a first and second selectman. they do not have any power. we have nothing. i want to make one comment. the gentleman said something about the biggest recall in los angeles. gray davis, the governor of california, was the biggest. i guess you are not talking about governors. guest: you are correct. i was talking about the largest local recall being in los angeles. i believe it was in 1909. the biggest recall we have ever had was governor davis in california. you need to examine the other recalls. there are a lot of recall statutes out there. i am not familiar with the connecticut law.

host: tom cochran is from the u.s. conference of mayors. you can find out more about the organization and the documentary at their website usmayors.org where are you from? guest: i grew up in georgia but i have been here a long time. host: tomorrow, we are going to have a discussion on recent news events, including a look at the budget and deficit battles in congress. then we will have a discussion regarding the supreme council of the armed forces with the motion that makes strikes illegal in egypt. we will be talking with people from the atlas corporation.

they will talk to us more about the political climate in egypt and the revolution in their country as well as the state of their economy and relationship with the united states. thank you for tuning in to this edition of "washington journal." we will see you again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m., eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a look at the obama administration's federal requirement to stop prescription drug abuse. then, t. boone pickens talks

about alternative oil and it is. >> monday, the commission on wartime contract is holding a hearing on how u.s. tax dollars are spent on contracts in iraq and afghanistan. witnesses will include the inspectors general for reconstruction in iraq and afghanistan. that is live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, and history. it is available to you on television, radio, and online. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local

content vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span network. available in over 1 million homes. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> according to a report from the national drug control policy office, the number of people that unintentionally overdosed on prescription drugs exceeds the number of people who overdosed on crack cocaine during the 1980's. this is about 45 minutes.

>> a special thanks to karen perry, she is the executive director of the narcotics task force. she traveled with us to be here today. from south florida and she has a powerful story. she has been absolutely focused on this effort, as you will hear. seated in the front row is the director of the fda's center of drug evaluation and research. also the deputy director of the fda center of drug evaluation and research. thank you to all the people

here. more importantly, to their staff members who have worked so long and so tirelessly on this particular issue. i want to mention the head of the cdc. he could not be here with us today. when we have met in atlanta or here, he has been absolutely focused on reducing this problem that we will talk about for a few minutes. tom is the director of the center for disease control and prevention. he is represented here today b y the director of the national center for injury prevention and control. let me start by talking about what i think it's a startling fact. for a long time, these people have paid attention to what has

been happening for a long time in seattle. it is still happening to a lot of people in this country. america is in the midst of a public health epidemic driven by prescription drug abuse. prescription drug abuse is our nation's fastest drug problem. according to the cdc, it is an epidemic. that is not a word that i or the nation's public health community uses lightly. 28,000 americans, about one in every 19 minutes, guys from an unintentional drug overdose. -- dies from an unintentional drug overuse -- overdose. to put this tragedy in

perspective, it now exceeds the number of people who have died as a result of gunshot wounds. it is a significant problem. the overdoses that we have talked about in the past, historically crack cocaine, are not at the same level of problems that we are seeing with prescription drugs today. today, in 17 states and the district of columbia, it is the leading cause of accidental death. it is ahead of car crashes were taking lives. the obama administration has been focused on this particular problem. we had increased funding for drug treatment by millions of dollars. there was the first ever

national prescription drug take that program, collected over 121 tons of prescription drugs in one day alone. in october of last year, the president signed into law historic legislation that will make it easier for communities to collect a dress or expired drugs. we set a goal of reduced -- to collect and needed -- unneeded or expired drugs. to build upon our response today, we are releasing the first national prescription drug abuse plan. many of you have been provided the plan. if you have not, this is it right here. prescription drug abuse is an unbelievable and complex drug problem. the plan is a culmination of months of work across the

federal government. veterans affairs and the department of defense are significant players in dealing with this issue. the plan outlines and unprecedented strategy by focusing on four key areas of action. the first and the most critical part of the action plan requires a significant expansion of efforts to educate health providers and citizens and the research community about the scope of this threat. too many americans are not aware of the miss use of prescription drugs and how dangerous they can be, -- misuse of prescription drugs and how dangerous they can be. we have to educate parents, youth, patients and health-care

providers. this is a crucial component of the effort. the fda action will work in concert with this plan. no one is going to build on this action by pursuing action that will require -- we are going to build on this action by pursuing legislation. second, and also a significant part of the action plan is that we are expanding efforts to monitor prescription drugs. we are calling on every state in the nation to implement a prescription drug monitoring program and to establish the ability to share data between them. these state based programs are already successful in 35 states around the country. they are saving lives are tracking prescriptions and

alerting the scribers to those who may be engaged in the doctor shopping. that only will this successfully prevent abuse and prevent pill mills from operating, they are tailored to the unique needs and challenges of the individual states. third, it will make it easier for americans to expose of expired prescription drugs. many who abuse pain relievers got them from friends or relatives. the action plan requires the dea and other agencies to conduct more take back programs and distribute information to other community organizations and distribute federal rules to make it easier for communities to host their own take back programs to dispose of these painkillers. finally, the action plan will

shut down pill mills. although it is a small number of doctors who abuse their prescribing privileges, they are responsible for an immense amount of the addiction, suffering, and death. we have a responsibility to do everything we can to bring these criminals to justice. the action plan includes training and support for federal agencies and state and medical boards to take actions against these doctors. the prescription drug abuse epidemic is not a problem that will be solved overnight. like any problem, there are common sense steps that we can take to address it. plan's prescription drug does just that. i want to thank our partners and

the other agencies that i have mentioned along with many i did not have time to mention for all of their work, all of their contributions, and all of the actors they have put into this plan. i look forward to the progress we -- all of the efforts they have put into this plan. i looked over to the progress we will make. dr. koh is going to speak and he will be followed by michele leonhart. we will be pleased to answer questions. thank you all very much. >> thank you so much, director. you have been an incredible leader for all of us in these critical health issues. we are pleased to join you for the presentation of this plan. i want to thank my colleagues

from the department of health and human services. dr. wesley clark from substance abuse and mental health services. pam could not be here today. she and i have the pleasure of " sharing a broad coordinating committee across -- pleasure of coordinating a committee. i want to acknowledge our senior health and public policy adviser. our special thanks and admiration to karen perry and the task force. the heroism she has displayed to turn personal pain into power is really extraordinary. karen, we want to thank you for

being here and sharing your war story. you heard from gil kerlikowske that the abuse of prescription drugs presents an alarming public health crisis. this public health crisis is suffocating our society. you have heard several startling facts. let me add to those facts. we know that the abuse of legal drugs, prescription drugs or over-the-counter medications, accounts for 1 million the emergency department visits per year, matching the number of this is attributable to illegal drugs. we know that nearly 1/3 of people who use illicit drugs for the first time began by abusing prescription drugs. as the director has noted, seven out of 10 of these people get these drugs from the medicine cabinet. these facts alarm all of us.

they alarmed me as a father, as a position, and as the assistant secretary for health. as the father of three children, i know that all parents try to protect their kids and try to create safe, healthy environment for them to promote health and healthy choices. we may think that prescription drugs can be used only for good. , but they are beneficial only when used appropriately. as a physician who has spent over 30 years caring for patients, i am also aware that we positions and providers have had too little opportunity for education on proper prescribing and dispensing of opiate medications. we have tried to respond to this challenge as individuals and individual organizations. this plan gives us an

opportunity to provide a broad partnership to faculties on issues with a public health and public safety approach. the promise of this plan is that we now have a chance to help each person enjoyed the gift of health. we have a chance to celebrate a health care system and a society that delivers prevented early instead of treatment too late. as you heard from the director, the plan has four dimensions, education, monitoring, disposal, enforcement. i am here to pledged the full power of the department of health and human services on all four of these dimensions. regarding education, we are increasing our commitment and our activities with respect to education for both patients and providers. you will be hearing more from dr. hamburg on how we propose to

do that. this not only involves the fda, but the centers for disease control and prevention, the health resources services administration and the national center for drug abuse. with respect to monitoring, we commit to continue to track the trends which respect to this epidemic, improve our surveillance, and use that data to help us better target our resources and outreach. we are delighted to advance monitoring, particularly with respect to the prescription drug monitoring programs that have been mentioned. with respect to disposal and enforcement, we are absolutely pleased to worked so closely with michele leonhart, who has done such a great job leading these efforts to date. the daily strive to improve the understanding of the disease of addiction use is world renowned

research. i want to thank everyone here. this plan offers tremendous promise for our country, the promise of help and hope. it is with that promise that we are absolutely delighted to moved over in partnership with anybody in this room and thousands across the country. it is my great partner -- my great pleasure to introduce my colleague, dr. margaret hamburg. >> thank you, dr. koh, gil kerlikowske, for all of the work you have done helping to shape this initiative and to lead it. thank you to all our colleagues and partners who are here today or your important work and for the months of hard work and collaboration you have put into helping to make this national

prescription drug abuse action plan a reality. it is exciting to be participating today. i want to underscore the importance of government coming together in this way, working with stakeholders on the outside to put together an action plan that addresses key issues and lays out steps we all must take working together to make a real and enduring difference in addressing this important problem for our nation. i am delighted to be here to show fda support for the administration's initiative and to share our public health efforts in this area. i speak to you this morning as a physician and public health professionals about the serious abuse and f inappropriate subscribing of analgesics.

we want to promote safe use of these potentially addictive and dangerous products. this action, which will support and act in concert with the administration's new plan, is part of the safety measure called a mitigation strategy. it will now apply to all long acting and extended relief opio d products. they are a necessary part of pain management for certain patients. they can bring serious risks when used improperly. the fda has taken steps to prevent these strategies -- tragedies with a additional labeling and by issuing direct communication to help

professionals and patients. despite these efforts, the rates of misuse and accidental overdose are still on the rise. now we face an ongoing challenge and a dual responsibility. we must ensure the patients have the access to the medications they need while preventing abuse from the damaging health effects. the fsx extent not just to individuals, but devastate extends -- the effects not just individuals, but devastates families and communities. we want to balance the unique risk/benefit profiles of this class of drugs. companies will be required to develop educational materials for the scribers and patients. our focus, a ball all, is to

ensure health professionals -- above all, is to ensure that health professionals have the resources to provide health management care. we will provide medication guys to help patients understand the benefits and -- guides to help patients understand the benefits and risks. we believe education for individual prescribes is critical. fda strongly supports the administration's called for mandatory subscriber education, which will require an amendment to federal law. we feel it would make a significant difference to the problem before us. this program is about action. today, i would like to announce that fda has sent letters to

sponsors who market long acting and extended relief formulations of these drugs. the letters layout requirements and direct the truck sponsors to develop and said -- develop and submit risk mitigation strategies for these drugs. the fda will approve all materials before they can be implemented. we expect that all training will be conducted by an accredited continuing education provider. we are serious about holding sponsors accountable for results. we will conduct periodic assessments to assure that our program is effective in reducing the tragic consequences abuse and improve

public health. we received a valuable input from a variety of leaders as we designed this program. i would like to thank all those who contributed as well as those of you who will continue to contribute as we proceed with implementation. this is a problem that touches all of us in our professional and personal lives. i look forward to continuing our work together as we build a safer and healthier america. thank you. and administrator leonhart will be the next speaker. >> thank you and good morning to all. i would like to thank gil kerlikowske for bringing us all together. not just to announce to the press what we have bought done

to address this problem, but also for your continued -- we have all done to address this problem, but for your continued leadership. we want to reduce the demand for these drugs and enforced our drug laws and take prescription drugs out of harm's weight when no longer needed. we are engaged in this fight and we will -- drugs out of harm's way when no longer needed. regulating controlled prescription drugs is dea's responsibility and it core to our mission. this includes the registration, monitoring, and enforcement of laws and oversight of health care professionals who write

and fill prescriptions. when taken properly, many of these medicines are extremely useful and provide great benefits for the patients who they are prescribed for. when abuse, controlled prescription drugs are just as dangerous and just as addictive as street drugs like heroin. the more we can do to stop the abuse of prescription drugs, the more we will be in reducing the death, destruction and despair that accompanies all drug abuse. dea has made it a priority to reduce doctor shopping and to investigate those who abuse their responsibility as medical professionals, by late be controlled substances act, and -- violate the controlled violate theact and by l

pledge to first do no harm. dea is leading the way in eliminating a major source of prescription drug abuse. those prescription drugs that are underused, on wanted, and expires -- unwanted and expired and are in the homes of many americans. more than half of teenagers believe prescription drugs are easy to get from their own parents medicine cabinets. the process of which the re-

process of prescription drug disposal will be -- process of prescription drug disposal will be streamlined. last year, on one day alone, a staggering 12 1 tons of prescription drugs were collected from more than-- 121 tons of prescription drugs were collected from one site. we abide partners to visit our web site to find a collection location near you -- invite partners to visit our web site to find a collection location near you. we will win this fight against prescription drug abuse. it is my privilege to introduce o the podium karen perry,

executive director of nope and someone we can all learn from. >> thank you to all of the agencies gathered here today working to collaborate on this much needed plan. seven years ago, my family suffered a devastating loss of my 21 year old son to an accidental drug overdose. he was the oldest of four children. he was friendly, compassionate, and had a warm sense of humor. rich was raised to love and support gets family -- his family, to be sincere, to work hard, and to give back to the community. when my husband and i drove him up to college his freshman year,

we were filled with pride and promise. just three years later, our dreams were shattered. our precious son would be released to us from the seminole county medical examiner. we were faced with the un bankable -- unthinkable task of determining how his body would be released for burial. we watched his younger brothers carry his casket to his grave site. his sister kimberly sang " everybody has an angel." he began his drug use in high school. by the time he was in college, his addiction had lovers. following several months of treatment, -- by the time he was

in college, his addiction had folourished. on june 27, 2003, i spoke to him at 11:57 in the morning. our conversation was brief. at the end, he said to me, "i love you, mom." i said i love you, too. that was the last time i spoke to my son. after his death, we went to the apartment he shared with a roommate. we were astounded to see numerous empty prescription drug bottles and prescription receipts for pharmacies a couple different's address it. -- receipts from pharmacies andon the friend's dresser.

