resolution and seeking to amend a treaty. so to senator risch, through the chair, i happen to share the same concern that the senator has about this imbalance, as chairman of the armed services committee. this imbalance existed in 2002. it existed in 1991. and we ought to address it. but we don't address it by killing this treaty, and that's what this amendment does. now, despite the absence of this language expressing a legitimate concern, we have support for this treaty by former president george h.w. bush, secretaries brown, car liewchy, cohen, perry, and schlesinger support this treaty without this language. it was true that former secretary schlesinger said, for instance, he has a concern about this imbalance. i think we all do. he stated that concern.

he still supports the treaty without this language, without this expression of concern. secretaries albright -- former secretaries of state albright, baker, christopher, eagleburger, kissinger, powell, rice, schultz support the treaty without this language. they have the same concerns. as a matter of fact, i believe that it was senator sessions -- it may have been someone else who said that former secretary kissinger has expressed this concern. in fact, quoted, i believe, from secretary -- former secretary kissinger's writing on this issue. he has that same concern which senator risch and all of us have about this imbalance. but without the language, former secretary kissinger still supports this treaty. so all i can say is, i think there's a legitimate concern which is expressed in this amendment, it's a concern which has existed and needs to be addressed, as former senator biden said when he was debating

treaty, but not to kill a treaty by expression of a legitimate concern. and so that's what i think the issue here is, not whether or not the language in the risch amendment expresses something which is legitimate but whether or not the absence of that concern being expressed in the treaty should be enough to vote for this amendment and to kill this treaty as a result and to force it back to an open-ended negotiation which we have no idea where that would lead. so i hope we defeat the risch amendment not because we disagree with what the concern is but because, understanding that concern, we don't want to do damage to the treaty and kill a treaty which does so much for the security of this nation. i yield the floor, and if i have any time left, i yield the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the nator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i'd like to add a few dmoants those

of the senator from -- comments to those of the senator from michigan. first of all, i'd like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. we are looking at icbms reduced from about 450 to about 420. in some cases those icbms being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they're carrying, but modest reductions. when we look at . . we're looking at keeping all 14 of those. reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20. so, again, a modest reduction. indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one given point in time and they do not count against theumbers in this -- in this treaty. in bombers, we're looking at 18 stealth missiles currently and keeping -- stealth bombers and keeping all 18 or b-2, as they are known. we look at a modest reductions

in our fleet, our aging, ancie ancient, antique fleet of b-52's, modest reductions there. so the -- in its entirety, what this vept repsents is modest changes to the existing structure negotiated by a republican administration and maintenance of verification regimes incredibly important to our national security. it's in that context that we have to look at various amendments being raised that if they were sincere about their purpose, they be added to the resolution we're passing, but if their real spurp to kill -- purpose is to kill the treaty, then, of course, it comes in the form of an amendment to the treaty which would effectively, in fact, do that. and so let's look at the structure of the issues that were put forward here. the first, the goal of this start treaty is to addss strategic, not short-range tactical nuclear weapons, which have never been covered by a

treaty, including those negotiated by a republican administration. second, tactical nuclear weapons are categorically different than strategic arms because they do not pose an immediate catastrophic threat to the united states homeland that strategic weapons do. with shorter range and smaller yield, they are intended for battlefield use. and i would note the quotation for general chilton, commander of the united states strategic command, who said, "the most proximate threat to the u.s. are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastating effect to this country. so we are appropriately focused in those areas that are of particular -- we are appropriately focused in those areas in the particular treaty for strategic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't have the proximate threat that icbm an and slbms do." i also note that if you look at this from the russian perspective, we have tactical weapons deployed in europe,

numerous european nations have tactical weapons which can reach the soviet -- or the reach the russian federation, formerly the soviet union. meanwhile, because of our superiority at sea, the soviet -- or the russian tactical weapons do not represent the same kind of threat to the united states. i'd then note that we have already addressed this issue in the senate ratification resolution, which states, "the president should pursue, following consultation with allies and agreement with the rush federation, that would address a disrity between the tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles of the russian federation and the united states that would secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner." so it's already in -- in the resolution of ratification. and then i would note that gates and clinton, secretary gates, secretary clinton, said in a letter, "we agree with the senate foreign relations committee's call in the resolution of advice and consent

to ratification of the new start treaty to pursue an agreement with the russians to address them." tablght catactical weapons repra thorny issue because it involves the european powers, it involves disparities of geography. it is why it's been so hard to link them in the foos a nuclear treaty -- foos pt to a strategc nuclear treaty and why they are not done so in this case. but i is the commitment by the secretary of defense, by the secretary osecretary of state, e president and by the senate to pursue this issue that is important and that is what is before us now. so in terms of addressing this issue, if there are changes that need to be made to the language, to the ratification resolution, that would be appropriate. but ending this treaty, which greatly enhances the security of the united states of america by providing the appropriate verification protocols, is absolutely essential. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senatofrom massachusetts.

mr. kerry: mr. president, how much time do we still have? the presiding officer: you have 16 minutes remaining. mr. kerry: 16? and the senator from idaho has 10? the presiding ofcer: 10 minutes. mr. kerry: so somehow we're going past the hour of 3:00. okay. a senator: unless, of course, you want to yield some time back. mr. kerry: do you want to yield some time back? let me use a portion it was and i'll yield some back at the end, mr. president. first of all, both bill perry, former defense secretary bill perry, and jim schlesinger have been mentioned and the commission that they served on. let me make certain that the record is clear about their position wit respect to this treaty. secretary perry said the following, "the focus of this treaty is on deployed warheads and it does not attempt to counter or control nondeployed warheads. this continues in the tradition of prior arms control treaties.

i would hope to see nondeployed and tactical systems included in future negiations, but the absence of these systems should not detract from the merits of this treaty and the further advantage in arms control which it represents." jim schlesinger, from the same commission, said, "the ratification of this treaty is oblitory." i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were here to hear jim schlesinger's comments, but he says ratification is oh blib obligat. and the reason it's oh blig story you really -- obligatory is you really can't get to the discussion you want to have with the russians regarding tactical unless you show the good faith to have the strategic verification and reduction structure in place. now, mr. president, let me just say, supposing that the senator from idaho's language was

adopted here. would it mean we're reducing tactical nuclear weapons? no. would it get you any further down the road to be able to reduce them? the answer is not only would it not do that, it would set back the effort to try to get those reductions because the russians will not engage in that discussion if you can't ratify the treaty, and if they pass this amendment, this treaty is, as senator levin said, it's de dead, it goes back to the russian government with a provision that is now linking those weapons in a way that they haven't been willing to talk about, even engage in the discussion at this point in time. so in fact, we'd be setting ourselves backwards if that amendment were put into affect. what's oi ronic, he's amending a component of the treaty that has

no legal impact whatsoever. there's nothing legally binding in the language that he would pass that would force them to negotiate. so it's a double setback, if you will. i simply say to my friend on the other side and i talk to him privately about this and i think he's open-minded on it. we have language in the resolution right now with respect to nuclear weapons. we're not ignoring the issue. the language says we call -- the senate calls on the president following consultation with allies to get an agreement with the russian federation on tactical nuclear weapons. now, i'm prepared in the resolution of ratification to entertain language as a declaration that would also make the senate's statement clear about how we see those nuclear weapons in terms of their threat and i hope that would address the concerns of many of our colleagues on the area side of the aisle.

but the bottom line here is that senator risch's language not only does it make any progress on the topic that he's concerned about, itctually sets back the capacity to be able to make the progress that he wants to make. now, if you want to limit russia's tactical nuclear weapons, and i do and he does, and i think all 100 united states senators do, then you have to pass the new start. you've got to approve the new start. and if you reject it, you're forcing a renegotiation which never gets you not only to the -- to the -- to the tactical nuclear weapons, but which leaves you completely questionable as to where you're going to go on the stratigic nuclear weapons, which means the world is less safe, we've lost our leverage significantly with reect to iran, north korea. we have certainly muddied the

relationship significantly with respect to russia, we've unpushed the restart button and we've opened up who knows what kind of can of worms with respect to a whole lot of cooperative efforts that are important to us now. not the least of which, i might add, is the war in afganistan where russia is currently cooperating with us in providing a secondary supply route and assisting us in other ways with respect to iran. so i -- i just say let's not do something that we know unravels all of these particular components. any time you -- you change that resolution ratification, it's like pulling, you know, a piece of string on -- on a sweater or aian roll and -- yarn roll and everything unravels. one piece undoes another piece and undoes another piece. that's not where we want to go. so, mr. president i hope that

we will say no to this amendment and proceed on. i will reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. risch: mr. president, under the u.c., i believe i have the last 10 minutes. am i correct on that? i think that was the u.c. the presiding officer: the chair believes that is correct. mr. risch: okay, thank you. so when i start at the conclusion of my 10 minutes, we'll vote. the presiding officer: the chair believes that is correct. mr. risch: thank you. the presiding officer: correction, the senator from massachusetts still has 10 minutes remaining. mr. risch: my understanding is that he can use that at any time and get the last 10. mr. kerry: unless the senator says something completely outrageous, which he has mogd to

not do -- managed to not do in the last three hours, i will not need to use it. mr. risch: thank you, senator. i'll try not to disappoint you in that regard. well, mr. president, fell year senators, distinguished chairma and ranking member, i tnk certainly we've had a civil and a good airing of an issue that is of considerable concern to i think every member of this body. i'm -- i'm a little disappointed in that we started out acknowledging that it was a -- a very deep and serious concern to every member of this body as it was to the commission in their report on america's stratigic posture and i felt along the

line a little bit the concern was denigrated and i -- i want to back up on that one more time and say that in my judgment and in the judgment of members of this commission,he issue of tactical weapons exceeds in severity and concern the issue of stratigic weapons. now, i understand one might argue that you're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, as opposed to which -- which really is of the most concern but i've come back to -- and the reasons i gave as to why i think that the tactical issue is more important than the stratigic issue. d that is on the stratigic issue, we're in about the same position we were in 40 years ago with the exception, and admittedly an important

exception, that the raw fums are down. -- numbers are dow when we started this each party had about 6,000 warheads. as i said, if either party pulled the trigger and launched 6,000 or some significant part of that, oiously that's -- that's the -- the teeter ens that each -- deterrence that each party was counting on that neither would do that. today we're down to and with all due respect to my good friend from massachusetts, the numbers reported in the press are 1,100 and 2,100 and i understand that there's intelligence information that we can't go into here. but in any event most people would agree that we have the advantage in numbers from a stratigic standpoint. and, indeed if -- if the numbers are even close to that, the -- whether it's 6,000 warheads or 1,000 warheads, when someone pulls the trigger, the party's over for this world.

and so focusing on the raw numbers when we've got a 40-year history that we aren't going to do that and they're not going to do and most people agree that neither side is inclined to pull the trigger, what are the real concerns? the real concerns with an accidental launch from them, although remote, possible, but more importantly an intentional launch from a rogue neighbor. one would look at north korea or iran in that regard. and so in my judgment, the two ises that really need to be focused on are the defensive missle issue and the tactical nuclear weapons issue. now, let me say, i agree with my good friend from massachusetts and senator levin, that geography is such that tactical weapons the issue of tactical

weapons is substantially more important on a direct basis to the russians than it is to us. afterall, we have oceans on each side of us to the east and to the west which the russians don't enjoy. they've had a 100-year history of seeing invasions come by land and enter immediately, which we don't have. and so in that regard i will concede certainly that the tactical issue is important for them. and the good senator from massachusetts makes a good point in that i -- i think they would like to relocate, if they could, their tactical weapons to be focused more on the chinese threat and perhaps more on the that from the south from other countries and we ought to help them out in that regard by entering into negotiations in that regard on the tactical weapons. but i come back to them, the tactical weapons are an important issue.

senator levin says they are a concern. senator levin says we shouldn't kill this treaty simply because of a concern. and i agree with senator levin. i have not from day one said that we oughto kill this treaty. i have said from day one everyone has convinced me and i think virtually everyone else, that we are much better off with the treaty than we are without a treaty. and i thinkveryone hasorked in good faith in that regard. but on the other hand having said that, don't think we should then throw in the towel and say, well, okay, we will agree to any treaty and that bringse point to of where we are. we are exercising our constitutional right that every one of us has, not only our right, but as a -- but a duty as a united states senator to advise and consent on this treaty and any other treaty put

in front of us, and that's where i have problems. the position we've been put in is these negotiations have gone on, the treaty has been negotiated, it has been signed by the president, and it's been put in front of us and what we're told is it's a take it or leave it. if you don't vote for this, you're voting to kill the treaty. now, i disagree with that. i think simply because we amend the preamble to this treaty is not a killer. indeed, my good friend from massachusetts tells us the eaty doesn't -- the preamble doesn't mean anything, it's throwaway. the language is throwaway. it really doesn't mean anythg. well, it does mean something particularly when it comes to the context in which you interpret and you react to the treaty. so to everyone here i say, you have the opportunity to set the

restart button with russia. and we can do it by focusing on what is an extremely important issue which most everyone here agreess an extremely important issue but nobody ever does anything about it. so let's tell the negotiators, go back to the table and at least agree that the interrelationship between a stratigic and tactical weapons is a really, really important issue. and we're not just going to go on like we have over the last 40 yes. the times have changed that we trust you're not going to pull the trigger on us and you trust that we're not going to pull the trigger on you. but this issue of tactical weapons where we enjoy, if you would, a 10-1 disadvantage to the russians, we have are tactical weapons that are out there that can be much more

easily gotten a hold of by terrorists than stratigic weapons. we have tactical weapons that continue to be designed, continue to be manufactured, and continue to be deployed by the other side in violation of their -- their admittedly individual presidential initiatives needs to be addressed and it's so important that people on this commission said that it really should be addressed before stratigic weapons. you have the opportunity to put that in here. there is no intent to kill this. it is an intent to make it better. we have the right. we have the duty. we have -- we must advise and consent. i urge that my colleagues vote in favor of this very good amendment. thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i think conscious has time expired on their --

the priding officer: the senator from idaho has slightly less than a minute left. mr. kerry: mr. president, let me just say as i yield back time providing -- mr. risch: is the next -- is the vote -- mr. president, the next vote going to be on this amendment or are the judges going to be voted on first? the presiding officer: that is correct. the next vote is on the risch amendment. mr. risch: thank you. mr. kerry: i will yield back the time momentarily. i want to say one inning, the -- one thing, the two principal officers are bill perry who says the absence of the -- the b absence of the tactical nuclear should not detract from the merits of this treaty and he is in favorf our ratifying this treaty and jim schlesinger who was his co-author, who worked with republican predents as secretary of defense and secretary of energy said that

the ratification of this treaty is obligory. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. risch: can i have my last minute? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, and, senator ker, i respect that. i would remind everyone that i filed the letter dated december 17, senator kerry and senator lugar from six members of the commiion including james schlesinger, which says that dealing with this imbalance is urgent, referring to the tactical weapons -- dealing with this imbalance is urgent and some commissioners would give priority to this over taking further steps to reduce the number of operationally deployed stratigic nuclear weapons. i agree both are important. i thank the good chairman, ranking member for a very good dialogue on this p

