about libya and the ivory coast, the panel has not dealt with these two issues. they are very complicated and difficult. other people have had to deal with these issues. we have not discussed these as a panel. the chair person will be in the building tomorrow. he will be the person to ask. [laughter] it is the same. we have a panel on sudan. in december, the second round of

elections in ivory coast -- it was in november. immediately after that, the problem arose. the chair ofnd uniounion, the african union will be here tomorrow. you can ask him about that. he asked me to go to the ivory coast to look at the situation and make a recommendation as to what to do. i went and talked to the leadership. i came back and wrote a report to the african union. a said what i thought they needed to do to resolve the problem. you can ask him tomorrow about what happened. these are questions you should put to the chair of the african union commission tomorrow.

>> other questions? yes. we will get the microphone for you. >> you spoke of the strong political will on the part of of the north andn south. i would like to know the thinking with respect to the political will holding, particularly in the north, in case the leadership is not sustained there. in other words, political will has to be sustained over the long term over successive governments.

>> other questions? >> and i do not know what he is talking about. [unintelligible] >> i am a graduate student at duke university studying environmental security. my question is about the nile basin. when the south becomes independent, it will be in control of the white nile. i wonder if water has come up in any of your discussions. if so, how do you plan on dealing with the issue? >> we will take one more. >> there is a bit of a bad echoed in this hall. when you are far from the microphone, it is difficult for us to understand what you are saying.

please take back the microphone and speak closer to it. i am sure we will be able to hear better. >> my question is on water and the nile basin. the south will be in control of the white nile when it becomes independent. i wonder if the issue has come up in your discussions and how you plan on dealing with that. >> we will take one more in the back. >> lawrence freeman from executive intelligence review, the african desk. in terms of two viable states for sudan, i have been working on sudan for almost 20 years. it seems there has to be a positive vision for sudan to move forward. i have not seen anyone in washington to articulate the vision. that would be north and south

sudan uniting together for the benefit of all the people of sudan. this seems to center on the question of the production of food. poverty exists in northern sudan. electrical power, real transportation rail transportation. this idea of two countries working together for a positive program that goes beyond simple debt relief, this is not discussed in washington. i want to know if you have thought about these ideas for the future of sudan.

[unintelligible] [laughter] >> i think with regard to the first question, part of what we need to appreciate is the fact that for 40 years of its independence, sudan has been at war between the north and south. it's ultimately resulted in the [unintelligible] our own experience is that the sudanese both north and south have understood the cost attached to war.

i am firmly of the view that war is not alone to solve their problems. any matter about standing between the two of the needs to be solved by peaceful means. they have direct experience of the opposite result. this does not mean there are new tensions of course there are tensions. there may still be some that they that a return to war will produce some results. i am saying that generally in the majority and in the leadership of both north and south, it seems there is a clear understanding that there should be no return to war. 40 years of fighting have taught

everyone that lesson. i do not believe that if their work to be a change in the personalities in terms of the political leadership in the north that this would change the fundamental understanding. therefore the will to proceed, the way they are proceeding now, the political will to sustain that would remain even if you have a change among some of the personalities in terms of the people in the government in the north. you are unlikely to get anybody there to reverse the cpa processes.

there would not reintegrate by force or anything like that. to take a position contrary to the notion of two viable states -- the matter of the political will, i think the political will would be sustained in regardless of what ever particular changes might happen in the north with regard to the political players. on the matter of the bible state development, infrastructure, agriculture, all of that, one of the principal reasons i came to washington at the invitation of the imf and the world bank was

in particular to deal with the issue of debt. this debt relief of about $38 billion is the external debt of sudan. clearly, the country cannot pay. it has to be forgiven. if it is not forgiven, it would impact directly on the matter of the viability of the north given the decision that the north would inherit this debt. discuss an element of the issue raised, the challenge of development. the second meeting we are to have was organized by the world bank. it was a round table on sudan to