rich was healthy, active, and attending college while being prescribed these medications. to this day, my mind continues to wander back to these last months of rich's life. my heart aches at the thought of my son wandering through a town along and finally sharing the last precious hours of his existence with a person who cared not whether he lived or died, but rather who would provide an income with each purchase he made. my heart pounds as i imagine his

emotional state on his last date as i know it. -- last day as i know it. his mind aching, loneliness, shame, self loathing. this image i have is bid bid -- vivid. the image of an active addict is heart wrenching. i held his hand when he was 2 years old to call -- to cross the street. i held his hand when he had his tonsils out. i held his hand when he was 19 for three hours on the steps of a treatment center as we both cried trying to get him admitted. i was not there to hold his hand

on the day that he died and that breaks my heart. >> thanks, karen. for all of us up here, thank you so much. we will take questions. some of you have media tags on, so that will make it easier. >> we all know a lot of lives have been lost from unintentional drug overdose. i did not hear about an evidence based prevention strategy that has saved thousands of lives in 15 states for the last decade. i am referring to rescue training and the lock zone.

this has been opened up for paramedic and first responders. how do you feel about making more use of those? that are a lot of hurdles to that. >> i think we might also defer the question. there are lots of things in the specifics that we will be going through. everyone of here is familiar with the lock zone. and there are a lot of other strategies. >> one comment. what is important about this strategy and this initiative is that there is no one solution that involves putting together strategies that address all of the many complexities that drive addiction and drug abuse and

damage the lives of individuals and families as we have just so powerfully heard. the use of the lock zone is critical. it is one component of a broader strategy. >> this is for dr. hamburg. a key element of the strategy will require the cooperation of congress to amend the tsa. what is your outlook on that? what you think it is going to take to get that passed? >> it is an important question. i may not be the best person to answer. this is not within our with jurisdiction. this trading would be done and as part of the dea licensing of physicians to prescribe this class of medication.

i am optimistic. i did it in is a -- i think it is a no-brainer to make sure physicians who prescribe these drugs have been training about appropriate use and the potential for misuse. i will turn to my calling, michele leonhart. >> you will see cooperation in congress. on prescription drugs, they have been with us all the way, first bill that prevents pills from being diverted. after the take that in december -- take back in december, they

came up with regulations for safe disposal. we hear all the time that they are concerned. education is key. i believe we will see action on their part. >> i am with mcclatchy newspapers. one question with two parts. you mentioned that there would be a prescription drug monitoring program for every state. i wanted to find out if that would be mandatory. second, you mentioned prescription drug monitoring program would encourage -- programs would require states to be in communication with each other. i am wondering if that would be mandatory. >> there has been money to enhance prescription drug monitoring program. s.

we believe the state option is the best. they work closely with their medical boards to make sure it is the right system for them. we encourage kentucky and ohio to sign a memorandum of agreement. it is at the request of the doctors. physicians we have spoke with see this as a patient safety issue. under the naphtha legislation and under the -- nafta legislation, we look at it as a best practice. the users of this system do also. if we can go to 35 states -- from 35 to 50 states, we will be

more ahead on this issue. next question. >> is questioned is for dr. hamburg. the fda voted overwhelmingly against this plan. they said it would not do enough to prevent abuse. does your plan go beyond the plan laid out last summer? >> this is a huge challenge in terms of what is the best approach in terms of the need to continue to put forth programs and activities and evaluate very effectiveness. we feel strongly that what we are moving forward on today is important. it will make a difference, the ability to enhance provider education, to make sure that they really understand the

issue of appropriate patient selection, risks of using these products, how to monitor treatment, and how to counsel their patients about the risks and benefits of appropriate use. the medication died for patients that will be in the patient- friendly language -- the medication guy did -- guide for patients will be in patients in language. these activities did into some of the other activities you have heard about, say disposal being one after us is finished. the other element we have talked about this -- these activities fit into some of the other activities you have heard about.

we want to reach providers as early as possible after they have developed their prescribing practices to help them understand this issue in the broader context. it is as complex for providers as it is for the public to understand the down side of the use of these drugs. you heard some statistics today about the burden of disease and prevent the boat death -- and so prevent the ball -- that comes deatdeath from this use -- from misuse. they will be prepared by the

drug companies. they will be approved by us prior to implementation. we will make sure these materials are medically and scientifically appropriate and are targeting the critical issues that need to be addressed in terms of assuring appropriate competence in the health-care provider education. >> yes, ma'am? >> we are hearing the statistic that seven out of 10 of people who misuse does get them from friends or family. that is a large universe. it includes people who have taken one pills from a friend in the last year. presumably, the number of people have a real problem is a sub group and is different. do we know anything more about that subgroup?

>> that is something that troubles everyone up here. it is data and the data from drug abuse. when we have to quote 2007 drug statistics -- there was an entire chapter trying to gather relative information across the whole spectrum. you do not want policymakers making these recommendations. you do not want congress to be in the position of passing laws without more information. initiation of drug use by youth is occurring faster from the medicine cabinet banned smoking marijuana. that is a significant concern. we know the number of deaths. we know the number of people going into treatment for addiction to these.

we know the number of people coming into the emergency department. this has a significant effect on health care issues. there are a number of parts of the new health care law that are making information more widely available as far as being able to deal with this problem. it is helpful. electronic health records are one particular example that is greatly helpful. next question. >> a couple of money questions. is there an overall amount of scrap to implementing this plan? >> here is the good news on the money problem. i am serious. [laughter] we have looked at and understood that if we come together as a

group and pool our access, our knowledge and our abilities to have action taken, the ability to use local law enforcement in this volunteer way across the country -- 4000 places last year -- this is done in this. -- this is done in the spirit of cooperation. in this austere budget climate, this is what the american citizens expects of us, to be smart, to work together, to be strategic. there is almost everything in this plan that can be accomplished. as a longtime police chief, i am pretty cynical -- a pretty cynical person.

>> that do a follow-up? >> certainly. >> the training for clinicians. the participation will be voluntary. you're talking about right now it is mandatory? >> we have worked closely with a number of people. to be prepared to actually see a lot put into place that will make this mandatory. this is the right thing to do. it has to be mandatory. >> as the law stands, is there an estimate of how many people will participate? >> every dea agent would be

required to go through this. i would not be holding a press conference if i did not think we would get this through. this is the right thing to do for the pharmaceutical industry and the american public. one more right here. > >> thank you. for the hispanic community, what is the incidence and severity of this problem? what part of the plan is designed to help minorities? >> there is some data on the prescription drug abuse problem in the latino community. a few months ago, we did a press release on that. i can provide you with some of those details. we would not be talking about a national plan and an educational plan if we were not

understanding and reflecting on the diversity of this country. it would make no sense for us to put that together and not make sure we were making this widely understood and widely available to all of the different diverse populations that exist in the united states. thank you. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you can hear more about u.s. drug policy to massachusetts on "newsmakers," when gil kerlikowske gil kerlikowske talks about drug policy at the

u.s. border. that is sunday at 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in a minute, ted turner and t. boone pickens talk about renewable energy alternatives. and our national coverage continues with a look at the future of sudan. >> monday on a c-span2, the commission on wartime contract in. witnesses will include the special inspector general and the former chairman of the federal commission on army acquisition and reform. that is to mile at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2.

>> i give you the ipid nano. , mikehis monologue ,m daisey comments on the world as he sees it. >> all of my monologues come out of my obsessions. >> find out more about his obsessions tonight on c-span's "q & a." it is also available online at c-span.org. >> ted turner and t. boone

pickens talked about energy at this national press club band. this is about one hour. >> good afteron to. if i could have your attention please. good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am the broadcast journalist for the associated press. i am still asking for the attention of the people in the far corners. i am the one offered fourth president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming and events such as this while also ting to foster a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our website at www.press.org.

and you can donate to programs. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speakers and those of you attending the event today. we have a full house. our head table includes guest of our speakers as well as working journalists were club members. if you hear applause in the audience, members of the general public are in attendance and we are grateful for that. it does not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic object i would also like to welcome our cspan and publicl audiences. our luncheons are featured on our weekly podcast from the national press club available on itunes. you can also follow the action on twitter. after our guest speeches conclude, we will have q &a and they will get at as many questions as time permits.

i would ask each of you to stand up briefly as your name is announced. beginning with charlie leoka, editorial director with consumer travel alliance. bill loveless post ofplatt's energy week, joe rothstein, allen beurga, bloomberg news. we are grazed by theresence of mrs. madeleine pickens, wife of mr. pickens. maryland gewak anvice chair of our speaker committee. we will speed over the guests and myself. a list of charbonneau -- elissa charbonneau and kate.

elizabeth dewberry is a guest of mr. turner. terlinsky, mightsorhan, robert uhn from cnn,tomgdoggett, please give them a round of applause. [applause] our guests today are a pair of businessman turned plant the pressed coming to us with a plea and a pledge parliament toward alternative energy sources. ted turner is the founder of cbs and cnn and the chairman of ted turner enterprises. he has been devoted to environmental causes, politically and financially president in the alternative fuel debate. he is developing a message for

people of all ages on the importance of rescuing the planet. he ialso taking on solar energy projects. he is pursuing making the rounds to speak to students in colleges where he tells them that the informant is the most difficult challenge the world will face, more important than iraq, and he also appeals to you with an animated series called "captain plan adn the planeteers. " he is putting his money where his mouth as with the multimillion-dollar stake in solar, the world's largest maker of thin film solar powered modules. he has more than a passing interest in wind power. mr. turner has a habit of speaking freely.

on the charlie rose show, he said steps were not taken to address global warming, but most of those people will have died in the rest of us will be cannibals. he is the largest private landowner in the united states. he has owned the largest bison herd and found a restaurant chain serving by some meat. some are in the located in washington. t. boone pickens whose background is oil maximize self- declared surprising environmentalist. he chairs the bp capital management. he is returning to our luncheon series to give us an update on his energy policy proposal called the pickens plan which calls for reduction in u.s. dependency on foreign energy, particularly oil through the introduction of various alternatives he tells us today he believes the plan as a good chance of passage with the support of president obama. he announced his intention to build the world's largest windfarm which was postponed due

to financing, his company is now betting largely on natural gas as an alternative for transportation. he has been named one of the world's most influential people by time magazine and the american wind energy person of the year. he gained the endorsement of the sierra club and has written two new york times bestsellers. he spent $62 million of his personal weah to support the plan and has enlisted people in his pickens' army. he writes that the first billion dollars is the hardest and his biggest beef with the government is that the u.s. has not adapted a strategy, any strategy for adopting alternative energy sources. our speakers interests include sports but mr. turner was owner of the atlanta braves and said to have been hands-on. he founded the goodwill games. mr. pickens has given hundreds of million dollar of dollars to oklahoma state university and says he does not miss a football game.

that includes the largest single donation to university's collegiate athletic program in history. both are signatories to the giving pledge, campaign to encourage the nation's wealthiest individuals to promise to give most of their money to chari. m turner is known for founding cnn, they both also share a background in journalism. both delivered newspapers as boys. [laughter] before we turn things over to mr. turner, i would like to know that tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of the deep water horizon explosion was led to the bp oil spill please give a warm national ess club welcome to both of our speakers and mr. turner will begin. [applause] >> my main concern is survival of the human race.