>> the amendment offered by the center of idaho was defeated by a vote of 60-32. the senate returns tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and resumes debate on the start treaty. also, the senate will take up a continuing resolution on government funding. the current c expirer is on tuesday night at midnight. the senate will also take up a defense authorization bill. live coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> next, a discussion on u.s. strategy toward yemen. then an upcoming referendum in sudan that would split the country from its northern territory. after that, tony blair on international aid for africa. >> tomorrow, on washington

journal, andrew field house looks at how next year's paychecks will be affected by tax cuts. next, stuart becker of al qaeda attacking the u.s. over the holidays. and stephen ellis, vice president of taxpayers for common sense examines portions of the tax bill that are favorable to various industries. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> john brennan, the president's chief adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism said on friday that u.s. homeland security officials are on high alert for terrorist activities this christmas season. this came at a forum. the speech came one day after the u.s. state department said that an american embassy vehicle was attacked in this week in yemen.

this is just over one hour. >> good morning, all. in jessica matthews, president of the carnegie endowment. we are privileged to have the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism john brennan. as we reflect on the end of 2010 and look towards 2011, it is difficult to overstate the effect that weak states have had on global politics and security. in the very top of the list of those countries of concern is yemen. we are there-we are particularly keen to hear from mr. brennan today. i want to emphasize that this has been an impressive three decade-long career in the intelligence arena. at the cia, he served from 1980

to 2005 in numerous high-level positions. his accomplishments include establishing the national counterterrorism center. he served as a principal senior aide to cia director george tenet. ence brief for president clinton. for the last two years, john brennan served as the top counterterrorism official in the white house. "the new york times" said of him of it, meaning the war the counterterrorism war is now obama's war brann ennis his general, general brennan, we are very happy to have you. [laughter] >> def rett mr. brennan will address today, yemen, has been on the wiltz radar screen ever since the tragic u.s. haskell bombing ten years ago. it returned to the front pages

after the young men trained christmas day bomber last year, and again in recent months when al qaeda in the arabian peninsula attempted to send explosives to the chicago synagogues. aqap as i greater threat in all likelihood the and the more well-known central al qaeda organization in south asia. at carnegie, christopher has shed new light on the unprecedented problems facing young men today. in addition to the research and al qaeda the government has to contend with the symbol war in the north and increasingly active session mixed movements in the south. the deepening economic crisis, dwindling water supply which is linked directly to much of the violence in the country, addiction to a wide spread of narcotics even more widespread

corruption and the weak central government. as chris noted in his work, yemen as a country close to the brink of failure and if it were to fail, the ripples from that would certainly spread widely in the region. given the spectrum of the questions we are eager to hear answers to today are with the u.s. can do to help stabilize yemen, how was the counter terrorism policy adapting to this threat and how can the united states work with other nations to ensure yemen and the region's security? i think there probably is no better person to address all of these questions than our speaker today, and so i hope he will join me in welcoming him, john brennan. thanks. [applause]

>> thank you very much, jessica, for the kind introduction as well as your leadership not only here at carnegie but your years of public service in your ridings which have helped with policy makers and the american people better understand and address the challenges facing the nation. i'd like to thank everyone here at carnegie as well for being here today and for sustaining this institution as a force for global peace and security for 100 years and congratulations on your centennial. >> thank you. >> the mission statement on your web site says that carnegie is dedicated to advancing cooperation between nations and promoting active international engagement by the united states. these two words, cooperation and engagement, capture the essence of what i want to talk about today and that is why the carnegie endowment for international peace is such a fitting venue for my remarks. and let me say that it's

wonderful to see so many people here, diplomatics of a society leaders, public servants, academics who have dedicated their professional lives to the study of yemen, and i especially want to acknowledge u.s. ambassador's david newton, stephens - for being here today and for your service and support of our nation's policy objectives in that part of the world. i very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss the country and people that i have come to know and admire for over 30 years. when i first joined the government in 19801 of my first assignments was an analyst on yemen. and when was posted to saudi arabia in the early 1980's i traveled several times to the yemenis border, cantelon and with the tribes in the region and saw firsthand the beauty of the land known in ancient times as a arabia felix, were happy every beah because the rich landscape, the plentiful spices

and the enterprising and beautiful people found here. i've had a great pleasure to return to yemen four times since joining the administration 23 months ago. with each visit to find something new and fascinating about the country. the dramatic typography, the beautiful architecture, the hand crafted silver and back streets that appear unaffected by the passing centuries. and in each of the last four visits i have had the opportunity to meet with president ali abdullah saleh. in each meetings we've had directed serious negotiations about the partnership between yemen and the united states. if i came away from each of these visits from yemen with better insights on the concerns and aspirations of not only presidents ali abdullah saleh but also the yemenis people, and more about that in a few minutes. in short, i have had the pleasure of coming to see yemen not merely how many westerners including americans sometimes precede it, but for what it

truly is, a rich culture, beautiful country, and a proud and resilient people. i have also come to understand something all of you know. yemen matters. yemen matters to the will not simply because of threats emanating from within its borders today as we saw again during this week's attack on our embassy personnel which we strongly condemn. yemen and matters because its underlying strategic significance. with a strategic location at the junction of the two of the world's most important waterways, the red sea and the gulf aid in yemen served as a commercial transportation hub for centuries connecting mediterranean, african and arab ports. this location of course has made yemen the target of the foreign intervention that has left an indelible mark on the country. yet its location has also allowed in yemen to enjoy periods of wealth and prosperity, cultural development

and though industry. during medieval times yemen became a commercial center for spice and textiles and as recently as this month in the midst of so much challenge yemen hosted the soccer tournament for the first time ever with thousands of soccer fans flocking to aid in and that successful and peaceful international event was a tribute to the yemeni determination to hold the tournament despite the challenges as allows the threats. likewise is impossible to understand yemen's current situation without a historical context. those of you in this room need no lesson in yemen's complex history for me but i do want to spend a few minutes on the past because it informs how president obama and those in the administration seek yemen today. traditionally, yemen has not been united into one nation to cover slash various tribal and external actors. in the 19th century, yemen had the carter part of the british

empire's which resulted in the north coming on to the control of the ottomans and the south becoming part of the british sphere of influence. essentially, the ottomans and the british lost control and the south fell under the influence of the communists supported by the soviet union and wasn't until 1990 under president ali abdullah saleh that yemen was united. this is the history that feeds into the current tension but in the yemenis government and domestic opponents. some in the southern part of the countryside and in the equitable distribution of resources and political power as the reasons behind increased tensions with the yemenis government. the government has engaged in these issues with political activists including those calling for secession. this engagement can help maintain stability and foster a political environment and institutions that address the longstanding grievances. the dialogue between the government and the southerners must continue.

the hope is in the order of the country present another challenge, one that at times has resulted in open a lot of conflict with those of the yemeni and saudi government. based on the government, the oppositionists are followers of the family to claim elite status among the 80 muslims who say the profits of muhammed. they cite similar concerns of opposition and the south and secret construction of war images, economic assistance in stable access to essential services as well as the listing of religious and educational restrictions. the have developed a robust and cohesive military arsenal and the yemenis forces clashed again last year for the sixth round of fighting since 2004. even more daunting is the scope of the yemen's socio-economic charges. it remains one of the poorest countries in the world with perhaps 40% unemployment and per capita income under $1,000 a year.

yemen was severely affected by the recent flood crisis and about one-third are considered undernourished, one of the highest rates in the region. basic services are woefully lacking with just 40% of people having access to electricity and much of the population living in relative isolation. and the pressure on yemen will only continue to grow if more than half the population under the age of 20 and with its population of 23 million projected to double well before the year 2040. in addition, yemen is one of the most scarce countries in the world and is drawing water faster than it can be replenished. creating enormous challenges for public health and agriculture. many farmers have turned to cultivation to which so many are now one fortunately addicted. the cultivation also requires a large amount of water to grow making for a vicious cycle with much of the available water being used to grow the age limit

of other crops is stifled even more. atop all this, but the economy which isn't sufficiently diversified continues to deteriorate. much of the economy into the lion's share of the government revenue and public expenditure is based on oil revenue. but oil revenues are expected to drop due to a variety of factors including natural field decline and the reluctance of international oil companies to work in yemen. the companies cite poor political security environments and opaque business environments as reasons they don't do business in yemen. without the company's working alongside them they are losing key investments and technical expertise. with the decrease in oil revenue the dee-tal-ya reading fiscal situation yen and reached out to the imf persistence to help stabilize the situation. so let me say this. even if there were no threats to our security emanating from

yemen the circumstances i have described would be more than worthy of american attention, yemen matters. the people of yemen matters and president obama has made clear connection to the yemenis who are struggling to make ends meet and to live in freedom and dignity. all of these challenges have made not only young men who write for internal stability the have made the country and attractive recruiting training ground for al qaeda. the arabian peninsula is the most operationally inductive note of the al qaeda network. so who are these terrorists? al qaeda of course has had a presence in yemen and saudi arabia for over a decade. for its part, al qaeda and the arabian peninsula is a hybrid of of protests with close ties to osama bin laden and al qaeda leadership in south asia as well as elements for al qaeda hoeven priest bin ladens's mandate to attack the united states and the

west to read it was operatives in yemen who attacked the uss cole and the oil tanker in 2002. some of the individuals responsible for the attack on the uss cole diskette to prison as part of a larger prison break in 2006 and would go on to form the leadership of the al qaeda arabian peninsula franchise. in saudi arabia the al qaeda affiliate conducted a series of attacks beginning in 2003 over the next two years killed 13 americans including an attack on the consulate in 2004. the campaign against the group waged by the saudi government has been largely successful capturing and killing most of the group's leadership in saudi arabia by 2007. however, the remnants of that network fled the kingdom. many of them going to yemen where they join their yemenis counterparts to form al qaeda and arabian peninsula in 2009. more recently the ranks of al

qaeda have been bolstered by members with ties to the west or american citizenship such as anwar al-awlaki. indy 500 al qaeda is seeking to attract not just westerners are americans overseas but americans inside the united states. this increasingly active outreach is in line with dhaka does leadership vision, the vision against the united states and its allies. as a result, al qaeda today poses a serious threat to yemen, saudi arabia and the united states. al qaeda conducted a wave of attacks against the security forces attacked our embassy in september, 2008 and attended a small rocket attack against the british investors vehicle earlier this week. it also attempted to sit back saudi counterterrorism success with a suicide attack against the prince in 2000 mind which thankfully failed. and of course, al qaeda has been responsible for the attempted attacks against the u.s.

homeland over the past year. the attempt by umar farouk abdulmutallab to bring down a flight on christmas day last year and more recently, attempting to send air cargo packages containing explosives to the united states. the group leadership really seeks to apply lessons learned from past attacks including those of other groups and their definition of success stoneking if you're even if their attacks fail portend such attempt. this is a challenge the united states and partners face today from al qaeda folks who've put down roots in the arabian peninsula. no nation could evidence the challenges alone and yemen is no different. it needs partners, it needs assistance, and it needs to know the international community will not stand by and watch yemen fall victim to al qaeda's murderous agenda and that is why

the obama administration has developed a comprehensive approach to support yemen in its time of need. in this sense, the policy reflects the president's understanding of the challenges before us in our work to protect the american people and our partners to read on the one hand there is the near-term challenge of destroying al qaeda and its extremist affiliate's read and let me assure everyone in this room we will destroy al qaeda. there is a larger and longer-term challenges confronting the political economic and social forces that can sometimes drive individuals down the path towards militancy. this involves offering an alternative that affords people the political space, economic opportunity and social inclusion that make countries like yemen less vulnerable to the terrorist networks. in other words, we aim to forge partnerships that offer people a future of hope and dignity. in fact president obama has been

in assistant to those of us on his team that our partnership with yemen not be defined solely by common threats but rather by the vision of a brighter future that the yemenis people want and deserve. so in yemen and elsewhere we are pursuing a comprehensive approach that addresses both near and long term challenges and we are doing so by harnessing every tool of american power, military and civilian, economic and diplomatic as well as the power of values. the obama administration has been working closely with our yemenis partners to address the drivers of instability in yemen before the al qaeda and arabian peninsula attempted the attack last christmas. over the past few years we strengthen our relationship and have dramatically expanded efforts to help improve the political situation and socio-economic outlook. we have increased u.s. assistance from $22 million in 2008 to about 300 million in

