guest: that is obviously a lot of different issues. essentially, is the same issue. that same issue is that there is a wave of change blowing through the middle east. the syrians have been going around saying what we saw happen in tunisia and egypt and elsewhere would never happen in

syria because syrians are committed to the positions that the syrian government have been taking vis a vis the issue of israel, for example. the impression you got from that is that they felt they were internally they felt internal secure and that is out the window. what we hear from the syrians demonstrating in various towns and cities in syria is not what sort of position do we have in israel. israel is not part of that narrative, yet. they are saying they want more freedoms and better conditions and so on. the palestinians hamas and others had a kind of talk about visiting and that would have been unthinkable. he has come under a lot of pressure from palestinians in

the west bank. hamas has come under a lot of pressure from palestinians in hezbollah. they are not happy about the leadership. there is a lot of movement on that. yemen -- the president of yemen has maneuvered his way out of dire straits in the past and he continues to find ways to maneuver around the issue of having to step down. the momentum seems to be on the protective side in yemen. many of them feel it is only a matter of days before he stepped down. the reason in part that we are seeing these pangs of birth if you will, in a place like yemen is precisely what has happened in libya.

tunisia and egypt happened rather quickly and peacefully. gaddafi decided to take the region in a different direction. he decided to resort to force. many of his peers in the middle east are looking around and saying if he can delay his departure by using violence, so can we. host: let me bring it back to the president over the last 10 days. he departs for brazil and brazil abstained from the un resolution. the president sends a letter to members of congress on monday and speaker john boehner cents a sharp response on wednesday asking for more answers and on friday there's a conference call in the situation room with congressional leaders for the president to further explain our role and our mission. all this comes at the same time that the white house says nato will take greater command authority leading to more questions as to who u.s. troops

respond to. is it the u.s. military or nato? the present will talk about this tomorrow. guest: this shows that there is a concern at the white house about congress and the broader american public if they understand the mission or support the mission. that will be an issue for the next few days for the white house to address this and obama to define what his ideas are and how he wants to get there. host: we have the aljazeera washington chief and we have the reporter for "the washington post." good morning. caller: i am curious -- does any of this have to do with the arab countries and the turmoil?

the issue that nobody wants to talk about has to be there. it has to be included in cnn. it is the country of israel. we have to get the shield away and not be able -- afraid to talk about the issues of israel and the palestinians. host: we will put that issue on the table right now. thank you. guest: the viewer raises a very important point. israel has as we all know, for several decades, been saying that one of the things that works for it as a non-arab state is that it is the only democracy in the middle east. and while many palestinians under occupation would challenge

that, many israelis believe that. it is going to be interesting to see, first of all, how democracy pans out in the middle east in a place like egypt, since a lot of the focus of attention is on egypt and if it succeeds. that would be a good indicator that it might succeed elsewhere in the region. if it failed, that would also be an indicator that might not flourished and elsewhere in the region. is going to be interesting -- it is going to be interesting. if there is a democracy narrative coming out of the arab world, it will be interesting to see have the israelis deal with it. united states has a lot to do with what is going on. they supported many of these regimes, president mubarak, vice president joe biden, up until just a few days before mubarak stepped down said that egypt is not a dictatorship. secretary of state hillary

clinton, just a short while before mubarak step down, said that the government -- stepped down said that the government was stable. we have to a knowledge that united states, by investing in the egyptian army over a period of 30 years giving over $1 billion in aid to the egyptian army in many ways, that was a wise decision because it gave the united states, the obama administration -- for all the wrath that it has been getting -- should give the administration leverage over the egyptian army, in a way that may have helped avert the kind of bloodshed in to that we're seeing currently in libya. -- bloodshed that we are currently seeing in libya. how will the world do with israel if it becomes democratic? when you deal with a democracy

you have to talk to several people offor many different people instead of just talking to one. there is a lot of doubt over whether it omar said dot could have traveled to israel in the 1970's -- omar saddat could have traveled to israel in the 1970's. the best investment in the future is the investment in democracy, not dictatorship. host: susan wachter all had this commentary -- the president does not have the -- susan westphal had this commentary -- caguest: he will talk about what his authority is pure the white house believes that he can do this without a -- is. the white house believes that he can do this without

congressional authorization. host: does this headline in "the new york times" help the president's argument? the rebels retaking libyan city ies as air strikes clear the way. guest: in my estimation, it absolutely does. in my estimation, the timing of the speech would -- the choice of monday would have been very carefully chosen after there were signs that the rebels were making gains. this is a compelling argument. there are sacrifices. i know there are questions. but, ultimately, we are on the side of history. these guys in libya they are doing the real work. we're providing air cover for them. it is the right thing to do. here is the evidence. guest: michael is joining us

first from new york. caller: there seems to be little news coming out of iran, saudi arabia, and the rest of the area where we have friendly relations -- the atrocities are being downplayed. i'm very curious about iran and what is going on there as far as any movement toward overthrowing not government by the people. thank you. host: thank you. guest: welcome back two things. we go around saying that the current wave of change started in tunisia. in a way, that is true. it did start in geneva a few months ago. remember that the iranians -- in tunisia a few months ago. remember that the iranians had undergone their own turmoil. there was a lot of turmoil led

by young people the way that we're seeing in the arab world. at the end of the day ahmadinejad did manage to suppress that, at least for time. this will be difficult to put the feel of finality and what he did. there are still things simmering in iran. the fact that you have this wave of change sweeping through the arab world will, in one way or another, nurture the aspirations of young people, not just the young people, young people and others inside of iran. it is not a done deal yet for ahmadinejad. for all the things iran is criticized for -- if you compare a ron's with the united states, with the western democracy -- iran with the united states, with the western democracies, -- in many ways