as important as i think queen and renewable energy is, as part of that, i don't put it as number 1. i say the existence and danger of nuclear weapons is the greatest danger that we face and a top priority is to get rid of them as quickly as possible. i am n talking about nuclear power. that is a home other issue. i'm talking about the weapons like the one we dropped on hiroshima that killed 250,000 people in one day and later at nagasaki. we could get rid of those weapons. the security council of the un voted last year unanimously to get rid of them. we need implementations. we are lacking in that at the current time. it is complicated but it is real simple. get rid of all of them. that is the only way it will work. it will not work for us to have 2000 a clear weapons and iraq to have two.

that will not work. we have to all get rid of them at the same time. the second tremendous challenge that we face is the growth in human population numbers. there are just too many people in the world right now, 7 billion, 1 billion of us already live in under and deprivation. if we add, as is predicted, another 1 billion over the next 10 years and it goes up to 9 billion over the next 10 years after that, we will have 3 billion people that are starving. we just really have to get serious about family planning and it needs to be voluntary, in my opinion. if we cannot restrain our numbers voluntarily, maybe we don't desee to be here if we have to have laws and penalties

for having children. i don't think that would be go the third challenge that we face that is overwhelming is the environment, the whole issue of the environment, not just the energy policy which is the most important thing right now under the environmental heading. the oceans are clapsing from over-fishing. the range land all over the angered and dang end farming in an unsustainable way. we have to straighten out our care of the environment and cutting back on the growth in human numbers is the most important thing we can do. the more of us there are, the more pressure is put on the environment. next but very important is clean, renewable energy.

i think we need to move very quicklyboone will talk about natural gas. i described as a bridge fuel, particularly, i feel that the fracking situation, we have to feel better about that and make sure it is not to environmentally damaging. clean, renewable energy, i foresee 20 years from now, a world where there iso more fossil fuel being used. it served us well for several hundred years, since the industrial revolution but it is time to move on to clean, renewable energy. for economic reasons, too. in the end, it will be the least expensive because it is basically free. as part of claim renewable energy, we need a modern grid.

we need a modern energy system and that is clean renewals. bles. we will have a world without pollution. that will be pretty amazing. our kids will not be getting as ma and it will be quiet. it will be a nice world and i hope i live long enough to see it. i hope you do, too. if we're not going to do it, we will not live very long anyway. we will either do it or we will diverted is present all. [laughter] thank you very much. >> i want to talk about energy security for america. we have gone 40 years in this country and we ha had no

energy plan, zero. we are the largest country in the world, the only country in the world without an energy plan. we have used more fuel than y other country in the world. today, there is 88 million barrels of oil produced everywhere in the world and we are using 21 million of it. the oilmost 25% of all used every day and we have 4% of the population. if you look at that, we are using 25% with 4% of the population, we could bthe cause of $100 oil. we are way out of balance with the rest of the world. we have no energy plan. 40 years, no plan. why? because we had cheap oil. that was it. neither party, republican or democr, had an energy plan. somebody said that is an obvious bipartisan effort to not do anything. [laughter]

and maybe so. nobody had time to tackle it. we are now at a critical point. if we go forward 10 years like we have operated for the last 40 years, in 10 years from now, you will pay $400 per barrel for the oil and we will be importing 75% of our oil. today, we are importing 66% at $100 of oil tenures will be all it takes to get to that point because oil is a finite resource and it is running out. when we look athe fourth quarter this year, you will be able to check whether i know what i'm talking about, in the fourth quarter of this year, demand is projected for 90 million barrels per i don't think the world can produce that. if they can't, the only way you

can kill the man does with price. price will go up. it will kill demand. we will go forward with demand that will be in balance with supply. do we have resources in america to take care of it ourselves? absolutely. you've got the green ables, wind and solar they do not replace transportation fuel. 70% of all the oil used everywhere in the world goes to transportation fuel. you have to get something that will stand up with oil to reduce the importance of oil. we are paying $1,500 million per day for imported oil two-thirds of our trade deficit is not sustainable. nobody ever speak to that. if you go back over the president's from nixon ford,

nixon said in 1970 that the end of the decade we will not seek -- import any oil. at that point, we imported 24%. at the end of the decade, we imported 28%. he never spoke to the question again. you have one right after the other. they all say the same thing, he leme and we will be energy independent. nobody ever says you told us, like obama, in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. that was very clear. bob schieffer and i had lunch and i told him to ask how long we will import oil from the enemy. >> he did not know whether he could get away with that.

they did ask about imported oil and obama said the same thing. in 10 years, we will not import any oil from the mideast. we are now three years into that. . i have never seen anybody say that you said in 10 years, how are we doing on your plan to cover oil from the mideast? nobody ever asked him the question it does not happen. i am in a place where i am talking to people in the press. one of you please, ask the president -- [applause] ok, can get it fixed? we can. we have lots of natural gas. that is 700 billions of barrels of oil equivalent. that is three times what the saudis have. we do not have one politician that has said that we may not be as bad offs we think we are on energy. we have plenty of energy here.

we can take care of ourselves. it can happen. it can be fixed. natural gas is cleaner, cheaper, abundant, it is ours, why not? we will use dirty, imported oil from opec and now they are talking about exporting our natural gas. ok, we will send a clean, cheap, stuck out and take a dirty from the enemy. we are starting to border on not looking very smart. [laughter] stupid is about where we are. we have resources that can solve the problem and we still do not have any movement. is this president's fault? it is the last 10 president's fault? not one had ever done anything. this president is starting to talk about natural gas. he even used my name ihis last energy speech.

he said this legendary oil man is working in this field. my wife should cancel the president -- my wife shook hands with the president and he said to her that your husband is working hard for the energy problem that the united states faces. we are in communication, sort of. he never calls me but -- [laughter] i am always available. you have heard my problem. it is a security issue with us. ted is a little bit brighter green and i am. i am green. the epa must allow the test -- if you gave me a saliva test, i would pass. my primary focus is on the energy security for america. i am all-american. i will take anything here in america. c takeoal, anything american and -- i will take coal,

anything american in place of middle east oil. [applause] >> ted, did you have a an immediate response? >> we don't agree about everything. we agree mostly. >> why don't you tell us what you don't agree on. ? >> well, i am a little greener and a little cleaner. [laughter] >> that's right [laughter] >> i don't think we should export coal. we should pita and let it sit there it whinnied hydrocarbons for plastics anyway. our children will ask why we burned up all are hydrocarbons. it will be valuable to build things than to burn. the sun is setting their free

every day going to waste. solar works like a charm and the technology is already here and so is the winds technology. we spend more on research and start implementing winand solar and geothermal, we will develop a better technology like we have in computers and it will be even more efficient. >> on the cost of kilowatt-hour is, the mostxpensive is solar, $6,300 per kilowatt hour. second, because we have changed how we c inoal, it has moved up to 5300. then you drop to 2400 for went. then you drop to 1500 for natural gas. we are capitalists. we are trying to find the

cheapest deal that we can make the most money off of it. that is what capitalism is. there's nothing wrong with that. if you are going to look at it on cost, i tried to build the web -- biggest win farm ever built. the wind is priced of the margin. the price is natural gas perwind gets a natural gas price. natural gas at the time was $8. today, it is $4. $6 i have to have to finance that wind farm. i may deal with general electric four years ago. i bought the turbines and they are starting to be delivered in -- and my garage is not big in [laughter] to take 500 turbines. i will build a wind farm in

ontario, canada and minnesota. it will not be in the panhandle of texas where i wanted. i did not get the transmission the. they promised transmison and they never delivered. i would like to leave you with this point -- one mcf of natural gas is $4 and is equal to. the only thing that will move an 18-wheeler will be either diesel or natural gas. a battery will not move an 18- wheeler. what are the options? that's it. the only one we have that will replace foreign oil to move the 18-wheeler is natural gas. one mcf of natural gas for $4 = $7 apiece -- of diesel. 7 gallons of diesel is $30. the cleaner, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper compared to the forum,

dirty diesel,you are talking about the cost would be 25% very you have to do some compression and there are other factors. if you had in 18 deaths wheeler today and you bought a natural gas one instead of going diesel, your fuel would be $1.50 cheaper. that is overpoweng. if it is so cheap, why doesn't it work without h passingr 1380? because i want direction. i want this president to say this is where we are going. this is what we will do. we will get oour own resources and this is the way it will work. we'll take the 8,000,018- wheelers -- we will take the 8 million 18-wheeler's.

$5 million is a lot of money. we've got 8 million vehicles. they would go $60,000 for a tax credit because the incremental difference in those vehicles is $60,000. don't make your truckers pay to be patriotic. it will be a hurry up program $8 billion per year will only get you, at the end of five years, 143,000 trucks. you don't even have enough money to do the job. i don't have to have the money to get it started very he give me the money to get started. give us the direction, mr. president. we will go in that direction because we are patriotic people and we are not stupid. we can save $1.50 per gallon and get help just to get kicked off. all this will happen ve. i made another speech, a starter [applaus >> how do you retool those

trucks? >> infrastructure. i have a model for everything i do. by don't dor &d. r takes to in years andd takes 10 years and that puts me or the line. i looked at california because they dealt with air quality issues there for 20 or 30 years. cs -- the south coast air quality districts as air quality issues in southern california and the guy that runs it is a smart guy. he now has to reduce his emissions in southern california. he asked who the biggest polluters are. trash trucks because there were 24-7 and i idol and they have an inefficient burned. what is the incremental cost

differences? 50,000. on a scale that maris. he said to give them $50,000 and when they buy a new one, they have to buy natural gas but they do not have to get rid of their diesel. when they do get rid of their diesel, one diesel taken off the streets and southern california is equal to 325 cars. one 18-wheeler taken off the highway is equal to 1600 cars. on emissions. it is that much cleaner. he said to do it. the southern california trash trucks, natural gas, all trash trucks built this year, 75% of them will be on natural gas. that was started by the california model seven years ago. i know it works. infrastructure will come with

the trucks. that is a business in and of itself. you don't need to have a government building filling stations. can you imagine? go back to henry ford when he said that everyone will have a model t ford. they asked if he realized that they have no filling stations. we cannot do it. [laughter] forget the idea. was a bad idea maybe a little inconvenience. what to the 8 million do for you? in seven years, it is 2.5 million barrels per day and it cuts opec in half. we get 5 million per day off them and we are paying for bh sides of the war. there was a great op-ed piece april 9 of 2010. it said that we are paying for

both sides of the war and i truly believe that is the case. we don't look very smart doing that. >> is there anything you have to add? >> i don't like war either. for it andaying losing, what everyone in afghanistan and iraq and what we want in libya? the last time we won the war was world war two because that was the last time anybody surrendered to us. not even grenada surrendered. you don't win uess the other side admits they were beaten. >> igree 100% on this point guard with to get those people out of afghanistan. >> that would save a lot of money rit there a d themeamn right. [applause] >> next time send scientists and engineers and doctors and maybe

a few lawys over to help out rather than send soldiers. the bombs did not do any good. >> let me ask questions from the audience. i will paraphrase in the interest of. time you are both essentially unhappy with the status quo. you say we're going back at least 40 years. have there been structural or political impediments to getting these reforms in place? does it have to do with how caaigns are financed? why is it that it has taken until at least this year that we have not weaned ourselves off foreign oil? >> there are two reasons. by embracing an answer is, believe it or not. your leadership in washington did not understand the problem

or did not feel it was important not to pursue and second, you had to boil. cheap oil is -- you had cheap oil. i have had conversations with the saudis and they say to me that if you come with alternatives, we will lower the price of oil. they said that to me. i believe it. that is exactly what they do. we don't come up with anything. we could have some control over our energy future if we just understood what the situation was. we don't have time to address that problem. we have cheap oil. >> what is keeping reform from happening? >> the oil and coal lobbies who have all the money have done a masterful job of confusing

everybody. i go to bed at night praying for ean coal and i know there is no such thing but have seen so many ads for it -- [laughter] they are persuading me that it is possible. , almost. if president obama had just taken the energy and climate change bill and put it first before health care, we have gotten it through. we were ready. he spent all this political capital and that was more contentious than we thought. then the call and the oil industry counterattack with their ad campaign. the solar and wind industries ran out of money and could not match to them. which is got beat.

