it must be

addressed in managed, which therefore lead me to my second point. how do we look at the peace process together? what is the latitude, the room for play between the two of us? i would argue that a part from this strategic identification written by the state, to which egypt detaches great importance, a belief must be met in a reciprocal manner by washington, and egypt believes we must pay the closest attention and skillful attention to the peace process and to the palestinian and israeli question. just as egypt seeks to shape the arab consensus and will resist any one encroaches on the perception of their own plays in shaping that consensus, it looks

to unite -- to the united states to recognize its centrality, to support egyptian diplomacy, to demonstrate respect for each of its leadership -- the leadership of egypt, and to have a cooperative approaches to the peace process. i highlight this last point because i believe in recent years we have slipped into the bad habit of quarreling publicly with egypt, criticizing their leadership on domestic matters, and failing to get a grip on the peace process which has left egypt feeling isolated. it has been estranged by other items as well, iraq being one of them. i welcome the particular pleasure of the president to go to cairo and this nation and is view from the looks of an arab

world. it was an inspired choice, one that needs to be called out. i do not believe or argue with any of you today with the importance to egypt and its importance to s as the largest nation in the arab world. egypt should have a veto over our approach to the peace process. it does deeply remain in our interest to have an active approach, to make sure we consult the egyptian and the saudis as well as others as we launch new initiatives and seek to implement them. the price of egypt for cooperation with the united states is not excessive. egypt wants to see the united states involved, even if there is not a quick and ready outcome to a final settlement.

one person remarked to me years ago that this land where it rains and very little, all of us need umbrellas. we need your umbrella to help us manage our crisis to the north. the second critical point on the egyptian agenda is the importance of being kept informed, of being listened to and sensitive to the egyptian perceptions and interests. the third, also pretty obvious, is the egyptians look to the united states to be clear and flexible to approach the question with the termination and use the powers of diplomatic persuasion with the parties both israel and palestine to move the process forward. let me close, and then, with where do i think we are.

i do not pretend to speak for all of egypt. she has her own views. i have been listening to the egyptians that can reflect some of the sentiment that this administration is seen to have been clear that it cares. it cares about making peace. it cares about moving ahead. it has not succeeded in doing so far as convincing its audience it knows how to translate that sentiment into action. it is not simply an does not sit suffice -- and does not suffice to say that quarrels over housing is a national policy. these clearly are not national policies. i join with him and end his remarks to you that we do need a policy or some other american

commitment that spells out our positions on the key issues at play on the settlement borders jerusalem, refugees, security, normalization, the linkage to syria and lebanon. there needs to be at this stage in our relationships with the region a clear articulation of american views. and there needs to be an articulation of the steps that will get us there. it should be backed up by a bureaucratic structure, a political structure at home, in which the president backed by the secretary of state, marshall's the best talent in this government and a team that works best teams have worked in the past to produce steps forward in the search for peace in the region. but most of all, the region in

egypt will be watching for an indication of will, whether we have what it takes to commit ourselves and the president at our head to move the palestinians and israelis through the tough choices that lie ahead. thank you. i turn the program over to the next speaker. >> thank you very much. that was terrific. [applause] >> thank you very much. i joined them in the banking you for putting together this panel this morning. -- in thanking you for putting together this panel this morning. there is an issue that touches to the heartbeat of jordan and to the palestinian question. it begins with the states

survival, which is wrapped up in the question pu+÷ is regional situation, domestic salt situation -- domestic situation politically throughout. let me come back just a little bit on those points. the survival of the state. the king has come under enormous criticism for the treaty signed with israel. members of parliament are included the tenet of the treaty and expel the ambassador. in all of its confrontational moments, the king has been eloquent and clear about his views, policy. he will not violate that treaty. he will not expel the ambassador.

i remember being with him once on the hill. there was a repetitive questioning from members about this very question. there was some notable exasperation said to the congressman. i am my father's son. he gave his life to try to reach this point in the relations. it will not change as long as i am king of jordan. he says this in arabic during television. the treaty with israel recognizes the kingdom of jordan. touching ride on the issue always played right under the surface -- not always under the qjetu that palestine already exists. it is more than 50% of

palestine. it exists already. there is no need for another palestinian state, a state between iraq and the mediterranean. this recognition of the state of jordan lays this to bed. one person who advocated early on in his career, this philosophy of joy in being a palestinian state said that that was -- philosophy of jordan being a palestinian state said that this was no longer his view. one has to understand the emotional issue as well. the country, many of you have been there and seen is. when you look towards do was on top of the hills, you can almost reach out and touch the west bank. at night, you see the lights of jerusalem. there is a barrier there, which is the border. it is difficult to go there and get there.

at the same time, 60% of the population of jordan goes back to palestine. it has property just across the other side. they watch israeli television as much as they watch -- probably more so than their own television. they see the reporting of what is happening. they become emotionally involved. they sense what is happening to their own families and relatives. it puts a lot of pressure on the government. i do not know how many times i have sat with the king and he has said right before the iraq war -- he said it to the president, if you are going into iraq -- and the artist said he hoped he would not. please help me deal with one of the two problems on my borders. he was referring to palestine.

he said, i need an active peace process. this turmoil inside the country and a concern that the way israel will solve the palestinian problem will be a chance for a population. this will be aggravated by this recent decision announced in the last 48 hours of israeli actions on the west bank on expatriate and others -- anyone who does not have a resident permit, which i will talk about later if there is an opportunity. the king is not his father. this becomes very important to understand his attitude toward jerusalem and the west bank. he did not was jerusalem.

he does not have the same stake. he has a strong commitment and the palestinian state. that state would involve the issue of jordan more emphatically than the treaty. it would also resolve the problem he has to deal with internally. you ask me some questions about lessons learned. i will have a couple of thoughts that may be controversial, but they are my deeply felt views. often we look at the mistakes made out of israel -- these are not statements by the officials feared these statements come out of a normal -- notable person in some very far-fetched when first mentioned. they are dismissed by almost everyone as unrealistic. as you look over time, and become a reality. that is a lesson.

on the arab side, simply dealing with the arab state is very difficult. you can deal with it if you do it in a forceful way, where there is a sense of progress. one of the things you also hear is that the arab street is not willing to seek peace. that is a flawless conclusion. there is a great feeling. this is certainly true in the gulf and the countries that are a little bit further from israel. it is very true in jordan. i remember once being on the rich looking over the west bank -- ridge looking over the west bank. there were a lot of children running around in circles. he said to me, how much longer are we going to have to go ahead

with this dispute? are these kids going to die still wanting to see peace deck not in my land. i think that is a very deeply held feelings. they look to the united states to be involved. they are deeply skeptical. they were really impressed with the president's speech in cairo, anticipating a very active part on the united states. this would lead me into several things. there is a mood in the arab streets for peace. capitalize on it. there is never a right situation for peace in the middle east. i worked in the 1980's where there was in negotiation with arafat with the reagan

administration. a statement was made that he would recognize israel in return for us except in the agreement. one person called me the night before they were going to make the announcement. he said, can you confirm to me that this is going to happen. he asked what i thought the odds of this working work. i chuckled. he got really angry and furious. this is not a joking manner. i said, you did not understand my chuckle. if there is a 25% of this working, go for it. we do not wait for things to be 60% or 70%. he said, we are going ahead. but then arafat the next morning made an embarrassing remark for the king.

we try confidence measures. they work as long as they're supporting another process. i agree with dan about the policies and the need for a policy and for enunciation. what i would say to the president is there is a need for a very strong and active u.s. effort. people want it in the region and americans want it. the reaction to the president's statements of their being national interest for a solution and i note in my own mind the remarks of general petraeus that there is broad support by americans. we have seen broad support among the jewish community. it supports an active, involved american participation in trying to find peace. i would tell him to look at the

way the issues that have been dealt with over the past decade and more. there lies a broad framework for a solution. work closely with the party and get them to negotiate directly. put it out there and go for it. >> thank you very much. [applause] jake? >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight -- this afternoon on such a distinguished panel. after having listened to my colleagues, i am not sure how much more there is to add. i will make a few remarks.

it is clear that we are in a very uncertain moment now in the middle east. the media has focused a lot on the crisis in u.s. and israeli relations. what we're seeing now is not so much a crisis. there is a crisis in the effort to restart the negotiation process. the focus is where it should be. it is not clear to me how the crisis is going to end and where it is going to go. i was in jerusalem for four years. in my job there, i was responsible with our relations with the palestinians. i will begin by looking at the situation from a palestinian perspective. i will start also by talking about the situation on the ground. from that perspective, the

current moment is quite positive and offers a real opportunity to move forward. to begin with, the situation on the west bank has improved quite a bit over the last couple of years. i will be talking about the west bank not gaza which is a very different situation. you have much improved security in the west bank. that has largely been due to the actions of the p.a., which was supported by the american training efforts. there has been a significant improvement in the security situation on the ground. there is an economy in the west bank that has improved quite a bit, particularly over the last year. all of this is due to a significant change in approach

and attitude on the palestinian side in particular. the changes that have been brought about by the prime minister have been helpful. the changes have been going on for a while. they have reached a point where it is serious and it is a sustained effort. the prime minister has also offered the context for this which is his plan for building the institutions of the state. it is better environment on the ground is not over coming the current issues we know about. it creates a context in which we can move forward. the palestinian leadership deserves a lot of credit for adopting a prodigal approach focusing on improving the lives -- practical approach focusing on improving the lives of palestinians.

when you look at the current leadership that they have in their president and prime minister, i think we can all agree that they are much better than any palestinian leadership we have seen. they are probably better than any palestinian leadership we could hope for in the future. that is why i say it is so important to take advantage of this moment of relative security and economic growth. we should get talks started. there have been some talks with the destabilizing influence in the west bank. if it continues indefinitely, it has the potential to lead it to violence and a broader deterioration of the situation, which would make peace even more difficult to achieve in the future. coming back to questions that aaron asked, what every learned? how does the administration doing? let me start with those. i think the obama administration

began on this issue on the right note. it is important to u.s. interests. the president appointed a senator mitchell to give this issue the attention it deserves within the administration. since then, the past 15 months, the going has been rough. i think even president obama it knowledge that himself in an interview he gave last december. much of the focus over the past few months has been on the issue of settlement. while i think there is a lot we could learn from that, in terms of the tactics, and how to do that better, it is important that it was correct the administration made this an issue began to deal with it in a serious way, which we have not seen before. it continued settlement activity is indeed a serious problem. i would say other items in the

west bank are positive, but this one is negative. it will be harder overtime to find a practical solution on the ground that will allow for this palestinian state alongside israel. it is correct for the administration to focus on this issue. some say the construction is only going on within the settlement blocks, which will remain a part of israel. that is an issue that has to be worked out in a negotiation. it is the area within and around the settlement blocks that is what is at issue. it will have to be discussed between the sides. it is not a foregone conclusion what will be the outcome of those talks. in the road map, there is an obligation on israel to pre- settlement activity. over the course of the past year, the demonstration has worked with the israelis to find a way to implement that.