2010. the role of our civilian agencies is steadily increasing and our bilateral nonmilitary assistance accounts for nearly half of the assistance provided to yemen in 2010 with a total reaching approximately 130 million in the long security assistance. our efforts in yemen involve a wide range of u.s. government agencies. the department of state and defense and usaid have been working in yemen for years and are now working alongside counterparts from agencies including commerce, treasury, homeland security, health and human services, justice and agriculture. on the economic front, the treasury and state department supported yemen negotiations for the programs signed this summer which provided much-needed fiscal relief for the government and the people. i was pleased to learn about the approval earlier this week of the world bank grant to support the yemenis growth and social

protection. we also look forward to seeing the next version of yemen's to from a plan for poverty reduction. in another important step the united states and yemen have concluded bilateral negotiations is a part of the efforts to the world trade organization. temmins's progress to add up to international standards is an important step towards integration of global markets and improving the economic fortunes of the yemeni people. to increase the opportunity for the next generation we continue to expand the educational exchange programs. department of state programs provide world-class educational and training opportunities for over 100 yemenis students each year from high school students to cabinet level government officials. these are the people who will help determine the future of their nation and the united states is committed to lending a helping hand to the next generation of leaders. our comprehensive strategy in

yemen puts a premium on reform that increases stability, capacity, accountability and inclusiveness of the government in both the short as well as the long term. we are working with yemenis and international partners to help build the necessary components of the functioning space system to the this includes promoting reconciliation, increased government transferred to come improved delivery of essential services, support for freedom of the press, the growth of the vibrant civil society, strengthened will fall and free and open elections. it is no secret that yemen faces profound challenges in many of these areas, and none of them can be ignored. yet it is also undeniable that governments and will fall are the bedrock of development and to the limit is a foundation for stability. just last week my staff had the opportunity to meet with 23 dedicated representatives from

yemen's anti-corruption body to discuss opportunities for training our financial investigations and law. we continue to stress the importance of the national dialogue which is the mechanism used in yemen to reach political consensus on a range of problems including election modalities, the conflict in southern unrest. at the same time, we are working closely with international partners to leverage the expertise, resources and assistance that nations in the region and around the world can offer yemen. for the simple, the trends of yemen forum including saudi arabia, united arab emirates, united states and united kingdom regarding valuable assistance has yemen pursues political economic and social reform. a working group chaired by the uav is holding on the economic development and governments front. another working group chaired by jordan focuses on improving justice, security and the rule of law. we are looking forward to

participating in the friends of yemen saudi arabia next year and we will continue to work with the government's and people of yemen and our international partners on coordinating and streamlining dillinger assistance coming forward. this is a long-term challenge and while the results might not be immediate than absolutely critical. since the very first days of this at the station we have also focused substantial time and attention on the terrorism threats emanating from yemen and on developing the appropriate responses to that threat. we are helping to train and develop the yemenis counterterrorism forces and those efforts will continue. the result of yemenis security forces is grown over the past year as al qaeda began specifically targeting the many security officials and many brave yemenis have given their lives in defense of their country and the felicitous cents. we will continue to work with the yemenis forces with the intention of building their

capacity which would allow us over time to rant on security aid and assistance as the forces develop greater proficiency. we are helping them and build its counterterrorism capacity for a very specific purpose so that began with our assistance can go on the offensive against al qaeda. going on the offensive against al qaeda means exactly that, using all the tools available to identify, locate, captured, and when necessary, kill those who are dedicated to murdering innocent men, women and children. and in my many discussions with the president ali abdullah saleh weather in person or on the phone five conveyed president obama's personal commitment the united states will do whatever it can to help the people of yemen for their country of the terrible cancer of al qaeda. in addition to near-term capacity building efforts, we are currently engaged with the yemenis officials to build the reintegration program to complement their increasingly

aggressive arrest campaign against al qaeda. they agree on the need to better facilitate the integration of the former terrorists back into society to a combination of job training, post-religious monitoring, psychological evaluations as well as religious instruction. we are currently working with our international partners through the friends of yemen construct and other bilateral discussions to determine the best way to leverage each of the strengths to address the need for this type of long-term program in yen. achieving our shared goal of distracting and dismantling the al qaeda network in yemen will require patience. we need to draw on not just our cooperation with yemen and other partner nations against al qaeda but also refine and develop intelligence solutions zips, security screening process season and the yemenis counterterrorism forces to address effectively the threat posed by al qaeda. the it to the attack from the al

qaeda operatives' over the past year also underscore the importance of a multilayer defense of our homeland and the need to constantly strengthening each layer. in the wake of the atom that attack west christmas we implemented new screening measures and intelligence forms to read over the past year that a part of homeland security has worked with the international civil aviation organization to reach a historic agreement on improving international aviation security and putting new standards for screening air cargo and concurrently deploy transportation center for the administration experts to yemen to treat over 300 yemenis aviation personnel on security screening procedures and to play screening a comment to address the gaps in the process in yemen. the department is also working closely with fun yemenis government to determine a way for word that includes improved security measures that will allow lifting of the air cargo ban now in place against items coming from yemen. the attempt by terrorists to

ship the devices as air cargo also demonstrates the crucial role intelligence relationships with our partners play in disrupting terrorist attacks. in this case they provided the actionable information that enabled the british and elbaradei friends and industry partners to intercept the package and disable the devices. i also want to note that we achieve our culture was an object is not only by disrupting operations and protecting the homeland but also by depriving them of recruiters of the symbols the views to help radicalize and indoctrinate their foot soldiers. as president obama has said, one such symbol is the u.s. detention facility at guantanamo bay. secure gates, admiral mike mahlon and general petraeus have spoken publicly about the lasting effect of guantanamo as a recruiting symbol for terrorists and that concludes al qaeda and ann and that is why the united states continues to work to build a gym in capacity as a vital partner in the

administration's ongoing efforts to close guantanamo. a significant proportion of the detainees still incarcerated in guantanamo are yemenis nationals. as the president said we will not release or transfer detainee's we consider the continuing threat under any circumstances so we are working diligently with the government to build their capacity to properly monitor, prosecute and incarcerate individuals as required to protect both our nations. what we take a moment at this point to say a few words about the candor of the discourse that is taking place between the yemenis and american governments. as with all bilateral relationships, relationships between washington is at times marked by differences of view, attention and even strong frustration by each side. we, the united states, frequently pushed them to move further and faster along the path of economic and political

reform to reach a peaceful accommodation and southern oppositionists and to be more aggressive in the actions they take against al qaeda. for their part they complain to us our security and to the moment assistance hard to slow by the bureaucratic requirements and complications. that we expect economic and political reform overnight without understanding the implications of such reforms on the society and stability and that we are more interested in fighting al qaeda than helping the people. i consider this to be a healthy tension and the president and i have had little will called many animated conversations as we have today to and argued over major substantive issues, but that is the hallmark of true friendship, not telling the other what they want to hear, but telling the other with the need to hear, and that is why i called president salah the day

before the wikileaks leaks to the press. i explained to the president saleh we regret to the public release of the correspondence that resulted from despicable criminal activities. i told president saleh it was unfortunate these releases would be taking place and that i hope they wouldn't cause problems for him, the yemeni government or the yemeni people. i told president saleh that president obama appreciated his understanding of an unfortunate and regrettable development and that the united states is now even more determined to pursue even stronger ties to yemen in the future. so this is a comprehensive strategy we are pursuing with our yemenis partners not simply to destroy the terrorists to defile the yemeni ground they will come but help him and address the political and economic and social forces that contribute to violence and terrorism and deprive the people of young men of a future of security and prosperity.

our approach toward yemen is emblematic of our overall approach to counterterrorism. as i said previously, our strategy must be nested within and consistent with our broad foreign policy national security strategy. that is true whether we are talking about afghanistan and the fata, so wally and horn of africa, the region of africa or the arabian peninsula. in the yemen as in the other critically important regions we are drawing on all of our resources and capabilities to counter and disrupted the immediate threat and protect the american people from attack. at the same time, however, also working to create lasting security, stability and prosperity in yemen so that al qaeda and other extremists cannot find safe haven. if we fail to do our part to address the underlying economic political and security challenges in countries such as yemen will find ourselves fighting against the al qaeda threat for years and years to

come. a counterterrorism strategy that focuses on the immediate threat to the exclusion of the more comprehensive political economic and development oriented approach is not only short-sighted, but also doomed to fail. in closing, i would simply reiterate our counterterrorism efforts in yemen are part of our larger comprehensive approach to protecting the american people. yesterday the president provided the american people with an update with regard to our efforts in afghanistan and pakistan. as the president said, the goal remains the same, to disrupt, dismantle and the ft al qaeda and prevent its capacity to threaten the american people and our allies in the future. we are making significant progress toward that goal and the tribal region but in afghanistan and pakistan the core of al qaeda is under more pressure than any point since it fled afghanistan nine years ago. senior leaders have been killed. it's hard for them to recruit,

travel, treen, plot, to launch attacks. in short, al qaeda is hunkered down. as the president said it will take time to ultimately defeated al qaeda and it remains a ruthless and resilient enemy bent on attacking our country but we are going to remain relentless and disrupting and dismantling that terrorist organization, and i can envision the demise of dhaka the senior leadership and a cadre in the coming years. and around the world, where a for al qaeda and its affiliate's try to take root, we are going to continue using every tool at our disposal to protect the american people and build the capacity of partners to protect their people and that includes the and true to the ideals and values that make us americans and make our nation great. because as the president said, whereas terrorists offer nothing but a vision of death and destruction, the united states is going to continue to offer people around the world a vision of hope, progress and justice.

thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for a note to to -- nalubaale cui your statement i think all of us learned. mr. brennan is going to take some questions. let me ask you to be brief and identify yourself just as a courtesy to him. we will start with the gentleman right here. wait for the microphone if he would. >> thank you very much. mark from the middle east policy council. mr. brennan, i would like to applaud you very much on your statement of a strategy that goes beyond simply counterterrorism but also talks about development. my question is is it enough? the figures he mentioned are small compared to the kind of

things we are spending elsewhere, and i couldn't envision spending even ten times as much as the figures you mentioned would make the task challenging. if it's worth doing do we devote more resources to yemen? thank you. >> absolutely. i agree that there are quite a number of challenges in jam and that require a tremendous amount of resources. that is one of the reasons we put together the ann contract so we can be working in concert with our partners overseas that it be the gulf arab states, europeans and others to ensure we have a comprehensive program that goes beyond bilateral relations between individual countries and yemen but also the question about the capacity of hegemony and making sure the investment in yemen is the man to be something that is coming to address some of the longstanding and structural problems in the country. obviously yemen gets a lot of budgetary relief and support from other countries so that

they can't continue to make payroll and other types of things. and we are not talking about drawing to move all of the bilateral assistance into the friends of human constructs. however, he wanted to make sure we identified infrastructure projects, those types of economic and development projects that are going to be a part of the future of young men so that the investment is done wisely not just as a temporary power that is going to address requirements or requests and i think for too long it has been more tactical and strategic, more short-term than long term but this is going to take some time and that is what we tried to explain to not just the yemenis partners but others as well a long-term approach. >> with your permission i will take three at the time. estimate that would be fine. >> let's take this group and then i will move to the back. >> good morning, john.

bald dreyfus from the nation and rolling stone. i remember a conversation we had a number of years ago where you set of military is the wrong instrument to fight terrorism with a and among the incentives for recording terrorism, many people argue that the drone of tax and the night raids by forces in southern afghanistan and so forth are actually like the guantanamo recruiting posters for al qaeda, can you address that point and are we, as rumsfeld said creating more tourists than we are killing? and i want to ask sorters and the parallel sense, you said al qaeda is concord down. can you see something about the relationship between al qaeda and taliban? many people think we could make a deal with katella and if they would renounce al qaeda under

certain circumstances. >> john, to achieve a comprehensive plan that you have outlined, don't you think we need a special envoy like the late richard holbrooke number one. number two, have we talked to our friends about allowing the yemenis to work in these countries? i mean, -- >> right behind you, please. >> from the world organization for research, to the net and a jacuzzi. i want to thank you for the informative presentation. my question is there's a comprehensive strategy that sounds similar to what we already have been several places like pakistan for the sample. on one front we are supporting pakistan military counter insurgency efforts while at the same time providing humanitarian to let assistance. however despite our best efforts, pakistan situation has to mast to leave to drastically worsened so are there lessons we can apply from their two young

men? >> -- yemen. >> treat people? i don't think i said the military is the instrument. i said it would be inappropriate to think of military as the only instrument and that is what we are trying to do is make sure there is balance against the other key devotees the government house, kinetic, not kinetic, to the moment, what ever. are we creating more tourists than we are removing from the battlefield? i mean that is sort of the key question. we have made sycophant progress in fata in partnership with pakistan a partners so we feel as though al qaeda core has taken on the chin and that they are focusing more on trying to ensure their own security than carrying out attacks. that doesn't mean they are not lethal but have the capability we have to be careful about to i think we have been able to make

progress and i think it is a combination of addressing the near-term threats and identify and that terrorist operatives who plan to carry out attacks and find them if we can capture them or if need be to remove them from the battlefield we will do that but it has to be balanced against the effort we are working with our partners and as far as al qaeda and the taliban, they have had a long history. i think the next chapter of the relationship between them is to be played out as we see the next phases of the situation in afghanistan. taliban and others know clearly what our position is that we will not tolerate what so ever in the relationship of any entity organization or country with al qaeda but we continue to prosecute our effort in afghanistan and as the report yesterday said we have arrested the momentum of taliban.

as far as the comprehensive plan on yemen and special envoy, i think some people can't believe i'm a special envoy since i go out there so often but also, what president obama wanted to do early on is to signal to yemen and president saleh and other governments the white house has a vested interest in their future that it is critically important that we move now to arrest some of the trend is to include the growth of al qaeda and deterioration of some of those economic features of the country, so i deal a lot not just with our partners but also other countries about and then so at some point those turney to be a special envoy as steve to the great job out there and the investor out there now they are the front and center on voice every day pushing for the foreign policy and objectives.

comprehensive strategies we have in places like pakistan, yes we have learned a lot from that. in many respects what we are trying to do in countries like pakistan and yemen and others where there's a serious terrorist problem and problem of militancy, we are trying to ensure our counterterrorism strategy is nested within this broad more comprehensive framework but in all of these cases i think time really is required in order to change the situations that have been the product of many years in the making so we are trying to and absorbed the lessons and apply them as we move forward. >> okay. let's turn to the fact. okay. go right ahead. >> carolyn with a voice of america's tv. a question about wikileaks. some analysts are saying because of the tables released both on the whiskey and air strikes that this will just strengthen al qaeda's recruitment efforts in

yemen. you have proof of that and how is the administration following that? >> okay, who else -- there is another lady right there. >> thank you. [inaudible] i wanted just to clarify some of the points you made about guantanamo. are you saying the possibility would be to strengthen the yen and's capabilities to try those being held at guantanamo of yemeni origin and if you could clarify a bit on that. thank you. >> and the gentleman right here. >> thanks. , with human rights watch. two quick questions. first, can you say with confidence today that no u.s. assistance is being diverted by yemen for the fight against the southern secessionists? second come on guantanamo what would you say sitting the

politics aside and congressional restrictions aside would you say from a strictly counterterrorism points of view hurts us more right now? what would hurt more? an effort to begin repatriating the young men in detainee's the the sort of rehabilitation program with the knowledge that it wouldn't be perfect and that a handful of people probably would be seen going back to the fight or maintaining guantanamo indefinitely as a camp for mostly young men who detainee's and retaining it as a symbol you and the president -- >> okay. for stryker wikileaks i am not going to address any specifics that might have been in the press about the contents of the reported cables. al qaeda and other terrorists will use whenever they can to try to recruit individuals and

additional of insurance to their twisted ideology. so they might point a certain demint of things that come out in the public and press, but as i said, they are going to seize upon what it for they can. they are a bunch of murderous thugs, they are individuals that are just determined to destroy and kill, and i think more and more individuals in yemen as well as other parts of the world are seeing that al qaeda's suppose it sort of religious banner is a facade for this murderous agenda. on guantanamo, in terms of trying individuals they did include the prosecution because as we've repatriated the detainee's to the various countries, those countries may also have reason to prosecute individuals for whatever types of violations of their mall they might want to consider that has happened in a number of cases. we are not saying they need to

be tried during this administration we repatriated eight guantanamo detainees, two of them yemen and and this administration has come. there were many more that were released in the previous out ministration the this is something we are continuing to look at and to work on which is related to the last question about a first of the issue related to u.s. assistance. we have put in place i think some mechanisms that we have made part of our program insistence this not be used to refer to it, this is something that was worked on very diligently with the yemenis to ensure our support would be used for counterterrorism. security assistance to them whether it be for counterterrorism, sometimes and i piracy, maritime security and that it would not be used for

use against domestic opposition. .. >> this is why we have a dialogue and we've had a dialogue just these week with the yemenese about the measures put in place for the individuals. and to date, the individuals that have been repateuated to yemen, no indication that they

have returned in any way to terrorists activities. >> gentleman here. >> larry from cnn. mr. brennan, you mention a couple of times the christmas bombing attempt last year. and then earlier this christmas season, there was the attempting bombing of the portland christmas tree lighting ceremony. can you give us any specifics about your concerns about a possible terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack during this christmas season? >> okay. a couple of other hands right here. right back. go ahead. >> lieutenant commander, senator mccain fellow. we see the navy in 5th fleets roll in an already stressful region? there there -- >> and there was a gentleman right here. >> ken from "the new york

times." >> does the government know where anwar al-awlaki is? >> related to christmas threats. i was starting to make dinner when i got a call from the white house situation room with somebody landing on detroit with a bit of an issue. one the things that we always do within the counterterrorism and intelligence community is be vigilant during the holiday season because of the increased travel that is taking place both within countries as well as transnationally. and, you know, i think what we feel that we need to do in light of concerns about possible threats in europe and other places, we always have to stay on our guard. that's one of the things about the counterterrorism is 24/7. the holiday season is a continuation.

