there is more opposition that it faces. we should look forward to parliamentary elections. i would watch out for route son johnny -- ross and john -- rafsanjani, who could have been the mediator. i doubt that that is now going to happen. in terms of winners and losers, i thought i would mention it because we are seen new developments in the region. israel is a bit of a loser. clearly it is now going to have to be more careful in terms of its behavior, because as mark mentioned, these new government coming to power in egypt and elsewhere are not going to be as accommodating if israel tries to

mount massive attacks on palestinians and lebanese. this is a quandary in terms of the new terrorist attacks. and a longer term, we should be optimistic. a more democratic egypt is likely to be more reliable up his partner then mubarak. onece.t to israel wan it will be more confidence, and assume a leadership role in the region, which it had given up under mubarak. it could mediate between palestinian factions. talking about winners and losers, mark mentioned syria, where we see growing disturbances as the regime is to stabilize. that is not a win for iran. the only real winner is it right

now from all of this is turkey. they are truly the indispensable nation. it has good ties with everyone in the region, or at least ties. an internationally as well. it just recently got four "new york times calls " journalist out of capri at -- out of captivity at in libya. when it comes to the united states, all of the uncertainty is likely to make or ran even more risk-averse. that is the act -- iran even more risk-averse. even last year that they were unable to the complete a confidence-building exercise with united states because of domestic opposition to ahmedinejad. but in afghanistan, there are overlapping interests where the united states can be more proactive. obama has pitted from engagement

to containment and sanctions. we can be more sank -- created in this area. -- created in this area. you want to keep the taliban from completely taking over in this area. afghanistan does not want the taliban in control again. they can do something about the city signed -- sunni factions in baluch, which feeds an insurgency. i think it would be prepared to except some limited continued american military presence, provided with the assurance that this would not be a base from which the united states could

attack iran. some of these issues are being in court. there was reason -- a recent track two meeting. the iranians wanted an increased role for the united nations and the establishment of a core group to discuss afghanistan. similar to the bonn group that helped set up the first government in afghanistan after the overthrow of the taliban, and also the talks on monday long --- the talks on among iran's neighbors and russia. the top u.n. representative in afghanistan has convened ambassadors from the analysis, iran, and other regional players and what he calls the

initiative. these of the first such meeting in kabul of ambassador since 2005. and the first time the american representatives in kabul have sat in the same room with the iranian diplomat. they have to continue this initiative. rigid they hope to continue this initiative. there can be a beating and -- meeting in bonn. these are all good initiatives. there is a new report coming out from the century funds on negotiations for afghanistan, the way forward, and in addition to recommending the selection of an international facilitator for peace talks among afghans, it also recommends regional

diplomacy and recommends bilateral u.s.-iran dialogue about afghanistan. this will be a more constructive role in afghanistan and will expect something in return. this is the tricky part that ambassador eisenstaedt mentioned. can the united states continue to put pressure on iran of the nuclear program and still offer them something to be haven a more constructive manner? -- to behave in a more constructive manner? it should be encouraged and not discouraged. and the energy pipelines to iran. this is a controversial topic in afghanistan, and in washington something that has been discouraged. we want health turkistan and afghanistan. it would seem that the the more

ways that trade can go to india and thailand, the better. this is something that the united states will have to deal with and reconcile. pakistan right now is far more unstable than iran. i think you should keep that in mind. as ambassador eisenstaedt mentioned, we're in a similar situation as to the situation with the old soviet union. it does not have to be a zero sum game. if there's anything we have learned from the middle east, governments can change. i think it is important to begin to lay the groundwork for to groundwork for a better -- fto o lay the groundwork for better middle east. we need to talk about more issues they care about in the region. he would be happy to take your

questions. >> that was excellent. let's open up to questions from the audience. let me ask the first question. based on what is happening in libya, and applications for what is happening in libya or iran, i would think that the regionally backed nato operations would give up or ron -- give iran pause. >> libya has had a relationship with iran. when libya brought down pan am one of three, there was a theory that this was actually a hit against the united states in retaliation for bringing down the iranian airliner during the iran-iraq war. originally the iranians as the palestinian faction to do it and they were discovered by the

germans. i believe it was the pflcfg. so our ron and get out the have had a relationship over time. i think this cuts but -- iran and gaddafi had a relationship over time. i think this cuts both ways. at the same time, i am afraid it may make them redouble their efforts to get nuclear weapons. there has been a lot of commentary that get out the was a fool to give up his clouds in 2000 -- gadhafi was unfolded give up his nukes in 2003. they have not yet taken them out of the box. but there is a point there. it is part of a unsettle

pictures that has to make uranium's worry -- iranians worried. it may help those who would like to see a negotiated resolution with the united states and the international community. >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much, mark, for the task force, and thank you for the update on this evolving situation. perfect have the journalists doing that. my question relates to a conclusion that the task force drew in the first paper, which i think was in november. it was that of iran made had the courage to iran might have the best chance in the region do have a durable to democracy.