discuss the challenges of development for the north and south. i think the point raised is correct. the point being made as i understood it was that in addition to looking at the political arrangement, the independence of the south, the formation of the government, and so on, what happens to the north and its politics is fine. the point being made is that there is a related and important issue. that is a development question. the issues of agricultural development become important. the issues of infrastructure develop and become important. the rest of the international community should not just look at the political issues but also look at the development issues. this was part of the discussion

in the round table convened by the world bank and the african development bank. he was saying that his sense is that washington is in sufficiently sensitive to the development challenges and perhaps too exclusively focused on the politics. it might be in our common duty to sensitize washington, the government and congress, on this. it will be very important.

there is a working group on the issue of water. with all of these working groups on different matters, we convene all of these groups. we put them on the agenda with timetables and so on. i mention that because the interesting thing about water, this working group says to us that we do not need you. they're making very good progress. the interaction and understanding between the to the parties is very good. they are confident they will be able to sort out a proper

agreement on this. bearing in mind, normally and historic rate it does take time to sort out the water agreements. they're perfectly content, both sides, that they are proceeding well and did not need our facilitation. it is being attended to. on the issue of the political will and the ability of leadership, i think this issue is not particular to saddam -- sudan.

we are in constant change of leadership through democratic process. it is a reality sudan, this country, and elsewhere. if sudan is able to agree on principles this will be implemented by the current leadership. the other question was about the positive vision of cooperation between the two. two sudanese have to the principles. one is the viable state.

the second is cooperation for mutual benefit for the long term. in the framework of the negotiation, the two parties decided to come to a trade treaty. it is a long-term agreement. when they were negotiating, they wanted to come to a treaty on how they would cooperate in the long term in the area. when they were negotiating, they introduced the notion of

allowing the freedom of movement for people, goods between the two states. behind the negotiations, there is a long-term vision of cooperation for mutual benefit. thank you. >> we have two questions right here. >> can you hear me? i am with the united nations here in washington. i wanted to hear your views on see the roles of the african union and the united nations in sudan. what will happen to the hybrid operation in darfur? will there be one mission or

two? your views on that would be interesting for us. >> i have more or less the same question. does the panel have a mandate post-july? if so, until when and for what? will the evaluation commission carry on in the reforms? >> a question back here. >> i am from the wilson center. we have the impression that there may be some disconnect on darker -- on in darfur and that of the mediators. your team favors apiece from

within policy adopted by the government -- your team favors peace from within policy adopted by the government and the other side giving way to negotiation talks. explain to us how you are coordinating with the doha are mediators -- doha meters. -- doha mediators. tell us how you are tackling a difficult question of persuading all of the movements to participate with regard to the matter of the -- --

tell us how you are tackling the difficult question of persuading all of the movements to produce a. >> the discussion has not quite got in there about the future of sudan. it is obvious that in terms of its mandate it must terminate by july. the matter has been raised of the need for some international participation with regards to the security arrangements between the north and south. the matter has been raised.

the two parties have asked us to address the issue and come back to them with some suggestions as to how this matter might be dealt with. that is in terms of international participation and security arrangements between the two countries. that is a matter we are working on. it is obvious in that context, and the issue will arise of the role of the u.n. and the african union. the south -- i am talking about

an arrangement that would relate to north and south. that is a matter under consideration. i am sure that at the end of it, the sudanese will probably want to approach both to ask for help. the south has already approached the u.n. with regard to a role they might play in the south. that is a matter being discussed between the united nations and the government of south sudan. the matter is not finalized. there are discussions as to what they think might happen with

regard to the deployment in the south and deployment relates to relations between the north and south. this is a work in progress. it will not affect the work. that will continue in darfur. some discussion has arisen about the matter of the aac and what happens to it. its own mandate relates to the cpa. in principle, the mandate ought ends.d when the cpa i i am quite sure that the members of the aac will want to discuss