if anyone, we step it up during that time because of the heightened volume of travel. but at this point, i'm feeling good that we have the appropriate resources in place. but as i said before, al qaeda is determined to carry out attacks. also, you pointed out the portland attempt. that was not something that was associated with al qaeda, per se. it may have been inspired by it. but we are also looking at those smaller-scale, low-level types of terrorists attacks that are sometimes more difficult to detect than some of those more strategic ones. in terms of the navy and 5th fleets role? clearly the terrorists challenge presents many different sort of requirements. and so when i said we're using all instruments of american power, and as i mentioned to bobby before, the military

mentioned one of the most important arrows in the quiver. ensuring that part of the world is not going to be used by terrorists. so the 5th fleet in the golf region and other areas where the u.s. military is present. it's something that we continue to take into consideration as we think about how we're going to help our partner countries do the capacity building and as necessary, you know, leverage those capabilities at a time when we believe it is necessary. on the issue of anwar al-awlaki. one the rumors about yemen and the people that have been there, most people in the room have, i was on the flight deck of the plane that was going in 45 minutes or so before we landed in sanaa. the topography of the country is

really, really breathtaking. one the things that really strikes one is just how desolate a number of the areas are of yemen. people know that the central government if yemen, you know, has had sort of tenuous control or oversight over many parts of the country and that the tribes that are out there really are the ones that rule those areas. you know, the location of any one individual, at any one time is maybe known by others. what we are trying to do is make sure the individuals that we are interested in finding and detaining that we are working very closely with our yemeni partners as well as with others who might have knowledge about that. so i'm hoping that if people know where a certain individuals are, they are going to come forward and assist the yemeni government in tracking down these individuals that are trying to kill innocent people. >> gentleman right here. and we'll go to here.

then there. yes? >> this has got to be the last round. make them good. >> joseph from freedom house. you mentioned in your private consideration with president sal -- saleh, you mentioned the political reform. we can't expect that over night. how could you characterize the pace of political reform in yemen? what can you point to specifically that they can do? what should they be doing right now? >> thanks. right here. >> mike with fox news. two questions, first you mentioned with regards to wikileaks, criminal activity. i was wondering if you would include julian assange in that. also in terms of aqap, groups like that in yemen. how might they use internet and

cyberattacks to further their cause? >> thank you. gentleman right here. >> thank you. [inaudible] independent journalist and originally from yemen. two days ago, a yemeni journalist in sanaa who is a correspondent of the "daily" met with one of the u.s. called bomber. they interviewed him, took photos in the tribal area in the -- providence. do you think the journalist can meet and the yemeni government cannot find him? and if al qaeda bring him president saleh $300 million a year, why should he go after him? this is common sense that we as yemenese american ask myself. thanks. >> as far as what is happening on political reform and civil liberties front, i think, you

know, there are -- political reform takes many different dimensions and steps. the fact that the yemeni government engaged directly with some of the southern oppositionist is a good stretch. but it needs to be followed up. there needs to be a lot more done along those lines. it is something that we continue to emphasize in our discussions with them on a regular basis. i know the embassy does that. the political system in yemen is one that has evolved over the years. one of the things that as i said our staff had met with some of the individuals involved in sort of anti-corruption and rule of law and governance. and there needs to be continued engagement with that. that's where i think our assistance is going to be particularly important. but the political reform front has to go hand in hand. what we want food is make sure that we are able to push it as

quickly -- as far as we can, but also recognizes within the yemeni system. we want to make sure we are able to do things without destabilizing the country. that should not also be an excuse for yemen not to move forward on the economic reform front. i think in the past it has. as far as my reference to despicable criminal activity. any declassification that finds it way out of the appropriate channels is something that is done in a very -- unauthorized way. and that violates that u.s. law. and individuals who are responsible for that are subject to prosecution, criminal charges. the wikileaks investigation is ongoing. i'm going to comment on any individual's potential involvement in that. i want to say in the first instance, the unauthorized

disclosure of declassified information is criminal violation. as far as aqap and cyber activity and cyberattacks, a number of the terrorists organizations, including al qaeda and aqap have shown in a deafness and skill in using the internet for various propaganda purposes, other purposes, and that's one the things that we are being vigilant about. about how they are using -- how they might use different mechanisms to not just communicate or propagandize, but also to create problems and cause harm. so it's something that we are watching carefully. as far as the question of the reported interview, yes, i saw the reports about this interview that was conducted. i don't have any additional information on it. there clearly are individuals

within yemen who are able to have access to terrorists and to al qaeda types. they find their way to them. and i would just hope that more and more yemenese of whatever stripe are going to see the al qaeda as opposition to yemenese interest. they should not be facilitating al qaeda's ability to get it's message out and recruit and market itself. i do think the yemeni government is looking to the yemeni people to provide them the support, provide them the assistance, to provide them the information about where these -- these terrorists are hiding. and that's what they are doing. they are hiding within the population. so that they protect themselves. and i always find it disturbing that these individuals who had

this profile send others to their death. they don't send themselves to their death. they send others. these poor, young, unfortunate individuals who are given suicide packs or other things while these individuals, you know, the ilk of awlaki hides in caves and places of yemen because they are trying to protect themselves and put others at harm. it's just a matter of time before we and the yemenese are able to find them, uproot them, and to bring them to justice. certainly, i am determined to do that. i have found a resolve in yemen. that's why i continue to go back there. talking with president saleh, as i said, a number of yemenese have given their lives to try to protect their fellow citizens. and i think more and more yemenese are going to rally to the cause against al qaeda and see it for the cancer it is. thank you. >> i think -- i want to

apologize to the many people i couldn't call on. judging from the number of hands, we could spend the better part of an afternoon together. i think it's a testament to mr. brennan's talk and his answers to the question the amount of questions out there. you've been incredibly candid and knowledgeable, frank, and generous with your knowledge and for that i hope all of you will join me in thanking you very much for this. [applause] [applause]an.

this is an hour and a half. >> welcome to this even gone

sudan. it's an important point in sudanese history. i am david smock, senior vice president here. my most important role is to ask you to turn off yourself phones. please do so. as you all know, and did that is the reason you are here today, the referendum in southern sudan and referendum are scheduled for january 9th. but many issues remain to be resolved. registration in southern sudan has been delayed, and this raises the question of whether the january 9th date can be met. no progress has been made on the referendum in of also holding the referendum there is even more question. once the referendum in this office concluded, questions may

arise of the credibility of the referendum. assuming the referendum is concluded successfully and the results accepted, and the secession is the outcome of the vote then many other issues remain to be resolved to insure a peaceful transition including the question of citizenship, assets, sharing oil revenues, border delineation and so on and what to do about abiya as a contested issue. the workshop today will be addressing these issues and with the help of these distinguished speakers, they will help us think through what might be to happen in the next few months in sudan, in southern sudan and

abiya to read our first speaker will be from the embassy of sudan, ambassador fatahelraham ali mohamed with the rank of the ambassador. prior to serving here on washington he was the executive director of the sudan national assembly speaker's office from 2004 to 2006. from 1999 to 2004 he was in the embassy incident and prior to that he held other positions in the sudan foreign service. >> good morning. thank you, mr. smock, for giving me this opportunity to share in this forum.

as you know, the referendum is a product of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. the historical achievement that brought the end to 50 years of war which began before sudan gained its independence. it is the fruit of joint effort in the long course of their negotiations that stand great lengths of time. the government and splm with the support of the international community and represented by the community were able to come together and produce the steel

document that called for implementation of time sensitive benchmarks. they represent the stage of this implementation process that began january 9th, 2005. it must be understood that the primary objective of the comprehensive peace agreement is to secure lasting peace. it is within this context the upcoming agenda people's consultation and the last election must be here. therefore, the issue is not necessary about occupation. rather the vision of building a

solid piece which the logical outcome of the execution. there have been challenges in preparing for the referendum as we have all witnessed. however, after some delay in southern sudan, the commission was eventually formed and it has been able to do a tremendous job so far. we are currently at this stage of where southerners are registering through sudan and the diaspora including those in the united states. we should be encouraged by the fact that despite logistical, financial and all difficulties that are in this process we have

somehow been able to overcome. there have been complaints already that just ended. it's important that the forces leading up to the referendum is currently carried out credibly because only free, fair and transparent process could deliver a real outcome. and really the biggest challenge is in a political process such as always a bitter political the atmosphere. regrettably, some political figure has been creating this year the environment.

this attitude essentially put emphasis and highlight the reason for the corporation. instead, review and try harder to create conducive atmosphere for the negotiations. the negotiations led by a joint political committees headed by the vice president of the southern sudan government deployed a great effort and solving the afghanistan reissues. these efforts are supported by the african unions such as who continues to work to resolve many issues facing the process.

the united states have been able to create significant role in assuring the process move forward. the united nations and arab league play a significant role in supporting the process as well. abyei has been so far the most contentious and challenging issue. the commission for the area has yet to be formed. it was just over a month before the work could take place. the two parties have been negotiating for some time and yet very slowly making progress.

the biggest point of difference is the question is of who should be allowed in the referendum. and despite the provision regarding this and the situation effort, the two parties have yet reached agreement. the government position is to give the people living in abyei and others the right to vote. border demarcation is also another sensitive issue. so far, 80% of the border has been defined. it is important, however, to finalize the process because it would help maintain and if the decision happened to be the choice of the sudanese.

without clear orders, clashes between the northern and southern forces might be unavoidable. the referendum issues, these include citizenship porth sharing and national debt. we have an ongoing meeting on these issues. they could be challenging but through the negotiation and the good corporation, they are solvable. a peaceful environment would help of facilitating these negotiations. finally, the leadership of the two parties have expressed on numerous occasions that the determination must be to all and

to accept the outcome of the referendum. the action has so far been consistent with this promise. yet, many activists and journalists continue to be off war. this is absolutely counterproductive and we never held the peace process. the role of the international community and of the u.s. is first and most to help peace flourish but the peace cannot be attained by such means. furthermore, i think it is important to stress that should

the outcome result this cooperation, northern and southern will maintain cordial relations. it is important to remind ourselves that even during the war, the sudanese move across the country in search of job security and have been able to establish with the communities. these ties cannot be easily detached and would remain beyond separation. therefore, the efforts should be focused towards clearing any potential obstacle that spoils the project peacebuilding. it must seek to resolve issues that could prevent the

flourishing of peace between communities. thank you. [applause] thank you. the next speaker is ezekiel lol gatkuoth who's head the head of the government of sudan in the u.s. based here in washington. previously from 2002 to 2005, he was deputy representative and coordinator of the chapters in north america and then a in june of 2005, he was appointed as the representative for north america prior to his assuming a position of the head of the mission here in washington.

>> thank you very much, david smock. [inaudible] [laughter] designed for him and the ambassador. [laughter] good morning. before i start my remarks, i would like to recognize those who came from far away, like the ambassador who is here with us. he is visiting. maybe you can stand up and greet people. [applause] we have also a talented musician who came from southern sudan to mobilize in the u.s. [inaudible] we are also here together.

you can stand up and you can see them. [applause] thank you very much for or deny the easing -- organizing, david. i will try to be brief but when you're talking about sudan it is difficult to be brief. sudan is actually the largest country in africa, population of 40 million people. southern sudanese has been struggling for the last more than 40 years. the first war was 1955. the war of independence in did in 1972 with an agreement promising them that they would have a referendum in 1982 after ten years. that agreement did not last.