iranians do have a bigger say in their affairs of the country than we elsewhere in the arab world. what is leading to the middle east has a spirit of a song -- what is sweeping through the middle east has a spirit of its own. it has a spirit of its own. it is not about which country is more open than others. it is not about which country is richer than others and can bribe its citizenry more than others. it is a wave of change. i think people are embracing it regardless of what country it is and regardless of whether you are shia. host: david ignatius, writing from cairo "seize the moment,

mr. president." guest: i think that is right. obama has avoided doing -- president bush gave grand speeches about democracy moving forward, how we wanted to change every region of the world. obama has taken this approach of being moment-by-moment, event- by-he then, country-by-country -- event-by-event, country-by-

country. so far he has been very much about not giving any grand vision for this. i will be curious to see how he goes forward. there is concern that he is not articulating anything more broad for the region. guest: let me read you some of the recommendations from "the washington post." first, the president should do everything he can to help the egyptian revolution succeed. guest: i just want to start off by fixing a thought from a

little while ago. president bush came with a clear and loud democracy agenda, and he alienated many of his friends and allies in the middle east. we all remember the famous rice speech in cairo in which she got and egyptians to democratize -=-- she called on egyptians to democratize. obama seemed to disavow the democracy agenda particularly what had happened in iraq often seen as a disaster. i do not think that the fact that he seemed to publicly disavowed the democracy and that -- i do not think he stopped behind-the-scenes he or the administration, working for it. would be led ngos in a place like egypt continues apace --

working with ngos in a place like egypt continues apace. contact with those ngos and young people and so on did help the economic change in the country of egypt. the problem that the united states has in a place like libya, for example, and the united states, and the western allies -- they would not face this country down the road, at least in the middle east. there was the lockerbie bombing. sanctions were slapped on libya. for many years. the sanctions were eased and lifted. questions continued to loom around what actually had happened in lockerbie? what was libya's role in that flight? those questions, up till now have not been resolved beyond

reasonable doubt, not in the arab world, and my feeling, not in the united states, either. how come no sanctions were lifted? the united states worked to have those sanctions lifted. tony blair in the u.k. worked to have those sanctions lifted. whatever the outcome in libya is going to be, i think those questions will have to be revisited. there are a lot of people who feel that the arabs offering, although it could be turned to fall, there are a lot of people who feel that the arab spring has actually been allowed to be buried in libya because of colonel gaddafi pierre not sure to what extent i agree with that or not. -- colonel gaddafi. i am not sure to what extent i agree with that or not. the allies did intervene in

libya to stop what looked like sure saw it -- for slaughter of civilians. part of the credit that the obama administration will claim in the speech. host: we will be covering that live on the c-span networks. if you are looking -- listening we're here with abderrahim foukara and perry bacon. our next caller is from when osiris -- buenos aires. caller: al jazeera, you have done absolutely the best job jerry you deserve awards. -- best job. you deserve rewards. i know many of your people have been killed in every nation. as we talk about libya mr. obama -- nothing that he does,

he will be criticized, no matter what he does. it is a little too late, what he has done but still the right move. two questions. mr. foukara how to get rid of the dictator gaddafi? the other question is, what is killing the libyans right now is the tanks, not to the mercenaries. what should be done about the tanks? host: thank you for your call. let's begin with the issue of the tanks. guest: i was confused by the question. host: the role that the tanks are playing. guest: -- host: -- guest: the role of the u.s.

military has been broadly successful in the past few days. it will be interesting to see how president obama frames that tomorrow. we had an intervention that has worked. i'll be curious to see how the place where we are going from here. there will be discussion of what the u.s. role is. guest: when does dennis kucinich began the impeachment hearings? -- begin the impeachment hearings, saying that obama has overstepped his bounds? guest: kucinich has been a critic. john boehner has been very critical. even richard lugar an ally of the president and very supportive of his foreign policy, has been very critical.

secretary clinton and robert gates are going to capitol hill on wednesday to work with members of both houses of congress and both parties. it will be interesting to see how they try to build support behind this mission which currently has very little support from either party. host: one way we have been covering the development are through our al jazeera sources. thank you before allow us to hear what is happening -- thank you for allowing us to hear what is happening. guest: if i may, let me just touch on the issue that your previous caller raised about how you get rid of gaddafi. gaddafi is not easy to get rid of. this is a man who has stayed in power for 42 years. it tells you something about his ability to stay in power. gaddafi comes across, often as being crazy and erratic. there is another side to him. he can be a brilliant

strategist, whether you like it or not. the day that the security council passed the resolution of the knife lows -- over the no- fly zone, just two hours before the vote, he gave another one of those frightening speeches in which he talked about cleansing people house-to-house and door- to-door in street to street. when minutes of this security council passing the resolution, he sent out his deputy foreign minister to say, we will deal positively with the security council resolution. that i'm creating -- not just creating confusion, but also trying to put some libyans on his side. look, we're dealing with this positivity but the international community, led by the crusaders, it is actually attacking us as libyans. it seems to have worked -- that

strategy -- in his favor, to a point. ultimately, this is going to be a combination of the help coming from the outside world, led by the united states, france, britain, despite all of the fears that is raising in the arab and muslim world. rebels will have to continue to play a very proactive role. we have seen some of that in the article you referenced earlier. will that ultimately dislodge him from power and how long will it take? we have been hearing from u.s. officials that he is sending out some of his own people to test the waters, looking for a way out. we'll see if that happens. host: good morning republican line. caller: could morning. how're you today? host: we are fine. go ahead with your question.