we have to be really careful because this lawhat was just upheld that corporations can spend all the might want to on political campaigns, that worries me that we may lose our democracy. we're close to losing it now. [applause] it really worries me. the government is supposed to serve the people but it is not. it is not serving the people's best interest it did, we would have clean energy now. we would be doing the smart thing rather than the dumb thing. i am really worried about it. i keep hoping that things will get better, but that law, letting the corporations spend anything they want to, it is likely koch brothers in kansas.

they are smart guys. they are in the oil business and they spend millions at the heritage foundation. they are kicking our butts. we cannot continue to let it happen without serious negative consequences which we are already experiencing. >> the koch interest and the heritage foundation are not for . >> i did not say they [laughter] word. were. >> i didn't say u are. >> those guys are not helping me. >> i am not happy with gas and our 18-wheelers. >> the major oil companies, see them for what they are. they are international o companies. take exxon, is it a good company? of course it is. is it will run?

absolutely. they work for shareholders. they do not work for america. they are international company. a 4% of the revenues come from offshore. -- 84% of the revenues come from offshore. alas president bush, there were one of his biggest advisers on energy and make america. that is not who you go to for energy in america. you go to energy experts in america, not an international oil company agreed it does not make sense. [applause] >> another question to mr. pickens. a recent report from the cornell scholars found that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas may result in excess greenhouse gas emissions, possibly worse than cold. al. how does this change the pla >> those othe only figures i've heard a that says coal is

cleaner than natural gas. there is no question that natural gas is cleaner variant natural gas was the fuel to clean up california. some of you are old enough iam,, ted you're not. [laughter] you flew into los angeles and you could see it. they have a bad smog in los angeles. it was yellow/brn. that has all cleaned up with natural gas. 2800 buses in la mta . the largest bus company in the world is in beijing. paid cornell to do that. that guy has a half a dozen things in that report. i have never seen anybody and

with those conclusions that he ends with in that deal. there will be people that will look at it. m.i.t. responded and they did not think much of it. who paid him to do this study? that is the place to go. >>ted mentions that he wished the environmental downside of natural gas extraction could be better address. what about that? >> the firstfrack job i saw was in 1953. how did that with my first well. a 1957 until now, i have fracked over 3000 wells. he is talking about that the will -- well is drought -- drilled -- he is talking about

that the well is drilled down. the hole is drilled to 1,000 feet, they run a string casing and close it off. i work in an area whe sand of aquafer.stfe korf we were conscious of this. we put in cement and rolled downo 15,000 feet. you complete the well there. you are 2-3 miles below the freshwater sand. you tell me how they frack job to mile down can get back up into the fresh water sand. i never had it happen and i know nobody else where it happens. all the complaints are coming from pennsylvania. that is a m in thearcellus.

they have drilled over 800,000 wells in oklahoma, kansas, and texas. i do not know of any losses or any complaint or anything else. why is it all right there in pennsylvania and western new york? they have now said that you will frack these wells in the watershed. that is where it rains. but don't know what that is. it rains and the watershed and runs into a lake. frack the lake or the watershed. you go to a thousand miles under the surface. they don't know what will happen to the water in new york. they need someone intelligent, a leader to say this is what the deal is. don't worry, watch what i am

telling you. check the facts. that is all you have to do. it is not complicated. it is veryimple. they want me to feel guilty. i feel like i did yesterday. [laughter] >> are you as confident about the environmental implications? >> he knows more about it. he is an oil man. i was a tv and [laughter] man. >> i trust to godte is,d. do you trust us? [laughter] >> do you -- do you believe the climate change is a natural phenomenon? fewer americans believe to be a real problem >> your than what? it before? >> i don'know.

how serious do you believe the problem is? >> i think it is a li or death issue. i am a real expert when it comes to nature and of the temperature goes up six degrees fahrenheit, it will make life on earth very difficult for most of the creatures including humans. >> w do you feel about it? >> i made geologist and we can take you back in time were you had drought that would extend over maybe 1 million years. we have had ice ages that were hundreds of thousands of years. we know the temperature can remain constant or fluctuate or whatever. believe it or not, i am one of the few geologists that believes in climate change. [applause]

i think all of us skirred up a lot of what -- i think a lot of us screw up what we emit into the atmosphere. i don't think it will happen al quick. it isike a problem with energy and america. you had a cheap oil. you have climate change but if you're cheap oil had run up to $200 per barrel, something would have happened. somebody would have figured out a better way. on climate change, it does not go up fast enough. it goes along and some people think that as part of the change. i am ready to take measures to restrict emissions into the atmosphere.

if i am long, i did not heard myself. -- a did nothurt myself. if we find it in 20 years that there is no climate change, i did not do something that hurt. i did not do anything wrong, but if i go out 20 years and i keep saying there is no climate change, and then i say that it did mean something, and if i did not do anything about it, that is bad. high pay to set up things that make all of us look stupid. i feel stupid sometimes about the way things go. why do we let it happen? i am not in the role of leadership. i cannot stop these things. ted is a leader. he stepped up. [laughter]

he says $62 million, i spent $82 million on this. that will get to something. have i got my money's worth? i will win i pass hr 1830. ted has been on this. i did not agree with him and we talked at 10 years ago and i said i am not going for the climate change stop but i do now. i am ready to throw in. [applause] >> other than talking to ted, what changed your mind a [laughter] ? >> i am intereste in polar bears, too. but icecap is sure disappearing fast. i don'to for the funny whether. i can remember when we had

tornadoes and flooding and all kinds of things. the way the ice is disappearing fast, i had some experience with of the glaciers and you can see what is happening there. it is getting warm where the ice is. that is not normal, i don't think. >> here's a question for mr. turner. you have a partnership to build solar power. do you plan to do without federal subsidies? >> it depends on the situation. there needs to be some subsidies. we are now subsidized coal and oil big time. over the years, they have been the source of economic subsidies. wind and solar and geothermal are not being subsidized because

they were not here to get in line to get their spot at the feed trough. levelingally playing field, wind and solar have a better chance with subsids stacked against them on the fossil fuel industry. we are subsidizing the wrong thing but we did it over 200 years of the industrial revolution. we have been giving them breaks all the way along. not having the polluting companies paid health care, i think the polluters should do the paying. if they were, claim renewable energy would be competitive.

[applause] >> if you look at where the most wind energy and solar energy is, do you know where it is? >> in the midst? germany. terminate they don't have wind or saw [laughter] on. they're really down. germanyey really don't gets their natural gas from russia. i was young but i remember stalingrad and leningrad and there were 5 million people killed there. there were about 3 million germans and 2 million russians. those people in russia and germany remember that. the germans do not want to get dependent on the russians.

they take gas from them but they went in and subsidized wind and solar and paid a hell of a price for it but that is what they thought of as security. that is my pitch here. we have a security issue with opec oil. we don't even address the but they did. we ran some of those ads is that you may remember this sw the globe and the lights are on and said ", and then one day one person does not have gas it clicked off eastern europe pic." guess who came to see made? e? they sat on the ad, you are cutting off our service area. i know, i meant to.

they don't like it. they watch this stuff that i put up. two weeks after we launched the pickens plan, i was athe democratic convention. was aon't remember i letter this -- that i was a republican. i get out of politics and went to the democratic convention. that surprised many people. i had never been to one in my life. they are a bunch of nice people. [laughter] i am their and my wife who was born in iraq and her mother is lebanese and their father is english and emigrated to the united states when she was 18 years old. she has friends from at part of the world and she got a call at my friend and wanted us to go to dinner. we went to dinner and i thought

it would be 15 or 20 people. it was five people. the first question was asked of me. what is your pickens' plan? i said i want to get off of your oil. i smiled when i said it. but we are friends. i said i know we need to get on our own resources. they're watching that close. in two weeks, there were asking me what this plan was. they could see what i was going to do. i was going to get on our resources in -- and get off of their oil. at's what it s. [applause] >> you both earlier talked about the inability of our policy

makers and leaders to forge an effective energy policy. just yesterday, there is a headline that standard and poor's essentially warned that the u.s. is at risk of not forcing an adequate solution to the deficit and in the near term, the debt ceiling is looming. how do you feel about how washington is managing the financial situation in the united states right now? >> i'm not happy with it. i am concerned when your credit rating is downgraded and that is what happened yesterday, that is not good. >> they warned on the outlook which was longer term. they said it was along the road to downgrading the credit rating. do you think republicans and democrats can come together and find a solution? >> i am not comfortable with the

y the parties are getting along with each othe i am concerned about our ability to compromise and run our country in an intelligent, forward-thinking manner. >> what do you think? >> i think they are doing a fabulous job. [laughter] they are working so well together and act like they're not but i know they really are. do you feel that way? no >>. >> i am not here to express my opinion bit. >> i'm not a fool. i agree with ted. i try to let myself tmy subject. i feel like i can represent that i am five-feet wide and 50 feet deep on one subject i think congress has accepted me that way.

they realize i am a serious person with a serious plan. i have both sides that call me and ask me about energy. question s. i made a speech last week in california. there -- in thi county, people are very liberal. they askedow i think they've view me. >i said i think they view me as a patriotic old man with a good idea and i got big applause. i think i am viewed that way and that is the way i want to be. [applause] >> ted, everybody knows originally as that c founder cnn.he founder of how you feel about that as an enterprise today? >> they went in for more

rious news and more international news like they used to. i am an old geezer, too. i am not there anymore. there's nothing worse than asking somebody in my position what they think of the company based thereon is being run today. that is not really fair. >> i wrote ted a note any probably doesn't remember. i said you have done more to open up the world than anybody i have ever seen. [applause] you showed people all over the world how we lived and what opportunities they would have if they had a democracy. you are the guy that showed the world what the world really look like. >> what you think about that? >> it makes me feel good.

[laughter] >> on the other side of the television equation, you have not always had kind words about the perceived competition which includes fox news. do you sample across the media landscape? how you feel about rupert murdoch and news corp. and a job at fox news does? >> i think he has done a real good job with "the wall street journal." he is a little far right for me on television. with fox news. that is me. i think they have every right to do it. it does not seem to be irresponsible >> since you gentlemen are no strangers to the news business and this was a return trip to the national press club, how do you feel like

you are treated by the news? >> i feel fine. [laughter] >> we are glad to hear that. >> if i could write the articles, i would write them a different light. [laughter] having said that, i think they treat me very fairly. they are better as i have gotten older. the use to jump on my ass pretty bad. [laughter] i have gotten older. they introduce me as legendary oil man. most articles say t. boone pickens, legendary oil men. what does that mean? [laughter] that is a guy 75 years old and still has a job. [laughter] i am 82, though. >> we are almost out of time. before we ask the last question, a couple of housekeeping things to take care of. i would like to remind our

guests about upcoming luncheon speakers. on may 16, general james jones, the former national security adviser and marine corps commandant will be our speaker. on may 20, t richardrumka will speak. we will have a fox news contributor. juan williams will deliver a rebuttal on the npr issue. next up on our regular business, i like to present both of our guests with the traditional npc coffee mug. [applause] you are collecting a set. we are grateful for that. next is the last question. there's another wealthy

individual these days making the rounds and that is donald trump. he seems to be flirting with the notion of running for president. what advice would you give him? >> good luck. [laughter] the more the merrier. maybe we will find somebody that will shake things up. >> would you vote for him? >> i know him. [laughter] i kinda like him, to tell you the truth. he is colorful very [laughter] >> u have that uncommon. >> i know him, too. was oncnbc and he was talking about how to solve the energy problem. he said the way to handle the zero pack crowd is you tell them what you will pay them for the

oil. -- he said the way to handle the opec crowd is you tell them what you'll pay for the oil. >> i me on after him and i said i'll tell you what, if you won't say any more about energy, i won't ever mention real estate. [laughter] [applause] >> how about a round of applause for our speakers today? thank you. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club's staff including our library and broadcast center. you can find more information and

>> tuesday, a discussion on the challenges facing public broadcasting. this is at the missouri school of journalism. next, a discussion on afghanistan war strategy. and the discussion about the conflict in libya in the future of egypt.

now, a look at afghanistan war strategy. counterinsurgency operations as well as peace negotiations. this is part of a series hosted by the afghanistan study group. formerhear from the secretary of state's and the co- founder of the afghanistan study group. this is about one hour and 30 minutes. >> i am steve clemens. i blog at the washington note. i want to thank those watching me on c-span. there are lots of blogs running this during the morning and our provocative afternoon.