what led to those conclusions? >> i came from the event at the carnegie endowment with the iranian ambassador. he also spoke to a dissident. that pointed to that. when the day comes that the regime changes in iran, they will be in a much better position to become a stable democracy than a lot of the arab countries receive regime change right now. it is because of the educational of the country. within 80% literacy, which far exceeds that in egypt. it has a history of seeking representative democracy because that more than 100 years. iran had a constitutional

revolution in 1906 that brought about the first parliament in the middle east. the revolution in 1979 at a lot of democratic elements, but it was hijacked by the religious extremists. many iranians certainly would like to see a change in that. we also had the democratic evolution, it really began after khamenei died in 1989. all these interesting philosophers in the 1990's who were put in -- who had very interesting document on reconciling. there was an upset election in 1977. he used the hand of the state where they're running in people.

-- for the iranian people. and there has been reversions to a more authoritarian system. i think it is sustainable there. democracy could work their perhaps better than anywhere else in the region. >> senator hegel, very good to see. i just came from the state department and there are a lot of things going on in the white house and state department. a political tsunami an earthquake going on in the middle east. the chinese people are also waiting for them -- for a better life and the rule of law and democracy, and religious freedom.

nato will now play a role in libya also. and now they're fighting in afghanistan. the forces on the ground in libya. >> i will again and handed off very quickly. -- i will begin and hand it off very quickly. last question, boots on the ground, it is an area that to some extent secretary gates covered two weeks ago on capitol hill. i would go back to more question basic than that -- what is the objective? what is the purpose? with gaddafi still in power, there seems to be some confusion about that. there was a headline today about

clarity. clarity is a critical dimension or any democracy, when you commit troops. especially as secretary gates said in his testimony, we are engaged in an act of war. not just the united states but the nations who have participated in nato with us, we are engaged in war. what is the essential objective of that? is that the regime change? is it to divide libya? that is where you have to start before you get to the next set of questions. you mentioned china. paulette professor brzezinski handle that because he just arrived fresh from an analysis and the had observations about that. i know the ambassador will have a comment, and barbara. let me ask mark to respond in than anyone else. >> let's not divergent to china.

we have a very clear focus. >> it does connect into what you're saying about china, the thinking process that they have. i agree this is about iran, but i think it is relevant. >> i will be very quick entry. china is worried about tw of things. first, any kind of the contagion transferring from the middle east to china. you can see stories in the papers showing these steps, the chinese government taking to control any steps toward popular dissent. secondly, both in china and korea, there is a real worry about an explosion in the middle east. not know -- not so much because there is a a care about the

democratic movement, but because where it gets its energy resources. iran is that third largest supplier of oil to china. that is the concern. they want the continuity in terms of their own economy. >> i think i will pass on that. >> one quick question. >> secretary gates is saying something different than what you said. secretary clinton and president obama clearly said yesterday and today. i would think that mr. gaddafi must leave. >> as the ambassador noted, we are here to talk about iran and not cut out the. -- and not gaddafi. wish to go on to some other questions. >> chuck hagel, dimensions --

you mentioned the problem [unintelligible] you're able to turn enemies into your friends. i read an interesting book, this book, if anybody can read, it really gives you the idea what is the problem in the world. it is a fascinating book to read. it explains the situation in the market economies.