with him out of that was the moratorium that prime minister and netanyahu announced last fall. that contains so many exceptions, that it did not have much practical impact on the ground to improve the political situation. it did not include jerusalem, which is what led to the difficulties we saw in the visit would vice-president joe biden. there was construction already underway. a lot of activities continued. i think something more will be required in order to address that issue. where do we go from here? i think at the core of what it needs to be done is to get back to negotiations. i would agree with my colleague, dan, that it in and of itself is not a strategy.

dillon with the peace initiative and other -- what needs to be done is to restart in negotiations between the parties. one way or another, we have to begin this process with the substantive issues and the refugees in jerusalem must be discussed. it has to be done whether the u.s. puts forth its own ideas or not. given the difficulties that we faced in the last 15 months, i think the idea of western proximity talks or direct talks is a good way to start. while it has been criticized in some areas as a step back from direct talks, i think it is a practical and effective and lower-risk way to begin to deal with some very difficult issues. aaron mentioned the difficulties of these issues resulting -- if it were an olympic sport, i think it would be the highest difficulty of any on the table.

we have been in a discussion about the process. what we need to do now is get away from that and begin to talk about the issues, perhaps in direct talks is not the ideal format. we need to shoot for substance rather than for perfection. this idea of indirect talks is a lower-risk approach, which is important. one of the lessons we have seen going back to 2000 is high-risk symmetry is something we need to think very carefully about. in order to begin, i think a lower-risk approach is better. negotiations have a way of the evolving over time. if we can begin, i think the u.s. is in a position where we can begin to narrow down some differences and perhaps a

formula will -- a format will the ball. it evolves in the madrid conference in 1991. -- it evolves in the madrid conference in 1991. -- evolved in the madrid conference in 1991. to have the united states firmly in the middle of the talks is a positive thing. without that, as we have seen in other places, the talks can drift, and the questions can go unanswered and the possible openings are not fully explored. without the united states in the middle, there is no independent record of what was discussed and accomplished, which makes it much harder to build on. i think having the united states in the middle is a kid thing. i do not want to over-sell this, because the gaps on the issues

our great. i think it is better to begin a process in almost every case. given the environment on the ground and the leadership we have on the palestinian side, we want to take advantage of that. in closing, let me get to the last question, which is what i would revise the president if i had five minutes with him. time is not on the side of the peacemakers. there are many aspects on this. from the palestinian perspective is the situation on the ground and the growth of settlements over the past 40 years. over time, we see a situation that is much more difficult in a practical way to see a state solution emerging on the ground. we have a deep division between hamas and gaza and its allies in the west bank. this is a serious problem. something we could spend a lot

of time on. i will not go in detail. we should not allow this division to prevent us from trying to move forward. moving forward in a way that can result in the political achievement for the current leadership will help them with this internal division on the palestinian side. and the israeli side there is an urgency to find a resolution to this problem. many have remarked on the democratic issues. i will not go into detail. it is an important aspects. from a regional security position, for the future of israel, it is important to resolve this issue between them and the palestinians, once and for all. it is an example of how the influence of iran has grown over the last 20 years in the region. they're growing strength makes it harder to reach a deal with

the palestinians. over time, this will become even more difficult. israel would be wise to try to strike a deal with the coming palestinian leadership. they will not be around forever or much longer. i do not think they will find a better leadership than what they have right now. if those leaders on the palestinian side fail, in the future, the west bank could look like south lebanon on or gaza, which is not in the interest of israel. here is what i would buy as the president is to choose your moment carefully -- advise the president' is to choose your moment carefully. we need to put a concrete plan on the table. once you jump into this, the stakes are very high both for the region and the united states. the united states and the administration need to be prepared for what may come and

may need to stick to a very difficult time as we engage on this issue. i will stop there. thank you very much. >> thank you and thank you for your presentation. [applause] >> i want to make sure we leave time for discussions and questions. i am discussing syria and the corrective movement will be celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. i do not think i need to go on a long time, because this regime has been there just about any challenge one can imagine and is still there. to some degree, its behavior is predictable. not always, but to some degree. an israeli-syrian peace treaty brokered by the u.s. should be

far easier to reach than a final israeli palestinian agreement. the broad outlines are well known. one constant is the insistence that any peace treaty must require israel to withdraw to the 1967 defacto line in a reasonably expeditious manner. in return for this tangible concession, the west side will need to be more flexible on several issues vital to israel's political security needs. the core issue for the syrian regime is the survival. let me point out that the syrian people are generally back very strongly the foreign policy,

these of the israel and the recovery of all -- vis a vis israel and the recovery of all. they want to neutralize a potentially more powerful iraq. this alliance was not based on any affinity that one regime is secular and the other is a defect of bureaucracy. i believe the regime can be weaned from iran, but only at the end of a process that up call a grand bargain. it is said the timing is everything. this victim certainly applies to israeli and syrian negotiations. to those the question serious commitment to peace, the correct answer is we will never know until a final offer is on the table.

most israelis are not convinced of the need to withdraw to the 1967 line for a variety of reasons. netanyahu has reinforced this point of view saying that he would make no such concessions to syria. public opinion in israel is volatile and can be changed. in its efforts to promote arab israeli peace, the united states during the terms of clinton large and referred to the leaders to set the priorities, the agenda, and the pace. u.s. dealings with syria in recent decades has isolated and humiliated the region to providing it with an exaggerated sense of centrality and importance. a middle course between those two extremes is needed. u.s. diplomats have worked in and around syria and a stated

that the only thing worse dealing with the syrians is ignoring them. its advice is what this administration has been heatine. the u.s. mediated negotiations with israel aimed at recovering all occupied syrian territory and accepted by lateral tract aimed at normalizing relations with the u.s. the two are inextricably linked. syria has shunted aside for negotiations with the syrians, it will continue to play a role very effectively. the u.s. and israel must find a way to address both tracks simultaneously.

i would advise the administration to keep in mind a couple of words, respect and reciprocity. nothing will go well of those two words are not heeded. the u.s. should make clear what we expect to come from a grand bargain. we should not put the prestige of the u.s. on the line until we are confident that in the regime understands that if and when they are presented with the new relationship with the u.s. including removal of assyria from other sanctions the same -- that they will accept the deal. that will mean that there are some things they will not like. they will have to end their current alliance with iran. we can acknowledge that syria has the right for full

diplomatic an relation is with iran so long as u.s. sanctions are not violated. they cannot however continue to have it both ways. full peace with israel supporting policies that are against them. we can pledge best efforts with arab and other states to supplant any civilian aid or investment loss as a result of the estrangement of syria from iran, as well as assisting them with as many problems not least water security, soil salinity, and oilfield damages. there are many issues i could cover, but i would like to say something about love and on in the context of all this. during the -- leval johbanon ine

context of all of this. during the clinton years, it wanted to become a valid political party. the u.s. did not seem to care if this area was to hedge level banon. syria has considerable influence there and important airlines there -- allies, but it is no longer a prize. we expect lebanon 70 in the end to be respected. thank you. [applause] >> thanks. before we go to your questions, i will forgo one question that i asked, if you had five minutes with the president, what would you say.

if there is a call consensus that time is running out, and the president has to be very involved. the time for process over substance, which has guided much of america's approach is long past. i have a views on these matters. i will not share them with you today. i will only say the following. hope is very important. it can never be abandoned. not if you have children, and even if you do not. some things need to be seriously tested. i think some questions need to be looked at and answered. can a u.s. president substitutes his own sense of leadership perhaps for the absence of strong leadership that exist in the region? is a conflict-ending agreement

between israelis and palestinians which deals with border security, refugees work? are the current israeli and palestinian leaders willing and able to pay the price for that agreement? there is a piece this morning in the l.a. times that raises the question that this administration may be less interested in changing the behavior of netanyahu in mortgages and in changing him. the question -- rather than in a changing him. can they get this right? that is an important question. there has never been an administration that has not done serious peacemaking and also engaged in significant fights with the government of israel. the purpose of this fight is

leaving both countries' stronger for it. that is the critical question. we have a special relationship with israel. it cannot become exclusive. that is a critically important point here. can it reset its relationship with israel is to become functional when it comes to serious arab and israeli peacemaking? i do not know the ins and to that question. you have been very patient, all of you. it is greatly appreciated. >> before we open the floor to questions, i was wondering whether any of the panelists would like to comment on the points that adam made for the other panelists made. you are first, go ahead.

