and get married later. we need not talk about all the knock-on benefits of that happening. but they're profound and it is a very powerful tool and in fact, in our new book with the world bank called rethinking school feeding, it really recommends that this is the best saist net to put in place for countries that cannot afford more complex systems and that the results are proven. but the most exciting thing about school feeding is that in the 45 years of world food program been doing this, 34 countries have completely graduated from the program and in fact i was just talking to myron bellkind before we came up. he was posted as a reporter in india in 1966. .

the fourth idea is connecting small farmers to markets. today over half of our budget is cash. with that cash, we spent over 80% buying food from the developing world. over half the people in the

developing world who need help our small farmers, most of them women. 80% of the agricultural work is done by when. -- done by women. we had discovered that you can purchase in markets in the developing world and not affect the small farmers. they are not necessarily getting the fruits of their labors from the markets. i have been shown something i have yet to find. when the harvest, but they do not sell within a few days, the food will be rotten. we have losses up 40% in africa and the rest of the world. in partnership with the gates foundation and the howard buffet

foundation and nations are coming on board to help us, we are buying locally and from small farmers in 19 nations. the power of this is huge. i just got back from two countries that have suffered so much. it was the ground at zero of the ebola virus and other things. there was not a warehouse anywhere to be found. in this place where many thousands of people have been dependent on to aid for over 20 years, we have put up a warehouse. a warehouse that can't receive can receive grain, dry it, and bag it.

the farmers bringing in their food, there was a shoe in the first bag i opened. but it comes out of that system and it is beautiful, tradable, east african, quality-made. it the farmers could sell it -- without drying, it is already -- when it inside comes out after $40 of servicing, they get the lowest price on the market. it is $400 a metric ton. that is opportunity creation. that is kid's going to school. that is people being able to change their life. the farmers know it.

we buy it for our program from them. we are doing this in many countries. it is a very powerful tool that is reaping results much faster. in our early discussions, we thought it was in great demand around the world. the fifth idea is the first 1000 days. you'll hear a lot about this. this is the time progestational to two years old. all the evidence is there that if children do not receive adequate nutrition, the damage is permanent. this was put forth years ago. it is compelled evidence. it was world vision that has a presentation with x-rays of children's brains that never light up. now we have the burden of knowledge.

if we do not act -- in haiti after that earthquake, it is not easy to pledge. in emergencies, we will reach those kids burfirst. some of the most exciting partner potential comes in in pakistan. this is a highly nutritious food made in pakistan. it is fortified with lots of nutrients. it's this kind of a sweet hummus. this can protect a child's brain and body. this is a climate-approved food. you do not have to refrigerate it. you do not have to add up water. it opened it and squeeze it into a child's melt. this is an era of needing a new tools.

we are calling on all of the nutrition companies in the world. we are already partnering with many. we are working with the university of mississippi and others to develop a new generation of tools. for those of us who can go to whole foods, i guarantee you for the bottom billion, there is not a product available. right now you'll find in the face of nutrition changing. the key is to make sure that we do this. we know that children will earn 50% less if they are not nurse under two later in life than if they were nursed with the same group of kids. the loss to economy can be 11%

of gdp. i am excited to see the secretary of state and finance ministers leading this effort. timothy geithner was involved because it is food for countries at their gdp to invest in these things. six ideas for empowering women -- i will go to this very quickly. it is not an overstatement to say feed a woman and you feed the world. when in produce. % of the food in the world. they get dramatically less of the training. when you train them, studies show that yields will rise up to 22% in a short time. also, the children will get access to food. there will be a fair distribution of food. i get are camps and elsewhere, we make sure women get the vouchers so they can reach their

children. we also work to make short -- i will share this. this is an edible. this is a briquette made with biomass so you can cook the food without facing rape and beating as we see in dollar port and other places. giving the people -- giving women the power to keep their children safely is not difficult. we have done this with the business model. the stoves are made with earthenware. the women do not have to go to 10 kilometers out in darfur to get wood. the average time they go without being beaten or raped is two weeks max. the set but is the technology revolution. technology can revolutionize the

face of auger. today in syria, the refugees from iraq that were not being very welcome are being acclimated and to the community. they get money to spend in the stores. the storekeepers loved it. it saves money. there is a mobile shop that comes up. private sector businesses can connect to those refugees. in zambia, we had a hugely innovative voucher program getting storekeepers and farmers access to the solutions. event for s, the world food program spends less than 0.1% of its money on publicity. we want to get everything we can enter this cup. our overhead is 7% by agreement with the world. we went on at youtube and

set up a competition to show under videos so we have tools to _ our work against under. -- we have tools to underscore our work against hunger. we want to use technology to connect those to have food to those who do not have enough. it is a 25 cents a day program. this could virtually happen overnight. 1 billion on-line users that have enough food connecting to the 1 billion who do not. we think the potential of technology is huge. the eighth thing i will mention is building resiliency. we have seen natural disasters go up exponentially. world early '90s, the

food program, instead of just handing out food, we work with the committee to set up an investment bank. we had the villagers plant trees. i went there recently. the rice fields are so protected and are yielding so much that all they wanted was a machine to pack the rice and sell it because they had more than they can eat. if that resiliency effort was not put in place, it would not have happened. mitigating risk, preparing for climatic problems. we have done the same kind of product in ethiopia in accused scale, restoring 800,000 acres of land over time and supporting many people to be able to eat. we think there is a tremendous

power in community-based solutions to the climatic problems that are being faced. the ninth is partnerships. this is an error. if we could not do what we do without the private sector. what the great delivery companies in the world has helped us with -- one of the great delivery companies in the world has helped us with warehouse space. we asked about the nutrition to meet the specific needs of the children in gaza. we do not have that expertise. we are linked with unilever, craft, and heinz. in dubai, the humanitarian cities is a powerful addition to this. i just want to mention the

partnership and our millennium billets partnerships that can really change the way we do things. the ninth thing is the power of the individual to change the face of undehunger. in haiti, the needs were huge. we were desperate to raise the money very quickly for what we needed. we talked to one of the on-line game companies. they had their game "farm ville" get a high energy biscuit to the farmers. within days, the game raised enough money to deliver 5 million meals to kids in haiti. very powerful potential.

one great story is freerice.com. there was an individual in indiana who wanted to make a difference. he created a word game online. if you got the word right, and grains of rice fell into a bowl. advertisers and donated to the world food program. billions of grains of rice have been raised and have fit kids all over the world. it was one i get that was born in the freerice.com game. what a great way to solve hunger. katz is the importance of leadership and the right policies. -- 10th is the importance of leadership and at the right policies.

i will put the right policies in place to make sure we can defeat hunger. 20 years ago china was our biggest project. today, india contributes to wfp. today brazil does it even though they were one of our biggest projects at two decades ago. in his address in becoming head of the african union, the president of zimbabwe said that in five years no child from africa will die from hunger. that type of leadership has mobilized africa to get that done. this can change the face of hunker in the world -- change the face of hunger in the world.

we have seen the numbers going down, but it is still 925 million to many. i believe we are at stake depending -- i believe we are at a tipping point. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we have a lot of questions. that is a great thing. how likely is it that the number of hungry people in the world will continue to decline? what are the dangers that could make it decrease once again? >> the world needs to produce 50% more food in the coming decades. the population is growing. this has been one of the great challenges. until recent years, we have seen productivity going up and prices going down. we've seen a reversal of that in

recent years. we have a challenge. -- we have a challenge on how to sustain enough of affordable food production in the world. we saw during the food crisis that if you have energy prices really high at the same time you are having a financial or to issue, these things can begin to interact in a way. if you remember when oil was more than $100 a barrel, it became more affordable to burn almost anything to produce fuel. i think we have major challenges in making sure that we have access to food for all people. i think the kind of global action should be kept on top of the agenda. this is a win-win situation.

the world cannot reach that goal without the african farmer having the investment needed. i think the opportunity is as great as the dangers. >> what can the u.s. government do to combat hunger? >> i think leadership. the u.s. has turned from a nation that struggled with at one time. we produce more than we need to sustain our own nation. the leadership needs to share that knowledge and technology to help the world to feed itself. the leadership should demonstrate that this is not just a good and moral calls. this is good for business. this is good for finance. it is good for investment.

it is good for education. i love the whole government approach thing. it is exactly what we need. the other thing is to sustain the incredible commitment in reaching those who ball through the cracks -- who fall through the cracks. i want to thank america because the support is widespread and bipartisan. >> what is the role that corruption place in hunter? what country has the most corruption right now? >> there is no reason why some countries should not be able to feed themselves. we see corruption. we see bad policies. we see governments that do not care. some other people are not eating. we see people actually forced away from food due to

discrimination or conflict. all those factors play a big role. the moral question we have to ask ourselves is if a child is trapped under a situation where there is a corrupt government or one that wants them to be starved-out for what ever reason, should that child paid for that? some of the places we work are some of the most challenging in the world, like somalia. in most of the places it is extremely damage -- it is extremely dangerous. when men and children are not high on the list. -- women and children are not high on the list. we need support. we are in very dangerous environments like this. >> are you willing and able to

confront leaders in corruption -- leaders in companies where corruption is a problem? >> we typically control our own food lines and distribution. we require that. we had a zero-fraud policy. we have to do that. we do not hand out food over two governments that are corrupt or any government, frankly. we run our own accountability system. we certainly, in the places where we work, i have a very strong discussions with governments, especially those that are capable of feeding their own people.