caller: i think i am very proud of what we're doing in the middle east. we're trying to do something that is not from a long time ago. i commend al jazeera for bringing the attacks. i'm disappointed that most of the media in the united states has taken over the israeli government's point of view. i think we need to hear the facts. israel should be welcoming democracy in the middle east more than anybody else. we're tired of fighting. we're tired of the conflict. i do not see any difference in what these people are doing doing with each other overseas whatever religion or nationality, they do not have a problem. i commend to the people and i hope that the people -- commend

the people and i hope that the people -- none of the anti-is really issue is what is going on in egypt or tunisia. president for life -- people are starving to death. people need a break. host: thank you for calling. we have another question from another viewer. guest: this is part of the equation that has not been tackled yet in all of these debates that people have been having about why this current wave of changes sweeping through

the region. in the case of to any ship, -- of tunisia, it started with the young man who second saw bonfire because he could not give the job -- whose set himself on fire because he could not get a job. the story behind that is that the government of the former president of tunisia had introduced some economic reforms and privatized the economy, restructured it in consultation with the world bank and the imf and other institutions of the international financial system. unemployment continues to grow. prices continued to grow. food prices continued to grow. even tinea's middle-class, which was quite substantial -- attorney john's middle-class,

which was quite substantial -- even to me just middle-class -- even tunisia's middle-class, which was quite substantial, had standing to do with it. the overriding. -- the overriding spirit of this is that people are saying, we have had enough of political tyranny. we want freedom. at this point in time, the narrative is not about empty western positions or empty israeli positions. it is about your need within those countries, although i am sure that the position that the west has played in this, the position of how israel is connected to all of this will become part of the debate at some point but these questions may be raised in a different environment, particularly if you get democratic systems appearing in the middle east.

host: from president obama to sarah palin -- praising her role as the first female to serve on a national party ticket. the democrats lost in 1984 in one of the biggest landslides for ronald reagan. 27 years later what is the legacy? guest: her legacy is that of a trailblazer. whoever becomes the first team all president will mentioned her in the speech when she wins -- first female president will mention her in the speech when she wins. it will be the first in a series of important figures. guest: i want to say something about geraldine ferraro did. there is a lot of debate in the

arab and muslim world about the role of women. we have seen in tunisia egypt other parts of the arab world, that women have played a prominent role in these revolutions. we have also been hearing from women subsequently, that the role that they have been assigned or seem to have been assigned after the resolution -- revolution is not commensurate with the roles they have played in bringing down these governments. the timing of this debate in the united states is interesting. there is a counterpart to it in the arab world. host: surely you forget that chisholm broke the ceiling first in 1972 -- you forget that shirley chisholm broke the ceiling first in 1972. angela joining us from south carolina. good morning.

caller: good morning. first of all i would like to thank al jazeera for the coverage we are getting from a different perspective. i have a question. there seems to be a lot of confusion in the media. all of the media reports are saying there needs to be more clarity. i have been following this from the beginning. i think that president obama stated the mission. it was for the prevention of the slaughter. why is the media focused more on what he did not say? he never said that the mission was to remove gaddafi yet all of the criticism seems to be coming from what he did not say and not what he actually said. do you think that the way president obama has gone about this with international cooperation, with cooperation

from the arab league leads to a greater possibility of some type of peace in the middle east with citizens all over enjoying freedoms that they may have never seen in their lifetimes? host: thank you. guest: on the issue of removing gaddafi from office, he was indicted. from the first day, president obama said that he was illegitimate. obviously that left it open for a lot of people to interpreted as if the united states does anything, the ultimate goal would be to remove him from office. you made reference earlier to david ignatius who makes a very valid and important point, which is bad people in the arab world are looking at what president obama has been saying or doing

about libya, not necessarily knowing fully the domestic policy background to the way he is articulating his policy in libya. clearly, as far as the message is concerned president obama is in a big hole. he could not just say the ultimate operation -- all the middle of the operation is to get rid of gaddafi but, if you read between the lines, i think that is the goal. president obama, hillary clinton, and others, have made it absolutely clear that, if gaddafi stays in power that is going to be a nightmare scenario not just for libya. it will be a nightmare for the neighbors. you have a fragile situation in tunisia, in egypt. for gaddafi to survive, he is going to undermine any

accomplishments those countries have made. it will be a nightmare scenario for the west if he survives the peace. the west has coupled with gaddafi's food for years. this will be described as a major victory for him in libya. where did the french british and americans go with that? another 43 years? his son? when the obama administration's says carlton goal is not to remove him that is a domestic policy -- says our goal is not to remove him, that is a domestic policy consideration. many people have interpreted the speech as getting gaddafi out is obama's ultimate goal. host: let's talk about what is written in the national journal.

"the great distrust." with regard to the debate over the debt to the and the cheers but it, where is this going to lead? -- over the debt and the budget, where is this going to lead? guest: whenever john boehner tries to compromise with the >> the new members -- with obama the new member said, do not back down, did not compromise, and obama faces similar pressure -- to do not compromise, and obama faces similar pressure. it will be a challenge to see which of these leaders can make a movement towards the center

and really irritate their party along the way. this is about who will compromise and how. it looks like obama is more likely to compromise. there will be repercussions for obama. host: let's take it one step further. on friday, chuck schumer said that there had been some progress in the budget negotiations. according to "the washington post," prompting a quick succession of statements from speaker boehner house republican eric cantor, and others -- >>guest: this is a strange area when a leader of congress says that a compromise might happen and he is attacked for saying it. boehner, kantor and mccarthy

are being very careful about negotiating and appealing to the new party, which did win the collection and is very empowered right now. they want to cut every announced they can. host: is there another opportunity for a continuing resolution beyond april late? guest: to get this done in two weeks will be very hard. what is likely is that there will be a continuing resolution for another week while they feel -- finished then real agreement. i am almost certain there will be one more but i think they both know where we're headed. host: it is this any way to run a railroad station a federal government, when you have a series of continuing resolutions with no clarity in how washington is going to spend money this year and the budget ends september 30. it is not that far away. guest: i feel like we just went

through an election. we are talking about the next one already. it is interesting together with what happened in wisconsin and ohio a few weeks ago it is interesting to people sitting outside of the united states to actually watch it. it is interesting where people are watching in the middle east, where there is discussion about democracy. it is interesting to watch american democracy at work and to draw your own conclusions about the good and bad things about it. guest: let me add one short thought. i was in president -- i was in south america with president obama. each time he would say that, people would laugh. ha it is a work in progress here as well. -- it is a work in progress here as well.