>> we will need a question. >> what can be done for the differences between cultural, religion, and political, between iran and the united states? >> that could be an entire issue brief on its own. i think we have a lot of affinities with iran. anyone who is going to the country knows that americans are more popular there than anywhere else in the middle east. iran is a deeply religious country, a spiritual country, but 32 years of religious roles have made her iranians set up theocratic rule. -- 32 years of the lodge -- religious rule has made iranians

sick of theocratic rule. it is absolutely primed to go into a different direction. but that governments have been fighting each other for 32 years. the current government refuses to see in the tea with united states as a pillar of its survival. it has to have an enemy in a scapegoat. it will be very difficult to overcome. >> i came from poland and realized that i am glad to be here and to listen to this wonderful conversation. brief questions. the first one, you mentioned the possible spreading of the revolution in the middle east to iran.

when i think about what i call about the facebook revolutions and youtube revolutions, they started in iran after the iranian elections. can we find the beginning of this during the last presidential elections in iran? and the change of balance of power in the arab league, those revolutions that take place now in the region, will they affect the balance of power in the arab league? >> i have written that 2009 and the demonstrations that took place after the disputed presidential elections in iran. that is the beginning. the iranian government tried to say that all the intifada's are 1979, which are ridiculous.

it was facebook, cameras touching the demonstrators, people being beaten and killed on the streets of tehran. some of the organizers of the demonstrations in tunisia and egypt said that they communicated through facebook with the iranians and learn techniques on how to organize facebook pages and so on to get some of these intifadas started. i had not thought about the realignment in the arab league. it will be interesting to see. this has not been a strong organization for years. it has been a joke. if it has stronger democratic governments, it could mean a more vigorous air bleed. i was surprised that they all agreed on this in libya. that was something. you might not have seen that in the past. in terms of relationships with

iran, some people are very worried about egypt. that is possible. egypt let two iranian ships go through the suez canal for the first time. some worry about more smuggling of weapons and the gossip. these are legitimate concerns. and yet we had the saudi intervention in bahrain, said there is no right or wrong influence across the persian gulf. the u.s. is not retreating into suez let the british did. the arab countries are going to remain oriented toward the west where the foreseeable future. i don't think there should be concerned that iran is going to have great friends in the region. we have the sunni-serratia

divide and the persian divide, so that may be exaggerated. >> one comment and one question. that comment is that i believe iran is going to be the loser in all of this turmoil. primarily because of egypt. egypt has not existed on the international scene for 30 years. that will not be the case, no matter who is involved in running the government there. it will also provide an alternative place to focus this consent -- discontent. they got there, we do not want to go let the iranians did and get mullahs. we just completed a study of the opposition in iran, and what emerges is that it is an indelible part of the society, part of the social structure and goes back all the way to the

revolution for their word democrats and urban and all of that. that is not going to go away. but they will not be strong enough to overthrow the government. any real change that takes place has got to come from some insider to reach out to them. would be interested in your comment on them. >> i certainly agree that the opposition will not take over and run for a very long time. there is a transparency to the may, and the fact that it is leaders lists, because it cannot -- leaderless, because you cannot decapitated. a lot will depend on whether the members of the military remained loyal to the regime. there will be transition points,

there will be a new president, there will be a new supreme leader at some point. many had tremendous hopes invested in one later. you need an ayatollah gorbachev, and that could come with the next supreme leader. 7% are under the age of 30. they do not remember the shah. given the education level, this is going to have to of all. for the iranians say, i hope that it can be peaceful. but this regime will not remain in power for another 20 years. i would venture that within the next 5 to 10 years, we will see a change. >> yes, sir. actually, the man in front of you. >> barbara, i particularly

enjoyed your comments, but i have to take issue. as someone coming back to look -- summoned back to washington by bill richardson for being misquoted at chatham house by an iranian who said that the united states government wanted pipelines to gutter pakistan and iran, i take issue that we should encourage multiple pipeline routes through iran. i really think that that attitude has not changed. i'm giving a talk next week on turkey as an energy better. the need to reduce dependence on russia is the key to the pipelines going for turkey, for example. i would be interested in your reaction. >> we have been for this back in the 1990's. i have read an excellent book on the iranian foreign policy,

recent farm policy. if you want country not to be an outlier in the international system, you have to get them assets that they are loath to jeopardize. i think the success of the administration's have had made a mistake and giving the iranians are no assets to jeopardize. if they allowed them to have pipelines back in the 1990's, if the united states had a lot, go to take that deal with iran back in the 1990's, i don't think we would have that constant -- the combated relationship to this day. if we want central asia to be prosperous, one afghanistan to be prosperous, you do have to in this policy of blocking or ran from having pipelines, trying to discourage it transit trade, and