they need to take responsibility for that. we have partners in the un that deal more with policy issues like corruption. for us, it is a moral issue that children should not be dying under their watch. we are raising awareness of that. >> we saw the first significant food prices in those and big this summer. where is unrest most likely and why is that? >> i remember during the food crisis one of the leaders of liberia that had just come out of 20 years of civil war. it was a devastating situation. many people were dependent on the goodwill of the world to stay alive. they came out with a great leader. prices doubled and tripled overnight. in liberia, there are no public

opinion polls. the only poll is the price of food. this is true in many nations. the price if -- if the price of food is high, what does our government doing? if the price of food is good and people can afford to eat, it is a sign that the government is doing well. liberia was experiencing the knockout effects of forces outside liberia. it is 70% to dependent. it was buying from global markets. at one time there was not due to buy. -- there was not food to buy. in mozambique, there were a combination of factors that drove the price of food up. the was an energy crisis. we know this is about the stability of government. what it took to stabilize the situation in liberia was a $14

million investment to make sure kids had food in school. this is where quick global action can't really help avoid -- can really help avoid trouble and strife. the price of food in 20 years earlier is what sparked the trouble. it is important to watch. >> what has been the biggest humanitarian aid challenge you are placing in pakistan? >> massive challenge on every level. we are seeing natural disasters on a scale that is just not in memory. pakistan was under water. over the course of a month, 100 of water bridges. we had a new humanitarian

disaster virtually every day breaking out. this is the weakest population i have seen. the women are suffering terribly. we have seen a lot of generosity. the united states is giving $125 million to help reach the people there with urgent help. by and large we are not seeing the levels of giving from the world war online that we sell in haiti. we are very worried about needing to get the attention of the world for this disaster. there are over 10 million people to do not have food. the world food program is reaching 6 million of them, but they have missed the harvest.

the next planting system possible is april. we are talking about one year of people dependent on the goodwill of the world to be able to survive. we are worried about the sustainability, a disease outbreak, and the weak state of the children we saw there. >> lots of questions about lots of different countries. we will touch on as many places as we can. russia has an export ban on wheat into next year. havel that band of fact hugger worldwide? what are the -- >> fortunately, i think we will weather the storm because of good harvest in the u.s. and elsewhere in the world. what we saw during the food crisis in 2007 and 2008 was a drought in australia affecting supply, driving up prices, and

then a whole series of negative market reactions, such as hording, closing down exports. it created a difficult situation. we think that the situation is quite different right now. we have seen stocks rebuilt. when the food crisis hit in 2007, emergency supplies were at an all-time low. the world had been consuming more than it produced for the few years before. and we are seeing stocks are rebuilt. we are seeing good harvests elsewhere that can help compensate. having said that, we are in a

new world. when i first came to the program in 2003, we would check and adjust our commodities prices once every two years. that this house what things would move. they would always pretty much go in the right direction. we could buy more food 4 less with greater ease around the world. in june of 2007 when i first said we may be facing the perfect storm, we were seeing prices going up about 10% every three months. we said we would have to watch it quarterly. things were moving so fast. in that summer, prices went up 10% a month until they doubled in january of 2008. we began to watch them monthly. today we are watching them daily. i am getting reports of swing. this is good.

the world is on high alert. we will not be taken by surprise as much as the whole world did with that quick change there. there are new mechanisms in place, including the panel within the united nations of all the food and related agencies coming together to monitor this. i will host with the president of the world bank on friday a special experts meeting on what are we saying and what does it mean. we are on the case. we think the structural issues are different, but we are not taking anything for granted. when i was in darfur, a gentleman said we have one philosophy -- tie up your camel. >> there is a focus of this election year on cost cutting. what could that mean for

programs like yours that is receiving more money from countries like the u.s.? >> we think it is absolutely critical to demonstrate that we can deliver effectively, efficiently, and with controls. it has been our velocity not to spend a lot on promotion, but to spend a lot on getting the fundamentals right. it becomes difficult in places like somalia where they kill people who try to deliver food often. it is something that is steeped into our culture. we are the only program in the u.s. and is held to a 7% cap on our overhead. this forces us to be very efci down to make sure we are delivering food to kids with the majority of our money. also, these new and delayed if

-- these new innovative ways of dealing with a challenge. not every situation calls for bringing food from long distances. some do, but not every situation does. it can be more efficient and more effective. we want to show sustainability and that we are able to hand over to communities their own ability to build their food self-sufficiency. we want to see nations taking more responsibility. that is why we had the celebration. that is why we are looking at alternatives in places where we have refugees to more addition ways of delivering. it is why we watched our own cost-cutting measures. we enabled sudan to cut down our program tremendously by refocusing and retarding it and

providing -- by refocusing its. >> at the obama administration has made domestic nutrition a key issue. how would you compare and contrast the administration's focus on domestic nutrition with its commitment to world under issues? >> i think leadership always starts at home. it was after world war ii where the u.s. realised that half the recruits were malnourished coming in to sign up for military service that the u.s. got on the case of malnourishment and its costs to society. i spent most of my time overseas, but i have seen a very serious and sober attitude in the u.s. towards the challenges we face. that includes repositioning food stamps with a greater focus on nutrition. i think that is very powerful.

i think michelle obama's leadership on nutrition. itel might nutritiist and friends at nutrition is now cool. they are used to being in their own little place. they are more like scientists than being used to having a big public stage. nutrition now, both for those who cannot afford enough food, but those who can are now nursing themselves. we are losing touch with our understanding of what to eat and how to properly nourished ourselves. -- how to properly nourish ourselves. i want to give you one small example. in japan -- you can tell i am a fan of school lunches. i have eaten pledges with kids all over the world. it is a course in school.

the kids have to construct eight menu. they have to have certain amounts of these vitamins, protein, and stuff like that. if they do not get it right they fail. if they do, they passed. it is quite profound. that type of thing and including looking at the content of what our kids are getting as michelle obama is and other leaders in the u.k. and elsewhere, it is very important. >> we have a couple of questions on journalism. how can journalists that are covering under issues, what are some particularly good examples of to coverage you have seen? >> i think during the financial crisis and we saw some propelled reporting. we have a reporter who was part of a great series looking at the nature of hundred and famine -- the nature of hunger and famine.

this is very important. the financial times did a great job of being on top of the food crisis early on. there have been some books recently about what drives under and the relationship between global markets and at local markets. i think that is very important. it is important that you go out to the front lines and understand what vulnerability is. most people think when we talk about vulnerable people, when they see a kid when we have a half as much food for the same amount of money, we were serving kids a half a cup of food and we found in taking a fourth of the home to their brothers and sisters. that kind of story is often not accessed by the press to let people understand the nature of the result of the giving and the support for it.

it is important to connect that. i also find in humanitarian situations -- esol in haiti. if we went one day with a kid without food, just the outrage in the press. i share the outrage, but the understanding of food supply chains and how you actually reach people and what these humanitarian efforts to take is very important. we are advocating for some front-line effort with the press to come out and understand the nature of the humanitarian operation so they can accurately report what is happening in the whole effort to make sure people are reached with lifesaving goods. we need to bring attention to it. i think there should be more attention to the huge program that the u.s. is using to change

the face of under. >> we are almost out of time. before asking the last question, we have a couple of matters to take care of. we would like to present you with the national press club mug as a token of our appreciation. [applause] not quite big enough to feed you all day. i would also like to remember our members and guests of our upcoming speakers. we have the chairman of the national republican senatorial committee and the democratic senatorial campaign committee. we have the commissioner of the fda. we will have the president and ceo of bank of america. for our last question, one of our audience members asked what's use all the world hunger issue, can you fix your all

modern, the washington times? -- can you fix your alma mater, the washington times? [applause] [laughter] >> i keep saying that our goal is to put the world food program out of business. it should be the goal of everyone who is running an aid program not to perpetuate ourselves. we are there as a bridge. i am not sure it will happen in the next 24 months or so were the next few years, but that is the goal that i am for. i will give it my all as long as i can. [applause] >> great. thank you to sharrin for being with us today. i would also like to thank the

national press club staff for organizing today's events. for more information about joining the press club at acquiring a copy of today's program, visit our web site at www.press.org. we are adjourned. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up, the president and ceo of national public radio on the future of radio. then the ethics of war with speakers from france, england, israel, and the u.s. service academy. tomorrow on "washington journal" a look at what to expect from the incoming 112th congress. then, the assistant secretary of state and chief u.s. start negotiator on the latest efforts to announce a new start treaty with russia. later we will chat with bruce fleming about his new book. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. now, a look at some of the newly elected governors. republican rick schneider one michigan's election with 58% of

the vote. then, in oregon's race, the democrat won with 49% of the boat repeating republican chris dudley. he will take the seat of the former governor who is a term limited. >> this weekend we will talk with two former secret service agents whose job it was to protect john f. kennedy on the events of that day. the conspiracy theories about the assassination and the new book. that is sunday night on "q&a". >> now, a discussion with the president and ceo of national public radio. she talks about the firing of a commentator and the challenges facing npr. this took place at the los

angeles world affairs council. it is about one hour. >> i think that is an unreasonable request. i am 70-years old. she said, "bob, you are 73-years old." is there a light here? nope. ok. did evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the los angeles world affairs council. it is my duty tonight and i am happy to introduce our guest for this evening. when national public radio white

looking for a new chief executive officer, they worked rapidly to control the ball and digital world. they selected a career media executive with plenty of experience in old school jet -- all school journalism and new- age technology. this effort to imelda information, and distribution, and cutting edge technology, npr chose a savvy executive with an understanding of both camps. vivian schiller was a top official at the most traditional right-wing media, the new york times. [laughter] she managed that new media entity, thenewyorktimes.com

that is a major accomplishment. she spent four years as senior vice president and general manager of discovery times. under her leadership, discovery * tripled its distribution while achieving critical acclaim for its award winning program. -- award winning programs. she also worked for cnn productions. documentary's under her leadership 13 peabody awards, columbia university awards, and dozens of emmys. she will be interviewed tonight by a man who knows about the subject at hand, dr. ernest james wilson iii. he is a professor of political

science at -- the universe -- eight fellow at the university at the council on international policy. he was elected the first african-american chairman for the corporation for public broadcasting in 2009. please join me in welcoming to the stage mrs. vivian schiller and mr. james wilson. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. is anybody out there? good evening, everyone. [laughter] after dinner, we need to be lightly. i have come with the accouterments of every modern

person whether i know how to use it or not, which is the i pad. we know the importance of communication and new ways of transmitting information. this is going to be a conversation. vivian and i talked about this. it will be a genuine conversation. we will talk for about 20 minutes back-and-forth, sharing ideas, and then we will open it up for questions and answers. i would like to start off -- says it has been told i was a professor, i try to limit my remarks to 90 minutes, which is the usual time professors taught for. i will keep it slightly under 90 minutes. i want to start off with a puzzle. the puzzle has to do with

international affairs and its essential information. two components. number one, the current secretary of state, hillary clinton pat, has talked about the distinction between art power and military power, and soft power. she has called for something called smart power. the idea for smart power grew from a study that was done at the center for strategic and international studies in washington, d.c., which is a national security think tank. there is this idea of smart power, which is the ability to think about military estimates as well as diplomatic ones. yet the curious thing is the moment we are talking about smart power, we need more information if we are going to be smart. at a time when the american

economy is more and more reliant on international trade and international investment, what is happening to our media? most platforms, most publications, most broadcasts are not just cutting back, but in this rating their international coverage -- but evicerating their international coverage. most news organizations are cutting back dramatically on the stories that we hear about the world. is that sustainable? that is not a very good way to move forward. gear is one institution, however, that has been expanding international coverage. that is in your -- that is npr. i am going to ask the audience