>> i asked him if i could answer his questions. and the answers are yes, thank you very much. let me focus on the fourth question, because it is germane to the reason i am here. i think the question has been phrase correctly. it is a one-sided question. i say that because as i indicated in my remarks, we, the united states, needed a better job of understanding the requirements with which the parties we deal. those parties have to do a better job of understanding us. i wrote a piece in the new york post about a couple of weeks ago in which i suggested that netanyahu may have touched the third rail of israeli politics. the question posed in the minds of israelis is whether the prime

minister knows how to deal with the united states. the israeli public has a lot of views about everything. there are 11 or 12 different views of all of them in one room. but they are always united on this. they want a leadership that can handle the united states and deal effectively with the united states. there is a growing question as to whether or not the prime minister has found the key to deal with this different kind of president. barack obama is a different president from what netanyahu was used to. he was comfortable dealing with some president in the past. he had a challenge relationship with bill clinton during his previous tenure. the israeli public responded to that. part of his defeat in 1999 was a

dissatisfaction with the way he was handling the u.s. relationship. i think there is a responsibility on both sides to understand each other better. i think the president has not done as effective a job as he could in reaching out to the israeli public and talking directly to them. in doing what he did so effectively to the arab and muslim publics through his speech in cairo, he has not done the same thing through a speech in jerusalem or even in television interviews to israel vii media. but also suggest that israel needs to do its homework just as much as america. it looks like he has his sea legs, a significant victory in

health care reform and an advance in our relations with russia. that is in dealing with nuclear disarmament. a big summit is underway. the china relationship seems to be on the mend. you have a president who after a year of grappling with what it is to be a president seems to have found some of the keys. i would suggest that the prime minister pay just as much attention to how he handles the relationship in this direction as the president may need to pay attention in how to deal with israel in the other direction. >> do you want to add something to what you're calling said? >> let me try the third question. are the leaders of the region prepared to pay the price required to bring about peace? that is a brilliant question.

on this one, i am utterly convinced that the leaders are not prepared to pay the price required. could they be brought to is a different matter. as i consider the full range of choices that lay before the leadership, i reflect on the fact many questions have not been thought through, because they appear to be questions that will never have to be addressed. let me take several for example. [unintelligible] has anyone in the arab world contemplated what it would mean to carry out a refugee decision? what about the king's decision, the beirut decision? has anyone thought about what would be fully involved in the normalization arrangement? what does it mean to respect the

borders of 1967 in return for peace? these are questions that will require ground -- profound soul- searching and analysis in the air of a world that i find absent at the state. do of -- in the arab world that i find absent at this stage. they have to find the opportunity, which can only be discovered when there is an active peace process in which the questions are on the table and the challenges before the leaders and they try to make a decision, which becomes a reality. the tough questions can be addressed and answered then.

>> on the first question, and president obama substitute his own sense of leadership for that of leaders in the region? that is not the right question. he cannot. if you mean totally. he can exercise a leadership which is vitally important at this present time. in a leadership role that no other individual leader can do. being active or even through his envoy, being a major purchase of pet, he can bridge between those leaders. -- a major participant, he can bridge between those leaderships. they will step forward hopefully will grapple with the issues. they all need to take actions that will prepare the public.

>> i will take some questions. it is a very interesting question that we have. more than one can take this. what is the expected influence in the peace process? other concerns for the current turkish government? >> if there are no volunteers, i will do a bad job of it. [laughter] i was recently in assyria, and the question came up from an arab and syrian perspective.

that is the desire of the syrian governments to see the turks involved with a good relationship with israel traditionally on one hand and a very tight relationship with united states. and a fresh but a very positive relationship with syria where turkey could play a discreet but sensible exchange of views of the diplomatic agents moving between the capitals and set to many account. at -- meunues out and the u.s. could bring the parties to the table. i think it was a little pie in the sky. it brings the question as long as the turks maintain some discipline, they do,entree and

are showing themselves willing to communicate with all the parties. they are doing it out of their own essential interests. they do not want to see the middle east purely competed for by the iranians. they believe they have real interests that they must protect. the prime minister has those in his party that he has brought into the region. he is not held at bay by his military as he once was. i believe we can look at, despite a rhetorical excesses', wi so, with some aspect of turkh elements.

circuit does not have to many cards to bring to the table without -- turkey does not have too many cards to bring to the table without their relationship with the u.s. they have to play their cards shrewdly. >> i would take a slightly different tack. turkey has put a positive role in the past and could do so, but the first question is where our turkish interests headed? a cursory analysis suggest they are in a process of redefining its role and its interests in a variety of regions. there seems to be a growing although reluctant understanding that is not soon

going to become a full member of the community. it can be looked to other regions with perhaps a more assertive set of self interest. we see this respect to a growing relationship a better relationship between turkey and iran. improvements in the turkish and syrian relationship which has not always been that positive and some growing distance, albeit still friendly between turkey and syria. i think turkey -- turkey and israel. what we are seeing is not so much a firm decision by turkey in which direction to go, but a casting about for firmer ground on which to stand as it decides where it wants to invest. this comes against the backdrop of a region. we had this discussion in a different form if you months ago

in which the role called the periphery, the non-arab states of the region seems to be growing at the expense of weakening the air of a core. arab -- arab core, or state policy and structures are coming under increasing stress. it is a time of great the thrust. i would be cautious of suggesting that there is an immediate role that israel is going to want turkey to play until turkish interests are clarified a little bit better. >> could i ask you to give us your name and limits your comments or questions -- no comments, we are just taking questions. anke. -- thank you. >> there was an article this

weekend. .

>> understood and program. keni would trade that -- and probed. i would trade that for a real understanding and brokering with real substance, assuming that is possible. >> i agree. >> by -- my question is to mr. question. do you agree or disagree with me on the two following points? first, you're very important question about the nonexistence

of a u.s. policy and strategy toward the middle east, a stated fact that is always discussed across the united states, where rego, people mention this, but they never discussed -- wherever i go, people mentioned this, but then never discuss it. why do they not discuss it unless it is behind closed doors? the explanation is that the political fallout of the united states coming out and saying, "here's the solution as the united states believe it should be in the middle east" would be very heavy politically. first, why is there no policy? second, is it not true that there is a distorted vision in

the united states when you only focus on the issue of settlements and whether they should be built or frozen or permitted to be built again or should be frozen, whether they are not taking into account that the settlements are only one component of a strategy to try to change the nature of the arab struggle. it is not only the settlement, but the demolition. there are roadblocks and 75% of the water resources are also used by the settlers in the west bank. so it is not only settlement, it is a whole panoply of issues. >> on the first question, i do

not agree that the absence of a u.s. policy is a result of domestic politics. there is a strong view held among policy-makers that, if the united states were to exercise its role as an honest broker, it should not prejudice the negotiations by having positions on the issues to be negotiated. i think this is a fair point. i disagree with it at this point, which is why i am arguing for it an additional policy. there is a domestic factor as well. there are a lot of things that go into it. it is not a full answer to suggest that it is only domestic considerations that this issue has up in result. on the second issue that you raise -- that this issue has not been resolved.

on the second issue that you raise, as long as i have been a critic of settlement policy, it is about having a coordinated overall approach. but even your question suggested you were selective in what he would choose. there are a number of issues on which israel needs to be asked about and policy needs to confront those issues. there are at least a number of issues that palestinians and syrians need to be asked about and that the united states need to confront. i mention a couple of them in my remarks. the continued incitement in palestinian education materials and the media, the absence of concerted action on part of authority to uproot the terrorist infrastructure -- syria's continued hosting of groups that most of the world continues to see as terrorist groups with headquarters in damascus -- we have a different definition of terrorism. but the fact is that most of

the world does not agree with the syrian definition in this case, to be fair, there are more issues on the agenda with israel than simply sediments. but there are also issues on the agenda with syria and the lebanese that need to be taken into account as well. >> there is an overflow. you have to be patient. please have very brief questions. >> how does how moss -- how does hamas factory to the question? -- factored into the question? how does -- how does hamas factor into the question? is more complicated to reach a

deal. can the leadership on the palestinian and on the israeli side and do what is necessary to reach a peace agreement? it will be difficult on the palestinian side. but i would assert that the important thing is to get in negotiating process going so that these issues can be framed. once the issues are on the table and the palestinian people can see what the choices are and be put into a position where they have to make a decision on whether or not to upset those

trade-offs, i think that is how you do with the situation. hamas will probably be a spoiler in any process moving forward. we have to be aware of that. they obviously draw their support from outside as well, including state actors such as iran. the potential that hamas brings to the process cannot be ignored. but the process needs to be put on the table and let the leadership make decisions on peace rather than the continuation of the current situation. >> we have no choice but to followed jake's recommendation. but to counterpoint, this is the kevin costner field of dreams school of middle east diplomacy, which is "bill that and they will come." if you can get a deal that so sweet and so enticing, they will. in the end, it comes down to one essential issue. can the palestinian authority be one dime and one authority and one negotiating position?

the chances of any israeli prime minister -- and i am not here to write a brief for this prime minister -- the chance of any israeli prime minister offering what will take to persuade the palestinians to sign an agreement are essentially slim to none. >> thank you to all of you for a wonderful presentation. let me ask the panel. there was an interesting article in "the *" about the possibility of civil disobedience. how do you see that? is that realistic?

what would be the potential in terms of them, the process -- in terms of outcome on the process? >> in the 1980's, there is a palestinian from jerusalem who emigrated to this country. he is now a professor at a university in ohio. he was trying to teach non- violence and nonviolent methods to the palestinians as a way of asserting their cause and their rights and the like. as i recall -- and my friends here could be more precise -- but the state department was very much enamored of this fellow and the israelis were

not so much. they were determined to deport him. despite a lot of protestations from the state department, they succeeded. that told me that the israeli is very determined to seat the moral high ground to the palestinians. maybe i make too much of that, but it stuck with me all these years. i think that's salam fiat is somebody who does recognize that -- i think that salam fayad is and who does recognize the importance of planting trees. i think it is a very hopeful movement. it is one that i would like to see continue. it is one that i suspect makes the current israeli government quite uncomfortable.