it was dishonored by the party or person who was then the president of sudan. then we went back to the war again in 1983 and then later to find the objective of the war. in the state of war and independence, he decided to say that it is not only southern sudanese who are marginalized that or other people in the east and west and even in the center. so we were fighting for a transformed sudan. that war lasted for more than 21 years. that's what produced the tpa in 2005. and the cpa was meant to address two issues. one is to transform sudan into a better sudan for all of us, democratic operation. that was the objective number one in the cpa to be objective

number two is for the people of southern sudan to decide their future through sound information. where are they going to be? are they going to be part of the north or they can form their own independent state? leading us to the referendum, the referendum started. we are so happy with the administration. it went so well and it is not only us alone. the u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon formed a team and issued a statement, and i quote, it was transparent, free from organized manipulation. this is what they said and many others are saying the same thing

we have registered over 3 million in the south and outside in khartoum almost close to 300,000 also in diaspora, so if you look at it, we are registered more over 60% registered, those who are eligible to vote are registered over 60%. however, despite the successful registration people are having to make sure the process is discredited, people are filing lawsuits and many ahead of those complaints, but to us i think they are baseless because it isn't for them or for us to judge the process, but other people who are monitoring the

process. but yes, there are general concerns and happen to listen to those. the issue that is the process is now moving forward. even though in the south we have conceded enough. it was transferred and 05 to number sudan together with other counties. in 1918 and 1932 the two countries were transferred back to southern sudan. so in the cpa there was a protocol come antonette pravachol we are preceded us

splm and back to southern sudan there was a referendum so that nine of them were transferred in 1905. they can vote and decide their future if they want to be part of the north for the comeback to the south. those who are deciding that do not mention. they were mentioned to have that passage and grace and access to water. it is very clear now we are not moving forward, but the splm is committed to making sure that we have a breakthrough if that means we are going to pay a ransom we are willing to do that so there are more people that can decide their future freely. and we are also asking the community to continue supporting

bob process headed by the hi implementation panel so that the basis for addressing this and also the arbitration because dan peterson, sorry, don was the one having the commission and was supposed to define the border of our being and was submitted to the presidency and we were supposed to move and those who were stated it has to be binding on the two parties. then we went to the hague and the mandate was basically saying the systems who were transferred

in 1905, the one to be identified in the than the arbitration made it clear and we know the residents in that area, but we are calling for the community health so that we can have a breakthrough. and this is leading me to the issue of the citizenship. the referendum issues are many. it is involving the security arrangement, citizenship, treaties, legal issues and financial economic resource issues. these are the issues we are addressing now with the north. so far, we've managed to have an agreement in principle but we are going to address the rest of the issues except the issue of citizenship. the issue of citizenship is very clear that there are some people who are threatening southerners who are in the north of that if

you were going to register your most vote for unity, and if you vote otherwise, then your citizenship will be terminated and then you will stay there. our commitment is we will protect the rights of northerners in the south and even before and investors who are investing in the south we will not terminate or mistreat them. we are basically asking the same thing from the north to the same because people might want to decide to stay in the south or north. maybe you are working there and have a good job and would like to stay there, so i think it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who decide to stay there are protected and the benefits are given to them. i know in the southern sudanese they are turning in big numbers

to the south because of this year that they are actually having in the north. people are being threatened and we are worried genocide will be happening after their freedom. but we are happy or partner in the north also to come southerners in the north. we have no capacity to receive the big numbers returning from the north and we are appealing to the community to help us so that those who are returning can get services. we are providing whatever we can as a government, but of course if we are receiving over a million, then definitely you would be receiving a lot and wouldn't be able to manage. in conclusion, southerners are

going to vote, and it is very clear now since we have the registration have done without any problem it is very clear on the night of january southern sudanese are going to go because the hardest part is over. the hardest part is the registration. now the ballots are being printed by the u.k. company and they promise they will deliver them before the 25th december and when they are innocent and then they will distribute them. so on the ninth of january, 2011, we are sure the referendum will be conducted. there is no need for the request for delay because we are finished with the hardest part. it is very clear the southern sudanese are going to vote for

separation for simple reasons. we have failed to transform sudan into a better sudan for all the fuss. if sudan is transformed so all of us are first class citizens. then there is no reason for us to be fighting this country but for the last five years, he is still there and ezekiel is staying in this country and with the status have to be protected there has to be established for me to protect myself as an on muslim in khartoum women are being denied their freedom because its dressed inappropriately to those who are defining how you can dress so doesn't list sudan as is the together the only thing we have to do now is make sure that we are peaceful so that we are committed to this and we will

continue to have relations with the north, and this relation will be the best because now we will rediscovered ourselves that yes we need to honor ourselves because the north need the south and the south meets the north. i will stop here. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, ezekiel. our third speaker is zach vertin with the international crisis group. his first assignment with icg was the u.s. efficacy office in new york starting in august of to the six, and then in september, 2009 he moved to nairobi as the analyst for the horn of africa with special response to these for southern sudan and moved between nairobi and southern sudan with

regularity. >> thanks very much david for putting this together today for my sudanese friends to join us. i've been working about the last year-and-a-half i do travel between khartoum and nairobi. i am something of a nomad without cattle. these guys have clearly said the foundation here. i will just briefly touch on two issues, sort of status of the referendum itself. and also the post referendum arrangements which have been discussed. these two issues are obviously inextricably linked. first, i left sudan about three weeks ago as registration started in must say to the end of october and the beginning of

the registration on the 15th of the timber there was a remarkable surge in preparations and the commission itself deserve credit for pulling the together and confounding what seemed like a probable delay at that stage. now as has been mentioned registration was completed a week ago, preliminary lists are now posted for reviewing the appeals process is underway. no official numbers yet, but as has been mentioned on the order of 4 million on the south, 115,000 the north and roughly 50, 55,000 in overseas voting that continues official numbers that's probably later this weekend aggregation is somewhat difficult given the terrain in the areas and access to the far reaching referendum centers. the training of staff begins today and will go on for the next two weeks regarding the polling process itself. what are the immediate challenge

is at this stage? as ezekiel mentioned, one of the biggest hurdles has been cleared of holding the registration itself. the extended registration of the week titans the time line. weigel vlore originally set out three months between the final voters listed voting in a matter of hours between the final day and the beginning of the voting. no polling procedures as of yet much like the russian process. obviously you for of the accusations of interference and problems with registration that have been leveled. several groups, both of the ncp and a handful of others have launched a handful of complaints with the commission challenging irregularities, problems of the regulation, denial of access to certain groups. so of those have more of a basis to others and some of them are not terribly well founded, but in some sense i see this as being the groundwork.

for those folks including and those people who don't want to see the referendum go forward or would like to protract the process, this isn't some since leaving the ground work. should they decide to pursue that route. so efforts must continue to push ahead with the appeals and polling process and every day we get closer to the sort of referendum treatise on the track and is gathering speed. every day we get closer it becomes harder and harder for those still would like to postpone or deny the process altogether. but i would like to focus more on a the post referendum agenda because i think simultaneously pursuing the get answers on this broad agenda is not only critical for peaceful transition, but may also serve to remove the immediate obstacles of a referendum itself. progress now towards the series of arrangements for both military south could help remove these obstacles and also the impact of the referendum outcome

the talks the region started first through the talks didn't jump start the process. what followed was a series of talks in khartoum weeks ago, and there was a lot of talk about whether or not those talks achieved progress. i think they certainly did and more direct talks than at any other stage before the poster for an agenda but at the same time the bar was pretty low and as the president told the security council and others after those talks the pace remains cause for serious concern. the panel led did reconvene the talks last week and again started again yesterday, but we haven't seen other than some new engagement at the level we have not seen a lot of progress. those talks are center of a framework document prepared by the panel which is about a 30 page document addressed as most

all the post referendum issues and also a series of the outstanding cpa issues. samore dealt with in concrete terms and those that would have a more immediate effect on the population such as citizenship and others in the more general terms and the document seeks only to frame the discussion that must continue between january and july. we shouldn't be under any illusions of all of the post referendum agenda can be negotiated now and more to the need to be that there needs to be a mechanism in place so that after the referendum after the results, the process can continue because once the referendum in substance once the referendum is done the sudanese parties will have to wake of the next morning and say now the real work begins from year to july and beyond. among those issues in terms of what i believe the sudanese parties can establish these lines on, first of all oil is a contentious issue in sudan but i have long argued i think because of the mutual reliance of

khartoum and revenues 98% in the south and 60%, north and some sense - khalil was the greatest disincentives to the new conflict and that is why i am hopeful about the immediate future. citizenship has been discussed and we need to call off the fears and protective rights of both of the southerners on the north of the northerners, south. there is concern, hard red, fear of mass explosion afterwards i think in some sense this is largely political grandstanding or rhetoric used as part of the broad negotiating in the political what was your. one thing to note for the simple it's not terribly economically feasible for all southerners to move out of the north. they represent a significant section of the economic sort of stratosphere in the north. currency, there are differences of opinion on this. certainly but economists year if there is an understanding of what how this process goes forward there could be a loss of

confidence and devaluation of currency. obviously there's enough going on in sudan the can't afford this. the wild card on the talks again it's been mentioned this mean some sense be the fulcrum on which the talks dealt. the splm would like to address these as a part of the package. the ndp is not so concerned. in one sense the have an important community that it would hope not to alienate but as has been mentioned i think in some sense they may use abyei as a bargaining tool to see with a can get in return. why we haven't seen much progress in the talks so far, two things i will mention. first, sudan has a culture of political censorship like few others and that is part of this process. what we step back to reliable talk about the insurance.

with khartoum are seeking reassurances. the ncp, there are different camps that remained about how to approach the referendum agreements. there are increasingly folks who are more resigned to the reality of the partition seeking to insure their own political and economic future in khartoum, and in that sense they are also opened with a political and security terms juba isn't supporting the opposition groups coming in on the other hand, the splm is seeking reassurance on one issue comes the conduct of the referendum and acceptance of the result, and i think that is why we haven't seen any movement and until there is some on both sides i feel we may not get very far in the post referendum agenda. so the concerns i mentioned obviously political brinkmanship and in this regard i think the in cp -- ncp, it isn't clear.

a strategy hasn't miserably emerged from the ncp on how to approach the referendum and the post referendum agenda, but in the absence i think the calculation maybe they can afford to wait and that they can only improve between now and january 9th and they may wait until the late 11th hour and try to extract confessions both from the splm and get the best possible package taken from the international community and exchange for the referendum. in this regard since we are in washington and since they are important i will mention the u.s. incentives. i think it's very good these incentives were put forward on the table, items in addition to the parties can negotiate themselves that could alter the equations, but i want to note that these are ultimately limited and i think the view in washington and elsewhere outside is different than in khartoum. these offers and incentives to have limits and the ncp feels

the drug has been pulled out from under them when the u.s. came forward and they are afraid that may happen again. past the normalization has been laid out the state-sponsored terror 82 list of opening up of licensing agreements and trade issues in exchange for ambassadors and ultimately the two big ticket items, the lifting of economic sanctions, u.s. economic sanctions and long-term debt relief to those two in particular are the big ticket items and khartoum knows neither of the issues can be resolved overnight and neither of them fall in the realm of the american executive, and in that sense they are limited. some of based on these issues the current set of state of preparations and this broad political context of the deal number of referendum scenarios can be anticipated, and i think we should note that continued stalemate on the talks could very well increase the likelihood of the less desirable

outcomes and i won't go through them here. of the international crisis group we published a report a few weeks ago in which each of the potential scenarios are outlined we pushed very hard to get out thinking the situation may considerably changed though it hasn't much in the last few weeks. last of one to mention in terms of the referendum itself and what we are going to see in the weeks to come i would like to focus particularly on the results and this period of uncertainty that is likely to follow the voting itself. my guess is we probably won't even have unofficial results for four, five, six days even a week and that period and beyond that between ten and the announcement of official results there will be premature assertions by both sides. it will be disinformation spread, there will be considerable domestic results

and they may take more time than originally envisioned, so i think it's important that there be a body and entity that steps forward and fills the void and if this is for the secretary-general panel monitoring panel of the referendum led by former president is the key. they are the natural actors to fill the void both in terms of the immediate results and also laying the groundwork for ultimate recognition of an independent state should south sudan vote as many of us expect. the recent statements from the panel are good but i think the need to continue to build and established that authority so we can look to them in that period. in this regard, i think one thing that we need to keep them honest by unified response from the african union both from the african union. this is key in addition to the

panel if car to accept the results and the path is clear toward ultimate recognition the african union and the international community will probably breathe easy. if they don't come if they choose another route, if they don't feel like they have a package of arrangement they can live with, then it's still possible. i'm optimistic this would happen but it's possible that they could attempt to challenge results after the fact or prevent recognition, and in that case you may have a split within the african union. that would have serious implications both for sudan and the african union itself as an institution and it will make the situation more broadly very difficult because the u.n. security council and the international community will be looking to the region to calibrate its opinion and response to this issue. and last, there's a lot of talk in washington and elsewhere about what is the future of south sudan look like and what is the political and economic

status and the international engagement in south sudan, and i would like to remind everyone after the referendum there will likely be two states, and i think the attention needs to be maintained on both the north, depending on all things go, they may need as much political and economic engagement to bring it back from the international isolation where it has been for quite some time, and as my colleague said, i think ultimately win nt tensions and rhetoric and concerns and emotions of the referendum by down i think fourth and south will ultimately realize that each will be their best neighbor politically, economically, socially, and ford, and those ties won't go away. a lot more to discuss but we will leave it open. thanks for a much. [applause]

>> thank you. our final speaker is jon temin. eastern a remarkable job of managing our sudan activities, speaking publicly, frequently, writing frequently, managing our activities on the ground in sudan, and jon is just back from two weeks spent in khartoum and juba and will have additional remarks to make. jon? >> thank you very much, david. as david mentioned i just got back a couple days ago from a couple of weeks in both juba and khartoum, so i am going to share some general observations many of which are consistent with what zach just said. as you will see i have more questions than answers but that is frequently the case with sudan. overall i come back with a lot

of the positive impression of where things stand concerning the referendum, despite the challenges it does seem a likely to have been roughly on time and that is certainly no cause for celebration that is cause for cautious optimism. the registration process by most accounts went smoothly. there are lingering questions about registration and the low numbers in the north in particular. there is certainly less violence in the south compared to a year ago and that is a definite positive. to cut through the punch line, i am weary of any prediction in sudan, but i think that the the return to a big north-south war is not impossible but not likely. i do think that skirmishes around the border for some time are probably a pretty likely thing that we do need to work to avoid and minimize. there does remain a sizable gap between khartoum and juba in terms of expectations of what is going to happen over the next

few months. my sense is people in khartoum are coming to grips with the likely result of the referendum, but there is still lot of people in khartoum who expect a delay in the referendum and the next that legal challenges and we are already seeing some of those legal challenges, and as zach mentioned, i also believe that fundamentally ncp hasn't paid some of the court decisions about how they want to treat this process, how they want to react and those decisions are of course central to how those are going to play out. in the south of there is a conviction among most people the january 9th is going to be the day. i thinks so. i'm not certain. this does put the splm in a little box if they have a short delay because they are so adamant about january 9th. if there is some sort of a delay i think it would only be acceptable if the message comes from the senior most physicians within the south. even then, that could be seen as

somewhat of a broken promise. unfortunately, there is relatively little education in this house concerning the referendum, and the referenda. there are still some people confused about the difference between elections and referendum. hockley some of that can happen in the next few weeks but obviously the capacity is limited. there is relatively little in the six month transition period between the referenda and the end of the cpa in july. that is something people do need to know about. nobody so far has mentioned the recent bombings that have been disputed. obviously there are different messages from the north and south as the purpose and the reason for those bombings. they are seen as an attempt to provoke a response from the spla and so for the spla hasn't responded in any real way. i will echo some of what zach said it as well about how the

result of the referendum is going to be received internationally, and particularly with va you. i think there is a trade-off between the referendum on plan and the quality of the referendum, and that then gets to the question of response, and particularly responses from other african countries. i think there is the concern that some countries are given a reason or half a reason not to recognize the results they might take that. and that should be of concern particularly to the south and so that does raise the question of whether holding it on time is going to produce the product that is needed. i think zach is right but a lot of the world is going to kill the british response to the referendum based on the african response. that is where we are all going to look first. i think that there is probably likely to be some violence and around the referendum process, local violence particularly around the border. that can start locally.