host: jason from new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and for this topic. i'd think this is really hard for a lot of people to understand. i just have to bring it back to a very basic level. some of these discussions what they remind me of, it's like to hands are clapping and argument about what one is making the sound. we're losing the bigger picture. what condi said it is an eye for and i will make the entire -- gandhi said is an eye for an eye will make the entire world blind. there is a book which says we should be sharpen our sickle's instead of our swords --

sharpening our sickles instead of our swords. what -- where is peace? when is igt going to end? god bless america. god bless you guys. host: hoping for arab mandelas -- guest: let me come back to the caller who said he wants to see more peace. president obama will argue that he was trying to restore peace to all that something you can develop. that is one problem that he has.

looks like we're fighting the war. he will not call it a war. what happens after this? host: nelson mandela advocated peace in the -- in south africa. >> one of the issues -- it would be a pity if people around the world remembered the arab world for what is going on in libya rather than cairo. the peaceful protests have a sense of vision. it projected this image of peace, that the world is perhaps looking for. nelson mandela, i think he is right. this is not just about changing said that the arab world has been seeing for 30 years. this is a change from funding

that the arab world has possibly seen for hundreds of years -- from something that the arab world has possibly seen for hundreds of years. nelson mandela is an interesting reference. to me, he is obviously a huge moral power. he brought the apartheid system in south africa peacefully down beauty keep peace a chance in that part of the country. even in today's south africa, many people still have strong reservations about what the anc has been able to achieve. four -- to achieve for black people in that part of the world. there is an interesting twist for nelson mandela in libya. gaddafi, when he gave up on arab support, as he said when he was trying to have the sanctions lifted on libya he turned to

sub-saharan africa and started saying libya is not arab, libya is african beauty to somebody like nelson mandela who flew into libya -- libya is african. he took somebody like nelson mandela, who flew into libya who helped lift the sanctions gave him moral support in many different ways. nobody is perfect, not even nelson mandela. he helped bring apartheid down, but gaddafi's critics will tell you that he helped a monster as critics describe gaddafi survive many more years. host: let's conclude where we began -- the president back in washington congress returning this week. what is in the week ahead? guest: the speech on monday about libya. he will try to really explain to

americans where we are headed, what is going on, why the u.s. is there and what we're doing. the rest of the week -- he does not have a big schedule. there is a meeting on capitol hill on wednesday with secretary gates, secretary clinton admiral mullen. the next two weeks will be all about vice president biden and the budget. that will be a big under current handling the negotiations. host: no shortage of stores domestically or internationally --

a former c.i.a. covert operations officer. and later a look at congressional funding for the national flood insurance program. with ben mckay of property casualty insurers association of america. that's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> as protests continue in the middle east and as nato set to take control of military operations in libya, find the latest from the u.n. security council administration officials and reaction from world leaders. on the c-span video library. all searchable on your computer any time. watch what you want when you want. >> days after the japanese earthquake and tsunami german chancellor angela merkel spoke to members of the bundestag about her decision to close several nuclear plants. now a look at her remarks.

this is about 35 minutes. the earth shook in japan. 9.0 on the richter scale and the worst earthquake to hit japan in its recorded modern history. its epicenter was about 100 kilometers earth of the city of sen day and about -- sedona and about -- sendai and north of toke tokyo. a 10 meter high tsunami wave hit the east coast of the japanese main island of hunchu and created terrible devastation. the evening of the same day the news came that in one of

the reactors of the nuclear facility in fukushima one the cooling system had failed and that in the facility a fire had broken out. the japanese government declared a nuclear state of emergency. during the following days and nights many aftershocks shook the country and it continues to this day. earthquakes and tsunamis have devastated large swaths of land of japan's northeast region and entire townships were obliterated. the number of victims is increasing. day by day. and we don't know actually how many they are. too many people are still missing. countless houses roads and streets have been obliterated and many people have become homeless. the electricity is either rationed or it's not there at all. fuel drinking water and foodstuffs are scarce.

since the event, the evacuation zone around fukushima is being expanded and expanded. the work -- the workers there are risking their lives by fighting in an heroic and desperate manner against the nuclear -- the worst case accident. they not only risked their health but also their lives. and events are unfolding more and more dramatically there. failing cooling systems. reports about exposed nuclear fuel rods that are heating up more and more. explosions in different reactors and in one case, also supposedly the damage one of the safety containers and there are leakages of radioactivity. we must assume that also the reactor cores of three of the facilities have been heavily damaged. when we look at these images and listen to the reports, we are filled with disbelief.

we are filled with compassion and with sadness. the catastrophe in japan has an almost -- words are failing us. our deepest sympathy, our thoughts and our prayers are with the people of japan. [applause] in this hour of severe trial germany stands by the side of japan. whatever we can do in order to help the people in japan cope with this unimaginable catastrophe, we are going to do that. and i have reassured prime

minister and our federal foreign minister has also told that to his japanese colleague. experts have been helped to locate survivors. i would like to thank them and i would like to thank the helpers from other organizations for their work for the people in japan. [applause] i would also like to thank all helpers with the foreign ministry and our local embassy. they are courting our assistance and the support of the german citizens in the crisis area who wish to leave the country. the united nations too have sent teams to japan. it is going to support the japanese government to coordinate reconstruction measures. the european union has also offered their assistance.