does fghanistan -- afghanistan leverage american power? we have a group of people who encompass the political spectrum and people who deal with these issues. in the panel includes those who put themselves out in the peer review process. someone who is objecting themselves to the critique of the many people who are trying to think about this question, about what is the appropriate role of the united states in afghanistan. we have a great session. the cost-benefit review of the

strategic and economic position. my friend was the ambassador to some countries, and they just decided to give him the world. so many nations out there -- and the secretary of state for the department of state, and recently the co-chair of the century foundation and the task force on afghanistan, negotiating peace. this book is available to everyone. one of the most important contributions out there is looking at the neck steps and the options of america, in afghanistan and what is the responsible way forward. one of the very interesting parts of this is that this is an international task force. we have the former foreign minister of russia, leading figures in china and turkey,

germany, etc.. we have the director of graduate studies at georgetown university, a former national intelligence officer for southeast asia, and he was a member of the afghanistan citigroup, which i was the co- founder of. just to his right is richard bey, another co-founder of the afghanistan study group and the co-chair of the directors council at the new america foundation. richard is my connection to how the conservative business people think about the world. he is good to have around. to his left, we have james, the distinguished research fellow and the former deputy director of southeast asian affairs. i will never forget getting a call from him, from iraq. i do not know the official record but i think that he was doing something with opec.

warren koch is in the office. james thinks about how you stabilize the economy and work in the war-torn region and try to move this right, and how u.s. policy is wanting to get this right so much. he has committed himself to a book on this hearing, about the combination of policy and the outcome. joshua, to the left, is a fellow at the american security project. he is a very provocative and it is a brilliant paper done as part of the century task force effort. it is available online. his blog and his riding are must

reach. it is a great pleasure to have -- his writings are a must-rea d. elise labott is a great voice and will take us through this. thank you for putting cnn on hold. without further ado, please welcome elise labott. [applause] >> thank you all for being here. i think we should be ok. i will speak loudly.

even though there were $40 billion in budget cuts, the money for afghanistan was not cut at all. there have been suggestions that our interests are not important in afghanistan. we have an excellent panel. we are going to start with thomas pickering/

>> thank you for the opportunity to be here. i want to say this with kindness to steve. we are grateful for him or the occasions that he puts us together. i am happy to be here today. i have eight minutes by the clock. i want to talk to you about what our strategic objective should be in afghanistan. i want to talk about the report steve so kindly introduced and what we thought about the opening for a political process in afghanistan. it is a supplement and a complement filling an important void. interests in afghanistan fall

into several categories. the most important is that we are dealing with a region that has been called afpac. it should be called pacaf. if we are talking about important strategic interests, the rest in pakistan. we are talking about the future of afghanistan. this is one of the reasons we believe a political process is required. the second interest i believe has to be the prevention of the return of al qaeda to get another refuge. they are in a refuge in pakistan at the moment. as general petraeus said, less than 100 are present in afghanistan. we are looking at the question of why we have 100,000 troops dealing with 100 al qaeda. the third interest is a difficult one to be fine. it seems to be preeminent in

-- you have to think about this a little bit. it has everything to do with the future of afghanistan and the hamid karzai government and many other things we are doing. in that regard, it is obviously of interest to afghanistan people in the region and to the united states as a great power. a steady stream of what can be chalked up as failures is not in our interest. let me put those aside and say that we faced three simple questions in the study of whether a political process has utility with respect to afghanistan. i did not say millennial significance. i said utility. the questions are, is a

negotiation a real possibility and if so, when? what should we negotiate about? and how should we get there. we are close to a military stalemate. we thought there was growing lack of interest in continued light thing. we found in interviewing people about all the possibilities, including the taliban, there was a strong interest in the political process soon, if not now. there was a strong interest that each of the parties, in creating a fourth test of protecting their position up a strong interest by asking for in feasible and outrageous possibility as a result of negotiations. the initial negotiations guarded the entrance in moving ahead with negotiations.

we felt depreciations --we felt an interest in the negotiations was genuine. the second question we look that was genuine. it was whether there is a center for the process of negotiation. painful as it is, there is no alternative in a negotiation of this sort but future governance of afghanistan in all of its many facets. the inadequacy of the constitution. , the question of where authority rests in the center and how and what weiay to balance that. there are other important questions we will have to figure in the negotiations. islam is entrenched in the constitution. the issue of women's writes.

issues of justice and accountability. those kinds -- the issue of women's rights. how to get there is a much more difficult and taxing problem. we look at many alternatives. we came up with one alternative. it is the one that we felt made the most sense. we believe a process needs to be kicked off within an environment that is managed in a way that each side feels is getting a fair shake in the process to have credibility. a person, a group, an international organization can play a role in a process. setting up the process with respect to the two questions i just raised. what are their expectations with respect to negotiation? are they willing to enter negotiations?

secondly, that process should last a reasonable amount of time for assurance. that individual or mechanism should take place under the u.n. umbrella, but necessarily be directed in subservience to the united nations but have the benefits of the umbrella. that means you need to find somebody or some states that occupies a neutral position to carry forward carryphase. -- carry forward this phase. the second phase is a standing international conference. the second piece should be located in the afghan party. they are the ones who need to determine the future governance and other issues in relation to their own country, perhaps accompanied by a mediator or facilitator. the afghan parties, and we believe there are four identifiable afghan parties in the largest possible sense

including the hamid karzai government and the taliban, but also those in kabul are the loyal opposition and are the old northern alliance and civil society and social groups who have developed over recent years -- are a hedge against extremism in the future of afghanistan. we also believe that around this central negotiation, we need to think about gathering the other important players. they are the united states and pakistan. further out, there is iran, india, the stans who border afghanistan, china, russia, key members of the european union,

japan, and perhaps saudi arabia. there are enough that perhaps that group can hopefully create some synergy or harmony in the its ability to strengthen and support solutions in the afghan group that are important as a way to move the process forward. if the process moves forward -- and we have no confidence that it will, but we think it is worth a try -- we believe a second set of issues needs to be addressed by the outside groups, the non-afghan groups. those are questions of can we support and formally commit ourselves to the afghan solution. can we recognize every status that afghans want? will we support a u.n. peacekeeping mandate that is initially and for the long term it verification and monitoring

question. our views about enforcement rests on creating an afghan force to carry its effort. lots of questions. i have my slip. i am off the podium. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador. paul? >> thanks, elise. god morning. the one observation i want to leave you with is that the policy and the discourse about the policy on afghanistan has lost sight of the cost and benefits of what we are doing. ambassador pickering reviewed what are the u.s. interests at stake in this part of the region. we look at the counterinsurgency as we are waging in afghanistan

and lose sight of those purposes and look at the counterinsurgency as an end in itself. that is how americans like to look at things. we get engaged in a fight and we want to win it. we have lost sight of why we went there. it had to do with a justified response to the 9/11 out rates. it had to do with ousting al qaeda from its home in afghanistan and ousting its ally, the taliban, from power. since then, we have gone on for 9.5 years and we have had a 9.5 your mission creep where we have lost sight of those purposes. afghanistan is often thought of as a struggle between the karzai government on the one hand and the taliban ally on the other hand. it is a far more complex civil war that has sectarian

dimensions, ethnic images, rural -- ethnic dimensions, rural dimensions. let me focus on the counterterrorism dimensions. that is what this was supposed to be about at the outset.

there are no more than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. that has been the number for a while now. we have this worry about creating a safe haven. it is hard to see any advantage from the standpoint of osama bin laden of leading where they are in northwest pakistan and trying to recreate something in pakistan. -- in afghanistan. even if they were interested in it is hard to imagine being taliban would want them back. -- it is hard to imagine the taliban wanting them back. the gloves are off now. unlike pre-2001, we would bomb

the heck out of it. even if al qaeda or some other terrorist group reestablished something like what al qaeda had 2001, simply having a geographic haven in one place is not the critical factor in determining what the danger is to the american people. look at the 9/11 terrorist attack, where it was prepared, where people were trained. for the most part, i would say for the overwhelming part of what went into that operation, the physical haven in afghanistan had little to do with it at all.

this is all by way of weighing what we are supposed to be gaining on the terrorist side with what the costs are. we have various other political costs. there is also the assumption that we have a counterinsurgency effort that is working, that is succeeding. there are a lot of questions to be raised about that. the main one has to do with the nature of the karzai government, whether we have a local regime that is strong enough on which to lean. i would suggest that we do not. but also, there are trends in terms of sentiment within afghanistan what the numbers are from our own military command about what the trends are in taliban strength and what they seem to add up to is that

by our presence there, we are stimulating more recruitment into the taliban, not less. our presence there increases the resonance of extreme propaganda and supports the assertion that americans and the american military are out to occupy muslim land, killed their people. you have heard it all before. it is nonsense. but some things we do tend to add resonance and credibility to that argument the final thoughts have to do with pakistan. we should be talking about pac af, not afpac.

insofar as we are concerned about the future and stability of pakistan, biking and insurgency in pakistan is not .ow we would go about it it is like we have this green ooze that goes over borders called instability. if we do not fix it in afghanistan, it will go into pakistan. it increases the security problem on the other side. we are doing things that are highly unpopular with the pakistani public it makes it harder for the pakistani government to do things in cooperation with us on behalf of the terrorist or anything else.

the question is, is what we are doing to ward off the fear and hatred in afghanistan and proof things from a counterterrorism point of view to justify -- improve things from counterterrorism point of view to justify other things. ? [applause]

>> we were looking for ways we can find overlapping interests. there is an important factor of what india wants and what we want and how india figures into the equation. when i had just left the pentagon, i was brought into an enormous exercise on the last day. there seems to be 500 kernels running around the national defense university putting something together for a general -- colonels preparing something for general petraeus. i said how does india figure into centcomm?

they said, it does not. we are central command. the overlap with what the indians want and what we want is high. that is what we should be aiming at. it is not zero-sum. those of you have the pleasure of dealing with the subcontinent, there is a tendency of dealing with everything as falling on one side of the ledger or the other. it is possible to tilt into the direction that we have been. we should tilt toward an indian view and work less toward the fiction that we are going to be able to square the circle with pakistan. i am old enough to have seen the last afghan war. i have been working with many pakistani friends. it is absolutely impossible that they will be interested in working with us in any sustained way.

pakistan is in business to leverage outside situations to their advantage. the officer corp is preeminent in that country. i agree with some of the crisp clarity that paul just presented to you. i wonder what this is about. i think the american people wonder what this is about, too. the reasons for war our paper thin. if any mass casualties occurred, i believe it would be over. i think we would be out. unfortunately, it would follow a pattern of conduct by the united states by which at the end of the day we are there because we are there. it is like the old yale

university drinking song. the point is, we cannot leave now because we would seem to be yielding to pressure. this is a strange way to conduct the power of diplomacy. our material circumstances are in some question and our resources are under great question. the last thing is to get at the way in which we approach things and realized that from the beginning, in 2001, we militarize our response and we declared war. it had a terrible effect on our thinking in dealing with the particularities of the region. i was out there for 27 years. i cannot say i have been to as many countries as thomas pickering. i look at the scars and i think, i was out there during a lot of shooting, the iran/iraq war, the

last time the russians were in afghanistan. what occurs to me is that we create the taliban as a kind of phenomenon. we give them their unity of purpose in important ways to treat if we were to realize that our response, the one thing that still hangs in the air as an acceptable, widely acceptable approach is that we fought a punitive war in afghanistan. that was the reason everyone accepted it. in our thinking, there was the disinclination to think about how we were going to work afghanistan as a regional issue. how do we want to leverage the chinese and russian opinion? what do we want to do with the indians? i am hard-pressed to see how we

are really leaving ahead of any heavy footprint way ahead of the 2014 period that is now mentioned. the idea that we can rely on pakistanis for anything is an implausible. with the indians. we do not have to go along with everything the indians want. the indians' offer us a way to work with the iranians. the offer as a way to evolve with an important group of people to be included in the final negotiations. it will not be pretty. it is worth the candle. when you listen to paul and you listen to thomas pickering, some of the arguments for the decade- long argument means it will not take long before an emphatic

development reveals the lack of support in this country for this war. [applause] >> those are provocative thoughts. we can stay on that with questions and answers. richard? >> thank you and thank everyone for their time this morning. the foundation for our national defense, and the foundation of our economic influence, globally, is our financial strength. in 2000, our national debt was $5 trillion in change -- and change. it is on a trajectory to exceed

$15 chilean. there was a roy -- to exceed $15 trillion. there was a royal battle over health care. we almost shakti government down over $40 billion in budget cuts. we are spending $100 billion in afghanistan, a country whose gdp is only about $16 billion. it is out of balance. when general petraeus suggested late last year that we would be in afghanistan for another nine or 10 years, which is tantamount to a $1 chilean recommendation, -- $1 trillion accommodation, there was barely a headline. in the year 2000, the department

of defense budget was $294 billion. if you took that number and move it forward in time with an adjustment factor like gdp growth or inflation, the budget this year or the department of defense would be about $380 billion. it will actually be $710 billion. the difference between those two numbers is $330 billion per year. in the year 2000, with that to a $94 billion number, -- with that $294 billion number, we were spending 2.5% gdp.