-- i should say that we have worked closely together. i was chairman for the association of public broadcasting. vivian is one of the most dynamic and innovative figures in public broadcasting. she really deserves a great vote of thanks and confidence for taking that position. vivian, what is going on in the country? i do not know if this is the new york times, but most of the other outlets are cutting way back. first of all, can you say something about why that dynamic is happening? >> money. >> all right. good answer. >> it is fairly straightforward. it is not a good story, but it is not that complicated a story. as many of you know, we could talk about the tremendous losses

that happened in traditional media in this country. eight recent you report vealed -- a recent report revealed that $1.60 billion in reporting and editing capacity has been lost in this country. it is sort of a euphemism for jobs for reporters and editors. when news organizations whose business model is basically in a state of revolution has to cut, they are going to look naturally, as any good business leaders would, at two things -- what part of my business is the most expensive and at what part of it is the least competitive -- what part of this is the least likely to generate revenue? >> people are living abroad.

you have security issues. you have trouble. it is very expensive. it is not very attractive to advertisers. i guess there is not a hard calculation to look at reducing the ranks of foreign coverage. when i say this with a lot of sadness, npr has more foreign bureaus than any broadcast news operation including abc news, cbs news, and nbc news. it is a disconcerting state of affairs. >> is that not bad for america's democracy if our citizens -- the students that i teach or high school students, if they do not know how to find things on a map, if they do not know how international economics works,

is that not bad for american democracy? >> it is terrible. it is frightening. it is why i went into public broadcasting. i wanted to play a part in not only preserving, but expanding our coverage. it is not just a matter of -- certainly we do a lot of coverage around the hot spots around the world, particularly in iraq. we are one of the few news organizations with a permanent residence in afghanistan. there are uncovered areas like africa, latin america, china, southeast asia -- you said it exactly right. in a state -- the world is flat and, yet we have less independent original reporting from parts of the world that have such great impact on our

lives. >> how is npr managing to do this when everybody else is cutting back? how are you managing to increase your coverage of international affairs? >> like any business, you have to prioritize where you spend your money. i started two years ago. we were in the worst part of the recession for public broadcasting. since that time, we have focused on increasing our revenues. we had to make a lot of cuts. right before i arrived, two shows were canceled -- were canceled. since that time we have been looking at trying to focus on building up our revenue so we can reestablish our growth in reporting. even throughout that time, you have to say that these are the things that are important, these are the things that nobody else is doing. no matter what, we are not going

to touch this. we had to make painful cuts by losing two shows, but the choice was do we cut these two shows whose audiences were not huge, or do we nickel and dime our coverage from around the world? for me the choice was clear. >> you are a government-owned corporation. >> we are a private corporation. >> let me rephrase that. you take some government money. could you not be accused, potentially, of being biased in one direction or another because you take money in the government? some people would say that is a bad thing and why should we waste federal money on giving it to someone who may be too liberal? >> this is familiar actually. yes. one could, and i have certainly heard a lot in recent days

about the question of federal spending. then they give you a couple of facts and i can tell you why federal funding is so critical. there is a lot of confusion. i was confused about how the whole thing works. npr is a membership organization. our primary purpose is to produce national programming that we distribute to the stations -- morning edition, all things considered. hopefully you enjoy car talk. our member stations, and we have 268 members.8 npr has no authority or jurisdiction over them whatsoever. we make those programs available to stations. the license of those programs

from us. in turn they raise money from local underwriters. there's an expression you probably heard. where does the government funding come in? first i want to establish npr as distinct from stations. it is a symbiotic relationship. you cannot have one without the other. npr gets no direct federal support. we have not since 1983. we do applied for competitive grants from the corporation of public broadcasting. it is their role to distribute federal dollars to public broadcasting. depending on the year and what competitive grants we win, that represents 2% or 3% of our revenue. moving over to the station

side, station's overall and aggregates -- 10% of station funding comes from the corporation for public broadcasting. it is about 8 $1 billion economy. towith that, they pay the electc bill. they pay for personnel. they'd pay programs. certainly, in that mix, of course, 10% of that number comes back to npr. the money comes to the station. it gets spent. that is the role that federal dollars play -- at a very high level. in public radio. >> so, the three that go directly --

>> they are not added. 3% of the budget of npr is -- >> let me go back to that for a second. >> you want to talk about the numbers? >> i would love to. this is what i do. i want to get back to the controversy. >> why federal dollars? >> let's say for the state of argument, it is 25%. won't that told you in one direction or another if the democrats are in power and you are going to get some money from them? and if the republicans are in power, you have the risk of tilting -- how do you prevent that? >> the answer is, and i am sorry about getting long winded before. the answer is no, because of the way we are structured and the fire wall. there are layers of fire wall. first, the board, who are

political appointees, do not make decisions about the funding that the corporation of public broadcasting act makes. and once you get to npr, the news organization is completely separated from anyone involved with the funding. we have layers and layers of safeguards. the newsroom is insulated from any funding sources. you have reporters, editors, editors being edited by it other editors. we have an honest woman who we paid to be completely independent -- we have an om sbudsmen who we paid to be completely independent. i will tell you as someone who has been in news media for over 25 years, it is really no

different than the kind of fire walls we have from advertisers at cnn. i am making this up, but troy iota -- toyota -- again, i am not -- in inventing this example. just because toyota buys advertising on cnn, it does not mean they will not cover it. >> let me put in a quick plug for public broadcasting. there was a controversy about whether public broadcasting was fair and balanced. some of you might remember that controversy. so the corporation for public broadcasting commissioned a study. it was like, mirror, mirror, on the wall.

who is the fairest of them all? you know what we found? fox, at abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc -- compare them against public broadcasting. guess who was judged to be the fairest of all these entities? >> fox. [laughter] >> i am delighted to say you are wrong. [laughter] it was public broadcasting. it was public broadcasting. if you ask people -- say the u.s. supreme court, the presidency, and this is an easy one, the congress and public broadcasting, who you think gives you the better value, i am delighted to say that in fact, it was public broadcasting once again. they were the only institution

that receives a higher ranking, the organization represented by some of our guests over here. it was the u.s. military and public broadcasting, the judiciary, etc., etc.. this is a very valuable role public broadcasting is playing in the united states. we will go back to the national domain for a moment. there are these wonderful institutions called voice of america, radio-free europe, radio liberty, radio-free asia, which are government-owned corporations involved in the news industry. does npr had any relationship with these bodies? or could you talk a lite bit about how they are different -- >> no, we have no relationship

with these bodies. i am not an expert on their governing. i am not sure i can speak intelligently about them. i know the person who is in charge of all of those, is a political appointee. npr is completely private, independent organizations. those entities are really about providing news -- in english or other languages -- to the world. at npr, we do have an audience overseas. that is really not our aim. we are not looking, it is not our business plan at the moment to try to provide, to really focus on npr content to audiences overseas. we are very much focused on

audiences in the united states and making sure those audiences get the kind of coverage that will help them be more informed citizens of they can fully participate in their democracy. to the extent that we do get audiences overseas, we are thrilled. it is not focused. that is a big difference. >> you say that you have multiple locations, at 200-some of -- >> 200-some member stations. >> do you see any difference in the kind of products -- >> yes. >> at different stations around the country, especially international ones. in los angeles, the city by and large deals with national affairs, whereas another city might not. do you see -- >> yes, that is one of the

things about public radio. because the stations are all locally owned and operated and there are bricks and mortar in the community, there are stations unique to the community. in los angeles, there are two spectacular stations. they are both very popular. they both have a different flavor to them. and every station chooses based on its own guiding principle, its own guiding what it wants to provide to the audience. particularly in more rural areas, it is more popular. for instance, bbc's "the world, which is distributed by pri. in

one sense, they are our competitors, in another sense they are our friends. we have program additions based on how it will best serve the audience. >> let me ask the big question in the room. you will appreciate and understand -- we have been at the center of a lot of controversy. npr has been at the center of -- of a lot of controversy over the last 10 days or so. i wonder if you could talk a bit about that, whether that was expected, unexpected? did that happen because of the change in congress? was it something you said? was it something that the station did? how would you characterize it? >> i think what you are referring to -- let's just name it. back on october 20, we terminated the contract of one of our contractor, a part-time

news panelists named juan williams. he was a contractor and part- time news analyst in the terminated his contract under the terms of the agreement. the circumstances around that were unique. there was a lot of chatter about the reasons that we did it. you did not hear those from me. there are a lot of assumptions that were made. the fact is, it is not in my practice and npr practice nor do i think it is appropriate to discuss decisions about personnel, but i will say the circumstances were unique. these are all things i have said before. we terminated his contract. that is really all i want to say specifically about the matter. certainly, as you know, what followed was a tsunami of media

attention and opinion and a lot of commentary, all over the map. did we expected to be that large? no. npr is an organization that made mistakes and in the way we executed it. i take full responsibility for that. our staff did not meet him in person. i think that was a mistake. i think we left our station and some supporters without the tools and information needed to address it with their constituents. those things were certainly a mistake. what is happening now, and i think that there is general consensus that it likely would have happened anyway, although the controversy did not help things -- with the change in congress certainly -- and with the deficit, there is a call