dear colleagues. the consequences of this catastrophe cannot yet be assessed. the people who have been affected locally have not even had an opportunity to determine in what areas they are going to need additional help. because the nightmare of new earthquakes and nuclear horror scenarios have not found their end. in this situation it is imperative that we show the people in japan that they're not alone. in this context actions of each individual count. important german aid organizations have established donation accounts. and our president has called upon us to give immediate aid to japan by donating to these organizations. and i would like to support his appeal expressly at this moment. the donations are supposed to

benefit especially people in japan who have become homeless on account of earthquakes tsunami and the nuclear disaster. and we would luke to send them a sign -- like to send them a sign of our solidarity by supporting them immediately. by donating money. [applause] this means help among friends. japan was and is a close friend of germany and i'm saying this exactly now at the 150th anniversary of the existence of our diplomatic relationships. in this moment, many people are fighting for their sheer survival. in view of this tragedy it is almost inappropriate to speculate about the economic consequences of this catastrophe. and i'm going to touch upon it very briefly for that reason. although they are of course of utmost importance for the

future of japan, once the horror of these messages have stopped. the economic consequences of the triple catastrophe are briefly -- they cannot be assessed yet. after past naffle catastrophes, japan -- past natural catastrophes, japan's economy recovered through public reconstruction programs after the heavy earthquake in and around kobi in 1995, a recession could be prevented. and still, i think that the world this time has to prepare that japan is going to be faced with much worse challenges than that was the case with previous catastrophes. let us not forget that japan is the third largest economy in the world. at the moment, i don't think that the global economy is going to be impacted significantly. still, and let me add this

expressly, we are going to work together with our international partners to minimize the potential fallout from the catastrophe for the global economy in the best possible fashion. ladies and gentlemen, the events in japan do not only mean an unbelieveable catastrophe for japan. they are also a watershed for the entire world for europe and also for germany. i've said it time and again in the past and let me repeat it here today we cannot and must not simply go back to business as usual. and we are not going to revert to business as usual. and the people in germany are not doing that either. and that shows their great interest in all the special broad casts and television -- broadcasts and television about japan and politicianings must not revert to business as usual. the federal government must not revert to business as usual. and has not done so.

yes, it remains true -- it remains true such enormous earthquakes and tsunamis as they have hit japan in all probability and according to all scientific expectations are not going to apply to us. and the same is true of health consequences of the nuclear catastrophe in japan. it's not going to apply to germany. in all probability. we are too far removed from the location of the catastrophe. and yes, it remains true. we do know how safe our nuclear power plants are. they are among the globally safest facilities. and i continue to refuse on the one hand to shut down nuclear facilities in germany and then to purchase electricity from nuclear facilities of other countries. you cannot do that with me. [applause]

yes, it is true, an industrialized nation like germany, the largest economy in europe cannot immediately do without nuclear energy and cannot do without it as a technology if we want to continue cover reliably our energy demand and also he want to say because we have had a lot of heated discussion today, i would like to say one thing. in germany there's a concern -- a consensus of all political parties that we are not going to build new nuclear facilities , that nuclear energy is a bridge technology, and that we will withdraw from nuclear energy. that nuclear energy will stop. well, the leftist party the leftist party always has a special role. sorry that i tried to involve

you and obviously i'm not going to do that again. ladies and gentlemen, what we do need is a reasonable -- what we need is a reasonable and a sensible exit strategy. a country like germany also has to meet its obligations to protect the climate. because climate change was and is one. great challenges for humanity. it is not acceptable. but on the one hand, one day we say that a climate change is one. worst problems for humanity. and then the next day we pretend that all of that doesn't apply. we must speak with one voice. yes, it also remains true, energy in germany must be affordable. and we will not have solved any problems if the jobs going to other countries where the

safety of the nuclear facilities is not better and maybe it is even worse. and still despite all these indisputed facts the federal government could not and cannot simply revert to business as usual for one very, very important reason. the unbelievable events in japan taught us something which we considered impossible according to all scientific yard sticks. but it did become possible. they teach us that the risks be considered for absolutely improbable were not completely improbable. and they did become reality. and if that is the case, when in a country that as highly developed like japan, the seemingly impossible became possible.

the absolutely improbable became reality. that does change the situation. then we are faced with a new situation. and then we must act. and we did act. because the people in germany can rely on one thing. their safety and their protection are the upper most mandate of the federal government. the principle applied if in doubt, safety first. [applause] therefore, we have taken steps in light of events in japan that all german nuclear facilities are again to go -- to be subject to a comprehensive safety check in view of the new situation. therefore, we are suspending

the extension of the operating times of the german nuclear facilities by introducing for the period of three-month moratorium a decommission all nuclear facilities that became operational in 1980 or earlier. better said, we are doing more than what a moratorium would mean. because a moratorium of the extension of the operating time would bring us back to the legal foundation of the red-green government. and that would only have as a consequence that now only the one nuclear facility would have to be shut down. all other nuclear facilities would today at this moment continue to operate. [applause] what are we doing? now, listen to me exactly.

what are we doing? the federal government and the -- agree that this decommissioning through the fiat of the lender is going to be ordered. the statute about the peaceful application of nuclear energy and the protection against its dangers, briefly the nuclear statute provides exactly that.

"!"!"!"!&ktiti$j$j&-&j&h9@9@)@9@9@9@

qq÷ss÷qq÷q÷sñq÷qñsss÷q÷q÷qñqñs÷qñu÷sñqñqñsñsq÷qñq÷q÷s÷qñqqqñqñu÷sñsñsñqñq÷q÷uñqçsñsñq÷s÷sys÷qñqñqñsñsñqñsñuyqyqñqñuñqñqñqçqñsñsñsyqñqyqyqysñsñqñqñqñsñqñqysñssqñqñqñqñqñqñqsçsñssyqquaacaajjjjjjjjhhjimicmgooaaaoooooeommimmhi

uñ]89 a a

unable to predict what conduct makes them tartabull. one could argue the risks of relaxation of compliance of law increases the rules being made clearer. u.s. military manuals provided some guidance on this conducted by the military. we have little information on the standards followed by the cia. not all scholars agree that the government needs to disclose more information about procedures. some are concerned that the disclosure of legal standards can affect the flexibility afforded by the government. there is a reform acknowledgement by the u.s. in countries other than afghanistan can jeopardize u.s. diplomatic