the late richard holbrooke was so proud of the fact that it that the transit agreement that goes from afghanistan to pakistan to india. there should be routes that go from iran to pakistan to india. it is in everyone's interest. i would refer people to john hopkins, someone who has written about the old silk road. everyone could benefit, turkey could, all of the countries along the old silk road. >> this is one area where support is not unanimous. [laughter] i have a great respect for our and the work she has done here. i think this would be absolutely the wrong time to send that signal. iran is doing everything it can now to try to find ways around the increasingly effective sanctions. this is why there is a tension between the need to engage and

find areas of cooperation, and still keep up of very strong front. if we were to send a signal now that we want to encourage pipelines to iran, it would send exactly the wrong signal. [inaudible] >> i am talking about no longer blocking them from doing this. obviously the united states, we have laws that forbid it now, very strict laws on the books. but we should stop -- >> we cannot have it both ways on this issue. in my opinion, we are facing, and i think the opinions of others, a real crossroads question of whether not the sanctions will be effective enough and sent a strong enough signal and encouragement to deter iran from progressing on its program.

faced the threat of either accepting the nuclear program and going to deterrance mode or having a military confrontation. between now and whenever that time is that we have to avoid that we need to have the strongest front possible and other countries, india and others, planning ways in which to engage on oil and get around some of the sanctions. again, maybe this is a good long term policy, but until we have a more definitive, cooperative relationship on imposing sentence and seeing if they were, and it predicts that this would be one area in which i disagree. >> 1 additional point on this. i'm not sure we should be stuck in an either/or situation here.

i do not know -- i speak only for myself -- i do not know and when we have had real strategic thinking and the united states government foreign policy. that may sound harsh for some. why are we broadening the framework tier of options and creativity -- why are we not broadening the framework of options and creativity? something that the fallout of this new dynamic in north africa and the middle east, which i think is a very clear, early 21st century example of manifestation of great power limitations. if it is not happening now, i don't know when it is ever happen and histories. the great powers have limitations and this is a good example. something will happen here. it is happening now and there will be fallout here and there will start to be some

stabilizing sen. it will not be perfect for everywhere. we should be created and not thinking in our strategic interests in connecting different ways, -- we should be created and start thinking in our strategic tenses -- interests in connecting different ways. when we lock into either this or deny either that, i do not think the world is that simple to date. i think adjustments are going to be required like never before in human history. >> yes, sir. >> barbara, concerning the thought about overlapping interests between u.s. and iran and afghanistan, before 2007 there were a lot of analysts in this city talking about a perceived overlapping of our interests in iraq.

on the ground in 2007 and 2008, ofually the iranians' goal expelling us from all over interest. they were willing to risk instability in iraq to accomplish that and to break up shia unity. it seems to me having just been on the ground in afghanistan, that their interest in expelling us from afghanistan trump's these other three and from some quite dramatically. why do we think that we could come to some sort of meeting of the minds on these other three when they are on the track again and willing to back a militant faction to expel us? >> the united states wants to get out of afghanistan in july.

it president obama is typically, we will start bringing back some of the combat troops there were part of the surge. there was a diplomatic surge as well. secretary clinton has said so. there will be a political settlement among afghans, and there will be a wider preacher and -- regional and international framework for that settlement. there will always remind us that they could do is very real harm. but in a sense, there is an open door. the united states does not want to keep troops in afghanistan for every any more than it wants to keep the troops in iraq forever. i think it is possible to work with them on this. some of these other goals are important. the u.s. has not been doing on the counter narcotics front lately. the iranians are very resentful of that because that is where a lot of the drugs are winding up.

we mentioned baluchistan. i think there are a quid pro quos there. i think united states is ready to be created there. it is always our ranch's fall and we never look at our own action. we have toppled to the governments and have american troops on either side of them, we have american troops in the persian gulf. we act as though iran is not supposed to be all launder concern to do anything to hold us back. we should look at it through their eyes as well. if we want a relatively stable afghanistan and be able to get out of there, then we need to address iranian interest also. >> i am with the washington institute. i have a question about the recommendation about in gauging the iranians.

with the green movement this now -- is now hoping to benefit, what you say about the timing of engaging in some type of diplomatic initiative in afghanistan? within not undermine the movement we are trying to encourage kurds to mark >> i do not think so at all. president reagan met with dissidents have to bring down the berlin wall. we negotiated the same time with the russians. absolutely not. " we have to do it the same time what obama and clinton are doing is that we have to stress human rights constantly. i think human rights is more important than the nuclear issue run-up. iran will not give up its nuclear program. the un has not named as special, and tore on human rights.