it to the extent that there may be some things which might require further looking at post- july. they may decide to continue this. i do not know what kind of discussion is taking place in that context. in principle, the aac mandate should presumably in in july. that does not mean that will happen. with regards to doha and ourselves, i would not say there is a disconnect. the african union decided on a policy in october of 2009 that in order to agree to a durable

peace in darfur it would be important to involve the darfur inn of t any negotiations that would affect the future. this is what the population in darfur itself had said. president buyoya was saying that when we started our work with the african union, we spent a long time with the darfurians. we were asked to revise the african union on what to do to resolve the problem in darfur -- to advise the african union on what to do to resolve the

problem in darfur. we talked to the door darfurians. -- we talked to the door darfurians. what they said at all levels of society was that it would be very important for a durable peace to be achieved in darfur. it is important that the population must be involved in negotiating that durable peace. they said to us that part of the reason the darfur peace agreement of 2006 stayed was because it was negotiated by the government and other groups. they met and negotiated an agreement. they finished it and came back to the population of darfur and said here is a peace agreement.

the population said it was theirs and had nothing to do with them. they asked us not to repeat that. we said fine. that went to the african union as a recommendation. it was adopted by the african union. we then get instruction from the african union that this was a policy we must pursue. it relates to the question of an inclusiveness proceeding process in darfur. in the meantime what happened was that negotiations in doha had started. all of us except to the supposedly associations -- accepted the suppose it

negotiations -- the supposed new positions. they have to concentrate in particular on issues that relate to cease fire and other security arrangements. that is an important part of any peace agreement that there is the cessation of hostilities. that can only be negotiated by the people carrying guns. that must continue and produce the results. the problem is the matter you have raised of encouraging everybody to participate. that is encouraging all of the rebel groups to participate. the mediators have found that very difficult to get them to go

to doha and engage in negotiations. it has proven very difficult for the mediators to attract visible groups to come. all of us have been talking to them saying the same thing. please go to doha. always need the cease-fire, and so on. -- all of us need the cease- fire, and so on. we will continue to try to encourage them to engage in that. we have to focus on the matter of the termination of hostilities. i do not think anyone of us can guarantee any success with this.

the decision is not in our hands. it is in the hands of the armed groups. we should encourage them. this was one of the messages we got from the darfurian in 2009. they said to please talk to the leaders of the armed groups to go to doha to talk peace. they asked us to convey that message. in addition to discussing the issue of the cease fire and security arrangement and discuss the broader issues that have to do with peace in darfur of power-sharing, wealth sharing, etc., the population of

darfur so that we had to be involved in the discussions. we said fine. let them proceed with that. the outcomes of doha would then feed into the inclusive process is an inclusive political process in darfur to bring in the various constituencies so there is no disconnect. that has been a challenging issue. there is the issue of time. when he spoke earlier, he talked about the relevance of darfur and the issue of darfur in terms of the constitutional review

process of saddam -- sudan. the matter will immediately come onto the agenda as soon as the south [unintelligible] the north will have to decide how it governs itself. this constitutional review process must take place. it cannot exclude darfur. darfur is very much part of the north. it is an important part. i am raising this timing issue. we want to see the outcome of the doha that would feed into the political process in darfur. we need to move these processes forward faster. if we do not do it fast enough,

we will create another problem. that is stalling the p constitutional review in the north. that will create other complications. everyone is discussing how to speed up the processes so that we will get those kinds of sequences. if you cannot get the sequence, bearing in mind the other pressures i am talking about, it is still possible to do parallel processes to allow the negotiations to continue and convenient -- convened the inclusive process with the darfurians.