it doesn't have to be provoked by the parties. the key is to prevent the escalation of the violence. it could be a violent place it's going to happen but presenting the parties from fleeing into that, preventing the spla and the staff and escalating it. that is where the focus should be. clearly in abyei there's little progress and negotiation that's discouraging. i -- it's been stated now there is it going to be a referendum on the ninth. i think it is some sort of a negotiated solution is probably the likely outcome. i suspect that probably comes after the southern referendum in january. from the perspective i think there are concerns about abyei being a slippery slope if they are to make confessions of their then they might be pushed to make territorial concessions elsewhere along the border. to have to keep in mind it's not just abyei that is disputed that there are at least five parts of the north-south border that are disputed and there are other

potential little abyei out there as well. there's also questions within the south as to how much they would want to give up for abyei if they are going to do that. we talk about hostages and ransom. do they want to pay ransom that might set back a new country in terms of their starting point, in terms of their wealth and so forth. that is a question that on here and others here across the broad southern population. i think the southern leadership as we to have to address. some of the questions i think are going to come up in that immediate post referendum environment, issac mentioned already what's going to happen while the accounting is underway it sounds like it could be weeks before there is a final result of the referendum and those could be ten weeks and there could be violence during that period. there are also questions about whether there is going to be a post referendum scramble for power and resources in the south

and i contest the southern leadership. another big question for me is the oil revenue that comes from khartoum to the south and whether the payments will continue throughout the remaining six months of the cpa. obviously this of this highly dependent on that money. those are short-term concerns and i want to raise just a few of the longer-term concerns i have first concerning this of. a lot of that really revolves around how long the post referendum honeymoon is going to last for the south and for the southern leadership. as we've heard there are high expectations among the southern population about improvements and tangible and professed are going to happen after the referendum and after presumed independence. those expectations are going to be almost impossible for the southern leadership and to meet. the issue limited capacity to be able to deliver services, health care, schools and so forth. there's good reasons for that

limited capacity but nonetheless, the have to increase the capacity significantly to meet some of those expectations and so one year, two years, how long are they going to sit patiently to wait for things, that is a very important question related to that is the idea of the centralization which could help the southern government to deliver some of the surfaces. it's been a lot of talk about the centralization juba but for the most part it hasn't happened in the saw fit to deliver services post referendum it is probably going to have to accelerate. another one of those later wrong poster referendum questions concerns developing the new constitution. of course is an issue in the north as well but speaking of the soft, people are only just beginning to pay attention to this question but it is of course central to having a new state and making that a successful space state.

related question to the constitution is when the next election might happen in the south. of course that is a question in the north as well. in this house your responses like 18 months after the end of the cpa to five years after the cpa. i don't think anybody has come to a real consensus on that. also questions in the south about how long the recent military and political reconciliation among some dissident groups is going to last. i think it is likely to pass the referendum, clearly that is the goal for many. but whether it will pass the referendum in the past july cremains lingering question out there. as i mentioned i think there has been notable in progress and stability in the south and that is something to be to celebrate. nonetheless, the ethnic division through the south are real and they are concerning inviting for is still a sense that some of what holds the altogether is getting to a referendum and the common enemy many people perceive in the north and those

are going to be diminished after the referendum. and so the question becomes what else is going to hold some of the self together and some of the groups that have been at odds in the past. the spla is still seen by some as a predatory entity, and that, too, is going to need reform. a lot of the reform within the spla has been put off for the sake of getting to the referendum and there are good reasons for that but at some point that reform will have to accelerate as well. those are some of the concerns, but i want to strongly echo that point as well about pay attention to the post referendum north. we spent so much time talking about what kind of state and please the south might be if there is a secession. we spent relatively little time talking about what could replace the north might be. and they are big questions. are they going to go back to some of their ways early in the regime in the 1990's or are they going to seek to be more inclusive democratic pleat?

a lot of the problems of north places now in terms of the court and dynamic or not want to go away if there is southern secession. i hear a lot of talk now about the so-called new south and north blue nile in which the popular consultation process is not proceeding at the pace some might like it might not deliver the results that could help the people in the two states. as khartoum going to try to deliver services to some of those peripheral states of course that includes darfur in the east and north as well or are they still going to focus on developing the center of the country, the so-called trial. there are no answers to these questions but there are questions that deserve attention a lot of thinking. we can't totally focus of the referendum of the south. we need to think as well with a population of 30 million people or so who are going to continue to live in the north even if there is a session.

..

>> i think it is clear that the case of southern sudan is different than the other, the east, and many agreements of peace of which are in eastern sudan, but the comprehensive peace agreement is something different. that is it is complied in the constitution. many change the constitution between the north and south in this cpa, and it is time sensitive benchmark one by one for the agreements worth sharing, power sharing, and the final stage is one where the people will vote. that's a big decision in two countries or one country, but with regard to the darfur issue is something different. it is something -- it is from 2003.

there might be a clash between triable for a long time, but it's not an issue like the war in southern sudan. it would be something different for them, but in the other part of the question regarding the citizenship and i think my colleagued also touched on it is the fear of the people of the southerners in the north that might be having problem or hurt, i would like to assure what the leadership of the country, the president, to assure that the southerners in the north they will be in peace. they will enjoy their life, but the legalisms will be under negotiation. if there is a separation, there

are two countries and eventually this would be legal issues on the situation and the nationality in two parts of the country, but my colleague touched on this issue of protection or prevent harm, that is absolutely is not logical because when people are fighting in the south the southerners, they move to the north. they live in peace. they have -- the official government of the people. they live together. they live in peace. what do you expect if there is a real peace and there is the new legal boundaryies and situation

in the two parts? so it is -- there is no question of these people would be harmed. the president assure that and the leadership assure that. what is the legal? now it's under discussion. this is one of the issues. it is not logical to say that these people need protection. when they win the war, they live in peace so the votes of random people who live in peace. there's no reason here, and there is another question. if it come to the situation of two countries, so what do you expect? do you want to make the separation for participation in the south? that's one part. people of the southern sudan living in the north to be a

staying forever, all of them. it would be something under institution if the people they want to move, if they want to live, that depend on the legal outcome of the negotiation which is taking place right now. >> anybody else? okay. another question? yes, right here. >> thanks, brian kennedy. i want to ask about the u.n. mission in sudan. we've heard at least from the north statements to the effect that they won't be accepted in sudan after the ref referendum, and i'm wondering if the pam sees a role for the u.n. in sudan after the interim period, and if so, how will it change? thank you. >> anybody want to address that?

>> for us in the south, we want the u.n. to continue after the referendum for one or two things. number one, they can actually stabilize the situation of the referendum making sure we have peaceful disengagement of our forces and even managing the border so that we minimize scrimmages on the border. second, is to help in the south to build the capacity of the new state so that we can catch up with the rest of the world. yes, we need some help so this is where they can contribute in building our capacity and providing skills to those who need them, so i think it is very important for them to continue after the referendum and the two

parties should commit to that. >> go ahead. >> well, i'll just echo that in part in terms of the u.n. future. yes, in the south as he was speaking on behalf of the government, there's a willingness to continue that relationship, stablization including protection of civilians will and should continue, certainly there are very real concerns as jon mentioned about stability in the south once the common di nonnay tore is removed. in the north, we just don't know. it's tough to say at this stage. there was a request for additional troops to be placed along the border. the u.n. leadership originally had a yellowish-green light, and a week later they got a red light.

they throw test balloons on the issue, and i think it's too early to tell. they are certainly planning for a future mission in the south, and at least one school of thought within the secretary is that ideally you have one mission in the south and one in the north. the one in the knot that would compromise of some type of liaison platoon which somehow addresses the remaining challenge in the transitional areas, but also be incorporated with the continued peace keeping agenda in darfur. >> i'll just briefly add on the idea of some sort of a u.n. buffer force around the border out there lately. it's a good idea on paper. we're talking about a 2,000 kilometer border, and the troop number doesn't seem to be available. that, unfortunately, is not a role the u.n. can play in a really affective way, but i very

much agree on, you know, the ability to provide stability in other parts of the south in particular to focus the mission on a development effort post referendum with a lot to do there. >> over here. >> thank you, fraser group, excellent panel. i want to ask about the legal challenge for zach or jon, the legal process. is this something that's a nuisance or is it potentially a big deal? is it game changing that this would become the rational to not accept the outcome in a worse case scenario, and if that were to happen from a diplomatic perspective, is there expectation their league also would withhold recognition and then what?

>> i'm reluctant to speculate too much on that because i think it's happening all too quickly. i'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that one the chief complaints concerns part of the referendum legislation that says you have to have flee months -- three months between the referendum and the registration itself. that's not happening. what wins between that requirement and the requirement to have it on january 9, i don't know. that's for the courts to decide. you know, i think there was some sort of a statement from the u.s. government recently about this count cripple the -- shouldn't cripple the process, and i tend to agree with that. a lot of parts have not been to the letter of the law, but as to, you know, how these legal challenges affect international recognition, i don't know at this stage. >> i think two things. figure of all, a number of --

first of all, a number of challenges have been issues. some are waiting and others are more politically motivated than others, and i think it's good. as they're coming out, there's pushback on some of them particularly the one submitted to the constitutional court that many argue is a seriously politicized entity, and the referendum commission and chair stood up firmly to that. i think it does -- given we don't have any extra time in the timeline that remains, i think it does present a problem potentially and could cause a short term delay. i am not as -- i don't have quite the religious zeal about 9 of january, and we need to push ahead for that, but if it is for the safeguards, it's not the end of the world, and the other issue is whether or not these come before or after the pulling itself. they can throw a wrench in the

process now, but afterward if these kinds of challenges #, the these month issue, and the issue of polling station workers being over age 40 which many are not and the number of other issues, if those come after the fact, i think they will pale in comparison of the votes we all expect. >> in the back there in the aisle? >> hi, thank you for your presentation. my question is related to the african union. the country should change it after the globalization period. do you think this is used and execute by african-american countries, and how do you think this affects africa's stability because there's separation and

they will use that as an execution for separation or sufficient. thanks. >> anybody? >> just on the sort of the precedent question and the idea that african borders shouldn't be changed. you know, i think you need to consider the context, and early in africa's post colonial history, there was good reason for that to be a rock-solid principle. i'm not sure those reasons are as relevant now as they were decades ago, and i think you also have to balance that principle against the cpa itself which was a mon knew mental achievement that ended a war and signed by a whole host of guarantors that sets out the right to self-determination, so,

you know, toy not think that the principle should stand in the way of the will of the people of southern sudan being able to decide their future. i also think that there's one often hearing the arguments of the slippery slope, and you know, if sudan slips into what's next, how many other countries in africa? i think those arguments are overblown because i don't see other movements on the continent nearly as strong as what we see in sudan. there are some, certainly you can make a long list, but the majority are pretty active if not dormant, and i conclude by saying i went back and did a little research in the ethiopia recession in the early 90s, and you can find all the same warnings about slippery slope and this is the redrawing of the african map, and clearly that

didn't happen. when we hosted the president a few months ago, we asked a precise question on what's different in the cases negotiated by egad and endorsed and accepted by the african union, so there's an obligation on african states to accept the outcome of the referendum. >> i'll echo that. it's an interesting question no doubt given the way the borders were drawn on this continue innocent, and your question was part of the debate that was had, and i think we're glad it finished 8, 10, 12 months ago about this question with too much international focus in the course of the standard of the cpa and the course was renewed, and i think that debate should have been had five years ago when everybody signed their name to the cpa. this is the most endorsed agreement we've seen in quite

some time, and no other successionist movement including darfur or other parts of sudan have the cpa. my point going back on the cpa, this process, would have serious implications with sudan and much broader implications for africa, peacemaking, for the african union itself, and i don't know if there is a good alternative at this stage. again, the self-determination referendum is here, and well, you know, i agree with jon. i'm far less alarmist of the likelihood to large scale conflict in sudan is very unlikely, but when this question was raised, the one issue to guarantee conflict is denial of self-determination and forced unity. >> by the colonial borders,

maybe i can also remind you that southern sudan has been a different entity. they were governed by british two countries basically. they were forced into marriage in 1956. we were not one. if you look at israel and sudan basically, we are two in one, so i don't think the african union will object to that, definitely they know sudan very well. i think it is also true that david smock said what was said because we have two parties, sudanese and extortions, separation, and unity. they endorse that, so i don't think they likely jump away from this agreement that they've witnessed and helped in negotiating.