>> a question from the overflow -- what is the way forward concerning the settlement? is there any chance for a compromise? >> the issue of settlements, even as the ambassador recognizes, is critical, but it is not the only issue on the agenda. the proposal that most of us on the panel have now ascribe to of a u.s. approach, which is more comprehensive than simply getting to negotiations, would subsume this question. with lemieux by that? behavioral changes -- what do i mean by that? behavioral changes will continue to be required on both sides. there has to be continued pressure on israel, in particular, to stop settlement activity. but that should not be the only factor in american policy

making. in fact, i would suggest that, in the context of an overall approach where there is a negotiating process under way and the process of engagement with the larger arab world and the process of multilateral engagement that begins to talk about issues that are quite important but have not been talked about for some time, dealing with the settlement issue will prove to be easier. the israeli public will begin to understand that settlements are an absolutely bad investment. israel is pouring a lot of money into areas that are not going to remain within the state of israel. if a peace process looks more serious, then the israeli public and the israeli knesset, those who have to take hard budgetary decisions, they will decide that this is pouring good

money after bad. i would enveloped it in a larger peace process strategy in which it makes much more sense than simply isolating it as one factor. >> those points are up slowly valid. there's one additional consideration which circles back to leadership. our real strong, because he had legitimacy -- r.l. shootaround -- ariel sharon, because he has a legitimacy, can any israeli prime minister -- this is the core issue -- in a set of circumstances, figure out a way to a next three quarters of those israelis into blocks that are proximate to the green line but will leave about 50,000 israelis in the west bank in settlements, communities that are not proximate? that is a nation splitting sort of decision. i do not want to prejudge it one way or the other. but it is a core question that needs to be asked. it cannot be asked and answered

honestly now. it is something that is there and it needs to be faced up to very honestly. >> i would just add to that that the other observation has been made here that you cannot just talk about just this in the absence of talking about all the rest. we have not mentioned the poor demographics today. there are a lot of discussions about demographics and how one deals with that. that is another issue that has to play in the israeli view of the settlement and what it will look like and what would be advantageous to them and their interests. >> i appreciate very much of the comments from me to view.

i wondered why there would not be somebody on the israeli side of it, perhaps a former ambassador or something, to participate in this kind of discussion. there were questions minivet israel that would be best answered by them. -- there are questions that -- there are questions about israel that would be best answered by them. if we can look get to the history of this area, the historical context, and the biblical context, this has been a for a long time. oslo should have resolved this. why hasn't the biblical and historical aspect of this huge problem -- i didn't hear a single word about its -- please explain to me about a jerusalem, which has always been

considered the capital of the jewish people at the state of israel, it was united until 1948. why is that not also a critical portion of any discussion? how do we go forward. >> with respect to your first point, we deliberated quite purposely a panel of americans and american diplomats with experience and negotiations in order to address issues related to american policy. we have had other occasions where we have brought arabs, israelis, and palestinians to these discussions. but this is about american interest in a critical time of american diplomacy. that's to be the primary point

of departure. -- that should be the primary point of departure. >> on the issue demands made by prime minister netanyahu to recognize israel as an independent state, and the question of jerusalem, this is another reason why there needs to be american policy. i didn't know what american policy is on the first question. on the first question, -- i do not know what american policy is on the second question. on the first question, whether it is a formal recognition of some land which were simply -- of some language or in israel that defines its own character remains for the parties themselves. it is not for any of us to define what israel is or is not. the recognition that they confront israel will include israel's definition. this is not solely an issue for american policy. in one article -- i like to write for the common people of york. i addressed the issue of

jerusalem. in 1967, when israel unilaterally expanded the boundaries of the city, it expanded in a way that it had no relationship to bible history. it was done for practical and security reasons. but the definition of what is jerusalem and what will be the capital of israel and jerusalem remains to be negotiated. jerusalem, even in the expanded boundaries, is large enough for two capitals of two states. >> i am sorry. no further comments. i am taking a question from the front, from the middle, and from the back. we have a lot of hands.

>> i am from the alliance of egyptian americans. i would like to hear your opinion of a statement that came from a civil organizations here, carnegie and freedom, that were issued to hillary clinton on the issue and egypt and if we will not have a stable egypt by having free and fair elections and having a change of the constitution as many people in that position ask for in egypt. change will cause further problems. i wish to discuss the. -- i wish you would discuss that. >> would you like me to respond? the discussion today is on the attempt to secure peace. but there is a linkage between the strength and stability of

egypt's leadership and government and our policy and our ability to pursue our goals in the region. i have to be very blunt and very frank with you. i took issue with the editorial that grows produced in "the washington post" over the weekend. i think it is wrongheaded. it is not the way that you have influence with a friend. the editorial points in referring to the carnegie, it treats egypt as if it is an enemy of hours or a nation with which we have a strained relationship. of course, the united states wants to see a democratic process under way, once a full consultation, wants a full

transition to a stable outcome. but the weekend that that discussion is a different matter, not by hectoring. the editorial is a hectoring editorial. one can deal with the authorities in egypt and people in the political structure of the country and a polite matter, not one that inflames passions, but one that permits a sensible dialogue to take place. i part company and think that that is not the way that i would advise the president to conduct his dialogue with egypt. >> thank you. yes. in the back, yes. >> i am leon weintraub. i would like those on the panel who have been ambassadors to egypt and jordan to talk about the nature of the peace between israel and these two countries. despite longstanding agreement, we have seen zero and a discouragement between exchanges between artists, intellectuals, writers, and any kind of elements of civil

society. i would like to ask you if you think, number one, that is the result of a line laid down by the government? if it is not, if there is a strong element within those egyptian and jordanian civil society is attempting to discourage that? it is, is it possible for either governments to do something that might encourage these elements of civil society exchanges? >> i can certainly speak to the jordanian side of that. when this -- when the peace treaty was signed, there was enormous exchange between jordan and israel, with people on both sides of the boundary moving in large numbers.

i think there were 6000 to 8000 going to patrick in tours. many of my jordanian friends were telling me about taking their families to the beach along the coast of israel for the first time in a long, long time. there was a lot going on. you did indeed have a public reaction to israeli actions on the west bank. having said that, we cannot forget that the relationship between the government of jordan and the israeli government are in a lot of significant perricos, security and political issues. there is a constant dialogue and a constant exchange between jordan and israel on many issues that are vitally important. that relationship would not

exist, otherwise. you're quite correct. the public view in jordan is very hostile to the issue of israel, but primarily because of a failure on having process in the peace process. >> ok, the lady in the back. yes. >> my name is mindy riser. i want to talk about the roles of russia and china. we are quite fascinated with the meanderings of chinese foreign policy and russia is moving in interesting directions. i wonder if you could project where you see these two countries being held for not. >> thank you. ok. >> russia is, as you know, a member of the quartet.

one of the questions of the development in in american strategy is what to do about the quartet. i would urge the administration to look favorably on keeping the structure, but perhaps finding a better way of utilizing it then we have in the past. it is useful and try to conserve our approaches and speak with one voice. -- two concert our approach and speak with an invoice -- and speak with one voice. china is the big question mark. there is a love of literature about countries looking of the chip -- looking at the chinese model of development. students are working -- there is a lot of literature about countries looking at the chinese model of development. students are working on this at princeton.

having been to the middle east a couple of times recently, there seemed to be more questions about this growing then there are answers. chinese behavior in the region is still uncertain. china certainly has interests, particularly when it comes to securing long-term contracts for raw materials. but its obligations might be and what kinds of investments it might make in the region beyond those simply related to the raw materials is one of the great questions, particularly in egypt where china has always had a reasonably good relationship, but the egyptian side spoke with a couple of months ago are confused over -- but the egyptians i spoke with a couple of months ago are confused. >> i would simply pick up with the challenge that ban left me

and comment on the chinese. i think we are all in the process of watching the early stages of evolution of chinese form policy, albeit in the middle east are many other parts of the world. china's political expressions are going to start being more pronounced in its own immediate neighborhood, that it has not yet made up its mind about how to assert a political presence inside the middle east. it is in observation mode, as opposed to an activists or participatory mode at the same time that is developing an economic stake throughout the region. china will not be applying for membership in the quartet. china will be observing for a while to come. >> the wilson center will hold

a meeting on china and the persian gulf on april 12. -- on july 12. you may want to wrap up, please. >> thank you. >> are there any pressing more compelling and urges to make some final observations? >> i would like to make one very quickly. for all the obstacles that are held there and they're easy to define, i do believe there is an opportunity here. with our president and his approach and his team, we have a chance of taking a leadership role in moving this forward. >> i would second that. but also jack kennedy described himself as an idealist without illusion.

on the issue here is really peacemaking. that is where we need to be, never giving up on the help of the possibilities, that comprehensive peace can be achieved. as the united states goes through this process, it has to go through it with its eyes wide open. >> valid. >> thank you all for coming. congratulations to all of my colleagues for a terrific session.

>> let's be another banner in the c-span's documentary competition. we asked students to talk about one of the country's greatest strength or a challenge to the country is facing we now -- we will now speak with matthew. >> thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. but how to come up with demand for your documentary? >> brandon came up with it at first. the whole thing was about a news. it was like what you hear on the news channel started the whole topic was about the end of civil discourse. we thought that this was a big problem. we thought that it contributed

to it. >> do you think at cable news has contributed to the end of civility? >> we thought that it did. that is why we take the whole -- picked the whole thing. they were concentrated on getting people to watch. they were getting rid of civil discourse and yelling at each other just to get ratings. >> how do you think cable news has changed over the past couple of years? what i think that it has gone -- i think that it started off with relaying news, but now it has gotten into more of a competition and more into entertainment to get people to watch it so that they could make more money. >> how did you arrange your interviews?

>> since we live in bloomington, which is the home of indiana university, we sent out an e- mail to the school of journalism, explaining what the competition was and what we were doing and it -- and asked them if anybody can help. they said that people would be interested in doing that and so we set up time and places -- times and places it we learn what they thought about the problem. we asked them some of the same questions that you are asking and how they thought it has changed. we were trying to get a better understanding of news. >> do you think that america has benefited from having more news outlets? >> i think that is probably one of the main factors on wine

cable news has contributed to a loss of stability because you get more and more competition and they feel that there is a bigger need to get more viewers so that they can compete with their rival news channels and so that gives them more incentive to yell and scream to get people to be telling him to get people to tune in -- to get people to tune in. i think more people trust it. in the video, we show that it has gone down for good people still trust the news because they do not really know much about what goes on. me and brandon, we did not know much about that, so we started looking at it and researching it and seeing how they compete for ratings. i do not think that people

really understand much about that. i think that people trust it right now. >> what are your plans after high school? >> i have been thinking about medical school. i guess i will come to that bridge -- i will cross that bridge when i come to it. >> thank you for talking to us and congratulations on your win. now, let's watch a portion of his video. >> according to american progress mass media affects our corporate decisions. this is a problem of peace and war. the loss of civility has been the driving force. >> you can watch the entire video and all of the other women interest studentcam.org.

>> president obama met with officials at the white house. they announced that the ukraine will get rid of enriched uranium stockpiles. we will hear more from that next. later, a group of former u.s. ambassadors discussed the prospect for peace in the middle east. >> the government's assistance to wall street is expected to cost much less than earlier projected. we will talk to paul kiel. after that, stuart taylor on the retirement of justice john paul stevens. later, robert reich his perspective on the economy.

"washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. timothy geithner is interviewed. this is part of a conference hosted by the american society of newspaper editors. that is live at 12:45 pm -- 12:45 p.m. eastern. >> all of this month, middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on the country's biggest strings or challenges. watch it every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern. then meet the students that made them and for a preview of all of the winners, visit studentcam.org. >> of the white house announced that the ukraine will get rid of all of its new clear material by 2012. robert did spoke with reporters

about nuclear issues. he is joined by a counter- terrorism advisor. >> good afternoon. before we hear from john brennan, the president's advisor on counterterrorism and homeland security, i wanted to start today with an announcement. today, ukraine announced a landmark decision to get rid of all of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by the time of the next nuclear security summit in 2012. ukraine intends to remove a substantial part of its stocks this year. ukraine will convert its civil nuclear research facilities -- operate with low-enriched uranium fuel. this is something that the united states has tried to make happen for more than 10 years. the material is enough to construct several nuclear weapons. and this demonstrates ukraine's

continued leadership in non- proliferation and comes in an important region where we know a lot of highly enriched uranium exists. with that, let me turn this over to john brennan. >> [inaudible] >> i can answer some and john and i can -- we'll both answer questions. >> good afternoon, everyone. the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, it is serious, it is growing, and it constitutes one of the greatest threats to our national security and, indeed, to global security. over the past two decades there has been indisputable evidence that dozens of terrorist groups have actively sought some type of weapon of mass effect. relative to other such potential weapons -- which include biological, chemical, radiological -- the consequences and impact of a nuclear attack would be the most devastating as well as the most lasting. thus, the ability to obtain a

nuclear weapon and to use it is the ultimate and most prized goal of terrorist groups. al qaeda is especially notable for its longstanding interest in acquiring weapons-useable nuclear material and the requisite expertise that would allow it to develop a yield producing improvised nuclear device. al qaeda has been engaged in the effort to acquire a nuclear weapon for over 15 years, and its interest remains strong today. al qaeda and other terrorist groups know that if they are able to acquire highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium and turn it into a weapon, they would have the ability not only to threaten our security and world order in an unprecedented manner, but also to kill and injure many thousands of innocent men, women and children, which is al qaeda's sole agenda. disturbingly, international organized criminal syndicates and criminal gangs are keenly aware of the strong interest of

terrorist groups to acquire fissile material, which has prompted these criminals to pursue nuclear materials for their own personal gain. over the past decade there has been a significant increase in the sharing of terrorism- related intelligence among nations of the world, to include intelligence on the ways and means used by al qaeda and other terrorist groups to pursue their nuclear weapon ambitions. while this intelligence-sharing is invaluable, it must be accompanied by collective and effective action by all nations of the world to deny and to deprive terrorists and criminal groups the opportunity to gain the nuclear related material and the expertise that would allow them to fulfill their evil goals. indeed, our future and the future of generations yet to come depend on our ability to safeguard these materials and expertise. so while there are many

different nuclear issues that the administration is addressing, there is none more important than this one. that is why we are focusing specifically on nuclear terrorism and nuclear security over the next two days, because these issues must be addressed with a sense of focus and urgency. thank you. >> with that, let us -- we'll all take a series of questions. yes, sir. >> mr. gibbs, a question for you on ukraine and a question for mr. brennan, if i could, on al qaeda. this highly enriched uranium, where is it going to be sent? >> the final disposition location is yet to be determined. the announcement and the agreement obviously happened just a little bit ago. that's a process that we'll be working on. the united states will provide some degree of both technical and financial assistance to ensure that it happens. >> do you have a potential destination for [inaudible]? >> it's among them, yes.

>> and may i ask a question of mr. brennan? >> of course. >> you mentioned with regard to al qaeda that they've been seeking nuclear weapons for 15 years and you described our interest as strong -- remains strong, you said. could you provide any evidence that they are actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" are they on the black market, or anything you can point to that they're doing today? >> i think over the past 15 years you have open testimony in court about al qaeda's efforts to, for example, try to obtain uranium in sudan in 1994. you have statements that al qaeda seniors, including bin laden and zawahiri, have made about their determination to use and to seek those weapons. they say it's in the defense of their agenda, which purports to be muslim. and there is a strong body of intelligence that goes back over the past decade that clearly indicates that al qaeda is -- has been trying to procure these materials on the open market and with criminal syndicates. so the evidence is strong, the track record is demonstrated, and we know that al qaeda

continues to pursue these materials. >> david. >> mr. brennan, just a follow-up on that same question. are you aware of any effort by al qaeda to obtain material or expertise since the meeting that took place just before 9/11 where the members -- the former members of the khan research laboratory traveled up to talk to osama bin laden" and secondly, are you aware of any efforts at this point, continuing efforts, to infiltrate that body of trained scientists in pakistan or training outside europe who would then come back into the labs? >> there have been numerous reports over the years, over the past eight or nine years, about attempts throughout the world to obtain various types of purported material that is nuclear related.

we know that al qaeda has been involved in a number of these efforts to acquire it. fortunately, i think they've been scammed a number of times, but we know that they continued to pursue that. we know of individuals within the organization that have been given that responsibility. so there has been i think demonstrated interest across a number of years. and also one of the things we're most concerned about this is probably the most sensitive of their efforts, and therefore it will have only very few people involved in the effort. and therefore it requires that very good intelligence work that's done. and the second question as far as potential insider threat, throughout the world i think al qaeda is looking for those vulnerabilities and facilities and stockpiles in different countries that would allow them to obtain the byproducts of nuclear reactors and materials that they can use -- but also to go after those individuals that might have access to the materials as well as individuals who have the expertise that they need to actually fabricate an improvised nuclear device. >> any evidence they've

actually managed to do that, particularly in the pakistan [inaudible]. >> there's evidence of their attempts to do that. i would like to think that we have been able to thwart their success to date. >> mr. brennan, two questions. did you get -- what kind of reassurance did the president get from the prime minister of pakistan" and did you get some reassurance that they understand this issue [inaudible]what they're doing with their nuclear [inaudible]being so close to where al qaeda is physically [inaudible]that they are doing everything they can to protect [inaudible]. can you describe the nature of who these gangs are, you're talking about criminal gangs, organized crime -- are these russian [inaudible]. and then, robert, could you --

>> well, let me just -- before john gets to pakistan, i would read you from the readout yesterday that the president indicated his appreciation of that broad based sentiment and used -- addressing the topic of the conference, reasserted the importance of nuclear security, a priority that he has reiterated for all countries. the prime minister of pakistan indicated his assurance that pakistan takes nuclear security seriously and has appropriate safeguards in place. and on poland, no decisions have yet been made. >> [inaudible] >> i think they are -- scheduling is looking at a number of possibilities. >> i'm not going to get into the details of the bilateral discussion that may have taken place, but today's event is a seminal one as far as nuclear security is concerned. but also it is part of a

process that was started, at least in this administration, 15 months ago, where we've had regular and ongoing conversations with a number of the nations of the world, to include pakistan, addressing the goals and objectives that we know that al qaeda is after and what types of threat they pose to our interests and to the interests of other countries. so our engagement with pakistan runs the full gamut as far as what al qaeda is trying to do, whether it be to kill innocents or to carry out other types of attacks and objectives that really threaten our national security and the pakistan national security. on the issue of those international organized crimes -- sometimes they're criminal gangs that have information that some material had come out from the, let's say the area of the former soviet union or some stockpiles and they will try to provide that material to other groups to sell. as i said, a lot of it is scam, you know, red mercury, whatever else. but there are real concerns about the vulnerabilities that

may exist out there as far as stockpiles that still need to be buttoned down because these criminal gangs are looking for opportunities to make money. and it runs across continents, it's not just in a particular area or locale; it runs throughout asia, europe, the western hemisphere. these gangs and criminal syndicates are trying to obtain that material. >> is pakistan the number one security [inaudible]? >> our concerns are global and that's why the president has brought these individuals together today, which is to make sure that this is a collective action. >> and the president was directly engaged on exactly this question when president zardari and president karzai traveled to the united states in march 2009 as part of that trilateral meeting. and i would say, as i mentioned in my announcement, i think one of the important developments out of the announcement relating to ukraine is we understand the concentration of these types of materials in

former soviet republics. chip. >> thank you, robert. there's the material from chile, and now ukraine, which you said could potentially come to the united states. is the president concerned, are you concerned, that the united states might have to make itself kind of a storage facility, a global storage facility for these materials" and if so, don't you have another yucca mountain with international implications here? >> well, chip, the goal of this summit and the reason the president is so concerned about it is our genuine concern about the security environment in which this material is held. we don't worry about the security environment with which that material is held in this country, whether that's in different places around the country. the president sees, as john mentioned, the threat of this type of material falling into the hands of somebody who wants to use it for their evil designs as the number one security threat that we face as a world. so i think this is just the type of announcement that we would like to see. i traveled with the then-

senator obama to ukraine in 2005 with senator lugar. we visited a facility that -- basically the equivalent of the ukraine's cdc. we walked into a room and out of a refrigerator somebody who worked there took out a series of test tubes that were anthrax. suffice to say, i think the level at which we believe that type of material ought to be secured -- in 2005 that standard was not being met at the facility we went to. we provide through -- on nuclear issues through the nunn- lugar program and in other programs the type of funding necessary to help many of these countries secure this material.

we have assisted ukraine in a number of those projects, whether it be biological, chemical, or in this case nuclear. john, do you have anything else? what you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, a panel examines grassroot communications in iran. after that, a group of former u.s. ambassadors talk about peace in the middle east. >> senate investigators say that washington mutual engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in its home mortgage business former executives

testify tomorrow morning. live coverage from the subcommittee on investigations starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> now, a panel examines how new media and social networking in iran is changing grass roots communications and politics in that country. we will hear from the author the"reading lolita -- the author of "reading lolita." this is 50 minutes. >> welcome, everyone. thank you for coming to our event today.