you can take on whatever might have been agreed on or not. i could still take that to them. it is important to take that from the lot into the inclusive process -- it is important to take from doha in to the inclusive process the outcomes of doha. we want a solution. when the groups decide not to come, we cannot do anything about it. in the event of a delay of that and get thego ahead population in darfur involved. it must be an inclusive process but also includes the armed

groups, to run in parallel side- by-side. i hope that answers the question appropriately. thank you. >> two questions in the back. >> i am a fellow at refugees international. my question relates to outstanding issues. in every mediation, there are outstanding issues. experience has shown that the

outstanding issues are never resolved. they are talked about. people get their independence or seat at the table. as soon as they sign the agreements, independence is given. fresh issues come out. the issue is never resolved. it gives them their independence. also talk about the outstanding issues that have not been resolved to of years from now. have you learned a lesson in trying to resolve these issues will you leave outstanding issues? you know the importance of the voters. you give the country independence without considering where the regional ally at the end of today. -- where the region will live at

the end of the day. you leave those issues and attended all the time. >> in the back. >> thank you very much. i am from the public international law and policy group. i have a question regarding popular consultation in blue nile. it has been conducted but not concluded. i was wondering if the panel can comment on the impediments to issuing the report and initiating the visitations. can you comment on how the negotiations will likely play out given the anticipated political and constitutional changes in the north? thank you.

>> you have talked about the need to make progress with the broader constitutional review in the north. it has become apparent that the popular consultation also has constitutional implications of was wondering if you might give your thoughts on whether these processes need to proceed to positively inform the constitution making process or whether saddam might be better served by having a national constitution-making process try to solve these problems at once. >> we will take one more over here. >> i am a diplomat in sudan.

i would like to thank mr. thabo mbeki for achieving peace in sudan with his colleagues. what do you think is the most important issue? the rest of the issues can be no preceded -- candidacy to -- can be negotiated after the issue of south sudan. [unintelligible]

>> the s outstanding issues -- the outstanding issues, you have a concern that there are always the outstanding issues in sudan and elsewhere in africa. it is that way everywhere in the world. unfortunately is not always possible to solve all the problems at the same time. you have outstanding issues. you have unresolved issues in many countries of the world. you have the issue between india and pakistan.

you have it with turkey and greece. you have palestine. what we try to reach is to solve all of those problems before nine of july. it will not be possible for all of them. if you take the issue of the border, in other areas of africa, and demarcation of the border -- the demarcation of the border is tied to the independentce. ist we're trying to do now

for the issues that cannot be july is showe 9 of 2 liv that they have to be solved. it is important. otherwise it will be impossible to solve them. the issue of the constitutional review has much to do with the blue nile and maybe also the darfur political process.

popular consultation is a way for those two areas to define their relationship with the central government in khartoum. one of the issues in doha is the relationship between theifour darfur -- whether it is one region or many regions. there is the time between popular consultation and the constitutional review process. popular consultation in the blue nile, there is no negotiation

between the state and central government. the government of blue nile may intervene and pressed the central government to start new positions -- negotiations. in the south, popular consultation has not started. i think the endgame is the same. once it is completed, the between the state in central government to see what kind of relationship, i think the constitutional review also

topples -- tackles the this matter. the governor of the blue nile is saying he would like to see a federal system in sudan where the state has autonomy for development, where it has financial autonomy. raising those issues will happen with the constitutional review process. it has to be then. the panel is convinced that maybe this exercise is the way to find a solution on the big issue of popular consultation.

the abyei issue is one of the most important and difficult. it does not mean we have to set aside the other issues and work only on abyei. we have worked hard on abyei. we've tried everything to solve abyei with the help of many third parties. i think it was in september or october that the u.s. government tried very hard to help the parties to come to an agreement.