that among the deficit reductions included in that should be, i think, about $450 million of federal support for public broadcasting. that is really will be are looking at right now. -- what we are looking at right now. it is important. that federal support is critical. so, you know, we feel strongly, and we hope to make the case and we hope at least in the case of public radio, are 4 million loyal listeners will support the case and that this funding is really critical for stations, particularly in underserved areas, rural areas, indian reservations. that money pays for critical infrastructure. this is a very important element of our democracy. i feel strongly in should be

preserved. >> one of the interesting things it has provoked -- we have these rules that we have followed. what happens when you get to this space, and we have blogs and we have tweets and twittering? what is the distinction between a professional journalist who was trained and has experience on one hand and someone who just gets up and goes boom, boom, boom and is all over the world? we have been debating at the annenberg school, for example, how do we train our students to drop a sharp distinction between opinion -- draw a sharp distinction between opinion and fact? not just our journalism students? i think more and more universities are trying to talk

about media literacy. every student needs to be able to understand and distinguish between fact and fiction and opinion. i wonder -- because i know we're coming to the end of the session -- i wonder if you can say a few words about what you see. that is all part of your termination of this gentleman. you felt, he had moved too far over that line. >> opinion is great. we all have opinions. opinion is a critical part of journalism. if you listen to npr, you cannot listen for more than a minute or two without hearing an opinion, very strong, sometimes controversial opinion. across a whole spectrum that is being talked about. here is the critical difference. those opinions are coming out of the mouths of people we interview, not out of the mouths

of reporters and should not be out of the mouths of our news analyst. we embrace opinion. we embrace diversity. we embrace controversy. another thing is the concept that there is something extremely legitimate -- opinion journalism. it has a storied tradition in this country going back to the 18th century. many newspapers had opinion journalism in their op-ed pages. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as a tip o'neill said. not everyone is entitled to their own facts. we at npr to not -- do not practice opinion journalism on air. we are mostly about original

reporting. we are about to undertake a review, just as every news organization must, of of our news standards. we are going to see what that will have for npr there. you are right. whatever the rules -- there are fundamentals about journalism. the world is changing. social media is an exciting new tool, but it is also affecting the dynamic of journalism. we want to take a look at that. we want to have a dialogue with our audience. >> thank you, vivian, very, very much. i want to open it up to the opinion of our audience. so, if you would signify you would like to ask a question. we will share the microphone. we will ask you your name and

your organization if that is appropriate. >> my name is barbara walker. i really love npr and i would be lost without it. i wanted to know with the advent of the supreme court decision that corporations are entitled to have free speech and unlimited amounts of money, how can we keep the airwaves with free speech for people who do not have the money of corporations? >> i assume you're talking about the political left -- >> [unintelligible] >> right. that has been a boon for a lot of commercial media. in public radio, i know it is the same. it is a violation of our -- we

do not take political advertisements. we do have underwriting messages. but there are rules dictated by the sec. there is no financial gain to public broadcasting. where we play our role is, quite honestly, it's too -- it is to keep doing what we're doing. more original, fact-based reporting by our reporters on the ground, working sources, bearing witness, and telling the stories of what is happening in this country. that is the most we can do in order to help provide this course for our audience. it seems to be working. our audience has grown 60%. 6-0 in the last 10 years. it is not because of me. our audience has gone up every

year at the same time the commercial media is going down double digits. so, we must be doing something right that 34 million people -- this is no small colds -- 34 million people tune in and i have to believe is because they're looking for the original reporting, which unfortunately, can be found less and less in other news organizations. many fine news organizations remain into excellent work. -- and do excellent work. >> hello. my name is david doyle. my question speaks to what you were talking about. for the past two years, the traditional news agencies have been turning more to entertainment coverage at less to hard news. i do not know if anyone else has sensed that. it seems to me that maybe the reason you are having higher

ratings is you are still doing traditional news gathering, whereas the other media and multi sources with media are covering entertainment as news, a celebrity as news. do you see that as a trend in your competitors are -- i do not want to say selling out to a celebrity, but certainly not doing the news gathering -- >> there is nothing wrong with entertainment and fun. we air "car talk" every week, and it is fun. but we talk about foreign coverage being very expensive and not attractive to investors, the same can be said of science coverage, which has been decimated. it is expensive.

it is time consuming. it is legally risky. but we feel with other news organizations stepping away, to have an investigative reporting unit is a vital. and, you know, i think it is not a coincidence. as we continue to grow that coverage, it seems to me not to be a precedent. i think that is true. i certainly hope that is true. >> my name is dennis ignoravich. at a question about two of your -- i have a question about two of your competitors. pri. i am curious. do the other two organizations get public funding, and if they do not and you do, why is that? >> the are different.

american public media is owned by a a company, an institution based in st. paul. they both operate stations throughout minnesota and they do programming and distribute programming. at the stations, they do get a community service grants. that is federal dollars. pri, i believe just like npr, npr never gets direct funding from the federal government. i believe they also apply for competitive grants and get those. so, pri and npr are in the same boat. it is the same. we are exactly the same for all three organizations. >> the evening. -- good evening.

right here. >> ok. >> recently, john stewart of comedy central and the daily show -- jon stewart of comedy central and the daily show stated that he believes journalists are lacking the moral courage to point out the difference between fact and opinion and they really have a duty to do that. do you agree with that? a duty to point out the difference between fact and opinion when all lot of the people are mostly giving opinions. do you agree with that? >> jon stewart said something a little bit different. i think he does extraordinary work. we are doing something a little different in the sense that when our reporters and host interview people, we expect them, and they

do challenge our guests. it is something that the person they are interviewing says is false or unsubstantiated. where do you get that information? that is just what a professional news reporter does. of course, our reporter -- in covering stories -- that is their job, to find the truth about any given situation. if it is not the truth then at least the nuances around an issue. that is really at the core of journalistic principle. >> [unintelligible] >> back to the little box on

your lap there, professor. [laughter] i have been fortunate to travel pretty much the world. one of the things we have learned it when you travel is to read the local newspapers. the cool thing about the box on your lap there is, i can read those newspapers now anywhere in the world. i may be due not need the l.a. times to cover that for me. i am just wondering what your comments are, because now we do not have to go to the news stands to get more ideas and information from the foreign press. >> that is a good question. it is likely to be a i had -- the ipad is going to

revolutionize publishing. i have to stay if you want one of the coolest applications for this, it was designed by npr. it for those of you who have not downloaded npr get for your ipad, get your grandkids or kids or students to do it. that is what i had to do. unless we have information in the public interest, we will not have in mind. in country after country, those requests, no information for public interest, that may not be immediate, but it happens. part of democracy is listening to voices. one of the down sides of the new technology is we get all the newspapers that cater only to

our own ideological or intellectual interests. so, if i am interested in what in europe, i can download stuff. i can download from the guardian or whatever. that is probably not good for democracy. so, i would say on one hand it is a negative. on the other hand, my students have very little trust in the new york times, washington post -- any of the legacies. but that does that mean they do not listen. they have 10 different sources. they go to the post, the new york times, the bbc, al-jazeera,

and they will triangulate. there is good news and bad news. the good news is we can download just about anything from any part of the world. and unfiltered perspective -- i want to underscore that -- unfiltered perspective, the priorities of the french or the chinese. the bad news is we can tailor it so much that we can exclude from our knowledge base places we are not interested in, but maybe we need to be interested in. i think that is a great question. >> thank you. vivian, i think he said 20% of your revenue comes from the government. somehow, you get the dollars, right? if this goes away, can you survive?

20% of your revenue is not small in any business. >> it is & -- it is it 10%. that 10% is an average. that community service grants can be far more -- it can quadruple that 10%. without it, i worry that those communities. our interest is to provide universal access. the people who most need to be served will have access. it pays for critical infrastructure. it pays for the tower. it pays for the engineer. and that is at risk. yes, it is at risk.

sorry. the risk is that money goes away. that is far and away the most critical concern. so, you know, for some stations it is less than 10%. but it is the core principles of all of public broadcasting, really a fundamental to a democracy. i look at this from a financial perspective and also as a matter of principle. >> my name is curtis. i wonder if you will comment on the relationships, if any, between npr and pbs? he may be aware that our local pbs station is no longer going to be pbs, which i hate to think the same might happen to npr. >> we have -- i am happy to say

-- we have a wonderful relationship with pbs. we are completely separate organizations. we are structured quite differently. but, the principles and our core values are exactly the same. i just had breakfast with the ceo of pbs on monday. we do that quite frequently. we are doing everything we can to coordinate. we have a common interest. they are both public television and radio stations at the same time. there are stations and better all radio -- kcet and others are television. just up the road, there are other stations in san diego.

so, you know our fates are tied. information, cultural programming, education is in the public interest. we work together in are really wonderful way. gone are the days where we are all radio and tv. we are all media now. >> hello, i am amanda louis. i teach journalism. we have a print edition. we have a web site with news blogs and opinion blogs. i think we can all agree that media is pretty precarious and uncertain. i am wondering if you have had experience -- you have had experience with two of the most impressive twentieth century news organizations, the new

york times and npr. when my students are entering the job market place, what will the media place -- media marketplace look like? >> first of all, i am thrilled to see journalism students here. >> it is such a treat. the answer to the question, what will the landscape looks like in 10 years -- maybe in 15 years. i do not know. we do not know where this is going. but i am not pessimistic at all. i am excited about where media is going. there is no question about it. newspapers really have to reinvent their business model in tightly. -- entirely. the fact is, the internet and social media have provided an incredible set of tools that

will take journalism to places we never could imagine before. both in the way that the news is gathered -- we can use facebook to get information about the earthquake in haiti and the elections. it will change the way news is attributed -- is it distributed. the business model is what is uncertain. i do not know where it is headed. we will have to experiment relentlessly. we will have to try multiple things out instead of looking for the one answer. it is all about experimenting and you guys at the table, people who have grown up with media as a second nature will completely reinvent journalism in new ways. i have no specific answer for

you, but i am hoping you will have an answer for me. >> hello. there are obviously a lot of adults in this room. >> sari. >> that is all right. for the younger audience, how is npr engaging us? >> the answer to that -- there are many schools of thought about how to reach younger audiences. i will tell you the one i am personally not in favor of, which is, you say, ok, we want to reach younger audiences. we are going to get a bunch of grown-ups in the room and think, what is a show that will appeal to the youngsters? you do not want to dump something down. you do not want to pander or cater to an audience, particularly an audience that is savvy. your generation can smell that

from 50 miles away. that is not the direction we are going. " we are doing is, we are trusting you. we are trusting you to be smart, curious, and engaged. and the stuff that we do which is reports news and tell stories about human beings -- it is as much of appeal to you as it is to someone of my generation. so, maybe you're not listening to radio. maybe you are listening to it on your ipod or ipad or android phone. or you are on facebook or twitter. it is working. the media age -- the broadcast listening age for the audience that npr is 50. as you move to different platforms, it drops.