most the market to expand in the neighborhood of 1% or 2% gdp. you can see the disproportionate burden that the united states is carrying. 2% of gdp is about $300 billion per year. let's put it in the context of historical wars in the u.s. the war on terror, iraq and afghanistan come by, is the second most expensive war in u.s. history. i am present valuing all of these expenditures to today's dollars. it is only exceeded by the world war ii itself. it is now in excess of the korean war and the vietnam war combined. of's put it in the context global military expenditures, what other countries spend.

our $700 billion -- these are hard numbers. we researched this and we get different numbers from different sources. our $700 billion is about 60% of the military expenditures of all countries combine in the world, britain, france, china, russia, only spent about $400 billion. if you only looked at all of the suppose it adversaries however you might define that, the number looks to be about $150 billion annually by the rest of the world, people we would categorize as adversaries, versus our $700 billion. my final thought is that do not think it is in our best interest, given that financial strength is the bedrock of our

defense, to spend 4% or 5% of gdp on defense. [applause] >> thank you for those sobering statistics. youua foust, why don't around us out and we will open it up to q&a. >> everyone in this room can agree that the war in afghanistan is a malarkey of tragic proportions. this is a phrase i am using deliberately to represent the nonsense talking here in the public when people try to discuss what is going on in the conflict, how we are going to get out of it, what our options are. it has been refreshing on this panel to hear a great deal of sober, clear thinking about what

is happening and what the ways forward are. we need to dig into the political questions. this is the hearts of the century audition and the heart of the ambassador's questions earlier -- the heart of the ambassador's questions earlier. the war in afghanistan is not about afghanistan. it is ultimately about pakistan. when asked what to do about pakistan, we fall apart. we have posturing and in to threats. i do not have any solutions to this. i am just highlighting a problem. i am not an expert in pakistan. when it comes to how to establish regional political order, we are making the mistake

of assuming that the problem facing the area is the insurgency. both of these are only single actors in a larger complex network of political interests, organizations, and actors. when we look at the four major parties to the war that the ambassador mentioned earlier, looking at one group like the former north alliance bloc, there represent separate competing groups that are likely to start killing each other at the moment we lead and stop providing us with security. that has nothing to do with the insurgency. a huge part of the instability has nothing to do with the taliban and everything to do with opium. that is not part of the insurgency. that is not part of al qaeda. there are connections, but there are interests connected to different things. these are things that need to be taken into account when we think about what needs to be done about the war. if we can put an end to all the violence in afghanistan, that

will not solve the fundamental political problems of our strategy in the area. it will not address the major issues that we have to deal with when it comes to creating a regional solution. it has to do with kabul and it has to do with tehran and washington and brussels and london and beijing. it can expand this out as much as you want. in the midst of creating this regional framework, we have to keep in mind that this is about paula tex -- about politics inside afghanistan. neither country wants the world to dictate terms to them or morals or social issues or .olicies or any of it our ideas i good ideas. if afghanistan does not buy into the politics of what we are doing, it will not work.

and kind of regional allies to contain terrorism will not work if afghans themselves do not buy into it. unfortunately, what afghans want and what pakistanis want is the one thing we do not know. we do not have a lot of insight into how their countries work. we do not have a presence in -- present outside the capitals of those countries. i am leaving this open as an open, what do we do think. these are political issues. when we talk about things like budgeting priorities in the united states and think about the acrimony that that brings out a bus and how people are stabbing each other -- brings out of us, and how people a stabbing each other in the kidney over these things, we have to understand that these

aren't life-threatening issues with these people. they will not back down just because a bunch of foreigners told us to. on that happy note, i will end my comments. [applause] >> that it to our panel. we have a lot more questions than answers as people brought up these topics that we do not talk about buried much -- talk about much. we have about 45 minutes, so we should be able to get your costs -- get your questions in. the sun about costs and costs

should really matter in afghanistan. afghanistan has a gdp of only $16 billion. some conservatives say that if u.s. interests are at stake, costs should be insignificant. also give a reason why the u.s. is undermining its economic base in afghanistan. let's start by talking about it cost really matters when critical interests are at stake. thomas pickering, if you could talk about how united states could pursue its interests in afghanistan. >> as others have pointed out, we do not believe this is to the extent of $120 billion in our

vital national interests. we simply don't. if you took the situation in afghanistan where you have tribes or ethnic groups or whatever who are going to be in chaos and there is going to be a war, there are more countries in afghanistan where that is the case. it is out or drop to make things right, it is not just 100 billion in afghanistan -- if it is our job to make things right, it is not just $100 billion in afghanistan, it is $100 billion in a lot of places. >> ambassador? >> in a cost oculus, you have the benefits that have to be put -- a cost calculus that has

to be put in. i do not think any of us at the table has portrayed the cost/benefit ratio or anything like that. in the end as a number of speakers said, the pressure to lead in this country is going to overwhelm the commitment to stay -- pressured lto leave is going to overwhelm the commitment to stay. these are important strategic determinants of what we do. i suggest there needs to be a political process. i am not a counterinsurgency experts. i know we can make progress. my view is that progress can enhance my capacity -- it gets

our capacity to deal in the political sphere. none of this is predictable and a lot of it remains uncertain. if we do not know where we are going, no exit strategy will get us there. if we have an exit strategy and we do not know where we are going, we are created chaos. we are somewhere in the middle of that awful nexus. further clarity of thought is a useful proposition to inform where the process is going. i was astonished that a long review of afghanistan's strategy issued a solid look at what u.s. --eschewed a look at what the process should be. my sense is that we need a new political dimension to the strategy that is a long answer

to a critical question you asked reported -- question you asked. >> we have a tendency in this country to say something is an important u.s. national income -- u.s. national interest. then we say that whatever we are doing is pertinent to that interest. the question is not is this topic area important to was? of course it is important to us. the question is, is a particular policy, enterprise, our effort -- does that increase or advance our interests more than the costs that it entails?

that is the way the question should be raised. that is not the way americans raise it. >> james, why don't we talk about china, saudi arabia, turkey, iran. if we pick up and leave, want the region see a chastened power leaving? how does this hurt u.s. prestige and trust in the u.s.? it sounds like we might be damned if we stay and damned if we leave. one of the things about this long review was not only that it was terribly long but we acted that the british and everybody else did not have much to say

about it. >> it took the view that it was all about us. it is a continuing have the in this city to be self reverential. i am not saying we are doomed to be irreverent and kowtowing to the chinese in 20 years. but we are not at our best at the moment. what should have been at the beginning, we are going to have our punitive war. let's see what we can leave behind rather than bringing in a train of good intentions and have an ngo have been in kabul

and decide to revise our kabul and-- heaven in decide to revise our strategy several times. if we say that there are some countries that cannot be dealt with and we will see how we are working it out here in the city and the what can go out there and speak with presidential authority to be russians, we are denying ourselves the chance to say, we are going to be out of there at some time. will probably be sooner rather than later. do you want pakistan isad to be the thing you have to live with? that can be the effect of each country's response to be a large american but print in afghanistan.

it is not either/or. we could have a unilateral ramp up and president obama's version of the righteous surge. it could be multilateral and we could go in there to help these people get to a point where we can speak with authority. but we are on a losing streak. everyone in the region expects us to leave well before 2014. >> your century foundation analysis had international members that looked at scenarios facing the u.s. and the taliban. about america's prestige in terms of staying and in terms of leaving. where are we better off? >> my own view is that we are better off if we can do it in a

way that establishes some stability, perhaps some openness and some safety in afghanistan. it is not in my view possible to achieve even this millennial objective if we are not prepared to work the neighborhood hard and the afghan parties hard. i think we have an opening to do this. in the broader context, those of us who remember vietnam know that every one of the same argument was deployed. that we engaged in a long and difficult negotiating process. i think we underestimated the vietnamese nationalism and overestimated communist control.

we should not underestimate afghan nationalism. we should certainly never underestimate afghan xenophobia at the present time. those kinds of questions are not harnessed in our efforts in an adequate way. the political process could help to engage those in a more instruct -- more constructive way than we have now. the notion that was prevalent in the iraqi adventure that all we had to do was win a comeback victory on the ground and the movie would stop and we would walk off hand in hand into the sunset to some bright light and glorious future and that it would all take care of itself is so discredited now that we have to worry about that. hopefully, that particular memory will be steered into our consciousness.

it is beingay, tortured by libya, where we have best intentions and no clear exit. >> let me follow up on that. when we are talking about our actions in libya and talking about freedoms of people, how do we know that the taliban, who we believe in and you have said are ready to negotiate, are not going to kill, harass, and constrained these vital rhythms of a people who are so vital to american values? given our actions i, what should it be to the human rights and conditions to the people in afghanistan? >> it is a difficult questions. we have to strains in american foreign policy like that go back before the foundation of the republic. the struggle for safety, security, confidence, growth.

the struggle is for defining a political parameter to life that enables that through freedom and liberty and the protection of the rule of law and all the things we hold dear. they are now opposing policy choices for us in a lot of places in the middle east. we have followed the usual policy. when the see-saw begins to move from one to another, particularly in the direction of freedom and democracy, we try to move with it, but not ahead of it. there is no guarantee. the use of force is probably justified -- >> use of force is probably justified in my view to prevent genocide. we are now engaged in libya. the moment we engaged in libya, became the disappearance of mr. gaddafi. we are stuck with that. to some extent, we now face the problem of, could we get enough

arab support for a credible alternative that in baltimore muscularity. we are not -- involved more muscularity. we are not going to achieve our goal by dividing the country or by an interminable civil war. today, british officers are going to benghazi. i would suspect there are american officers somewhere. the interesting question is, is this a situation treatable like the original offenses against the taliban in 2001. or will it involve more? when you commit yourself to military force, tying your

hands with respect to a series of political restraints is often a terrible way to meet your objectives. to some extent, when you cross the military force line, you cross what i think is the restraint line. otherwise, you are there for an interminable engagement. while i do not like it and was against the notion, i think homeopathic approaches to libya are not the answer to the current problem or to achieve the objectives that we seem to have committed ourselves to. >> we will be coming back tomorrow for the discussion of libya. paul, where in your cost/benefit analysis do the human rights of people fit into afghanistan? when you came into afghanistan, the taliban -- when we came into afghanistan, the taliban was streaking women terribly.

>> three basic points. i will recall what joshua said earlier with regard to the resistance of afghanistan of someone trying to impose their values with regard to the order of the place. what we westerners find objects know -- find objectionable with regard to the social order is part of a larger issue regarding the state of women. i do not want to denigrate atrocities or abuses with regard to the taliban. even if the taliban were to go away and we had someone else in charge of afghanistan, we would be witnessing a culture and a role for women that most of us would find pretty findabhorrent. -- find pretty darn abhorrent. we have to pick our goals and

pick our fights. when i was still in government during the first few months of the bush administration prior to 9/11, there was policy deliberation about what we do with regard to the afghanistan/caliban problem. it was seen the way -- with regard to the afghanistan/taliban problem. how do we persuade the taliban to cough up osama bin laden? we fail to get them to do it before 9/11. that was the right way to raise the issue. there was agitation about the human rights issue and how the taliban was teaching women. our policy makers took their

approach like, we cannot load too many things on our agenda. our top priority is doing something about the terrorist problem. >> jeff, why don't you weigh in? how are we leaving the caliban in the country in terms of human rights given that people are not willing to turn back and the taliban will be emboldened if we'd negotiate with them? >> the taliban is not the only human rights abuses in the country. sexual abuse of children happens by government officials, not the taliban. slave labor happens by people aligned with the government. the most prevalent examples of abuse to women, subordinates, house servants happens by people who are not fighting in the war. it happens by normal afghans,

not the taliban. when we try to frame afghanistan in terms of human rights, it is missing the entire reason we are there in the first place. our disposition to al qaeda has little relationship to how afghanistan treats its minorities and women. as much as people do not like to admit that, it is a reality of the war we have to deal with. it would be silly to assume the taliban has no role to play in the future of afghanistan. one way or another, they are going to be there. either by renouncing the name, taliban, or by incorporating a new governmental process or switching political systems. there are a lot of issues with that. there is an inappropriate way of reordering what happened.