i think we have a very interesting conference for you today. i am a professor at the school of public affairs and i am also the director of the institute of democracy. like i said, we are doing things a little differently today. our goal today is to talk about the importance of engagement and the means of engagement and person to person contact when foreign policy is difficult, to say the least. when we talk about the media, we are known to have an on-line moderator. we will have internet feeds that have been sent in. i mentioned that we are

partnering with the broadcasting board of governors for the institute. it has always been a wonderful partnership. i want to get to our keynote speaker. jeff is the managing director of the washington d.c.-based company and is also a senior partner of government relations. since 2002, he has been on the board of bbg. he is also the director of the russian business council and he is a board member of freedom house. without further ado, jeff, thank you. >> thank you, sean. i really appreciate partnering with george washington university to present this program to you. for those of you that do not

know, we are a federal agency that supervises all nonmilitary u.s. international broadcasting. we broadcast in 60 languages to over 171 million people around the world every week. each of our broadcasters are dedicated to the principle encoded in u.s. law that contributes to international peace and stability the broadcasters work on a daily basis to promote freedom and democracy -- and stability. the broadcasters work on a daily basis to promote freedom and democracy. we do so in iran through a news network's and radio europe. they broadcast 24 hours a day,

bringing unbiased information to the iranian people. a lot of information that they cannot get elsewhere. according to independent research, nearly 30% of the iranian population is reached. never before have we found our work more challenging. i was trying to figure out how to put this to you in language that everyone can understand. we matter. the reason we know that is because the iranian government spends so much time, effort and trouble trying to shut us down. whether it is by jamming our broadcasts, blocking internet,

or blocking satellite transmissions . mming our broadcast. blacking internet. or blacking internet transmissions on the uplink or the down link. they do it all. they do it on a daily basis. we at the bbg are dedicated to fighting this. we have developed new technologies to defeat their jamming. and we know it's an ongoing struggle. and it's very difficult to do. we have actively combating iranian jamming through web-based proximating service and circumvention blocking software. it ballooned 500% after the elections in 2009. we have developed the first persian language news app for android and iphones. it allows citizen journalists in iran to send

freedom of information is a fundamental human right. when a oppressive government tries to control information, we work to give people the information they need to make competent decisions for their own lives. we will continue that mission until such time it is accomplished. with that, i would like to introduce my colleague and friend to introduce our keynote speaker. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. welcome to everyone. i am the director of the school of media and public affairs. here at the school, we explore, examine, and study the

intersection of media and politics and public diplomacy. nowhere is that the expiration more fascinating or more important than in iran. our keynote speaker is best known as the author of the best seller. . . the author of the national bestseller "reading lolita in tehran." it's a compassionate but harrowing portrait of the islamic revolution in iran and how it affected one university professor and her students. the book spent more than 115 weeks on the "new york times" bestseller list. not bad. it's been translated into 32 languages and it has won several literary awards. excuse me. including the 2004 nonfiction book of the year award from book book of the year award from book sense. the frederick w.ness book award.

and several others. reading lolita in iran has earned critical praise in tehran and literary distinction as it has built a enthusiastic readership. they have been captivated by the story and the characters framed in this alluring and confounding place. iran. the book is an incisive exploration of the transformative powers, that truly transformative powers of fiction and a world of tyranny. she's a visiting professor and the executive director of cultural conversations at the foreign policy institute. of johns hopkins school of international students here in washington, d.c. where she's the professor of ethics and history. she teaches the relation between culture and politics and held a

fellowship at the university. she's taught at the university of tehran. a free islamic university. before her return to the united states in 1997. she's earned respect. and international recognition for advocating on behalf of intellectuals, youth, and especially young women. in 1981 she was expelled from the university of tehran for refusing to wear the mandatory islamic veil. and she did not return to teaching until 1991. she has written for the "times" the "wall street journal," our cover story the veiled threat of the iranian's revolution woman problem published in the new republic has been reprinted in several languages. she's currently working on a book entitled "republic of the

imagination" which is about the power of liberation to empower the minds of people. she lives here in washington, d.c. at the conclusion of her keynote i will join her for a few moments and have an opportunity to explore what she said with her and to open it up to you for your questions from that mic in the middle of the room. so please, as she speaks, and as we speak, if you'd prepare your brief questions, we will get to you as well. so now it is my great pleasure to welcome to the george washington university and to all of you azar nafisi. [applause] >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. it's such a great pleasure to be here today. especially when all those wonderful institutions that are constantly reminding us how important the truth is. the academia george washington

university and the board of governors and all these people on the panel. and i do think that truth is, in fact, the main issue. the main topic at that we will be talking about today. and because of that, when i was thinking about how just a year ago -- it was just before the june uprising or rebellions in 2009, if you thought of iran, the images that came out of iran were not the images that were later taking over the internet and finally the media over here. the images that was given to us through his cartoons. the image of that amazing girl nadal, who has become the symbol of iran and iranian youth. and definitely you would not have -- nobody would have thought when they thought of iran of a group of young girls sitting in a room overlooking

the snow capped mountains of tehran and reading lolita. when you think of each one of these images you would not think of iran. iran was defined at that time by wmds, by terror. and the first image that came to your mind -- because his image was all over the media here. from larry king to anderson cooper to charlie rose. everywhere you looked we had our wonderful president, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad with a shirk on his faisst as if he had broken the neighbor's window and gotten away with it. and by golly he had gotten away with it. he reminded me of a george clooney or brad pitt this fascination people had with mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad. the questions like how many kids do you have? do you love new york? how many kids are in your jails? how many are being raped as we

speak? you know, those questions, of course. and it reminded me -- when i thought of that view -- because, you see, the whole idea is that you need to look at a nation, at an individual, at any -- at any -- at reality through diverse eyes. through different perspectives in order to come as close as you can to one -- to the whole -- to the whole image. and in order to understand a country like iran, in order to understand a country like united states, you need to understand it. not just through the eyes of the governments. even when the governments -- even when the politicians are democratic. far worse when you live in a totalitarian society whose first act is to take away the group of voices.

to reduce all voices. to just one image. and so the point here -- and what i celebrate now -- and in a meeting like this is that finally those voices and those images that had been forced underground for so many years have burst and blossomed. on the internet and on television screens. and when we talk of iran, we know more talk one aspect of iran but iran as a country that is mysterious. and one of the most important debates and will be the answer to many of the very important problems that we are facing today. so whenever i think of

mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad's perspective, i remember of an anecdote -- i mention it in my book but many people have later also mentioned it. it becomes sort of the metaphor for me about this whole idea of truth. and although it sounds very abstract, how important it is in our lives, not just personal but also political and cultural. and when we are here talking about iranian journalists and bloggers and how we can connect to them, we understand how essential their role is in not just changing the iranian society and changing iran's role in the region and in the world but changing our perspectives about ourselves. because the way we look at others is a reflection of the way we look at ourselves. those people we think as our allies and our enemies defines who we are. and where we stand in the world today. and what we expect of the world today.

well, the image that comes to my mind is the image of this guy who was the censor for iran in 1994. he was blind. he was nearly blind. so he would be sitting -- one famous director told me that he would be sitting there and somebody would be sitting beside him. and he would tell him things like now the girl is approaching the boy, you know, cut. you know, so he couldn't see. but he could say how people should be acting. and after 1994, his job was changed. and he became the head of the new television channel in iran. the main censor for the new television channel in iran, channel 4. and his successor who was not blind -- i mean, not physically but metaphorically definitely

blind. he used the same method that this censor used. he would have people give their scripts to him in tapes, tape-recorders, and he would listen to the scripts. they did not have to enact it dramatically. can you imagine to be a script writer and not present your script dramatically. he would listen to them and decide how people should act. and this metaphor of the blind censor for film and television for me became a metaphor for all those totalitarian mindsets who, in fact, afraid of the diversity of voices, of the diversity of opinions, of the diversity of ideas -- they tried to impose their own image of reality upon -- in the case of the islamic republic of iran. upon a whole, you know, nation.

and so when the islamic republic came -- took power and the blind censor a philosopher of kings came with it. the first targets that they found -- the very first targets were those who have symbolized this diversity. which was women, minorities, and those who worked in what we call culture. the academia, mr. mahmoud ahmadinejad, recently claimed -- recently stated would regret. and that the iranian academia, since the beginning of last century, had remained -- had been secular and liberal. and, unfortunately, the islamic republic has been unable to do anything about it. so their first targets were, in fact, women who unlike what has been said had been fighting for their rights since mid-1800s.

and that one of the first things that a totalitarian regime does -- in order to legitimatize what it is. in order to legitimatize its confiscates history. they want to impose their fundamentalist views upon a society. the first thing that they do is confiscate history. the first thing they want to do, they confiscate and redefine what it means, for example, to be an american. or what it means to have a constitution. that is the first thing that they do. because history needs to justify what we do. what we were in the past will show us what we are now. and what we will be in the future. so they reduced that history of an ancient country.

iran goes back to 3,000 years of history. it wasn't even islamic. islam came to iran in seventh century. but after the invasion of iran, that islam mixed and mingled with the past of iran. every country that is muslim is muslim in its own way. in the same way that every country that is christian is christian in its own way. you have so many definitions. that came against orthodox islam, and had its origin in iran, sufism and mysticism, all of these were lumped together. all of them were no reduced to an official version of religion.