relations with other countries. some suggest the precise legal standards may not address the pragmatic and a practical realities in a constrained the broad concessions in making targeting decisions in the battlefield. many observers are concerned that further government clarification would require the government to make public information that they historically have not done. while this technology raises many issues in many ways, the debate extends beyond this technology. there is an appearance of a conflict where certain things

are not readily identifiable. whether such boundaries exist are unknown. the involvement of factors beyond regular u.s. forces that often operate overtly further obscures the nature and extent of our operations. but everett droned technology means, in this -- what ever drawn technology means in this society, [unintelligible] thanks for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. now to our moderator. >> thanks to the students. a really clear and articulate a

presentation of the number of challenges that many of us are familiar with and have been working on. i will introduce them so that we are familiar with their background. i have asked them to give us comments on the presentation by the students. peter will be moving around a room with a microphone. please wait for the microphone before you speak so we all can hear you. please limit comments to about three minutes. we want to make sure we have a rich discussion. it is a rare moment when we invite people to comment. it is my pleasure to introduce

the tournament -- lieutenant- colonel the chief of the international law french. -- branch. our next panel member has clarified international humanitarian law and looking at the issue of civilian participation.

he is published widely in the field with his books and guidance. we cannot have better people joining us to comment on this and the broader dilemma that has been raised. >> hover like to thank the society in human rights interest group and the columbia law students for their presentations. i think you were trying to get your arms around this topic. i have faced a series of challenges, one is trying to focus in on this issue. you run the risk of being criticized. one alternative is the view followed a broader survey.

i want to congratulate you on the way did you have laid the south into the research that has gone into it. you can go to the website and download it. but i appreciate was the fact that you begin your paper in comments today with a discussion about the nature and scope of the conflict. too often i look at the geographic limitation to the current conflict. it is often bypassed in the

said as the analysis it's more to a micro level and what is going on in afghanistan pakistan, and yemen. i am not speaking on behalf the to behalf of the u.s. army. and not saying that there is no fence are, but i submit that it is a question on how applicable this may or may not be. i think it is part of the discussion. why do i say that? first, it is because oftentimes we think of the current conflict as something that has never happened before. there are some attributes that to give that some legitimacy.

in other ways, there are aspects that we can draw from from prior conflicts, for example the second world war. neutrality sovereignty, all of those appropriately applied now. do they observed a in -- inappropriate buffer to the conflict? i'd agree this con -- this geographical bypass concept. if there is not a geographical limitation, the parties could launch drones in downtown london. it is not a legitimate argument. are the concept of sovereignty do they afford a balanced check?

it is a question that i do not know that we are asking or discussing. i think and you need to focus in on this issue of looking at it from what is the association for membership in this? -- membership in and statistics. u.s. identified the difficulties when you are dealing with a threat. a threat that is tough to define. how do you define concepts such as member and status? how you define the nature and scope of a conflict?

i want to include these beginning remarks. it is important that everyone realizes that ambiguity within the tactical level of the military is not helpful. to the extent that there is confusion, please know that we do not view that as helpful in the military. of want to offer of one thing that the department of defense has done. many of you may be aware of bridging this ambiguity or gap. that is through the department of defense directive. through it, the department of defense has tried to provide the

defense at the level that regardless of how a conflict is characterized, is the recognition the reason why we may disagree. the judge advocate's are advising commands in the field. there is a place for that this agreement and discussion. it is not in the operational theater. the department of defense has implemented this directive. however you would characterize it we will apply a matter of policy the rules that govern international conflict. it may salt and answer some questions. i recognize that the mechanism for an to when that policy directive is unsatisfying itself. that is one aspect of want to

point out in terms of how we try to operate at a technical and operational level to bridge this gap in terms of the in ambiguity of the applicable law. >> thanks. i would like to think the organizers. i do not spend enough time for jet lag. i have to say that i am not here in my official capacity. i speak in my personal capacity. that is on some of these issues. the paper that the students have written highlight important issues carry.

it includes a may be targeted. there may also be other questions, such as does it apply to a certain territory. what is a standard of threat or on the attack in these types of locations? these are questions of neutrality the territory may be subject to use of force. of these questions we can discuss, but will not get to be very far.

the overarching question that move this is the will of law. there is a growing sense that we really do not know what the law is. it is a serious issue at stake about human life. these are fundamental issues. we are challenged to come up with questions that are in line with the values we have developed over centuries and in line with the operational requirements. the rule of law requires the

there are forms that everyone knows. what does the law required, and what are the standards? these norms that exist are close to the values that we have in our society but certainly the rule of law shows these standards are implemented. they make sure these standards are followed a practice. there is a certain amount of transparency. if there is no agreement, we have to come to an agreement as an international community. there are different forms of the clarification process.

the international conference is coming up. we have to clarify the flawed. there is no use in taking into positions that we will never consensus. we have to try to come up with something that everybody will agree to add some point. there must be a form of accountability that a response to the practical needs of what we are talking about here. states will never be willing to disclose all kind of intelligence information that is crucial to their security. on the other hand, these standards cannot just remain secret. the separation of power is at the basis of our society.

we have to work on this. we have to do something to respond to the security requirements. on the other hand, we are human beings. and they may be harmed by the security operation. we have an individual interest in the security of human life and dignity that have to be respected. you must have clarity of standards.

these others, we could be discussing for years this form is probably not enough to have international consensus. >> thanks. i will make some brief reflections to sharpen what we are talking about, and then we will open it up to comments. we are very familiar with the debates that are highlighted in the paper. many of regarding questions of skill and international law. i think what we are hearing today is we can focus on this for the rest of peloton is the

ball of this policy. doesn't matter that we articulate a particular set of standards or rule as binding or are we moving towards a place where policy recommendations or directives could be just as effective in determining the rules of the game that apply to all operators legal advisers, operators on the ground where the operations are being conducted? do we want to be more clear about that, or are we moving between law and politics? a question that i think neil is raising is the will of law -- rule of law do we have to

clarify the legal standards it is applying when engaged in conflict and military operations? is there something that tells the world what standards are being applied? should it? is the model being increasingly placed on those engaging in international law on a daily basis? some are observing and monetary -- monitoring compliance. i want to reflect on a question that has come up but i want to see from members of the audience are there aspects of ambiguity or a lack of clarity

and transparency that are advantageous to the state? we have the position that it is not helpful for operators in the legal advisers to be unclear. it is a broader question of who can be targeted. is there some benefit to ambiguity that you want to articulate and understand better what to those advantages maybe? i think we are now going to move to the audience. >> i am a professor at international law.