the way of -- the original bond group in 2002 was dictating to afghanistan. they have a say in how to shape their own future. it would have to include the taliban and these other issues. the argument about getting involved in the political process now is that you can start this discussion by the time some kind of turning point comes, whether it is 2014 or 10 years after general petraeus says it is. by getting involved now, we can influence that this position. we can have some kind of influence. i do not howl -- i do not know how much. >> this process of questioning with the notion that everybody was unanimous that we had to throw women and children under the bus to get the wrong -- the right deal in afghanistan -- afghan parties have to be

engaged. civil society has to be there. one hesitates to trust anecdotal evidence. the public is telling them that even when they have the guns that they cannot shut schools. they have to keep them open even for girls. this is a change. it is not millennial. there has to be some standards met in this process that we cannot abandon as the president goes ahead and large numbers of people in afghanistan, despite the war and the dislike of americans, are enjoying a slightly more secure and slightly better life today. the counterinsurgency is making some progress. it is not the answer. it is an important method for building the right kind of balance.

i hope we would all agree that it is not throwing water and other constituencies under the bus. it is trying to work all constituencies that makes the difference. we will open it up for questions and we ask you to keep your questions brief. >> the turkish government is considering to allow the taliban to open an office. -- an office in istanbul. how does the panel feel about this idea? thank you. >> the taliban has made it

clear that to participate in negotiations, they would like to have a safe haven. they have ulterior motives. to become recognized internationally and to reach out beyond the confines they have in pakistan and beyond kabul. there is no way you can get ahead in the process without ensuring that people involved in the negotiations are going to stay alive to participate in the negotiations. turkey feels it is important if it is merely a kind of back door to a i would call licensure iranian kind of a status for the taliban which exceeds their present condition, then that obviously presents problems. my feeling is you can take a chance on this to see if this

can encourage process. >> thank you. two quick questions. going back to the vietnam analogy, are we switching back to a policy of a vietnam-ization and trying to turn security duties over to them and does karzai become [inaudible] in terms of the constitution, it has been years since the accord. do you think this will have to be jettisoned in favor of a policy that evolves? >> richard, do you want to take the vietnam question? >> i got a fine and nearly as

qualified to talk about vietnam- ization, but it sure looks that way. that is the excuse being constructed to get us out. i hear very encouraging things about how well that is going to go. >> since i raised the point, i am stuck. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. everything depends upon the afghans managing the run future and empowering them to do that despite the failures makes a certain amount of sense. when they finally sit down to decide their own future, and not sure if this is and it's like the same parallel, but it makes sense to do everything you can to empower afghans to deal with their own future.

>> said think it is very important to understand as americans, and we are enamored with the facts that a new constitution will make a big change. constitutions, as they used to say in thailand, are not kept in reference that the periodical section of the library. after all, the things that tom was mentioning a moment ago, the idea that women go to school, let us not forget that two- thirds of the medical facilities in the couple were run by women. run by women.re the lowest common denominator was in afghanistan, but there is still a historical memory, right? the old joke is that pakistan is a state in search of a nation and afghanistan is the other way around, but they know who they are.

this is less a matter of a new way to do this, all the more so since it will be seen as an imposition. rather, saying to them that some of the things that ambassador pickering at the tax will have to be let loose and let them play themselves out. i do not think that another role of the constitutional device will make much difference. >> i would not use this in a pejorative sense. as the ambassador mentioned, if we do have an exit ramp, and involves the afghans learning to run their own affairs. the one at non-parallel aspect between afghanistan and vietnam is there is no equivalent of the north vietnam. there will not be in 1975-type events. with regards to the constitution, i would hesitate

to use the word "jettison," but a more stable future afghanistan will have to be one that is more decentralized in fact as well as what was put together 10 years ago. >> this is a country in which no one has ever govern the entire country in a type of centralized away. >> at think the question of the constitution is, again, getting to the question of afghan politics. we designed this for karzai to fail. he is our schwann's before every single public officials who gets appointed come every provincial governor. we chose a man who did not have substantial militants, economic,

or political ties so we created a situation with a very, very strong central leader who is responsible for every political arrangement and give him nothing but money. this is not working. when we think about what to do with the constitution, there is a danger in putting down serial constitutions, but when the u.s. was a nation, we went through three. we should not make the mistake. when we look at what is happening in this process, despite the tremendous baggage associated, and they were doing this in the early 1900's, but this was a ethnically cleansing areas, and try to balance out

the country. these have a lot of baggage and then go along with them. the words reusing to describe what we want to do have an effective. when we look at the constitutionality, we have to revisit this. the government does not and cannot work at all. if we want a functioning government and have this led by afghans, we have to change what is there because right now it will not happen. >> at thank you. the gentleman right here than in the back. >> i worked on national-security issues for the last half century, a lot of it in congress. you referred to the politics of afghanistan and pakistan as

being important. i would like to switch to the politics of america and how we can get congress to do what the wisdom suggests we should do. to records support for the war being fan, the majority of poles say they want dow, but in talking to senators and congressman, they are well aware of that, but they are also afraid that their opponents in the elections can accuse them of voting to "lose the war." the more substantial reason i have been given by senators and congressmen would [inaudible] alternately because of pakistan and the nuclear weapons, they are concerned that there is a takeover that will help the

radicalization in pakistan. paul mentioned what we're doing now makes it harder for pakistan to cooperate with us. could we do more by explaining that apart from cooperating with us that it is increasing the chance of radicals winning in pakistan and taking over the nuclear weapons to enhance the confidence of congress in voting to get out? >> i think the way you phrased this is correct. it is extraordinarily disheartening that even though 70% of the public is against it, what really is true is that no one thinks about it. no one gives a you know what. the only time it comes up is in campaigns and the only time it comes up as someone saying that we are going to cut and run to incite votes against a particular candidate. this is almost on autopilot and

the cost of $120 billion per year. just recently, i reread "war in the time of peace" which is about clinton and bosnia. there is no one i know that even remembers that war. now when i hang out with knows any of those issues. the politicians in washington were obsess with every nuance and detail of that and what the effect would be. the public does not care. what really impresses me is that i think the president to power this down without telling anyone. no one would notice in this country. he would not get any negative repercussions. i do not want to oversimplify this, but sometimes i think we're too close to the problem. sometimes i think we need to back up to 60,000 feet and look at this. the president could save as a couple hundred billion dollars pretty easily and it would not have to be controversial.

what is frightening is about that is think of the last couple of hundred years powers have been devolved. >> the other point that deserves some attention is briefly the idea that they have a nuclear arsenal and this from fallen to the hands of radicals and therefore the ... is that we always the to continue what we are doing. this is part of the diplomatic tool kit, the idea that there precariously placed and if anything happens to change things, who knows what might happen. pakistan is a much stronger state than many given credit for. no one can go to direct specific details about the nuclear arsenal, i find it is not the trump card that the people think it is. >> i would like to follow-up on

that for just one second. member history of the taliban ebbing and flowing in afghanistan. it is important that every time the town then goes beyond the tribal areas that the military steps in and pushes them back. they are very effective at this and pulling the strings when the militants began to do something they do not like. they are effective at protecting their major cities. you do not see the same kind of massive occupation that we saw here. you see them defending these areas and pushing them back. i think the danger of an islamic takeover is completely overstated. >> i have a quick observation of one thing that has not been stated that shapes the politics of this since we made comparisons with vietnam and this has made a huge difference with regards to how this has

been played. there was richards observation that some much of this has not been noticed. to a're going to go lightning round now. i ask the keeper questions short to make it has many as possible. we will go to the man in the second to the last row in the back, the first seat. sir, did you have a question? we will go to this gentleman right here, then this gentleman right here, then in the back. >> briefly, i think the room is getting a little carried away in their belief in the collapse of american public support for the war in afghanistan. when people are asked about negotiating with the taliban, there is a divided response. in afghanistan among afghans when people are asked about negotiations, and two in three

would like to see negotiations with the afghan public. my question is what would be an effective way, in your view, to present to the american public the concept of a future negotiation? >> two more. right here. then behind your right there. >> i am from the woodrow wilson center. it appears that the united states and afghanistan are now starting negotiations for some kind of long-term strategic relationship. i am wondering whether that does not cut across the idea of international negotiations and the outcome at this point is uncertain. i wonder if you could comment on that or not. >> ok. right here. >> i'm from veteran professionals for insanity. is a question about the

pipeline. no one ever talks about oil and gas. i'm told there is more natural -- natural gas in turkmenistan that is worth more than all the oil in iraq. could this have something to do with it the decision or the intention to stay in afghanistan? >> paul, are getting carried away? ambassador, maybe you could talk about the long-term strategic relationship, and a josh, you can talk about the pipeline. >> the question about getting carried away was how to read the settle negotiations? we could take lessons from the nixon administration with vietnam. there are all the for ways to declare victory. make the point that, through the sacrifices of our troops and a decade of this that we have gotten into the position where we can finally turned things over to the afghans. we have always said what our

leaders are saying now, that negotiations of some sort will be necessary. i think that is sellable. it is a public relations and rhetorical task, but we have done that sort of thing in the past and i would be confident and the administration could do that. >> and on the long-term strategic relationship? >> leave the report, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but we made a strenuous effort. i tend to think in negotiations with afghanistan over the long term on a bilateral basis that they are useful to push the question of negotiations among afghan parties and within the region on the long term. the truth is, of course, that it can always be adjusted to accommodate the sec in negotiation. nafta be very careful with the second negotiation to have our interests clearly stated and, in my view, they cannot be

permanent base arrangements forever. we have to relate this to the future of afghanistan, hopefully one that more afghans will be coming together dan will be divided and separate. >> of josh, what about the pipeline? >> it does not exists and it never will. this magical pipeline going to afghanistan has been talked about in the region for like 20 years. turkmenistan has less natural gas than russia and no one cares. they have already built a pipeline through china and the use the russian pipe network. there is no reason to take a risk building in the things as a transit area. it is madness. they can ship things across the sea much more easily than the cancer afghanistan. james here dealt with this in the 1990's but even they give up on the idea because it was so and humanly expensive that no

one ever really thought it worth the trouble. >> the point is that there were too many moving parts and to many things changing. alternately, you just would not get anything done. >> what about the issue that there are a lot of natural resources in afghanistan and we have heard a lot about the minerals. real source of revenue for the country. is that a pipe dream, or is that something we should be spending resources to help develop on behalf of them? >> stranded gas means it is far away and hard to get to in the market to monetize. the same thing applies to this. we know with the chinese has done with copper, but that provides a huge amount of infrastructure. the chinese are finding, not just in afghanistan but elsewhere that the local situations can be paid to their advantage with money, but after that things get harder when they

run into the same local difficulties. >> we have about five minutes and we will take one more round in the back right here. sir, right here. then right over here. the gentleman in the back? thank you. >> keep your question short, please. >> i was a longtime civil service employee in the state department. i did several foreign service tours in the last one was with the provincial reconstruction team. given that this is alluded to by the panel but not addressed directly, i would like to ask views on given the lack of governance, which is a huge problem in other provinces, how can we leave afghanistan better than how we found it? >> right here in the front.

>> center for international policy. let me ask you a question about timing. the arguments in favor of the surge was that we were strengthening our military position and it would be one year or two to get a stronger position. another argument from the century commission task force ordered that we are in a weaker position now than we were two years ago. when is the right time? >> and the gentleman right here >> i am from the section. thank you for putting this together. the president of the decisionmaking process in deciding macondo drawdowns and other policy changes they will have in afghanistan in july. what would you like to hear the president say about troop drawbacks and policy changes?