npr.org is about 40. if you move to the iphone, the average age for the very same content is 34. that may not seem young to you, but 4 news media, that is really down. that is our strategy. if new stuff comes along and we are moving much more on facebook and twitter and social media, we will see those ages dropping as well. >> i disagree a little bit. i do not think public social media is doing enough to reach younger demographics. that is probably more true on the television. and i love television.

but public television, in my view, gets the audience from 2 to 7. you know what that is, right? all the muppets. and you know, we all have markets niches. it seems to me if public media is going to remain relevant, it has to find ways to -- to produce content that is relevant to your demographic. and that is on the aegis side. it is also true on the political side. in california, for a city like los angeles, where california is that -- what is it majorities'/minority? is that how it is said? that has to be done more and more on public media because everybody pays for that consent.

so, the content that is produced is wonderful content. but i think we have got to do better. i will talk about the corporation of public broadcasting, which i am chairman of. yesterday, we just changed. but we need a target -- we call it diversity, digital, and dialogue. what i would propose to the young people in the room is, challenge us. challenged the corporation for public broadcasting and pbs. it involved. that is the way young voices will be incorporated into public service media. but that is just one person's opinion. >> we have time for one more question.

>> sorry. my name is emily leventhal. you have mentioned that social media will be the journalism of the future. do you think that social media used by non-reporters will be -- will gain legitimacy? >> at npr, it is a three fold. we reject our reporters both find individual sources. i can tell you a million stories where we found sources where the reporter was going to a place where they have never been before. also in terms of crowd sourcing. i mentioned haiti. when the infrastructure was a largely down, but most of the devices were still working. we galvanize efforts with all the news organizations, used

social media to map where the reconstruction was and where it aid was desperately needed. next, it was a distribution tool. i may have the statistic wrong because i have not checked this in a month or duroc, but months back, we were the most retweeted independent news source. but that may sound like gobbledygook. what that means is, you like that, you to read it to all of your followers, and they tweak it to all of their followers, and you have an exponential following. it is at the core of public media. the public in public media is the audience. so, we are able to have dialogue.

the comments stream that follows is absolutely delightful and intelligent and informed, most of the time. and we are in it with them. our reporters and editors are in the mix, talking to people i think we have just begun to scratch the surface about how social media can be in journalism. >> ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking the vivian schiller for her wonderful remarks. [applause] >> supposedly there is a book here somewhere to thank you. thank you. i think we all leave here today taking away some very important points.

you've spoken strongly in the enthusiasm. you serve it npr well. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sunday, norm coleman on whether he will challenge michael steele for the

chairmanship of the republican national committee. >> i have been very candid with the chairman. there have been some challenges. i do not think he has gotten enough credit for things he has done. bottom line is i am not going to run against michael steele. whatever decision he makes, that is his decision. >> will you go for the chair position? >> again, the chairman has to decide. i will stay with humility that if the opportunity came to help the party, i would help the party. i would interact with the house committee, the rga. i think i could do all those things. the chairman has to decide what he is going to do.

i have always been one to serve my party. i am not actively campaigning for anything right now or in the future. >> you can see the entire interview on "newsmakers" here on c-span. now, the weekly addresses. president obama delivered his thanksgiving day message, urging americans to support u.s. troops and calling for political unity. he is followed by newly-elected house member with the weekly republican address. he talks about his fellow freshman colleagues and their new agenda for the congress. >> today, like millions of families, michele, malia, sasha

and i will sit-down with family and friends. we will spend time taking stock of what we are thankful for. the god-given bounty of america and the blessings of one another. this captures the distinctly american impulse to give something of ourselves. even as we speak, there are countless americans serving in soup kitchens, contributing to their communities and standing guard around the world. that is emblematic of what americans have always done. we have come together and done what is required. that is who we are. consider our journey since that first thanksgiving. we are among the world's youngest of peoples. we have led the way forward boldly. it we had explored and settled a vast continent.

we've built a powerful economy and stood against tyranny in all its forms. we connected a globe with our science and imaginations. none of that progress was predestined. numbed of it came -- none of it came easily. these were attributable to the choices made by our parents and grandparents. they ensured a better future for us. this holiday season, we must resolve to do the same. this is not the hardest things giving america has faced, but as long as any members of the american family are hurting, as long as husbands and wives are at war, we have to support their mission and honor their service, and as long as any of our friends and neighbors are looking for work, we have to do everything we can to keep our economy moving forward. and we will. but we will not do this as any

one political party. we have to do this as one people. i hope we can work together, democrats, republicans, and independents alike. that is why next week, i have invited the leadership of both parties to the white house. i believe if we stop talking at one another and start talking with one another, we can get a lot done. it is not about democrats or republicans, left or right. it is about what we know this country is capable of. we are a vibrant nation that makes sure its children are the best in eworld, a growing economy, and clean energy. an america where every citizen can go as far as he or she desires. we can do all this because we have done it before.

we are made of the same sturdy stuff as the travelers to set down to that first thanksgiving dinner, who worked and sacrificed and believed their efforts would make a difference for us. that is who we are. we shape our own destiny with conviction and compassion and a clear and common purpose. we honor our past with the knowledge that tomorrow will be better than today. we are americans. that is the vision we will not lose sight of. that is the challenge that, together, we are going to meet. every american, i am thankful for the privilege of being your president. to all our service members around the world, i am honored to be your commander-in-chief. from the obama family to yours, thank you. >> hello. earlier this month, and the privilege of being elected.

todaymericans will give thanks for what matters most -- family, faith, and freedom. we are fortunate that we the people can speak out and alter the course of our government. the american people have sent a clear message to washington. listen up. stop the run with it -- runaway spending. the people have selected the right group of messengerso get the job done. our freshmen congress includes doctors, lawrs, a pet -- pizzer it dealer. they understand what is like to sign the front of a paycheck. republican leaders recognize how extraordinary ur class is. the day after the election, they have put us to work, planning for the majority.

the freshman class has also gained an unprecedented two seats at the leadership table. we are excited to have our representatives on the leadership team. fresh faces alone are not enough to bri about the change the american people are demanding. as much as we have t be thankful for, too many georgians anto many americans have been out of work for far too long. we are ready to focus on creating js and put a stop to the runaway spending in washington, d.c. weave this pledged to america. we are going to watch our democracy work as our forefathers intended. tens of thousands of our sons and daughters are overseas in iraq, afghanistan, and around world, standing guard to protect our country and the

values on which it was built. we give thanks for them. thank you for listening. may god bless you and those you hold dear and the great states of the united states of america. >> sunday, norm coleman on whether he will challenge michael steele for the chairmanship of the republican national committee. >> i've been very candid with the chairman. there have been some challenges. on the other hand, i do not think he has gotten enough credit for things he has done to bring the tea party and to the republican coalition. bottom line, i am not going to run against michael steele. >> if he decides not to seek reelection, will you go for the chairman position? >> again, the chairman has to decide. i would say, if the opportunity

were there to help my party, i would help the party. part of it is to raise a significant amount of money. part of it is to interact with the rga and the house committee. they have to do all of those things. the chairman has to decide what he is going to do. i've always been willing to serve my party. i am not out there actively campaigning, right now or in the future. >> you can see the entire interview on the " newsmakers" sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. now, a look at some of t newly-elected governors. republican dennis daugaard won the south dakota election with 60% of the vote.

in vermont, the democrats defeated the republican candidates with 49% of the vote. the small-business owner will take the seat held by it gov. jim douglas. >> this week marked the 47th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. this weekend, i will talk with two former secret service men whose job was to protect the president. we will discuss this sunday night on q&a. >> now, the ethics of war. this discussion features speakers from france, england, israel, and the u.s. from cleveland, this is just over two hours.