it did not succeed by the end of the year. we took over. we made some proposals. the parties did not agree. have told the president will try again to have a proposal. we're hoping the parties will come to an agreement. everybody is saying to let the other issue move so that maybe it can be what they call it political approach -- a political approach to solve your outstanding issues, including

abyei. it is a very important issue. it is a matter that can be raised in the process. i think in the end, the parties will have to make a compromise. it is up to them to make compromises. we put on the table different possibilities. it will be up to them to solve the issue. >> we will take two final questions. one is down here. it will come across the roaw to

you. >> is this working? i have two quick questions. the first is about the arrangements organizations. i am seeing the progress made is mainly influenced by the u.s. relationship with the two parties rather than the two parties'willingness to achieve peace. would you agree on that? my second question is a follow- up question. i think i understand how we would have a peace process in darfur knowing the situation.

what needs to happen between now and july for us to have a credible peace process inside darfur? do you have any suggestions for improvement of the security situation? >> could you repeat the first question? >> i am seeing in the negotiations between the north and south that it is very much influenced by the united states. what will it take to reduce the peace? >> i am from the university of cape town. i wanted to go back to the darfur issue.

by understand the khartoum government has announced a referendum for the four -- for darfur. it has suggested creating two new states in darfur. can you comment on how that fits into the other processes related to peace in darfur? on the issue of blue nile, this is more a comment than a question. it is for you to comment on, please. i am puzzled by the claim being made by the government of blue nile. the interim constitution of sudan gives significant and strikingly substantial powers to the states in the north. i wonder how you understand the relationship between the current constitutional position and the

claims being made at the moment. >> with regards to the last question, the point made by the governor of. nbrunei was what he said. in terms of the constitution, they have the power that addresses the issue of autonomy and all of that. in practice, it is not working. for instance, the issue of giving sufficient resources under the control of the states of the state is able to take decisions in the exercise of autonomy.

that is not happening. that is the issue you are raising. the point was being made about popular consultations and the darfur process. it would have to feed into a national constitutional process. that will come out of the popular consultation and so on. in that process, the issue would have to be agreed. here are the powers in terms of the constitution. but what else needs to be done to put the theoretical power into actual power? that is the question raised. you are correct in terms of what the interim constitution says. the issue you are raising is that which needs to be addressed.

with regard to the referendum issue, one of the matters that has proved to be a big stumbling block in the negotiations between the government and the ljm is the same issue that was a stumbling block in 2006. the issue of darfur been one region, one state. it was agreed already that this matter could not be resolved in the decisions. therefore, this must be resolved by referendum. it must be sent to the people and let the people of darfur decide. the same thing is happening now.

incapable of resolution among his teachers. the government is sending it to referendum to let the people of darfur decide. with regards to the two states, this has been under discussion. this matter arose in 2008. there was a broad, inclusive sudanese in the seeding process -- negotiating process that brought in everybody. the ruling party's the opposition parties, review the ruling parties, the opposition parties -- one of the issues that arose was the question about whether darfur should be one region, one state the three

states for more -- should it be three states or more? this relates to the way the population of darfur is composed, with a population is constituted. you get sections of the population saying that in terms of the way it is arranged now in three states, it would be better if there was a state more focused on us that context. naturally what we would say is that all of these matters should be put on hold.

they might be legitimate matters, but they should be put on hold until the political solution of the matter is arrived at. it is in the context of the global thing that matters will be discussed. to combat them piecemeal is not going to help. -- to come at them piecemeal is not going to help. to come back again and say this part of the agenda of the exclusive negotiations is not right. it is a matter of perspective. the issues that have been raised, they need to be resolved within the context of the bigger set of negotiations. this is a matter that will be discussed with the government to indicate to them our own view about this.