i want to add to the thanks received so far for organizing this event. this is a question the students can respond to as well as several speakers neal and chris. you both spoke to the importance of clarity in this area of law. they need clearer guidance in what they are doing. he spoke about the need for clarity when talking about the rule of law. to be undermined that which should be fighting all of our policies at every level? there may be able to weaken gain

greater clarity. i wonder if they can respond to what they found in their research. when they worked with a group they came to a consensus that there is a character known as continuous combat function who may be acting beyond the traditional battle field. that person cannot be targeted and killed unless there is a case of necessity. that brings us back to hostility. there may be ongoing fighting. there is a different necessity.

is not that the concept from which we can build a consensus on? has the united states government taking a position on this very important matter? >> neal, you have written a lot about the concept of necessity. the focus on the research house not on what it means to have this policy, but the focus of our research was on the

comparative transparency about the way the military understands the standards. many of these standards include what they reflect in many handbooks that we know there are procedures and a discussion taking place among the military and among more than two dozen people. that is clear and is reflected in those manuals. we hear other people talking about the standard. there is a comparative silence about other actors including the cia and the contractors involved. if an military members, how the standards are fitting in to the

decisions they are conducting. an issue like military necessity, we would want to worry if the discussions are happening here and is that a concern reflected in the face among these other actors about the kinds of standards they are implying and what does it mean for us? >> this may underscore the difficulties. it may be a very baseline question in terms of this kind of necessity. i would turn this back to some of the direct hostilities and interpreted guidance. i would acknowledge that there are differences of opinion.

it is diplomatic of the breadth and depth of this conversation. it goes back to the issues about direct participation in hostility and whether or not there are out requirements. as a first resort it may be used as in a certain type of conflict. i think it is a very helpful approach about what are the general reproaches of law. without coming into this, what does it mean? how strict is the standard?

if we looked behind the rules necessity has always been there somewhere, somehow. let us not get into that detailed discussion. the state does not use force. there is necessity. you have to assess how much damage you are going to cause. we must not to get into how much is justified.

we have to look at the circumstances. what is necessary? we look at erroneous use of force and other types of forces. >> let me see if there are other questions. >> i want to commend the students on the quality of the research in the port they had issued. it is a very good piece of work.

i want to return to what i think is your fundamental question for issue. there is a lack of guidance issues by the cia on the rules and policies that today our governing 5. as a legal adviser i became very sensitive to the facts that the legal advice that i was obligated to provide, the policy advice are two different things. we may agree that in an area of democratic governance, the public issuance sees such guidance that is advisable. do you believe there is a legal obligation for the office of counsel of the cia to issue such

guidance? >> great question. i will bring that and ask others to comment on this. we may agree or disagree about whether or not it is a good thing has to get a clear statement for the applicable law. what are the legal obligations around clarity of this rule and understanding the free market? indicate to me if you would like to comment on this. i would take the question out and see what is a more broad application to the u.s. as a whole. i am not aware of any application expressed or

implied requiring the state to make the articulations that are being discussed. maybe it should have been. there was a discussion about the right to know. but it triggered in me was a reminder that it is important that we distinguish between complications the state is under versus policy and the emerging concept of what is right. i am not aware of the application expressed. the application that we are dealing with in the military is meeting conventions when they are violated. that application is summed up where if the violation is of great nature, the u.s. must prosecutors or extradite.

the u.s. must take such action to prevent it from reoccurring. i am not aware of one of the nature you are discussing. >> we have to ensure respect and use respect. it means that these people have to know what the rules are. the instructions have to be fairly clear. accountability is lost regarding those storm -- terms and

standards. we can confront and obligation to clear standards that will be transparent. part of the obligation is to ensure respect for what ever the standards are determined to be by those that it is determined to do the oversight. >> thanks. >> i am from and why you. -- new york university. we are discussing drones but it

needs to be seen in the broader context of the cia and mission operations around the world. many ways similar issues. the situation is not transparent. we are engaged in any of these exercises, but if we were, you can ensure that we are giving due respect appeared. 60,000 people or personnel.

the budget request next year is billions of dollars. these special forces not the cia but just the military. one does not know in any given operation whether the military special forces are handling it for the cia. there is an obligation of accountability. whether it comes from this or

the other else. that is what human-rights is all about. >> i will take a few questions and then come back to the title. the gentleman in the back. >> my name is charles stevenson. i am formally with the u.s. agency for international development in washington. this is a wonderful discussion. it seems to present the need for a framework for organizing these concepts. in the basement of the state department i sought a statement that said, lawn never solves anything except fascism communism, and slavery. i will not say these are fights over values but trying to use

more neutral language. anybody who saw the cover of time magazine with the young lady from afghanistan to head an imputation of for a frivolous dispute involving a gender issue, should be aware that it is a value that everybody expects -- and respect. it is important to preserve our ladies. there is a framework developed by a political scientist. now he is an international lawyer.

they saw that fascism was going to be a world problem and they organized talks about how to make policy decisions that would be authoritative in law and policy. they organized a vocabulary that took away the values extensions between law and policy. people are making these decisions. it is a sequence in which important decisions are made. it is right down to a man pulling the trigger on the ground. i talk about the world -- word, ambiguity. one man's ambiguity is another man's new ones. -- new wantsuance.