you notice that this country is a christian majority, and yet we have so many different denominations. when you talk about american the and christian, are we talking about obama's christianity, all we talked about reverend wright's christianity, are we talking about reverend falwell's christianity? there so many ways of interpreting religion. one religion becomes the state. we say we are a christian nation and christianity is what we will all do. then religion itself is confiscated. and yet when you said that co, those apologists would call you western. to say that religion should be

defers was an insult to islam. -- diverse was an insult to islam. iran and women and men -- iranian women and men, from the late 19th century, have been fighting against an absolutist monarch the an absolutist religion. there were the first in the religion -- in the region to have a constitutional revolution. the same forces that you see in the streets of tehran today other great grandchildren and grandchildren of those forces who came out into the streets of tehran and other places in iran 100 years ago. and created a constitutional revolution which was the first revolution to create a modern

and open institution. revolution, which was the first revolution to create modern and open institutions. and the iranian women who are called western because they say that they need to have a choice -- they have been fighting for their rights for over 100 years. their rights was not something that a shah could give them. so that an ayatollah could take away. they had been -- they had been fighting. they had been beaten. they had been exiled. morgan schuster in 1912 wrote about iran. he lived in iran. and he wrote about iran. how iranian -- i talk about it in my second book in "things i have been silent about." iranian women in the course of a few years have made leaps of centuries. and they have -- they are far ahead of their sisters in the west. so what i'm trying to say in

this very short time is that what your facing here is not a regime that is defending religion. that is defending tradition. that is defending culture. that all totalitarian systems come in the name of half-truths. and all totalitarian system takes something from the society, some aspect of society and then extend it to the society as a whole. and when we talk about -- and, you know, one of the things -- this is a good time because when we talk about iran, we also have to learn about america. right? this is a dialog. and in dialog, it's not ever a one-way street. really what amazed me was that over the 18 years that i lived in the islamic republic, i had some of the most amazing experiences in terms of the

flourishing and the need and the thirst and the hunger to connect to the world. and to connect through the best the world had to offer, it's ideas, it's philosophies, it's novels, it's poetry, its music. we had some of the most -- you know, i remember once i gave a talk. there was almost a riot. you know, people -- when they came to watch the movies by the avant-garde by a russian filmmaker, it seemed as if they were going to a concert by michael jackson. you know, so the whole idea was that there was this thirst for culture. and yet i come here -- and, you know, and also, for example, about the issue of the veil. there was far more freedom among ourselves to debate the issue. and i want to mention this here because it's very important to understand that the issue of the

veil is not about religion. it is not about whether the veil is good or bad. when i refused to wear the veil, it was because i thought that no state, no authority has the right to tell its citizens whether to worship god or not and in what way to worship god. that it was dependent upon the citizens to decide that for themselves. and my grandmother, who never took off her veil, had the same idea as i did. and she would cry and tell us that this is not the real islam because they do not flog people. and they do not put young women in jail. and give them virginity tests. they do not insult god's children in this way. if they are true muslims. so i want you to understand that this society is very traumatized because not only its history, not only its culture. not only its reality.

but also in the name of its religion something has been taken away from it. that for the past 30 years it is trying to retrieve. so the whole idea then was when i came here. and in a society where i'm free to write, when i'm free to talk, when i'm free to criticize, i realize that the same reduced images, the same mutilated images that existed there are now dominating here. and when you talk to people about, you know, the right of choice, about iranian women, they look at you oh, but you're western. oh, it's their culture. and some people from the right and some people from the right -- from the left -- the people on the right say it's their culture. so let's attack them. they're terrible people. people on the left -- it's their culture. let the natives do whatever they want to do.

now, the whole point is that what did they attribute to our culture? when the islamic republic came to power, iran had some of the most progressive laws on women. we had two women ministers. one minister for women's affairs. my own mother was one of the first women who went to the iranian parliament in 1963. switzerland didn't get its right to vote for women until 1974. we had women in the industry. we had women pilots. we had women judges. the nobel laureate was the first circuit judge because they said women are too weak to be able to judge. and for women like her, that did not take away their motivation. they came back into public and became defenders for women's rights and human rights. this is the kind of women that we have in that society.

but the first thing that the government did before having a new parliament or a new constitution was to repeal the family protection law which protected women at home and at work. they reduced the age of marriage from 18 to 9 for females after women fighting for almost 20-something years they finally raised it to 13. but still the judge can give its consent for the father to marry a girl under the age of 13. how critical for a culture who would put a man in jail if they have sex with a 13-year-old girl to tell me that this is my culture. or something that had never existed in the history of iran, which is stoning people to death for prostitution. what they call prostitution and adultery. if that is my culture, then

slavery is the culture of this country. and not abraham lincoln. and frederick douglass and flanary o'connor and william faulkner and mark twain. if this is my culture, then inquisition, fascism and communism is the culture of europe. fascism and communism came from the heart of civilized europe. they didn't come from the muslim world. they didn't come from the east. that is their culture. not dante, st. thomas aquinas, jane austen, shakespeare and others. every culture has something to be ashamed of. there are no innocents in this world. not a single innocent nation. but what makes a culture great

is its ability to see the points that are terrible about itself, shame, genuine shame. not the kind of shames that politicians -- nowadays they don't even apologize for the shameful things they do. not the kind of things that the politicians do, oh, we are so ashamed. oh, we feel your pain. no, not that kind. real shame, which leads you to change. real shame which created the abolitionist movement in this country. when i left this country in the 1970s, obama and mr. lieberman -- none of them maybe could have gone into many institutions in this country still. hillary clinton as president, hillary clinton -- women like gloria steinam and betty friedman were made browbeating as women at home.

it's the fact that within the past 30 years, in the past 100 and something years from there it has come to here. so that we now not only have a barack obama who is the president but a barack hussein obama who will remind many husseins in this country that they do not have to become terrorists. that they can become, in fact, presidents. and if barack hussein obama who chooses to become christian and keep the name hussein so now maybe a hillary or a bill will become jewish or bahari or maybe a hussein or ali will become christian or jewish or atheists for heaven's sake. i mean, i just want to actually go through the conclusion about the bloggers because i think the most important thing.

but what i was trying to show was that if you are talking about truth, whether it's about iran or china or darfur, you cannot go to those people who fabricate the truth in order to gain power. for truth you have to go to history. you have to go to culture. you have to remember that this iran sees its identity in its greatest poets that iranians know further see or by heart even when they're illiterate. that's 750 years ago. a poet whose book is in every iranian house said -- talked about hypocritical clerics who drink wine in private. and flog people in public. you have an agnostic astrollger

every time you pass my grave you douse a glass of wine to remember my life. wine in mystical iran poetry is a symbol of communion with god. these culture we call muslim, they are sensual and erotic and colorful. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is not an american thing. the woman in afghanistan who has been shot to death, the woman in iran who is being raped in jails, the woman in saudi arabia who is being flogged for the way she looks. the woman in darfur who is being -- whose children are killed in front of her and is being raped, they also want to be happy ...

>> is that truth is always, the movement in iran will be successful because it is not political. that is what washington has been getting are ron so wrong for so long.

if like south africa and like eastern europe, it is the movement fighting for something far more important than politics, it is an existential movement. for 30 years, iran and women have been fighting against these walls through education feared the 1 million signature campaign and there is a book out a history of 1 million signatures campaign that the iranian women created. they chose themselves a sign of why iran is important to us. iran is not going where the regime is going. if you want to fight a totalitarian system, you cannot be a totalitarian yourself. military attacks, insults' tour

of the regime, the overthrow -- this is not the aim of this movement. the aim of the movement, it has learned its lesson, not just a change in regime but a change in mindset which is far more difficult. a change in mindset means that the ends do not justify every single mean that you can use. the means you use will become the sum total and the iranians, the reason it will teach us a great deal about ourselves, about the region, and about the world is that it has chosen to use the democratic change in order to change the non- democratic system. they have the guns. they have the jails. what do we have?

that is the point. ails. what do we have? that is the point. for iranian women use the wondering signature campaign to educate women both within the country and without. and they showed to women across the board that whether you're an orthodox muslim woman, or whether you are an agnostic modern, you know, very open woman, these laws are against you. the laws that do not give you custody of the child, the laws that marry you while your father's wish at such an age, the laws that do not allow you to become judges. these laws are against all of us, and in the streets of tehran in june, and later on, you saw women. you saw they had to wear the

veil. but you will see the differences. you saw young and old, male and females, asking for freedom, asking for their openness. this is the strategy, to educate and to default against the guns. because if the struggle is political, you know how in politics is always compromised. it's always compromise, but you need to have other areas in the society where you can use other methods. this is what a democracy is. you have politics. europe literature. at humanities. we -- the writers, the journalists, the artists, we can become the conscience of society. and what we do then is to use the truth as a weapon. that is what is happening right

now in iran. and the bloggers in iran, the first panel can talk much more than i can about this, but notice that if they flog women for showing their hair, if they put bloggers in jail and tortured them, if journalists are jailed for just simply telling the truth or showing a cartoon, that shows how vulnerable the regime is, how afraid they are. because women, the bloggers weapons of mass destruction is what they write and is a bit of hair that the show, you know, and so i am very much on time, you know, i'm looking at my watch all the time. although i know it's lovely to talk about democracy when you have microphone. okay, so what i want to end within is the fact that we need

to take this movement in iran very seriously, and we need to take it seriously, not just for the sake. do not feel sorry for iranian people. they have taken responsibility for their lives, and they have refused to be victims. so what you need to do is to support their voices, and to add your voice to them, and to communicate to them via radio liberty need to create a conversation with the iranian people. they are now in jail for reading and chronicles, education, people were trying to prevent a revolution because they were reading, for heavens sake. how many of my students know that? they are taking the best that the west has. your best weapon is not your military. your best weapon is the culture. and they are taking that culture, they are putting on

their websites and they are reminding us in america that today in this terrible crisis the crisis is not financial. it is a crisis of vision and it is a crisis of the united nations, and iran is here to remind you that the root against the blind, here in america or their in iran, is through a conversation that is based on imagination and on thought. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you very much. it was fascinating. a great privilege and pleasure to have you here. on campus, and your metaphor of the blind censor is killing, really. but i'd like to ask you this question because much of the world, shortly here in the west,

we have so much about the part of iran. we hear about ahmadinejad. we hear about the nuclear program. we don't hear much about what you refer to as a trauma tide society. what do you think is the cultural dynamic at this moment in iran? and as you formulate your entry, i will invite those of you who may have questions to move to the microphones the weekend get our response here in a few bits we have before move on to the next item. >> you know, we do have to, i'll say that we have to thank the islam republic for so many things. to show me just the divine details of life, like the sun in my hair is very important that one of the things that the revolution debt, which was very important, was it forced us, not just question the world or not just question the regime, but to question ourselves. and that became part of the

culture that had sort of question itself. for example, when they would talk about women, the way women should be or the way muslim women are or the way iranian women are, we ask ourselves is this true? so we have to go to history, to read the history to find out the truth. and as we found out the truth, we changed. and the same was true of the world. we were deprived of connection to the world so we had, many of my muslim students who were in top positions at the university, they would come to the class full of prejudices. why are we reading withering heights? it's all about adultery. they would leave our classes full of curiosity, wanting to know the world. >> you mention bloggers. you mentioned the role of the voice of america, and various other broadcasts that have come

in, in search of the truth, how does an iranian citizen today obtaining the truth about the world? >> part of it now is through the internet. that is how they do. of course, there are -- there is always access it. one of the amazing things in iran as in many took out 10 societies is that many, the guardians of revolution who defended this revolution at the beginning, through contact, with the world and with what is happening, changed. and so there are always rogue elements within the regime, within the ministry of guidance that open the road that lets you publish a rogue book which then becomes censored. but mainly now i think it is through the internet. during my time we had a one-sided relationship with satellite dishes where we got

our information year and, of course, bbc and all the others also provide information. >> let's go to your questions. >> dr. nafisi i was just listening to your comments here about faith. i'm just went if you think that iran can successfully democratize itself and reclaim that cultural identity? and remained and islamic republic. >> well, i think the title islamic republic is a contradiction in terms. it's like the german republic, the communist. the republic supposedly is based on a democracy, where they would be many ideas. i don't think that it can remain and islam republic, and at the same time have that. first of all, religion used as an ideology does not represent the whole of the iranian people.