we can walk and chew gum at the same time. there's no problem in doing both. gillette me add another dimension to this. a dimension of reality. use all the latest gallup poll on where the united states was on afghanistan. i do not think that that will be reversed. i think those numbers are going to continue to go in the direction. it seems to me that we will have to continue to play at all of these factors into the reality of what we want, focusing on our strengths, focusing on where we had something to use as diplomatic leverage, factoring and our instruments of power into some sort of purpose, allies, relationship, the political reality of budget, of all we have done to our force

structure in the pentagon over 10 years of war, so on. regardless to what your position is, the right thing to go into iraq or not, that is passed. we are where we are. the only question is where do we go from here, libya or anywhere else? within the context of all this, there is a real possibility, new possibilities double forces into new areas -- that will forces into new areas. this should be debated but i have always believed that engagement is not achievement. engagement is not weakness. how else are you going to get -- what is the objective? the you want to go to war with iran? that is certainly an option. i'm not sure the stomach of the american people for that or any of our allies. that may be the only resolution,

i do not know. but it seems to me we have to think down the road what happens next? what is the point of this? can we be more smart on how we're doing this? every past frame of reference, every last reference point in dealing with iranian are either of these issues, and i do not see that as a weakness where a lot of people do. the political reality will dictate a certain amount of it. anyone who believes that the republican nomination for president, those debates starting now what haley barbour said in mitch daniels, that this is not would be a central piece of the republican presidential primary, what republican presidential president disagrees about the budget? let's get the deficit and under control. yes, yes, yes. where the differences are his

foreign-policy. we would get a very thorough airing of this and we have not had that for a long time in this country. we have to get out in front of this and we have the passion to do that. >> yes. >> on control association. banning nuclear capability has been a central aspiration of the iranians for a long time. do you had the impression, barbara, how news of japan at that didn't one of the most seismically active countries in the world? >> a lot my iranian friends have been wary of the it bashir reactor opening. the german started in the 1970's, and you have chinese and russians, but if you plug it into the whole thing will blow up anyway.

and now you have had japan. it is a very cautionary tale for the iranians. bashir has not opened. there were problems with the fuel rods, some say sabotage of the pumps. i think it will be awhile before the reactor starts up, if it ever does. if they do not have a functioning power plant, what did they mine all of the -- in range all the or uranium for? -- what did dave enrich all of the uranium for? it could be a factor in projecting that they might slow down. i do not think they will give up their determination on those who have a program and to say that they have a right to the program. that as a nationalistic issue. they will not go away. >> that is a lesson not just for iran but for the entire middle east.

>> hit could be a great counter- proliferation -- it is a horrible cost and terrible for the japanese, but it could be good for the other countries that supposedly want nuclear power. >> there was a question right there. >> mislaid and regent -- ms. slavin, with pakistan have more pakistan -- with pakistan have more influence in afghanistan? >> delete pakistan has more of an influence, certainly over the taliban. they had given safe haven to the afghan taliban. but iran has considerable

influence, 22% of afghans speak it dari, a version of farsi. you have a substantial population in iran as well. p even. dumpashtuns, this goes through india, the poets that once thinks of as -- even to turkey, afghans will " the poet's to you. and the spoiler role, they have historically been a store or to the spoiler. that is how he gets back at the world for isolating a since the revolution for you want to minimize their motivation to play the spoiler. in terms of the palestinian issue, they give lipstick --

they give lip service to the palestinian cause. this is a runway -- this is iran's way of exerting power, part of that to show that you cannot ignore iran. they will get back if you to hezbollah, through the support through hamas. if the arab states become more supportive of the palestinians, egypt in particular, then perhaps iran will become less relevant to the palestinian cause. that is one way to look at it. hamas do not love iran. but they take its money. the use each other. that is just natural. >> following a bomb that, -- following up on that, could you talk about what has happened in

bahrain intersects the iranians? there you have a popular movement on the shiite island of bahrain come with the saudis helping the of bahrainian ruling family. >> there were a definite effort to subvert the situation in bahrain and kuwait, eastern saudi arabia. iran was definitely in and the revolutionary mode. in more recent years, that has not been the case. i think the bahrain shias are patriotic bahrainis. they want a democracy. they won a parliament that functions and represents their views.