>> ladies and gentlemen. welcome. we are delighted to have you here for this 2010 international ethics in war summit. i am the director of the illinois center. i have the privilege of being moderator of the first panel. we have brought a collection of very distinguished scholars here for you to listen to and to engage with. they will be having a conversation up here for a while, and then you will notice in the center aisle, there is a microphone. at this point, i will open the floor to questions from the audience.

at that point, please make your way to the podium and form a small line behind it. we will take your questions there. we will be distributing microphones to be used. i would like to introduce our panelists this morning. in the first seat, we have rear admiral carpenter, who now serves as the commander of the navy warfare command in norfolk, virginia. she was the navy's first collectively-retained pilot. she is a distinguished graduates of the naval war college. she has held a total of five commands in the area of logistics, aviation, and fleet operations. and she has worked with the ability development, and this

has helped to give her a unique were fighting perspective. her awards, which are many and too many to list here, include the defense superior service medal, the legion of merit, and the meritorious commendation medal. at the far end of the panel -- professor henri euhd. he is best known for his ground- breaking interdisciplinary work in metaphysics, political philosophy, medical science, and world policy. he is a distinguished author for many books, many of which have been translated into multiple languages. he has headed the council on

affixed since 2004. in 2005, he was honored with a prize. and really to meier wright, pro fessor casher. he is currently the professor emeritus in the university in israel. he has written more than 200 papers and several books in several areas of philosophy, including military ethics, which won the national prize for military literature. the professor wrote the first code of ethics for the israeli defense force, and -- an idf document on fighting terror and the ethics of engagement. yes served as a chair member of

numerous -- he has served as a church member of numerous government bodies. he has won the highest national prize in israel for its contributions to philosophy. immediately next to the professor is professor george lucas. george lucas is the class of 1984 distinguished chair of ethics at the united states medical -- naval academy, my former home, and the professor of public policy at the naval postgraduate school in monterey, california. he is a colleague of several universities and has served three times as the national endowment for the humanities for colleges and university faculty. his father of many works,

including five books -- he is the author of many works, including five books. he has eight books linked collections of articles in philosophy. his top courses devoted to ethics and ethics of leadership by the united states air force academy, and over 57 colleges and universities throughout the united states. with the bow tie, prof. noel he has worked in ethics, linguistics, come the science, and at exeter in computer science.

he is responsible for having authored more than 100 academic articles and books. he writes for national newspapers and magazines, and has created thrilling robotics museum exhibits and arts installations. his core research is in the ethical applications of robotics in domains such as the military, child care, elder care, policing, medicine, and crime. our final panelist is a senior lecturer at the defense studies department of king's college, london, based at the joint services command and staff college at the u.k. defence academy. he initially took a degree in philosophy at the london school of economics and went on to earn a ph.d. in more studies. he also worked as a bbc researcher and in kosovo.

his main research is focused on the ethics of warfare and development of the laws of war. he's been a fellow for defense leadership in the australian defence college and has also taught at the baltic defense college and acuity staff college, as well as teaching british students at the u.k. staff college annually. he also fences with the medieval long sword. but hopefully not today. i would like to begin with an opening question to our panelists. that will start our ball rolling. gentlemen and lady, have there been any 21st century game changers that have forced a significant re-evaluation are real imagining of the ethics of war? or are we able to apply all the

traditional rules of war to modern combat, despite changes in tactics and technology? who would care to begin. george? >> i will toss out a thought on that and then let the other panelists respond. it is a caution that as a think about the question of the answers are sort of hainaut and no. if you think back to the adventures of the catapult, but archimedes, any new technological organization is the new form of warfare has always been predicted to upset everything. war is never going to be the same. we will become savage and brutal as a war was not already savage and brutal. often, these new technologies and forms of warfare turn out to be things that can be assimilated within the familiar ways we have of arguing about

this activity. on the other hand, there are some potential game changes like psych war. is it war at all? does it present us with challenges that our ideas of fighting justifiable wars, or not? some have urged that it does and we need to think about it. emerging technologies and humanitarian more have presented us with some challenges of how we think about the traditional uses of force for self-defense and law-enforcement in the international community. >> if your answer is no and no, my answer is yes and yes. i mean, there are different levels on which the things we see are related to warfare.

troops have to another rules of engagement. then uc policies, you see doctoring, use the principles of a just war, the sea fundamentals, and -- you see fundamentals, and the pursuit of peace. only the pursuit of peace has not changed. the idea that peace is the best situation and we ought to pursue it constantly -- that has been left intact. but everything else has changed. because all the other arrangements that we are familiar with rest on certain assumptions. they took into account the ordinary form of warfare, international armed conflict. there is a state here in a state there. this one has our forces.

this one kills our forces. these forces clashed with each other. that is gone. what we see is a state here with its armed forces and other branches, and organizations, individuals, semi-military forces, militias, and all kinds of other types of bodies that are engaging the other party. therefore, since the general form is different, all kinds of assumptions have collapsed. for example, the assumptions of international law. geneva conventions are related to states. the assumptions are reciprocity, which means politicians signed the conventions. the politicians signed the conventions because it is worth their while, and it is worthwhile because of reciprocity.

i am not going to kill your citizens. you are not going to kill my citizens. i am going to spare the lives of your pows, and i am going to spare the lives of your pows. it is fair. that reciprocity is crucial for the willingness of those politicians to sign those. second, there is practicality. we can tell apart combatants from noncombatants. they wear uniforms. they wear guns openly. reciprocity is gone. practicality is gone. we need a reinterpretation of the principles of a just war and everything about it, which means, needless to say, rules of engagement and command. the moral foundations are there. the pursuit of peace is there. but all the rest has to be reconsidered. >> i do not think we can have a military panel without

mentioning the passions. there is a distinction between the character of four and the nature of war. the nature of war is during. it does not change. the character of war has to change as the nature of war manifest itself in the real world. i think the question is have there been fundamental changes. in the character of war? yes, of course. the character of war has changed enormously in many ways as remove from the 21st century into the 21st century. there is cyber warfare, the growing use of standoff weaponry, remote killing. the new environment makes it clear that the character of war is constantly evolving and constantly changing. does that mean the rules are going to have to change? the rules, yes. the rules are simple how we apply the underlying principles. i would say those along with the

nature of four do not change. the underlying ethical principles they to be interpreted for the new environment, but they are still very valid. >> those underlying principles to which you refer -- do you mean for example the basics like proportionality and something asa mentioned, distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, but the application becomes challenging? >> the application may be harder in many ways, but it is nothing new, in the sense that these have been fundamentally opposed throughout history and have had to be interpreted according to the context that is there. >> yes, admiral? >> we had a yes and yes and a no and no. >> you are almost sang a may be and a maybe. [laughter] >> there is not much left.

i would say it depends. if you are talking about the conflicts that we -- the things we have always done apply. now we are talking about different what i call would dilute challenges. not necessarily warfare. some entity may be executing tactics designed to accomplish some goal in mind for them, but it actually stops short of warfare. i think, certainly, my own job -- i tried to envision what she is the future -- what is the future and what our game changers from a technology standpoint or an application of technique and tactics. and then i try to influence the policy and doctrines that will give maritime forces and joint forces, as i interact with these folks, the ability to execute the kinds of things we need to. technology wise, there are

certainly major changes that have come about, the cyber peace we mentioned. that may be short of warfare. that may be an interaction that someone does. but is it a declared war as we have had in the past? certainly, we have to, from a policy perspective and a political perspective, have that open dialogue across not only nations but governmental organizations that are now very prevalent in a dialogue out there and the way that we do things. when you think about the humanitarian interventions are the kinds of things we are now doing, many people think that haiti is a great example, the kind of interaction and things we did in haiti. but i would say to you that from the maritime perspective, the u.s. navy has been active in humanitarian assistance for many years. i am writing operational level dock and right now to codify what we have been doing tactically for a long time.

and even from a financial standpoint, in the last six or seven years we have actually moved to put money into the budget every year that allows us to go out and do those kinds of humanitarian assistance pieces with our forces, with our hospitals ships. we look at them as security force assistance that builds up the capabilities of other nations and entities to do self- defense. we do not have those non-state actors that come in and create those in regular challenge averments for us. >> an area that has humanitarian crises can end up being a breeding ground for future conflict? >> absolutely. those are much the same for where we are active in the horn of africa and working on the piracy issues. the piracy issues have been there for a long time.

the kind of breeding ground that come -- that generate those environments, and that allow those types of operations to be going on, have been going on for a long time. the solution for piracy is not more navy vessels out interdicting. we do that in a coalition with. we are very interoperable with a number of other navies, both with designed counterparts receive task forces -- with designed counterparties in our respective task forces. we also have ships operating independently. we also have a commander in the region actively working with interoperability and legality issues with the state department to make sure that if we take on

pirates and interdict and arrest them, what do we do with them? we do not want to keep them forever. you have to move them back into kenya or an area where you can prosecute them. it is a solution that is not only a military one. it is across the diplomatic and economics. >> henri, would you care to comment? >> you have used of all the combinations now. >> there is nothing left. >> i cannot even remember the original question. i will say yes and maybe, but maybe it is maybe and yes. i am a technologist. i also look at the safety of civilians. there are massive changes george mentioned.

there are always complaints from everyone. one of the problems is you have a rapid pace of technological development and it is difficult to keep up with it from what i know of international humanitarian law and international law, things are in place for protecting civilians. you have a mapping between each new technology, which is problematic. it is a fast, accelerating pace. like all law, there are ambiguities. there are always ambiguities of laws. what new technology allows states to do is to exploit those ambiguities, to find weak spots in the law and do things it might take 10 years for the united nations to argue about and get change. i will not get on too long, but one of the things is the cia have grown strikes. that gets to article 51 of self-

defense. we need to disambiguate the law. >> if anyone in the audience does not know what article 51 of the u.s. charter is? >> i wish you had not asked that. it basically says you have a right to self-defense. that would be a simple, one line summary. what self-defense means -- what is the reach of self-defense? one thing new weaponry gives you is a new facility to do things you could not have done before. you talk about weapons being more accurate. drones, for instance, are much better than carpet bombing. but you would not go carpet bombing somalia or yemen. but you can because of the illusion of accuracy take a drone in there and kill individual people. what is the due process for that? we need to look at these laws pretty carefully. other things are changing as

well is the notion of risk free or fair. the idea of everybody is pushing towards is to do not produce soldiers at risk ever. i do not know if you have ever watched the star trek were captain kirk says the nature of war has to be brutal because that is what stops us doing it all the time. >> i am on record as a star trek fan. >> the idea of having nobody back -- i do not like to see body bags coming home. nobody wants to see our young soldiers be killed. but they are a great inhibitor. if the public do not see body bags coming home, you can start wars over the place. the and not even wars. you can take your robots and do all sorts of things, and nobody is going to complain. there are worries about how that fits with the laws of war. in the discussion about that. and i think we need to change the late -- change the rules of war necessarily.