we have muslims with many different ideas. we have jews, we have christian, we have others. and all their interests should be represented properly. many of the former revolutionaries, now are talking about the secular open society. >> does that have traction as they talk about a secular open society? >> it does have a great deal of attention that the other panels will talk about it, but that is what iran is so exciting because you know they are really finding what democracy is, you know. and destroying the myth about democracy is simply western thing. there were debates when i lived in iran, and i left iran and 97,

there was a magazine where they brought in first all these debates. >> can you talk a bit about the psychological aspects of the nuclear program? why iran brandishes this program beyond whether it wants weapons or not, and particularly what ahmadinejad is so obsessed with the nuclear program. >> well, i think you'd be able to answer that much better. this is barber, and just much more information than i do on this topic. i don't know. i think -- first of all, i think that mr. ahmadinejad, whatever he is doing is not out of strength but out of frustration them both domestically and internationally. and he takes these things as hostage, that if iran, like with the american tourists that they now have.

you take on says agitate people hostage. and they think they can intimidate the west once they have the nuclear weapon. by, you know, sort of move to their side, or do as they want to. i think it is a very dangerous game they are playing, and it definitely does not even have support inside iran. but really, you should talk about that. >> she has, actually. >> i mean here. >> yes. i would actually like to follow-up on that though because there is a lot of projection, and this will be our last question because i think we need to move onto the next part of the program. there's a lot of fear and get onto the iranian nuclear program. what role does that play, in your view, and this sort of national pride and national psychology of the country? >> well, you know, actually

answer that with a question, this question that i asked a friend of mine who is a wonderful person. she is a lawyer in iran that and i told her about it. she said why do you people live over there think that people like us wake up in the morning and their first worry is we need to have a nuclear weapon? she says i'm worried about much of not having a job. i'm worried about the future of even the house that i live in. the pollution is already killing us over here. so what she was saying is that that is not uppermost in the minds of most of us. and the second thing with national pride, i think every country, i mean, americans sometimes very crude talk about national pride, you know. so every country has their own national pride. but why do you think that iranians would be more proud of having nuclear weapons then being represented as a civilized

country whose representative is not mr. ahmadinejad? why do you think they will feel less ashamed of having someone who comes here embarrassing as it -- embarrassing us at every moment. but not having nuclear weapons embarrasses us? it is their poets and philosophers, mark twain and frederick douglass. i'd done except that at as national pride. >> i thank you very much for your comments and your thoughts. >> thank you. we want to move into our first panel and out like to introduce them. he has created a phenomenon called global voices.

>> hello and good morning. i'm going to be moderating the first panel. the discussion will be the new media landscape in the iran. we will discuss and interrogate the ideas of who exactly is on line in iran, how they get information and participate on line, and how they discuss and narrate their room lives. -- their own lives. so we have a distinguished and group of commentators this morning, and i think we will go and get them on stage as quickly as again because we have a limited amount of time. so i'll introduce them and they what they will come up and will begin our conversation. so mohamed abdel dayem is the

middle east and north africa program coordinator for the committee to protect journalists are prior to joining cpj, he was a research at the coalition and the national endowment for democracy, and also before that he was analyst for five years. hida fouladvand is the executive editor of the persian news service. prior to joining the oa she was at cnn international at the u.s. affairs desk for many years, and also worked in a american journalism for many years covering everything from hurricane katrina to u.s. domestic politics. and next we have nick kosar.

nick is best known for depegging iran's most powerful clerics and politicians in his cartoons. and he is a member of the "new york times" syndicate of cartoonist and has worked for many international news and information networks. sorry, i'm a little bit nervous. we're going to get on with their conversation very quickly, and then we will have a conversation amongst all of us. and you. >> so we're going to begin today with mohammed and he's going to

discuss the media landscape in iran and particularly with the focus on how iranian bloggers and how they engaged in the professional media space. >> thanks, ivan. i want to start out by discussing a point that i'm sure all of you have considered at one point and another, and that's really the divide between professional journalists and bloggers, and where does that line really lie. and i think in iran that line is lower your than it is in many other places. and this is a result of multiple factors in iran. in the late 1990s that iranians government shutdown upward of 100 publications in a matter of four or five years. as a result of that, and a lot of journalists really migrated online in the late '90s and opening years of the 2000. hundreds, thousands of journalists really and you see those professional journalists

alongside regular students, doctors and engineers, and nurses, and all kinds of people who write online under blogs online news, news sources, on newspapers that no longer exist in print, but simply exist in cyberspace, as it were. iran, not just iran, but really all the countries of the middle east region have had an explosion in internet penetration. between the years 2000-2008 was a 13 fold increase in number of people who are online and so not only are the number of people writing online on blogs and elsewhere, mushrooming, but also the number of people who have access to this material is growing at a similar speed. so we have an iranian blogosphere that is roughly consistent roughly 70,000 active blogs that by that i mean blogs are basically of blood at least once a week, if not more regularly. and that's only a fraction of the entire log is your.

the entire blogosphere is as made between 70,001,000,000 blogs that just to compare this, the arabic language blogosphere is roughly half of that, about 35,000 blogs, and when you consider the population of iran, a little below 70 million the population of the arab world is around 350 to 360 million, it really gives you an idea as to how active the iranian blogosphere is. iran is also unfortunate at the forefront of online impression. when you compare to other governments in the region, and it really is a combination of old school tactics as well as new ones come and they do this in the legal realm but they also do it on a technological level. so for instance, when a blogger in iran right something that offends authorities for any number of reasons, they have a whole host of options as to how

to neutralize this individual. so legally speaking, they could prosecute this person under penal code that they could prosecute them under pressel or prosecute them under the newly promulgated cyber criminal penal code, cybercrime penal code. and the provisions of all very vaguely defined and can essentially be altered to really go after any blogger that anchors the authority. in 2004, the initial wave of arrests of bloggers that took place in early 2004, authorities in a matter of a couple of weeks arrested almost 30 bloggers. and i want to make it specifically one thing that was said to one of the leading bloggers in iran at the time, he was arrested, interrogated quite

roughly and, in fact, tortured. and he was basically told by his interrogators that there's too many of you, there are thousands of you and every day there are more and more of you. and we can bring all of you in your. we can't interrogate every single one of you, but we can make examples of the people that we bring in here. . . i am one to close with that and i would be happy to take more questions. >> we have parked on one moderator, and she will be distributing some images and discussions from the blogosphere

as we go. now we will discuss the perspective on where people receive information in iran and also. >> good morning. and also -- >> good morning. i'm here from voice of america's persian service and i'm here to talk about how important international broadcasting is to iran. voice of america started in 1942 as you may or may not know. and it's been broadcasting to iran since 1942 in intervals. however, after the 1979 revolution, they have been going nonstop. this past year in 2009, it became quite evident how important media is to the iranian people.

a lot of people underestimate where the iranians can get their information. the blogosphere, television, radio, the internet -- everything was very easy to prove that when the iranians want to pursue information they have raise to do it. this year voice of america the 2 million people on their websites. it was one of the most popular websites for the service itself. i bring this up for many reasons. voice of america, you know, was known to be of an audience of an older demographic. and nowadays 70% of the demographic right now is about 30 and under. and we have tapped into that in so many different ways by adapting that into facebook pages, youtube channels, twitter pages and other -- several other social media websites.

you know, i grew up in iran between iran and washington, d.c. and it's really important when people want to get their information, they have many ways to do it. in the early '90s they would have satellites all upon their roofs just to get the different channels that they would get from turk sat, arab sat what have you. voice of america and other international broadcasters have tapped upon these different ways to put, you know, funnel in information into the country and let the people decide on the information that they can't get within their own state media that's happening. so it's very extremely important to understand that international broadcasting to the region primarily to iran and other countries in the area is extremely vital to put the information out there that they cannot get anywhere else from their own country. and have them make their own decisions upon the things that are happening. i'm a firm -- we are all a really firm believer of giving voice to the voiceless.

and to putting out all the information and having people decide. so i cannot underscore enough how important it is in this day and age in journalism. and in broadcasting that you have to be very multiplatformed. know how to reach your audience. know who your audience is. and how to give them all the information that's out there. so i'll be more than happy to take on more questions as warranted. >> i think we should -- we should have brief statements from everybody before we go into a conversation. so nik, please. >> i just wanted to say -- add a few things. but later after i show my cartoons. so if the cartoons are ready to show, i'll talk about them. this is about the fate of iranian reporters and citizen journalists all together. many have had to leave the country after the election. in june, 2009.

and many of them are in turkey, france, iraq and other places in need of help. and why am i bringing this up? one important thing is that many iranian journalists turn into citizen journalists. what you were mentioning was a reporter who also used to blog. so many iranian citizen journalists are actually journalist/citizen journalists. it might sound weird. as ms. nafisi was talking about, we transform islam in our own way. we transform the mongolian army to an other -- what's the name, being. so we also transform citizen journalism into something else. that's our art. and the second one, please. yes. this is about iranian journalists in total.

they bear their own cross. and we know we will be crucified in the future but we love it. we love it. the next one, please. i call this the sound of silence. of course, not from the movie "the graduate" but in another way. many people can't hear the sound of journalists. they hear about mahmoud ahmadinejad. they shouts a lot. many in the media cannot listen to the voices of a journalist. you talk about balance, but this is the balance that we experience in iran. if we do something wrong, we will fall from the cliff. this is what the government and the judiciary actually expect of us in iran. just be quiet and publish whatever the government asks us to publish.