it is absolutely cynical for the bahrainis to call this an iranian plot. will that take advantage of it? yes. they will encourage them to die if they cannot win. but you will not see a single iranian -- you'll see iranian intelligence agents, but it is a common device. understand that this is and ethnic clash that goes back centuries. if you ever met arabs in iran and ask them about their treatment, you know that there are no sunni mosques in iran. they are not allowed. if you talk to them, they are treated very poorly.

this is not a relationship that is made in heaven by any chance. there may be some shia fallen some ayatollah -- following some ayatollah. >> we will take one more question. but in close with this final question -- the administration is wrestling with how to channel the popular will being expressed in the middle east in a democratic direction and in certain ways to -- is a case that first impressions. what it buys which to offer the administration has are wrestles with that question? how should develop policies consistent with that goal and our goal in terms of changing or ran? >> in terms of iran, i mentioned

human rights. but also, continuing to reach out to the iranian government over the nuclear issue, over afghanistan, put the onus on iran to project negotiations. do not totally pivot to sanctions and containment. we've done very well on that front, but i think the u.s. should also be constantly looking for possible avenues for dialogue with iran, especially as we see the developments in the region. there will be people in the iranian government who will be looking for, if not a resolution of differences with united states, at least two laid the groundwork for the changes, and there will be changes. >> thank you all, that was excellent.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [unintelligible]

>> next, a conversation with middle eastern women taking part in protests in the country. then the u.s. ambassador to live it talks about the situation in the country. after that, for the nicolas sarkozy talks about in don't military operations in libya. to end this week and on booktv, the washington post reporter leaves a discussion on the failed assassination on ronald reagan.

the sometimes dysfunctional. world of the new york mercantile situation. panels on medicine and science, the vietnam war, the founding fathers and religion, and more. can the complete schedule on booktv web site. signup for our booktv alert. >> now we go to new york city 40 annual women in the world summit. you'll hear from tina brown, the editor-in-chief of "newsweek" as well as from facebook's chief operating officer sheryl sandberg. anpour moderates poo the panel. this portion is an hour. >> just jump on it. do it. it will be gone tomorrow.

[drums playing] [applause] >> thank you for that gramm warm-up -- great warmup. i am tina brown and i am thrilled to welcome you to the second annual women in the world summit. we have assembled so many freethinking firebrands, social revolutionaries, outside agitators, rabble-rousers' in this theater tonight and for the next two days, he should take got hold different insurance policy. the green room itself a major insurrection is happening.

these are revolutionary days, and the observable facts, the amazing facts, the exhilarating fact is that our tv screens showing us that in the middle is, women are on the forefront on a fight against oppression, affecting hundreds of millions in the region, not just the oppression of women but of the whole society. the role of women in the democracy movement is hammering home the code -- -- hammering home that the treatment of women it is the marker of the civilization and it is the respect of human dignity of every individual, it is a measure of democracy itself. over the next 2.5 days, we will hear from women who come from all of the world to tell you stories that you have never heard before. stores that will in turn move view, enrage you, engage you, and called you -- show you the every day challenges that they face and overcome. we guarantee you'll want to stay connected to them and help their

eggs -- efforts in any way you can. there are so many people in these kurds who dedicate their time and talent to doing just that. and all of them deserve our thanks. over the next 2.5 days, to hear from secretary of state hillary clinton and her two predecessors in conversation, madeleine albright and condoleezza rice. you will hear from president clinton tonight, and also from a multitude of courageous activists who are linking arms to move the issues of women's rights everywhere from rhetoric to reality. it is really wonderful to be partnering again with such prestigious organizations women for women international, and human foundation. and our sponsors, but out whom we could not be here. american express, the coca-cola company, exxonmobil,

pricewaterhousecoopers, the berkeley foundation, delta and others. in framing the issues and covering the discussions for the summit, we brought together all the journalistic and editorial producing teams at of my magazines. so many of the people attending the summit had advanced the dignity and rights of women, and some of them a great personal risk. let's celebrate them. and all the women who cannot be here from all over the world. as a passionate activists, one said to me last week when she showed me her extraordinary photographs that you brought back of courageous women that she had been visiting indian congo, "if you knew them, you would care. that is what you hope -- we hope you see in the next few days. sts.me introduce my coho sheryl sandberg, chief operating