>> also this question was raised a many time. the african union between the negotiation that that at the time of declare ration of principle, and that time the people have a choice between war for 50 years to continue this principle. it went to many processes in sudan and the parliament and the people who accept it, and they went also with the union and there's a fine consensus for some time. there is also some legal issues we raise at that time, but the people have the sign on the epa and endorsed by the parliament, then it was constitution and accepted for the sudanese, and it was also to be african union

in mozambique and other leaders confirmed this. >> thank you. other questions? yes? >> i'm dodge fielding from the multitrack diplomacy. my question with regards to the role of china playing here and with the shifting realities there's, i would assume, and this is my question they are making overtures todd south. can you talk about china's role, if any, in this process? >> the role of china and the p-5

, yes, they are chinese and invested heavily which is basically in the south, 80% of it is from the south. i can clearly say that for the last five years when we signed the agreement, china has been playing a constructive role in making sure that the two parties including the cpa, and the outcome is respected. you can see from the statements that they are releasing and also from beijing. the role is very positive, and in the south, we are very happy with their role, and we are looking forward to engage with them so that a new nation will also work with them and cause relation with the chinese, so the role is very constructive, and then we are also urging them

is to help more so that we reach an agreement on the post referendum issues because they are included in that, and we are asking egypt also to play a role because they also have invested areas that is important to help us. it is in the interest of the chinese and others to see us back to square one, and they are helping and have been attending many security counsel briefings here, well, not here, but their role have been very positive. >> jon? >> just to add, there's evidence out there to suggest that the chinese have come to grips with the likely outcome of the referendum. they've opened up a consulate in juba, the cbc large oil company largely invested in sudan opened up an office, and senior southern officials going to to

beijing and vice vice versa. they see the likely developments. >> right there? over here. >> thank you very much. david from the national and public policy group. it was discussed in passing at least the consequences that the referendum doesn't occur on time, and i was wondering the thoughts of the rest of the panel. is a delayed referendum politically feasible if the southerners are on time, or is it determined by political agreement? thank you. >> i'll go first and leave it to the experts after this. my sense is that as jon mentioned and it is given way that we see often in sudan and addresses the government

citizenship rights within the economic activity and security engagement and natural resources. i think there's certainly an option on the table in which some or all the territories succeeded to the south and certainly the acp looks for something in return. what that is remains to be seen. two other things. one is in some sense it's different on the ground than it is at the high political level, and i think the solution that satisfies national politics and leads is necessary, but insufficient. any sustainable solution has to solve the problem on the ground and has to have local buy-in for the communities, and certainly in the atmosphere today the harden positions of political leads trickled down to the community. i was there a month to month and a half ago, and one issue in the regard as an example of arms carrying and security, certainly

the government of south sudan is widely said that the no maddic people can continue their migrations into the south like they have for generations. you can tell them, but don't bring weapons. that issue has to be resolved. there's a standing issue that folks can't come across the border with weapons, and they don't feel like they have adequate scwiewrt if they do, and again, we're at a bit of a deadlock. until you find some solution to that, you have many groups coming south, and where they normally would have crossed the river and go in the south and unless you have pressure intensifying in an already tense environment, we'll let the cpa know, but it's a problem that needs addressing, or it will continue to fester. the way that's solved is local

level and state level agreements. that's happened in recent years and in some areas and hasn't happened in others, and again, now, my sense though there are others here from the area that may know better is that kind of discussion and discussion about arms carrying and about security of both people migrating and host communities isn't happening in the way that it did in the past. >> yes, there is a possibility that we might not be there in 011, and that's where the au is focusing on a political solution, and we think that the best way to settle this before they take this into their own

hands because if they feel portrayed by the world, by the south, and by the ncp, then definitely they will take this into their own hands by telling them you don't come. you come by force, and then we will be back to square one. i think the best is one to transfer or the people back to southern sudan because they were the ones transferred to the north. why would they be allowed to vote and they were not transferred? they were in the north already. i thought the people and the pca, it was written in english, not arabic or our language. the law is clear that the people who are transferred to the north, they are the ones to be asked to come back to the south, so it transferred back to the southern sudan by presidential decree as it was done in 1905 by

a restrictive order for administrative purposes to be an act of transferring back to southern sudan, and then the second option is to grant the rights so they continue to have access to grazing rights and also water, and if they are after the independent of the south, then all of these privileges they have been getting will be stopped. then we can internationalize this so that it can be a treaty, an agreement between the two parties saying that regardless of our outcome, the treaty will continue to have access to water and pasture, so this is the only solution that we can address the issue of before it is too late. i think it is very important for the world to move quickly. in a state of leaving it to the two parties, yes, they are doing

a good job in the au to help us reach an agreement, but i think this is where the u.s., the u.n., and the world should help us to avoid war. >> i think we have to differentiate between the area and the land which is our petition already decided, and between the movement of the connections in this area and crossing to the south and between the citizenship and the people living in the area. the movement of the crossing of the river and to go to the south, that is on something different. being a part of the north da fur is something different, and giving the vote for the people in the area which is identified

by the petition is something else. now, if you want to say that only the income folk should vote, that is not accepted by the whole people living in the area, so the government position is that the whole people living in the area identified in the area and not the southern part should be identified to work. now that is the discussion currently taking place. now the meeting of the negotiation in this point. who is able to vote? who have the right to vote in this area? the position of the center government is the whole people in this area they can vote, and other living in this area identified to which should vote in this.

there is now negotiation going on, and those people are committing and working together. the government and parties are getting together. now, we have an offer to the presidency, and we hope these people hold the forum should come to a solution which is acceptable to all people in this area. we have time for one more question. >> another question or comment to the challenge. for a big challenge -- [inaudible]

without the peace agreement there was nothing to happen, but it was to be imp plemented to make sure it's taking place and the presidency is a position because of the cpa. that is to be isolated. the discussions whatever the decree was to separate the two restrictive areas now when people negotiate, people talk about being as a part, but it's different. now the question, the challenging question is after the referendum, the presidency will end. the area that was decreed to be under the presidency is going to fall. we need to be addressed.

go back to what my colleague had just said, do we need to say at the international that led and the question that's left for them and that's why the community went on conference last month by saying we are portrayed by both governments and the international community and therefore we should take it in our own hands. that fundamental question needs to be asked. that decree in the two areas does that give restriction? thank you. >> well, i want to thank all of you for coming, and i want to particularly thank our panelists for doing a great job. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> live at 7 am your calls and comments on "washington journal". today, a discussion on how the health care law will be implemented and it's impact on consumers and melt care

organizations. live center for the coverage of american progress today at 1 profit margins eastern ont c-span. >> it's hard to get here and leave here but all of us do leave and the senate always continues. >> hear from retiring members in the senate and houston c-span video library with every program since 1987. it's all on-line, all free. washington your way. now former british prime minister tony blair addressed international aid for africa. he recently established to aim to reduce poverty and improove governses in places. it's just over an hour.

>> as many of you know nancy is well-known for research and writing on a wide variety of issues and in particular her stance that the policies and practices of the rich countries and emerging powers in the international institution cans make a huge difference for good or ill in the lives of poor people in the developing world. it's that vision that motivates our work at the center. belief we share with today's guest speaker. please welcome nancy.

>> thanks so much for saying such good things about me and our mission at the center for global development i'm honored to welcome and the right and honorable tony blair i'm please bud not surprised to see a well, large and informed audience. i know who you are from the list that has turned out to hear him today. many of you will not know that the snow is now accumulated. i also want to extend a special welcome and thank you to ed scott, the chairman of the board that started this process by extending an invitation that brought tony blair to us today. i'm pleaseed the center for global development has had the

opportunity to organize today's event in the african's governs initiation and you'll hear more about that shortly. during his 10-year of the prime minister of great britain he pushes the issue of development and the well-being of african in particular as no western leader had done before or indeed since. in his new book a journey. my political life. he six x plains this commitment quoting from a speech he gave soon after the terrorist attacks of 2010. quote, if globalization worked only for the benefit of the few, it will fail and it will deserve to fail, but if we follow the principles that have served us so well at home that power and wealth and opportunity. should be in the hands of the

many >> claire short was a powerful advocate for development international and one of four women ministers that come price a group. the win of the first annual commitment to development award in 2003.

another lasting legacy of tony blair's 10-year is stern review of climate change by economist nicklaus stern. released by the government it's the largely most widely discussed report of it's kind showing benefits of strong early action climate change massively can outweight cost in office, he championed the findings and since leaving he's launched an international initiative aimed at breaking the i kwlie mate deadlock. it's not only a development issue but the impacts also hit poor people first and indeed we can see these impacts in events perhaps like the pakistan flood. to blair's climate advocacy is development advocacy and i thank

him for his efforts. throughout his time in office he devoted special attention to africa. when his leadership the summit of 2005 marked a high point to africa's concern including ambitious agreement to write off the entire 40 million dollar debt owed by 18 highly indebted and the ims and african development fun. he also created and nurtureed the commission for africa. an effort that laid the ground work for the african governs initiative. our coorganizers for today's event. the african growth initiative is pioneering a new way of working with african countries equipping their leader with people and the kind of help that matters to deliver the public services they're citizens have a right to

expect to tackle deep rooted poverty and to attract the sustainable investment to build strong economy for the future. it's an impressive record. mr. prime minister, tony blair. thanks for joining us today. we're all looking forward very much to your remarks. >> global development was and now the center that's become a

world leader in the development space. thanks for the remarks on my name and my time. i actually remember when we first set up for international development and we did set it up as an independent department, but my goodness, it was. which is maybe why some of the other leaders find it a little hard. but alone just from time-to-time, it was let's say challenging and often rightly. it's very independent and i did allow it to be groundbreaking in a way i don't think it would have been otherwise. i'll tell you more about that when i get into my remarks. what i'm going to do is speak for roughly 20 minutes and then we're going to do 20 minute

question and answer and to describe it and set it in the context of where i think the development debate is in the world today. this is absolutely the right moment for a debate about development and there's no organization better to be doing it. there are many reasons why this is indeed the right time. there is a debate about virtually every other aspect of government policy today in the developing world. rules are baiting my way and your way. reanalyzing. often from first principals. traditional systems of welfare and education. health care and of course the economy and we're debating them with many of the same things occurring. and up. not a hand-out. public sector spending matched by reform. new ways of working.

new framework for accountability and new ideas how to make government nor effective, strategic and more to getting things done in all this great reanalysis. the development policy was excluded and should about have been. it was in just as much need of it. fortunately. just at the appropriate moment, there has arrived also a new batch of development leaders- willing to break new ground. the new bank helen character. usai di. kathy ashton at the, eu commission and even andrew mitchell in the new government. building of course on the very strong work of his pre de see

sore. but in all cases. they are prepared to work with the private sector. and a host of eagle private sector businesses that want to do good business in a proper way. bringing enduring benefits to their hosts nations. the important thing though is these are matched by a new generation of african lead ners government in society in business and my charity the african governs worked the moment in three countries soon expands more but in all three, i notice the younger generation determined to take the countries future into their own hands in

patient with those that blame the present on the past and eager to learn and an apply the lessons of other governments from around the world. and they in particular. want a partnership not a donor recipient relationship with those whom they work. africa's future is an a stra see gik interest for all of us. the policy director on global development and the new state department. any of these gives an interest the in how africa develops. my charity focuses on one thing. building effective systems of

capacity to govern. and a few preliminary points perhaps to clear away misinterpretationsness. i'm not arguing that the capacity more important than democracy. it isn't. indeed, the two are linked. i'm not arguing either that aid doesn't matter. it does. when i was british prime minister, i made increases in aid and debt cancelation the center of the summit. aid does work. it is brought real and profound benefits to poor people and increasingly so in recent years. it makes a valid point but it shouldn't define how we view development. however, i am arguing that without building effective capacity and government capable of delivering practical things

and on a path to release from dependency on aid that it can only ever be a paltive. vital to many but not transformative of the nation. it is precisely this thing that has hadatti led to things like. cash on delivery which i support. it's crucial though. as the 20th century clashes reseed and as post-war permanents in large governments yields undeniable lessons, i think that many might disagree with me, there isn't so much dispute today as to what works and what doesn't, in one way, the vision thing as it was once called by one of your american presidents is often the easy

part. were you need to get to is reasonable obvious i think what's hard is getting there and getting things up done. it's the nuts and bolts of policy. it's strategy. it is performance management to deliberate and the right expertise and the right place. it's ministers who can focus. it's organizing and communicating. this is in fact true for governments in developing nations so how much more is it true that governments in africa? you know, when i troubled when i look at africa i see plenty of great reports setting all out 2030 visions and read them and you'll find 150 priorities there and bold imperatives to do this or that. sometimes somewhat divorced from

the political realities, however, what you'll also i'm afraid often find in the daily mechanisms of government is simply not the capability or the people or the systems to make things happen. and this is where the big challenge is for us interested in development policy. not just what we do to build capacity but how we do it. more innovative and enterprising and i think more politically connected and here briefly, will be brief are seven areas we should work on. first, i believe we have to help build a strong center of government in and around the president or prime minister. for those that worry this gives too much power into the and of the leader and we can't be sure of the consequences of such a concentration of power, i say if we're unsure of the leader we

shouldn't support them. but there is no case i know of where a government has changed a country for the better without strong and effective leadership at the center. with such a thing to build, you can then fan out the same lessons to ministries. but a president or prime minister without efficient capability on policy and strategy, delivery and communication will in my experience not achieve much. what more the ministries need that strong center to be empowered to make change themselves. often the problems in the countries cause department boundaries. agriculture depends on road energy or schools ministry. only the center can drive such cooperation properly.

second, we have to help countries prioritize. this is current for its own sake. so for example, nigeria is right to focus on the power sector. get that working and everything has possibility. fail on that, and little is going to move. but it's also correct for another reason. the minute i see a government plan for ministry with 30 priorities in it, i no nothing will happen. the political energy is too die fuse and these priorities of course, should be their priorities and not ours. which brings me to my third point. why china has had such an impact to leave a side whether or not we agree with it or not is for another debate. let us understand that why they

have the influence. it's not only money. it's that they ask the country what the country need and supply it. usually infrastructure. power. even functioning government buildings and they do it. now we can do it too. but we have to work on the things the country judges to be vital. which are not always the necessarily same things that get the biggest cheer back in our home legislator. i know that means with don't push on things we think are priorities like health and education. our priorities have to connect with theirs and that's what we mean by country ownership. fourth, i think we have to be the champions of quality private sector investment. the work that the world bank and thei fc are doing here is really

important. when we got over one thousand people to come to sierra leon's first ever london conference, new we would get some where. hundreds of millions of investment out of it. 2010 when they rose up the ranks more than any other place if the world actually to do business. big respectable companies bring more than investments. they bring properly done intelligent capital and give confidence to others and they can also help spin-off smaller businesses. this is coming with minimum requirements and if the rules of law are in place. here again, i think we need a really special focus for. many african countries, even the basics on law and order would

make a difference and there's an i want independent sector on what creates a functioning police force and a framework for commercial justice. indeed in another part of my work that the particle stin yen authority work precisely with them. what's remarkable is how much expertise there is out there that can be brought to bear. for some reason some african companies struggling to overcome conflict put emphasis on building army and forces. but for many ordinary citizens and who would be expatriates that come and work there, traveling the streets of the capital free from fear is a prerequisite of a confident future and a proper thing that they need. here's the sixth point. the capacity in all areas that we have to build require as deep

level of practical expertise. the good news is that this expertise exists. the challenge is i think we can do so much more to use it in the development field. what we found ina g.i.'s work is that there is this huge unpaths resort out there in the wealthy nations for expertise that african country's often require. there's analysts and experts from major private sector companies that would eagerly except the prospect of working in africa with a level of political responsibility and practical responsibility they would never obtain back home. they're well-trained. smart and above all. well-motivated and there's a league on of retired. people who might be in their