>> basically, i agree with the lady and gentleman that on the one hand there is nothing new under the sun, and at the same time, reality is a process of continually acknowledging in position and novelty. -- improvisation and novelty. with these new aspects, it seems to me the two of them, the technology -- talked about new aspect steeply impact the process of war. these are globalization and prosperity. among the traditional conditions for a just war, which

are listed in the just war theory, we find legitimate authority. what is legitimate authority? i do not want to go into the un national power's alliances and so on issue, but i would like to call your attention to the growth of a non constitutional power that is overwhelming with power for, which is our media. it started during the first gulf war. it is clear that a democracy needs a free press, free and responsible information --

>> an uncensored press? >> but at the same time, one controlled by a higher morality, not only a business. i remember having read a book recently by john lloyd about what the media do to our politics. a recent book two or three years ago. it seems to me that we should question the reasonableness of public opinion at large end of policymakers is impacted by a certain way of information making, information giving, which somehow means -- it is

more public appealing and business making them exercising your citizen responsibility -- than exercising your citizen responsibility. the other thing is this is a real problem of military ethics at large. not only the casualty of the soldier and the military person, what i am permitted to do, what i am not permitted to do. but this is the responsibility of the political leadership and the society at large which are called for. again, we are very aware right now of ptsd, for instance. >> post-traumatic stress disorder. >> yes. the veteran needs to be welcome when they come home.

otherwise, they just cannot stand there new condition. and most of them are drawn into this path, you know? so we it -- it seems to me that we have to address the problem of a gap between values of society when it is getting wealthier and easier, you know -- >> and fewer people are in the service. >> and the values of an army and a military force at large, you know, remains the same. it is all about selflessness and discipline and for getting oneself and so on. if the gap is too large, too wide, between the values of society and the values of democracy, and the values of the

military, what does it mean? but the democracy is not able to defend itself. so how will it survive? >> i think professor kasher wanted to comment. >> with your permission. first of all, we have known to a certain extent, until now, that our strategies are ok as they are and should be kept as much as possible and not revised. i beg to differ. take, for a simple, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. think about combatants, the attitude shown in the literature. it is in political practice and in media expression.

combatants are instruments, ok? they are state instruments. they have the right to kill and they are bound to be killed. so who cares about them? they should just win the war. noncombatants are sacred. they should not be touched. this could not be more unjustified. the idea that those are just instruments is ethically wrong. they are not instruments. that our citizens of -- and about some of the states. they are citizens of democracies. they are entitled to protection of human dignity. they never lose their rights to have their human dignity protected. the risk themselves. the risk others. they kill, and unfortunately many of them get killed. the moral situation of a

combatant in war has to be changed, we had not seen a single terrorist. -- even if we had not seen a single terrorist, we should have changed the protection of the combatants. the idea of protecting the noncombatant is in itself very simple, but it is very complicated, because there are noncombatants on both sides of the battle lines. so uncertain state tries to protect its own noncombatants. -- a certain state tries to protect its own noncombatants. in order to do that, it has to protect the other side. the other side also has noncombatants. if the nature of the war, the character of the war, it is like that, then it wld have to be in non-residential areas. to protect your noncombatants, you have to attack a military

which has many neighbors that are noncombatants. the protection of that one noncombatant is the name of the problem, or a solution. you have to get very accurate and morally justified doctrines and principles that would tell you what to do under such circumstances. noncombatants' should be protected is not enough. >> i will take a few more comments, but i want to articulate this was the next question on my list. we have blended naturally into it. let me put it out there, as it will affect the forthcoming comment. how much should a combatant have to accept to lower the risk for noncombatants, and is that dependent on the nature of the conflict?

>> i suspect that the members of the audience probably want to get into this pretty soon, and there is a lot of stuff on the table here that people would have strong opinions about are probing questions. >> that are formulating their questions. i can see it. >> the question of law and governance and how we have to map new behavior on to new technologies, the great fear is always that they will lower the threshold for war. that is, instead of making or less destructive, in fact there will make it easier for governments to use war as a conflict resolution because the public will not notice it so much and will not notice the cost of them. those costs will be hidden, or perhaps nonexistent, at least to one side.

keep that alive on the technology side and return to this issue. that is that we might want to ask what the difference is between a warrior or soldier and a domestic policeman, law enforcement. imagine the haiti operation and the american navy helping out there, people wearing their uniforms, providing food, carrying weapons, and providing security in chaos. are they legitimate targets of violence because they are military personnel? the conventional way we understand war, to go back to distinctionssher's earlier, is that combatants are given permission to kill each other, shoot at each other. the consent. there is something called the war convention or the moral equality of soldiers that says that once you are in an armed conflict between conventional nation states that the workers

on both sides are entitled to attack, and that it is not in itself a crime to shoot at them, whereas the civilians have not lost their rights not to be shot at. this is the thing he is quesoning in irregular warfare or these are regular challenges, as admiral carpenter called them. they are not even more at all. haiti is not a war. we are trying to prevent a state from filling in the aftermath of a tragedy. in many instances, our soldiers and sailors are behaving more like security forces or domestic constables. they are there to provide order and safety for vulnerable victims of disaster or political chaos. it is a dangerous job, and they could get shot at and killed. no one has permission or license to shoot at them. the job is risky, but it does

not include a legal entitlement for them to become the targets of violence. i think the game changer, one important game changer is that many more of the conflicts in which we find our military's involved are of that sort. the hour like fighting international criminal conspiracies, as opposed to fighting wars against animal -- enemy nations. that means our soldiers must subject themselves to somewhat more risk by trying to constrain the use of force on their part, not shoot at the people that are protecting. but at the same time, they are not any more the to a target of an enemy. there is no enemy. there are only people out to foment chaos. how to figure that out in the context of our current conflict is really a challenge. >> we have several. >> back to the question, you said how much risk.

i am not sure you can answer that. >> i like to ask unanswerable questions. >> you did, and i like to have answers to questions. that is one of those areas where our policy makers, or politicians, when they make a decision to insert forces, for whatever reason, whether it is because we are trying to do humanitarian assistance -- the heart and other issues where we have done tsunami relief and other kinds of things. there was discussion during the tsunami about are you going to send forces in uniform who are carrying weapons. the answer to that, much of the time, is we did not do that. because you want to be able to have those people who are victims understand that we are there to help and to distribute food and care, and not there to occupy or do other things. the other distinction is important to make is that we do

not send certain forces into, for example, haiti. where we did the tsunami relief, the war many areas where we did not put anybody on the ground. we dropped some things in, but we wanted non-governmental areas to distribute the supplies because we are not invited in by the local authorities or by the embassy, who had to coordinate. the military forces are always under our political leadership even though we might have joint command leader. we are having discourse on a humanitarian basis with interagency, the state department, or the treasury department, trying to be an instrument of national power, but not the sole instrument. it is an important distinction for those that are not necessarily that familiar with the inventory that we are interested in all the time with

what the ambassador has told us to do, which is also interesting with the host nation. we have doctrine and tactics and procedures as well as our rules of engagement that should something transpire our forces are trained to know what they are supposed to do. their art self-defense rules of engagement. but in situations where we are going to insert forces, the chairman, the joint chiefs, the secretary of defense, and what we call the combatant commanders have discussions about what we need to do for those rules of engagement. in every single scenario, there is as much clarity as possible even in ambiguous attritions, and certainly there are those areas were forces in search of they be at risk that we do not even know. conversely, you are at risk just walking across the street

here also. the kinds of activities we engage in -- we have those conversations about rules of engagement before we ever in search forces. then we adapt those rules of engagement of the scenarios look like they are changing. that is a discussion, one of the things we have our judge --ocate general's routinely the combat commanders always want to know what is the legal ramifications. and there is a regular dialogue up the chain of command to talk to the policy makers in the white house about what would we do in certain circumstances. the same is true in other issues where we have coalition forces. we allow our forces to go in and have a good understanding of what they can do. but by virtue of the fact that you are wearing a uniform and

going into any situation, you know you are under a certain amount of risk. i am not sure you can ever say how much risk you're willing to assume. as a volunteer, you may give up your life in a certain situation and may not be able to do anything about it. >> i am addressing your question but commenting where we have had this agreement before. i really agree with you about the dignity of soldiers and the right to protection. but where we violently disagree, and i use violently in terms of the protection of civilians -- for me, that is inviolable. that should be set in stone and never touched. i think it equally should be protected. we send our soldiers in to fight. we risk their lives sending them to fight. but we do not risk other people's civilians lives. it is just wrong to kill people.

i even have problems of proportionality. that might come up again later. you have this notion of reciprocity. you have killed our civilians, so why shouldn't we kill yours? that is wrong for a start, but it gets more problematic when you're dealing with uncertain workers. when you get a non-state actor, who are there civilians? who are taliban civilians? if you fly into pakistan and kill a bunch of german citizens who are known insurgent leaders, and you kill some civilians there, those civilians are not there civilians. how would pakistan women and children be at german civilians? there is no idea of reciprocity at all. it is completely wrong. we talk about -- and i do not know the answer to this one. i am just throwing it out there. we talk about insurgency and it is on the increase. it seems that all wars from now

on are going to be insurgent warfare's. what would that be? one idea, put forward simply, is that we are causing it. we are the cause of it. we being the western nations. we have all the military might. the asymmetrical warfare -- we do not go over and say you have the big guns, let us leave it at that. but what happens is the way the ira did against the british many years ago, they could not fight the british and beat them on the battlefield, so they started using insurgent techniques, what we call terrorists techniques or un-uniformed combatant techniques. it is the only way to fight. we carry on with more technology, more and more asymmetrical worker. it is possible or likely that we will create more and more terrorism. while we are doing in this idea of risk-free war is risk-free to

our servicemen and women, but it is not risk-free to our civilians. if you get to the point where any of your civilians -- the united states, especially, because you of the biggest guns. i am using guns here as a blanket term. you may find that if you want to go abroad you have to take your armed guard with you. >> would you like to jump in? >> i had a comment on your specific question, that i would like to come back to after mr. sharkey's opinions. in the old times, war was two political leaderships. the people were just over a in -- just obeying. it was a quarrel to be settled

between the leaders and men of war. >> and the question of legitimate authority mentioned earlier. >> and it was quite clear that unjustifiable cruelty -- the people should be left aside quietly. democracy changes the deal completely. we, the people of each country, are, as it were, the ruler, you know? we appoint the rulers. the reason -- the old reason for leaving the people outside and respecting them as noncombatants is more questionable than it was in a non-democratic times. so we need additional statements, which in fact we do

not have, in order to justify the fact that a people has no right. you say that very often in our asymmetrical conflict there is no possibilities -- and no possibility to have even a visible political leadership. the situation becomes very confused. very quickly, should we take some additional risk? i would answer the question by another question. who has to say that these soldiers or these military personnel should take in the

field some additional risk? is it the platoon leader? is it the battalion later? is it the commander? -- is it the battalion leader? it seems to me this situation calls for a full-fledged exercise of moral responsibility from the part of the political leadership, ok? and there is a public choice to be made between what is justice, what is self interest, what is friendship, what is love. it is clear that depending the list and archive these principles, or the way that are

connected to each other, will relate. it seems to me that because it is so deep and so serious that there will always be room for some kind of legitimate and serious conscientious objection. but nevertheless, it is not possible to treat warfare just as a matter of technical techniques and tactics. there is an ethical aspect we have to concentrate on, which is the core of moral responsibility. that should concern all of us and the media for being serious in providing democracy with the ability of pushing the best up, you know?