>> we will ask the panelists to take all this in consideration with closing thoughts. i was in afghanistan in september and i think one of the things that we saw was even though there is a lot of aid and projects being developed that the key thing here, and maybe josh can pick up on this, is governance. the government is moving very slow, not on pace with the the military objective and that will really be whether we "win or lose" in afghanistan. ambassador, do you want to start? >> the lack of governance and how to deal with huge problems, i do not think we can substitute federalism and we need to be very careful to understand that traditionally, afghanistan was centrally governed of the weekly government in the provinces.

this is about law, defended the bascom and constitutions. someone asked a question about the right time but they did not say for what. the right time to get out? as soon as possible. the right time for negotiations? now. >> what which like to see in the president's policy review? >> we participated in the report or breeze suggested they could do a 70,000 fewer troops. we continue to believe that is the case. i would go back to the point about how to sell this to the american public? it is not necessary. the american public is not interested in this. there is no selling that needs to be done. if he sold it to run, they would not notice that you were doing it. i do now to over make that point, but i do not one to under make it. there are a lot of experts that no every nuance and every detail and is deeply concerned.

the american public is not there. >> john leaving afghanistan a better place than we found dead, one can easily make the argument that we needed better in the first couple of months when we ousted the taliban. the fact it mr. brown nine more years does not necessarily negate that. on the negotiations, i would remind you that negotiations take two parties and it is a mistake to look at nearly from one is advantages from our point of view but i agree with the ambassador that now was the time. what i would like to the president say in july is consistent with what richard said. i want something other than eight cosmetic fulfillment to start a withdrawal in july. >> i hope the president gives far less time and attention to the groups of the military groups interested in the most effective way to bomb even more

than we have before. also pay attention to the important overlap of interest with indian and try to begin to deinternalize the issues and give them an implicit veto. >> talk a bit about the governance issue. are not focusing on the right thing here darks should we be spending our resources, time, and money on strengthening this government which nine years later, as we have seen, has made some progress, but still has a long way to go. >> in terms of strengthening the government, that is the wrong question to ask. is this the right government first, then you go about strengthening it. >> if we are going in to overthrow the taliban, and as some suggest, and still a democracy, we generally choose a government.

should be broadened beyond reach to various players? we want afghanistan without a true election but we do not want to be seen as imposing from within. is it up to us to choose the right government? >> it is not. one of the stipulations in the constitution, in 2005, there were supposed to the district level elections and then they would be responsible for political and different fares. that has not happened. in the interim, because that did not happen, we have been tried to build up these alternative structures, and i will not. for all the acronym's because it could not remember them all, but the question of governance and how we will do this, afghans are capable of running their own affairs. they have done so for a long time and they do not need outside help. the? in the and governance is whether or not we are doing this in a way that we approve of. that is a separate question of whether it is doing what we want to do, but they're capable of

governing themselves in the future, and whether this will leave them better or worse off. there's a telecommunications system, a health-care system, a road network. things have to happen. it is not perfect and it is by far not enough to make things better in the way that we consider, but there has been progress. the current government can function, just not very well. when we think about what our grand plan is for this country, i think we have to keep in the front of our minds that they know how to win themselves. there are not stupid, they may be literate, but they it is an arrogant thing to say, are we putting in the right thing? a restaurant and after a position that we felt comfortable with? that is the wrong question. >> this is an deny someone positive note. i would like to thank our panelists. with all the discussion of afghanistan today, there really

crystallized and shown us some of the sobering issues that are rarely discussed. the next panel, we will delve into the recommendations of the report. there are copies outside if you have not read it. it is an excellent document and i want to congratulate the task force for looking into some of these issues in the political situation on afghanistan which have been ignored for too long. thank you. >> thank you. hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> on monday, looking at ideas for saving money and lives. also promoting u.s. objectives in overseas contingency operations. live coverage of the hearing begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span23. -- c-span 2. now look at the situation in sudan. remarks from former south

african president and a former president of burundi. the u.s. sensitive piece is hosting this event it is about one hour and 45 minutes. >> mr. president, ladies and gentleman, i have been asked by my colleague to introduce the conversation this afternoon. as you know, you're the partners of the african union and a partner of sudan. we started to work in march 2009 on our four -- farfur. -- darfur.

our mandate was extended them to the nation of sudan. we've been working with the sudanese to follow up on the implementation. we have been asked by the sudanese also to facilitate the talks on what is called the arrangement. maybe the best way is to tell you where we are on these matters and maybe then that can trigger a discussion, question and answer. as you know, about the implementation, we have a, a

long way. i recognize those people who played a very important role in the organization. we worked with them on the referendum. we had a peaceful and credible referendum and the outcome of which has been accepted the by the sudanese and by the international community. i think this is been a very big achievement.

now, what is left in the implementation? three matters. when is the issue which seems to be the more complicated one. what i can say is that we are working on a and we have agreed with the president and vice president that at the end of main, our partner will make a proposal. after consultation with the sudanese and the international stakeholders. we hope that we then come to an

agreement. his second remaining issue [unintelligible] there is a committee on the borders and there are two issues remaining. disputed agree on areas. there are five disputed areas around the borders. committee and a political committee and the two are working on them. we hope by july 9th that we reach an agreement on the five disputed areas. the second amendment issue is did demarcation of the borders.

between the north and south, there is about 2,000 kilometers. we think maybe the marquesan exercise will go on even after the independence of the south and go it appears that it is impossible to complete the vacation in the time leading up to an july 9th. the third and remaining issue in the of lamentation of the agreement is what is called popular concertation. and in the two areas, in the it has beeno completed, but what is remaining is to come to a conclusion.

this means a talks between the state authorities and the government. in the south, the popular concertation is not done yet because they have failed to have an election. the election is scheduled on may 2nd and as soon after, popular concertation is going to take place and you can see also that the exercise of popular consultation will certainly go beyond the ninth of july. those are really the three issues remaining in the implementation of the agreement. then there is the second set of issues which recall the post-

referendum arrangement. there has been negotiation on the issue of security arrangements in the the arrangement, especially the three important matters, currency, the debt, and borders. the discussion has also got a long way. we are brought to conclude the negotiations on the economic issues. we have had many seminars and we think that maybe we need one

more session to come to a conclusion. there are only a few issues where the parties do not agree at. on the issue of currency, there is the matter of redemption of the balance. what do you do with the powers that circulating in the south? on the issue of debt, the parties have agreed on what they call that if khartoum takes the responsibility to engage with all of sudan with the two parties, then they agreed to

make a joint advocacy for debt relief and in washington, it has been one of our main discussions on the currency and debt. we haven't talked with the world bank, the creditors of sudan, and it seems that things are moving in the right direction. the other remaining issue is with the sudanese parties called the financial transition arrangement. in other words, how to share the oil revenue after the independence of the south.

what will be in the ownership of the oil? those two matters are not yet agreed to and we have said that there should be a special committee to try and have an agreement on those issues. the other post-referendum arrangement is about security. we are also negotiating a security arrangement and one issue is not solved yet. it is the future of the soldiers coming from the two

areas, brunei and that the south. there is no agreement yet because the parties and decided to still negotiate. there is also the discussion about the third parties in the management of the borders from july 9th and we think that the most complicated issue would be the future coming from brunei in the south. then there is the issue of citizenship. hear, also, there is one aspect which is not yet agreed on. it is the transitional period

were the sudanese will choose and reapply for citizenship in the north or in the south. at the beginning, the parties had had a discussion on the possibility of a dual citizenship. they would not agree. then to avoid the stateless this -- the statelessnes, there will be a party on the legislation of citizenship. those are the concerns to join rather the north or the south.

i think in the deposed referendum measurement as we see, we are moving on all issues at the same time and we hope to be done by july 9th to have an agreement on all of those issues. now we are discussing with the parties some of the issues which can continue to be discussed even after a july 9th. for example, the issue of borders. that is where we are in have been discussing these issues here in washington and have also been discussing the issues concerning the future of the two countries, especially the south

after the independence and there is a lot of concern about nation-building. the south will face a lot of challenges about security, development, governance. we have seen that there is a lot of will and in the international community and they are talking about how to coordinate all of the goodwill to help stop saddam. we have been discussing all so the future of northern sedan. no. saddam also have to adapt after the independence of the south.

in khartoum, the have to think about the constitutional review and how to adapt the constitution for both the independence of the south. ofn there's also the issue darfur. the other matter we have been dealing with is to try and --plement the report remain do we made on darfur in 2009. that situation has not made a lot of progress. the discussion is gone what have we discussed? we've tried to start a political

process and there's a lot of discussion on how to coordinate with therefore and it has been the center of the discussions that we have had with the u.s. government especially. we hope we are finding the way maybe to help the process, but we are hoping these talks will lead to peace in darfur. it is the help of the agency to have peace in darfur. we see the lack of peace is having a negative impact on the world the sudan. for example, one of the

obstacles to solve this issue are and the u.s. sanctions against saddam because of the war in-- against sudan because of the wars in darfur. the fundamental principle in our negotiations between the south and north of is the principle of two viable states and in making the north by moe and the issue of the debt is very important. in darfur, it is being an obstacle. darfur is also an obstacle in the constitutional review in the north. darfur is part of the north.

we think that darfur, the piece has to come said that the north can then organize. darfur is also having a negative impact on the area of security. there has been accusations that the south is helping in darfur in the north are helping the robbers in the south. this situation, of course, can jeopardize the relationship between the two if the fighting is going on in darfur for a long

time. here we are in trying to help the sudanese moving from all those issues and i have to say that we have had very good collaboration with the sudanese, the north and south, and we are optimistic that the sudanese have the ability to solve their many problems and we are aware of time because we are less than three months away from july 9th and i think it, especially after the referendum, we can see a strong political reason to move

and attack and they both want to the bible states. for the sudanese, is important for the whole region. sudan, you know, is the biggest country in africa. other countries and if there is stability in sudan, it will be a lot for stability in africa. i think this is why the african union is very committed to helping saddam because sudan is very important to africa.

i think the african union, for the first time, are pulling together three, four heads of state and trying to move to help the sudanese accomplish the importance of sudan for africa. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, president buyoya. we can now move to questions and i think all three former presidents will participate in responding to your questions. we have microphones that we can pass around to those who ask questions you will just raise your hand.

we will start here with steve mcdonald. >> thank you very much for your presentation, president. i was in a luncheon last week where it the prime minister gave presentation and he said that the kenyan government's had improved and set aside funding for further development of the port and building the pipeline in southern sudan. can you comment on that and as to how that will impact the flow of oil and the administration of

revenues from the oil? i know and will be several years before that is a reality, but if you could complement -- comment, i would appreciate it. >> we will take three or four questions and accumulate them. anyone else? >> go ahead. >> mike kellerman. how're you, sir? i would like to know, in particular, because this involves the african union, but about the ivory coast, are you

satisfied with how that turned out? secondly, about libya. we have an actor can a union delegation attending a peace agreement with mr. gaddafi and the rebels, so cold and. -- so called. can you answer both of those questions? thank you for being here today. >> if you could identify yourself and your affiliation. >> thank you very much. i work with refugees international and my question is regarding the situation of the northerners in the south and southerners in the north and what we heard about the negotiations on going. what is being non -- being going on to ensure those people from the north in the south that

there will be no retribution or no violent acts against them? i was a part of a team a couple of months ago visiting both the north and the south. every person we interviewed expressed a fear that there would either be retribution against their property or their physical safety would be jeopardized after that day. thank you very much. >> did you get all three? i think so. >> the second about the ivory coast and libya. and this one about citizenship and assurances. >> we are trying to decide where we should speak from, here or there.

this is better? the good. on the matter of the pipeline, the issue of the ownership of the oil infrastructure, the pipeline, and whatever else will attach, this is one of the matters that is still under discussion. indeed, in terms of the negotiations we were talking about, there are particular some groups talking about each of these. it has been agreed that as to this specific issue for the ownership of the oil infrastructure that it should be taken to a higher level it

should be taken away from the negotiations because it has proven to be a challenge. it should be discussed at a higher political level. again, as the president indicated, like all the other issues in the economy, this matter will be resolved by the end of may. it is one of the issues that is central to this discussion. we have not discussed all the matter of the possibility of other pipelines. in fact, i am sure this is the first time all three of us -- and we met for lunch last week and we did not know about it. and did not matter in the context of the negotiations.

the negotiators must take on board the possibility of another pipeline, but it is no reason at all. they will proceed to decide this matter of the ownership and so on. we think this relates to the matter of access and what kind of access should people have to the infrastructure. the issue of citizenship, the matter has also been under discussion for some time. we should avoid statelessness. we must avoid that.

secondly, it has been agreed by the parties that whenever the arrangements, they have to include the possibility for the sudanese to stay where they are now, keep the property that they have come to keep the jobs that they have, and all of that. generally, it is a group of arrangements which effects their freedom. for northerners in the south and southerners in the north, they become citizens and they should never the less enjoy.

we agree that we should avoid statelessness and make sure that people enjoy their full freedoms. others principals have already been agreed to and what remains now is to discuss whatever it is outstanding with regard to the citizenship so that people avoid creating negative situations for ordinary people as a result. hopefully, the necessary agreements will be done which will then create the possibility for the two states to draft the citizenship legislation which would then define who is a citizen and at that point help the people to decide and choose where they want to belong.

therefore, one of the issues that is outstanding and is under discussion is that with the two states having approved their nationality legislation's, how much time should be given to enable people to save that i will be a southern or never -- northern national? that is something still being discussed. sufficient time should be allowed so that no one ends up being stateless. matters are being discussed in the matter that i am indicating in order to avoid the eventuality you are talking about, of people being victimized whether you are a northerner and in the south or a southerner in the north. they can go home, and they will take their car, house, whatever. with