60's have enormous experience of problem solving and would love a chance to be involved. recently helping one of our countries negotiate a commercial contract about resources we came across top london lawyer. partner of one of the best city firms and he agreed to come and help. the difference is just one really qualified person made to negotiateing the contract was extraordinary and i bet there are large numbers of people out there very happy to help and we should access them. which brings me to the seventh point. building capacity only works if those engaged are not fly in and fly out consultants. people willing to work along side the locals and transfer the know how and of all the things

we've done this is been the most heartening aspect in each case. a g.i. has continued to work and there's been a really good center of people that are nationals that will come back from a brochltd others have grown up living and working there. and i think this is how capacity building has to work. training up those that when the outside workers move on and retain the skills to carry-over with the same level of expertise. and this training, by the way in my view works best when it's done on the job so to speak. siting a long side. working along side each other. the aim of course is to build long-term sustainable capacity. but here's the thing. i think this is often best achieved in my experience by working on specific priorities in the real-life conditions of

government. by the way. this skill need not stay with the technical expertise. there's retired political leaders and ministers and i'm one. we can help interact with the political leadership of the country and - it's not just about this weird club of politician but you can have an insight of how change can be brought about in the often tough terrain of politics. all of this is deeply practical. if you'll notice what i'm saying i'm going through things that are very, very granular but i think it does add up to somewhat different but absolutely necessary approach to the fundamental question of how we

bring about effective government in countries that have not had it in the past. many will say well, all of this is fine. but it won't make from situations where there is a democratic or transparency deficit. or where there is corruption or tribal or at nick attentions that can predominate and this is absolutely true, however, i do think effective governing has a firm read across to what we normally call good government. the problem for many struggling nations is their people after years of poor governing, no progress or worse. regression they actually lose faith in the political process. so then electing a government

each with a democratic system. could be like a transition. because that's how the system works. an interplay of tribal, ethnic or vested interest. this is what can change in africa today and is changing. when people see improvements taking place as a result of government decision, they sense politics is about changing lives and not just changing rulers takes root. and it is that point that they see corruption. not as an inevitable con sequen of an inevitably broken system, but as a break on their aspiration that's neither inevitable or indeed acceptable. so, that's where i think there is a link between effective

government and democratic accountable and trance parent government. and if we can show people that government works and delivers real change, in the end that breaks across all those other the dividing lines that otherwise dominate the political calculus of the nation. so, i think this is an incredibly exciting time to be in the development field. and there are great people like many here today for have long experience and strong commitment in this area and that your zoined by new leaders and together there is that new sense of purpose for new players in the charitable and private sector and all of this is creating a new sense of possibility and therefore, hope.

none of this means the challenges are not enormous or that there won't be many setbacks but the hope is real. the change is tangible. and above all, the desire on the part of africa for it's destiny to be in african ands is palpable and invigorating. in my adjustment this could be africa's century. it should be and to play even a small part in making that happen is a great privilege. thank you. [applause] ??//??????w

>> thank you very much. >> i had two quick thoughts how wonderful it is. i don't think we should take it for granted that we have the former head of state of one of the world's most powerful nations talking about development in africa. it's in itself very exciting. and second, i don't think that there are very many people who could bring the kind of el kwans

and elegance to a speech that is really trying to bring along the world to the reality that effective government is about practical nuts and bolts getting things done so, i thank you very those things. now i do have one question i wanted to ask which you don't need to answer because i don't want to take you away from the practical nuts and bolts. but, it's somewhat related and it's that, in the summer, when president barack obama celebrated 50 years of independent on many countries in africa, he did not invite any of the african heads of state to come and there was some discussion about that in the press. high didn't he do that? he had said leadership is about the things you're talking about.

about institutions and not about strong men. the question really s it goes back to points you've referred already. how does the outside world best deal not only with the positive work that you're doing where it's possible to do that with leadership that has taken responsibility but what's the best way to deal with those states perhaps for example where there is the issue that there isn't yet clarity on who is the effective leader. who could be? >> well, first of all. thank you for the kind word to the outside. it - i was not head of state but government. the queen, you see. [laughs] when i go back it'll be for the tower of london. rather than. >> i was dreadfully american in

that sense. and i kind of knew as i was saying it. my apologies to the queen. >> i'll sort it out with her. [laughs] >> so i think - i think i mean - the work that we do can only be done circumstances by countries with a relative sense of stability. but i do think we from the outside, should be prepared to be very clear about how we are going to try and enforce certain rules. because what's happening is obviously tragic. i hope they can sort it out in the next period of time. but - you know - one of the things we faced when sierra leon was in the grip of the conflict and we actually intervened.

there was a lot of - pressure on us at the time. people would say, don't you have to come to sort of compromises and put them all together and all the rest of it? i think very strongly in the end, but no, actually what you really need to do is make sure the democratic system is upheld and i think if that doesn't happen it then become haves hard to get the country moving so the situation at the moment is very uncertain and unsure but i think the basicically from the outside world, you know we shouldn't just kind of leave that to one side it's important we focus and try to sort it out. otherwise you can end up with a country literally being held up as a result of not taking those decisions properly. >> right. i don't have a name and an

affiliation - what will you do if the leader who is are supporting - same question. well, what will you do if the leaders now become corrupt. how will you know when to pull out? i think it's a general question not only for your program the african governs initiative but the in general? >> yeah it's a real challenge. frankly, for the work we do, we couldn't stay in those circumstances. it would be very difficult. i doesn't make since or sense. row wanda has had a lot of prophecy about that. now my view that we're right to sport those and not ignoring those issues but right to support the president there and the work he's ding but there are countries frankly that we couldn't go into and the

countries we are in, the worst say is blank check that we'll stay regardless. i think the other thing is. that - often the aids community has to be there for the sake of the people. the work i think we do is very specific to the concept of proper government and so we're very conscious of that die le ma and keen to make sure we're helping to move in the right direction. the other thing is the same. a country that's recovered from genocide and in a difficult situation. i do look and track how the country is moving and a country like that is made docto dramati improvements but that die le ma is there and we certainly watch

visit carefully. the other thing that's interesting about this is that there come ascertain point that which the democratic and the effective do fit to because past a certain point. you know, i'm not a - i'm not a supporter of the nine dictator thesis. some in the labor party may wonder about that statement, but [laughs] basically, though you know, i think - the democratic process is a vital part of it. i do think though, when countries are emerging from a period in the case of genocide you have to be - for be rebearan

forebearance. >> well i think the stability of the country has to be known to be still fragile. >> i think at the end if you can show effective government you begin to create a sense among the people of how they can hold their own government accountable. >> one of the interesting things in sierra leon. these are basic things we're helping to get done. like so - the lights going on. know that may seem, well, really. but yes, of course it really matters once people notice that. or we have just been helping deliver eternal mortality or child mortality program which is literally, the numbers of young kids getting treated in hospitals is more than doubled, right? so from 100,000 down to just over a quarter of a million. the impact of that is enormous.

some of the children would have maybe been all right. any way and the fact is there's still an enormous distance to go and quality of care and so on. this is a very interesting example. the money was there. but the system to deliberate wasn't. and some of these things, you know if you look for example at agriculture and policy today, you know there's an expertise there. things to do with logistics and things that are regularly done in many organizations but if a government is just beginning hiss process of change it often doesn't have any leaders to deliver these things so you can even have the aid money there but it's not necessarily going to be effectively used. >> okay i think two related questions. this is from john, how will you monitor and evaluate the work of

the,a g.i.. he's in the heart. former visiting fellow and a related question that i was talking about actually with kate, your agi person. how will they task this skill. i think you addressed that, but maybe you can talk more about casting the skills of that? >> yeah. i think the - how we evaluate our work is very simple. one general. one particular. the general is, is the country moving forward, right? is this economy developing and are public services improving? we work in around the president building back capacity. the second thing is we work in specific areas along side delivering from the big priority so we can see if we've delivered

or helped delivered the child mortality program or the energy program of the production program of the country. we set very specific deliverables and then have them independent valuables. >> that's why you like cash on delivery for. those that know me they will know i couldn't resist putting that in. >> bits an important part of the pressure on the government and us to make sure that what we do is effective. not sure we can measure this in the same way but the single most exciting thing is particularly true. last year in liberia certainly in the work, there is now a group of nationals as it were of local people there doing and here's the good news. really smart good people there.

but you see. i know this may sound like a really trivial thing to say. one of the things we did an analysis for one of our people and we showed sometimes people don't even have the very basic things around the president scheduling. i know it sounds almost trivial but we did an analysis showing that the particular individual, 90% of their time were spent on things other than their priorities. actually this is common to western leaders too in certain regards and actually think is one of the big problems of modern politics. however. 90% is a little too much time to be spending on things other than your priorities but by building just even, those things require hard to measure but by building effective instruments. this is what you are going to map out your time.

and your time siting with the ministers because my experience again is unless the president or the prime minister is sat there. helping do it, it doesn't get done. people say if i'm going to work in a proper system but if you want to chuck in a piece of

chaos frankly i'm not into that. i'm i've got family. let me have a little faith in govping systems before they put the whole in their lives on the line for it. in the three areas. really good people come back and make a difference. >> i am remembering and i don't know if i'll have this right. scott family fellows in liberia at least a large number came from there and at least one, has became or has become a deputy minister and presumably staying so that point is absolutely right. let me do a question from rescott. what role does faith play in promoting the kind of leadership your advocating? >> you mean in the country

itself? well, i think the community, obviously can be very active in this for. example things like health care. there's large amounts that actually deliver by faith communities and i also think that this interaction between the governments and civic society that means the faith community can be incredibly important in building support for proper system office government and for keeping government, itselves, itself honest. i think there's really important work being d done by the faith communities and some of their immediate associate supply and demand very important. >> here is a good one about nigeria that refers to a former visiting fellow or currently so

at the center. yesterday. anticorruption crusader announced his recandidacy in nigeria. he wanted to a challenge the elite through an obama like grass roots campaign. how can organizations like yours and there's create space like him to compete truly for the people's vote? >> right. [laughs] >> can't do everything. i think that's a good answer. community focus and priority. >> yeah. by the way, of course nigeria, for the nigerians, it's - [laughs] i think that - i mean, actually in sierra leon we specifically did work with them on setting up effective anticorruption program. and - they need to be.

but i think what we really focus on frankly, is creating the sense that if people are competing for government, then they're going to have a system there that can deliver for people.

>> the problem with corruption is that it results in bad decisions. i know that seemed like an odd thing to say. in the resource area, one thing on correction is unique to know where to start. i personally think for many african countries, the resource center is where you put the light on the corruption issue. especially now, frankly, whether there is a competition to develop resources and efforts all the irony and a tragedy that many of african countries are rich with poor people, if these decisions are taken badly

or wrongly on resources, and who gets to develop them, it is devastating for the country. actually, worse than that, you can even find that the resources you have like oil or gas turns out to be a negative, believe it or not, for the nation because what comes with it. that is where i think it's really, really important. that is also where the international community has to be pretty tough. the fact is, if the country has a natural resource that can develop well with the right partners and the proper transparency and a proper contract, it could yield enormous benefits to the country. if that goes bad, it is a devastating blow to the country. >> we have a proposal at the center that we have been working on which would encourage donors

and government leaders in these resource-rich countries in africa and elsewhere to use more of the in, in the way that alaska and the alberta province in canada have used it and was proposed briefly in nigeria for the quarter of a century, namely to have per capita distribution for some, if not all, of that net income and there would have to be a tax system presumably that would create a sense of accountability to tax back some of the four major investment. have you thought about that? maybe you could help us. >> it is interesting. that is one issue. norway is an example of using that.

i have discussed this on a number of occasions. maybe it is different and other countries, but in the country's i've worked, this absence of a great negotiating team with experience in negotiating these type of contract is a big problem. the expertise is there. what we are doing now is we are putting out feelers to all sorts of people in the legal and financial network to see if they can help in this. the other thing that really matters is if you have a great team negotiating who has real expertise, that should make the corruption quite difficult because they are tracking it but the country gets a better deal. i have come across resource deals and some of these countries which are frankly appalling. you don't know whether corruption has gone into it or not. certainly, there is negligence that has gone into it.

i think that is something really worth of looking at. those of us in government and the development community look upon ourselves as enablers so that what we can do some tons, and this is not a traditional role for a developing department, but we can enable or bring together people from the outside whose expertise we can use. we do that when we go out and organize that. that is what i am suggesting. i think -- to give you another example for one of our countries, we have been discussing with one of them because they have a whole lot of investment opportunities coming to them. we helped reorganize their investments. it came to us when i was over there the other day.

they said to give them three or four analysts. they need some experts -- execution capacity to get things done. they want us to try and get them that. we can play a bigger part to organize and access that capacity. have too much time. let me give you a couple of questions. i have one myself that is more of a comment. and then you can pick and choose. one is from patrick flanagan who is a student here at johns hopkins. in terms of your work in the development field, is there anything you regret not doing or trying harder at while prime minister? another interesting one -- would

you advise president obama president obamausaid independent of the state department and elevated to cabinet level post? i don't know how much you are still a politician. you are awfully funny -- [laughter] let me mention my comment. it is actually a suggestion, a request in all humility. in the development community, we use the capacity building. we imply that the capacity is not there. you have made the point very strongly that people who are talented are there, but they are often operating in dysfunctional systems which makes it harder for them to be effected. you also made the point that sometimes an expert at the right

time of the right kind, possibly from outside, can matter. i think it would be great if we could all find another way to talk about this that does not use the terminology "capacity building." in the traditional community, they are not as forward-looking as you. it boils down to a chestnut of trading. ining and consultants. that is my point. go back to obama, usaid independence, and which -- and what you wish you would have done when you had to be a politician in the u.k. and you could not have your priorities. ." on the usaid, i have been office for over three years so i am not completely out of

practice. [laughter] i do know a question not to answer when i see one. [laughter] >> i knew you'd be funny. >> this should be really interesting. i will say -- you are doing a great job -- that is all i will said. [laughter] on what i would have done in government differently -- >> on development issues. [laughter] >> otherwise, it is too long list. [laughter] i think it is a bit the same as many other aspects of

government. by the time we got to be glen eagle summit in 2005, we established the african commission. bob geldof was a driving force. that was something that had peer reviews. when we were first in office, we were a bit slow. it was all about aid and not about -- and not enough about partnership. we -- if we had been able to do more on that zimbabwe front, i would have been pleased. of course there are lessons. the bigger point is that what is of about government, this is a general point, as i say in my

book, thank you for the plug, when i came into office, prime minister was the only job i ever held. i have never been company minister before. what i have actually learned over 10 years is that the business of running government is like anything else. why i was surprised is itself interesting and absurd. it is like anything else. you get better at the longer you do it or you certainly learn more about how to do it. there are lessons out there, had they come to be in an identifiable form would have been useful to know. when you start to deal with how

you are reforming, in my case it was education and health care and law and order, i knew so much more when i get into my second term. i was so much more attuned and able to start looking at the systemic change that was necessary for those things. part of the purpose of what we are trying to do, i think, this is a more general application, is try to accelerate that learning process. >> which is absolutely critical in some countries where the results -- >> in those countries where you are dealing with the very basics, those are incredibly important. what we find is -- the team of people that work in the u.s. government or the british government or the my work in the private sector -- someone taught them