[unintelligible] >> the lighting is making you look like professor alvarez. >> i am from the uk. thanks a fascinating discussion. i look forward to reading the paper in more detail. i've a flight to make a comment or ask a question. most of international sanitarian law is not specific. we have a number of instruments specific on this. most international humanitarian

laws are focused on how to conduct hostility. i agree with everything neal has said about the law on this topic. you have precautions in necessity in the attack. the topic of this paper is ground technology. in the opening remarks, there was a suggestion about the students into their work ranging beyond this. what is it that makes this technology different from the cruise missiles used recently in respect to libya? it could be very cautious if every time we come in contact with a new technology that we have a technology-specific standard. i wonder whether this debate has

really risen because at the concluding paragraph, it is somehow emblematic of a number of other issues, or is there a new and a real critical issue here? >> thanks very much. >> i am a journalist. this is regarding procedures that the check to follow in the air force discussing operations with the drones. i want to look at this with iraq as opposed to pakistan.

i am wondering if the army of operations have determined if something can be targeted. so i have a question about the army and air force collaborating on this fact. a wonder if they worked together on a particular operation. and i have a hypothetical question if i am a villager and i am discussing a military drone, and to i understand what has been done if a drone has attacked my family? how do i contact an army jag system so i can track down the

people who made the legal decision? how does it happen in practical terms? this is a legal system the we should be able to appeal to. i am talking about the pentagon, not the cia. thanks. >> one more question. >> i am a former legal counsel of the united nations. i am the chairman of the board of trustees. i have a few reflections. this is an extremely important issue that you are discussing. is there an armed conflict in a particular situation? this is closely related to

terrorism. it has blurred the distinction between fighting a commonality in the fighting a war. i like to draw attention to the madrid agenda. it was adopted in 2005 by an organization of former heads of state and government. terrorism is criminality. you have to fight that the way you fight criminality. if you have not discussed this, it is important to draw the distinction that what you are doing is you are engaging in terrorism when you attacked people.

if it is a non-conflict i am very concerned that if you identify a target that is admissible. it is a question of timing. perhaps he can attack them with a drone. some would say is an attack would be completely unacceptable. this is one issue i am thinking about a lot. how do you know that the target is permissible and it is not surrounded by some of the civilians that is completely unacceptable? also regarding outsourcing issues i have a very strong

view. i took exception to the way they are using firms to do this kind of work for the reason of responsibility resting squarely on people -- it should be the government responsible for this. i am extremely concerned along with the red cross. these people are probably not educated as far as humanitarian concerns. >> there are a few things that would be great if you can speak to from around the room. is this a legal system in which those affected have a right to know what is the legal system

being applied to them? can they interact with this legal system? what do you think about the question? also whether or not controlling technology -- carona technologydrone technology and if it is related to other issues. we will go to you first, chris. >> i apologize that there is more than one reason why i work in a profession where you have to wear name tags. i will not attempt to pronounced some of the names.

in terms of the first question this idea of approaching or how one would find out -- there is interaction, we can refer to afghanistan as the proverbial better filled. there are opportunities for those engaged with the afghans or provincial reconstruction teams. you have crossed the threshold of purdue are targeted for tartabull. -- where you are targeted for can be targeted. there is interaction with the local u.s. and allied coalition forces into the afghan for

discussion. i think we all know. there is some degree of ongoing discussion between the afghan government and the taliban and other groups about forms of reconciliation. there is some ability but i will not speak of specifics in in the area. the army plays a role in targeting operations. the air force focuses more on air operations. we certainly to advise on targeting within army units and those working their wake-up. as to the point about drown technology leader -- drone

technology everything is reviewed. i am not sure about what it is about this technology that leads people to the -- leads people to a certain conclusion when comparing it to something like a cruise missile. what i found interesting in my research is that you can find the same set of facts. you define opposite views on the aspect of drones flore touring around for six hours at a time. -- loitering around for six hours at a time.

i think a specific focus about technology is close. >> thanks. of a fight to make a couple of thoughts. -- i would like to make a couple of thoughts. transparency is indispensable at some point. we all should agree to that. [unintelligible] the results of this has not been very encouraging.

to retake uncases and start creating standards for this natural process? in some form or shape, it must be clarified. i am really thankful. it is true that certain legal questions are behind the specifics todronrs. -- drones. they are usually controlled from great distances.

it may bring certain legal implications and questions. these are complex systems sometimes guided by specialized civilians. these may be remote control specific or something like that. they do raise more issues. other issues our quality of standards. what is law enforcement and the conflict? this is not only a question regarding drones. we look at a moscow event.

was it political and governed by humanitarian law for a law enforcement issue? i think we have to acknowledge that these are extremely difficult questions. what about the drug wars in mexico? thousands of people are killed and wounded every year. it is largely out of control from the local government. the capabilities in terms of weapons and violence -- what about piracy operations? we have to acknowledge more and more the situations that we do not quite know if it is hostility or law enforcement.

sometimes it is both. there is a name to be established rule law -- of law. we should be proactive and take on this challenge and propose solutions that are acceptable for all stakeholders. i think it is a great challenge for all of us to meet. >> thanks very much. that brings us to the end of the overtime. i want to thank everyone and in film -- emphasize my own comments about the rule of law which means justice is done. it is part of the discussions

that we try to raise today. thanks for the human rights group for allowing us to fit in and the phenomenal [unintelligible] we are taking advantage of this moment to celebrate. here are a few words from dick. >> our society gives several awards each year. we had our first student writing competition. the awards were given out a couple of days ago. we have a longest running award given for a book and an article each year and it is an intense competition.

we have an international panel of judges that to use this article. the winner of the article award this year from the lead for society includes the only a nice statistical region certificate and 500 -- certificate and $500 is for the article she wrote the dark side of civilians. the title is a mouthful, but it gives insight into the richness and breath of the discussion -- breadth of the discussions she brings every month. we are impressed by what she has done today and what she does every d