and not only the best look or -- >> the most telegenic. >> exactly. >> i would like to let professor kasher make a comment. i will be opening it soon to the floor, so hopefully your questions will be well formed in your mind. >> i am sure mr. kasher is going to disagree with me. the question is how much additional risk combatants should be prepared to accept. i want to try to draw a couple of the threads together. answering that, i think it was already pointed out that there might be some kind of definitive formula, and that is not going to work. but what you can say is a statement of fact. if you have military personnel who are trained and equipped for conflict and if you have civilians who are self evidently

armed, it seems to me that which one is more likely to survive, other factors being equal, in a combat zone. the fact that combatants should be able to have additional risk seems straightforward. the degree to me comes down to the character of the environment you are actually in. the burden of risk transfer that you are prepared to accept is completely dependent upon the environment. if you are in a war of national survival, clearly you are going to be willing to accept a higher civilian death toll from your military activity and have to be prepared to accept that then you would be if you were in a humanitarian operation or a peace keeping operation or counterinsurgency operation. as has already been put, if you are there to protect the people,

the idea of transferring any risk to the civilian population to protect yourself is ludicrous. the police -- if you are being expected to be carrying out a policing role or a humanitarian role, the idea that you should adopt a radical force protection mentality to protect your force is completely counterproductive, as it would be in a counterinsurgency environment, where the idea is that you are trying to coopt the population. >> so winning hearts and minds. >> it is going to depend on the character of the conflict. what i would say, following from other people -- while it is difficult to say how much risk combatants should be prepared to accept to protect the civilians, if you remove the risk altogether to those combatants, an idea that has already been raised here -- if there is no risk, if you are using completely robotic or

missile weapons -- >> standoff for. >> if you are not placing your combatants at any risk at all, this appears to lower the threshold for the willingness to commit to going to war in the first place. it is no risk to you. it is a very easy policy decision for a politician. there is no political cost to having military action. it is the illusion of precision or the paradox of precision almost. it means that you can use that force far, far more freely than you would otherwise be prepared to do. you are not risking your own personal at all. why should you? it becomes a policy free decision. i am sorry. it becomes a risk-free policy decision, and easy political decision. it is a willingness to kill but not to dive for a cause.

and if you're prepared but -- if you are prepared to kill but not die for a cause, where is the clash of wills? what you are actually doing is demonstrating that you are willing to kill but not die for a cause. you have invested nothing morally. there is no moral clash here. you are not demonstrating resolve. in fact, you are demonstrating a lack of resolve. which means terrorists can work either. if you are demonstrating you are not willing to die for something, you are showing you are not willing to spend treasure of your own. you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of resolve. the pair? here is on the one hand a new generation of western systems is lowering the threshold to the use of military force while at the same time making it harder to use that military force successfully. it is making victory in any meaningful sense more remote

while at the same time making the use of that force easy. >> i would like to give a respondent moment to profession -- to professor kasher and then open it to the floor. if you like to begin to make a line at the microphone, please do so. we will take questions in a moment. >> on reciprocity, one should understand the role played by reciprocity. when politicians signed and ratified the geneva conventions, they did it for reasons of reciprocity. i mean they gained and they gave something in return. it was a fair arrangement. to this very day, when states negotiate non-proliferation of arms and negotiate similar conventions, reciprocity plays a role. you get and you give the same, about the same type of force. however, what happens when

reciprocity is gone? this does not mean that if you kill my citizens i am gone to kill your citizens. this means that reciprocity considerations do not work anymore and we need other considerations. it is a very interesting shift in the world, the with the democratic world looked at this affair. now it is not reciprocity considerations. we look at the mirror. and we would like to see a beautiful face, as beautiful as possible, which means not because of reciprocity, but because of adherence to our own constitutions. democracies have rights and situations. the american officer takes an oath to protect the constitution, not the state or the commander in chief, but the constitution, the value of that

state. democracy's act according to their own views of what it is right to do. it is not reciprocity, but something else. this creates a variety of views. all of them are democratic constitutions. they are all for the protection of human dignity. we hope there is a convergence and you get a doctor and for fighting terrorism that -- a doctrine for fighting terrorism that every democracy endorses when it has the opportunity to act. onshannon's question additional risk, i fully agree with george when he says that under some circumstances of military activity -- military activity in the sense not of warfare, but people in military

uniforms to do it. under that condition, they are like police or fire fighters. the police officer or a fire fighter risks their lives in order to defend citizens of their own state. that risk is acceptable and heroic and noble. and when troops are somewhere playing the role of those who -- in iraq, say. they help the government to defend the citizens. then the risk themselves on the part -- the way police officers risk themselves. however, there are other considerations which should not forget, for instance when it is real warfare. there, my answer to the question of how much additional risk should a soldier or what ever take -- the answer would be none. there are some circumstances when additional risk does take place.

i would give you a simple example. it is a real example. it is from our recent gauze a campaign, our recent operation. -- recent gaza campaign. there are buildings full of tourists and fall of neighbors of the terrorists. they are risking the lives of our citizens across the border. what should we do? what should we do? if we cannot attack a building where there are noncombatants because of all kinds of considerations of proportionality and similar ones, then what may emerge is that we have lost our ability to defend ourselves. no set of rules that are morally justifiable can tell and attacked party you have lost your ability to defend yourself.

what we should do is what we actually did -- war on the neighbors of the terrorists. warn them regularly that if your neighbor is a terrorist than it is not like if your neighbor is a saint. it is a different situation. we made phone calls. we made hundreds of thousands of phone calls. think of a call to your cell phone in your apartment telling you that this apartment for this building is going to be attacked because of your neighbors, so please move to somewhere else. move to a neighboring place, because the bombs are smart. the cause risk to yourself if you move a little bit -- the risk to yourself is diminished. using the drones, whether they have evacuated are not, we see it is effective. warning is effective.

then we used the procedure we call "knock on the roof." we used nonlethal weaponry shot by helicopters from the roof of the building. it has killed nobody. it is precise. but it is very noisy. it is a very strong hit. which means that if there is somebody there or a neighbor that has not left yet -- we are about to rescue, unfortunately. -- risk you, unfortunately. usually, they leave their houses. they are reasonable. they do not want to jeopardize their lives because of the terrorists, who are their brothers or neighbors. assume there is a possibility that not everyone has evacuated the building, ok? here i represent the soldier. in our case, in israel, most of the combatants are conscripts, which means to serve in the

military force because you were told to. >> there were drafted, essentially. >> the commanders are volunteers, but the privates and soldiers are conscripts. i am a conscript. i am a citizen of a democracy. i am entitled to a good, compelling answer to the question -- why you jeopardize my life, being a citizen of the democracy? why do you put on the uniform and require the service for this country? why'd you send me to gaza? why did you send me to this neighborhood? now, you're sending me into a building with terrorists to risk my life, just to see whether someone is left there because he is afraid his carpets are born to be stolen if he believes the -- are going to be stolen if he leaves the apartment.

should that person who voluntarily made themselves human shield be more valuable than my life, as a conscript defending citizens? the answer is the state does not give a good, compelling answer. the answer is that the combatant, just being a combatant, therefore, forfeited all kinds of rights they had a -- for me, as a representative of soldiers, that is very weak, not convincing at all. under such circumstances, and there are others as well, the justification for additional risk is none. >> i think we have a lot of thought-provoking ideas in this room. as proof of that, we have been long line at the microphone for questions. what i would like to say -- this is to our questioners, and also

to our distinguished panelists. in the interest of time, let both our questions and answers day as concise as possible. we go until 11:00. in order to fit in as many of these questions, which i am sure will be quite thoughtful, we will try to keep moving at a steady clip. please state your name, if you would. >> i beg your pardon? walter nichols, a world war two veteran. >> could you speak into the microphone as much as possible? >> i think i find it ironic that we can talk at such lengths and with what -- with such knowledge and the detail about the process of killing each other, members of our own species. i think it is remarkable that we can discuss this at such 9, as though we were discussing angels

on the head of a pin and such abstractions, and not choke on our words. [applause] i think once persons have seen more close-up, and with due respect i would ask how many of the panel have actually been in combat situations where you have had to kill another person or they were trying to kill you -- i think once persons have been in that situation and seen death and destruction close, war is no longer an abstraction for discussion. it is an emotional issue that drives you to simplistic simplicity. i think the persons that we come to respect most when we are talking about war are those who can speak in the fewest words, simply about ending war.

some question is -- so my question is can any of you speak in the fewest number of words about means whereby humans can and the killing and destruction of each other? >> think you very much. would anyone like to address? >> the fewest number of words is stop fighting each other. >> would anyone else like to comment? >> with all due respect, i do not respect the notion that only people who have been into a certain type of circumstances may comment. judges, for example, presumably have never been in any type of murder or rape situation. this does not mean that they cannot renounce their views concerning what is right and what is wrong under