officer of facebook. [applause] >> thank you for being with us. i thought i would start tonight by talking why i am here and why i think all of us are here. we're here because we believe that gender inequality is the issue of our era. he once said that in the 19th century, the central moral issue was the slavery, in that 20th- century, it was totalitarianism. for our country, it is the injustice and oppression of girls. but those of us who are lucky to be born in a country where we are equal citizens, we know that there is not just the opportunity to help but the responsibility to help others. for some of us, who had the fortune of not being born into countries where we are equal citizens under the law, where there is no real opportunity for women, we are here because we prevailed. we triumphed over adversity and

we have stories to share to inspire others. the women that i have met i most admired in my life in our -- one motherboard in cambodia, she does not know when. she was sold into a brothel which was about 12 or 13. she lived there as a forced sex late 14 years. she escaped and did not going to live alive but of life of saving others. she has dedicated herself day in and day out to saving others from the same fate that she faced. we're here because we believe in ourselves and our fellow human beings. we believe that justice will prevail over time because justice has to prevail over time. we are here because we love. we love our daughters and we love our sons. we want this to be a better world for everyone, for everyone has the opportunity to live a life worth living.

and most of all, we are all here because we believe in action. we're not going to spend two days together and hear great stories and hugging each other is in the halls and listen and learn. we will find deep inside herself not just the conviction that the dedication to go home and do what we need to do to make the world a better place for all of us. thank you, tina. you're one of the only women in the world who has the vision and leadership to bring us all together. thank you and we're all very grateful. [applause] >> so lucky. our next co-host, dr. ngozi okonjo-iweala, the managing director of

[applause] >> thank you. my name this ngozi okonjo-iweala and i am from nigeria. my hero is from the world village in west africa. she is a martyr, a wife, and a worker. she also runs a small farm. women like her produce 8% of africa on street food. women like her are the best bouned of africa. in kenya, there are efforts to bring water to 2 million people. in my country of nigeria, they are the ones who transform, process, and market the food. it was only last year that went for the first time in the country's history were given the right to own land. in the developing world, 1000 women die in childbirth everyday. more than 33 million young

girls are still not in schools. i am here to say that is wrong. i know what it means to almost lose a child. that is why i care personally so much for each and every woman who is going through childbirth in the developing world. equality for women is essential for the world. this is smart economics. that is what we say at the world bank where i work. that is white women like these, the everyday women, are my heroes. i am delighted to support tina and the summit that brings these heroes and their stories into

the spotlight. thank you, tina. [applause] >> dr. judith rogan, president of the rockefeller foundation. >> good evening, everyone. my hero is the story about one woman's compassion for the people in her community. she founded an organization that represented the slum dwellers of mumbai. unless you are counted, you do not count. she organized the slum dwellers to tout themselves and empower them to ask mumbai for services for sanitation and for running water -- all of the things everyone in the world has the opportunity and privilege to have. she gave the poorest of the poor a collected and powerful

voice. her work has rippled across the world. she heads a network of 26 organizations called slum dwellers international. they work in 70 cities. the network in 20 countries. they provide housing for thousands of families and household sanitation for hundreds of thousands more. the is sheila understands from this very simple beginning that you have to bring these great ideas to scale. you have to engage the right partners. her ability, with them, and compassion has engaged world leaders just as she engages the mothers and children on the streets of mumbai. when we convene for this extraordinary summit, i salute sheila as my hero, not for what she has done, but because she believes she has only just begun. thank you.

[applause] >> my dear friend and partner in the summit, a board member for vital voices. she is behind the winning of courage tomorrow night at the un. >> all women are my heroes because all women are strong. tonight, i want to recognize a special woman, a special hero. her name is rebecca. i met rebekah two years ago. she came to visit me. she told me all about her. she told me how she had to flee her village.

she told me how she felt others and she also told me about the village and the community she created with other women and turned it into a village of artisans. i told her, "i have a village, too, on the fourth floor." i took her to the design studio. together, we made some jewelry, which i showed in my fashion show and sold in my shop. rebecca and i share the same space. i want to thank came up for making this possible. i think this is creating wonderful energy. i am humbled and happy to be here and i am happy to invite you all tomorrow night to the un to celebrate my five women heroes at the awards. thank you. [applause] >> meryl streep was with us last year, but right now she is making a film about a woman who personified power -- margaret thatcher. she sends us a message wishing us three days of inspiration

banshee hopefully will be with us again next year. us again next year.