the response to the matter of the referendum and the two additional states in darfur. the question is raised about a credible process in darfur. i think president buyoya said this of the beginning. we started life as the panel on darfur. we had to consult the population in darfur to dissents -- to get a sense of how they thought the matter should be resolved. that required an extensive popular consultation. that was no different from the

popular consultations taking place in brunei. in that context, we had to say to the government of sudan that we need to conduct the process. we have to be satisfied that as a result of the process that we've had the true, authentic, and free voice of the people of darfur. it is very important that this population must feel free to speak and not feel intimidated that if they say something critical of the government they will be arrested and all of that. the meetings so that we make sure there is not government interference. it is a process that we organize. we decide when and where the meetings take place and who

comes and all of that. the government is to stay away. we made all of those arrangements. indeed, that is what happened. the population of darfur in 2009 were perfectly happy with the processes that took place. they spoke freely and so on about all of these things. they made their own input. we have spoken out to the government about this to say that we must have this inclusive process on the part of the government and finally, they said, ok, you go ahead with it. incidentally, there is a false story that is put out that the political process was talking

about it being part of government policy. the government of the sudan to actually did not want this because what they prefer is an agreement that will be negotiated between them and their leaders. it is a much simpler process. as part of those discussions, then you would decide that this one gets such and such a post and the other one get such cases -- such and such a post. that population is saying, you cannot just talk to those leaders. they must be involved, sure, but you must get this population involved. and it took a long time before the government said, ok. this is not just our view. in the context of that, we said

to the government we must have this political process in darfur and then we said to them, it is necessary to create the conditions again that will enable us to have consultation. in 2009, they agreed. we have to have all of these measures in darfur. the government also lifted the state of emergency as part of this. , we have no partner ramalla doubt that it is, indeed, possible to organize this political process in darfur.

to organize it is conducted in a manner to ensure that it is credible. because it is important that the real, true voice of every darfurian is had. this has been done. there is no reason why we cannot repeat it. with the issue of the negotiations, i doubt they will agree that the negotiations between the north and south have been driven by the considerations of the united states, by the united states. the negotiations have been driven -- the two parties are saying -- again, let me go back.

but you go back to -- let me go back to where we want to agree that we want to create two viable states. we also agree that we want a system of cooperation. not only in the short term, but the longer-term. what have the parties been asking themselves? they have been asking themselves a question -- therefore, with regard to economic arrangements, what is it that we need to find that would address the matter of two individual states? with regard to security, what do we need to find that will allow for two viable state? the negotiations have not been driven by, what is it we must

decide to please the united states. there has not been any such consideration. it has been, continues to be, what is good for the two sedans -- sudans. the negotiations have not been driven by the united states. that being said, it is clear that it is important that certain decisions are made here. again, the president was indicating that if you have this issue of the external debt of sudan, everybody agrees -- we spoke to a lot of creditors during these days in washington, apart from the imf, the people that are actually owed these billions.

and we say to them, it is perfectly obvious that the sudanese cannot repay this money. the debt has got to be forgiven. and all of the creditors that we spoke to agreed. and these are major creditors. they said, no, we entirely agree. now, let's see what to do. there's a particular challenge that faces the united states, which is that the sanctions relating to this matter of this debt, the sanctions were imposed .n the issue of darkedarfur it would be impossible for the u.s. administration to move on this matter. and the u.s. is one of the major creditors. it would be impossible for the u.s. administration to move on this matter unless the u.s. congress moves on this matter.

the u.s. is, indeed, relevant to this process that is taking place. and this is part of the challenge. u.s. legislation was imposed because of darfur. naturally, the united states says, we want to see movement on darfur. the cruelty of this situation is that you do not have -- you then that sitsovernment's in the hot every day ready to negotiate -- sits in doha every day ready to negotiate an agreement and the rebels do not come. therefore, there is no agreement and no movement, and

new programs. and it is not the fault of the government of sudan that this doha process is not moving. it is the rebels. i am saying the u.s. is important in this regard. this is, of course, as natural as you would expect with the u.s. administration. i think we need to say this and conclude with regard to this. as the president has been saying, we have been working for the last several months continuously. we have had to abandon everything else we are doing just to focus on this. and it is very, very clear to us that the sudanese, both north

and south have a very clear understanding of their own history, have a very clear understanding of their own challenges, and indeed, as we keep saying, the decisions about what happens in sudan, north and south, they must be undertaken by the sudanese people. they are the only ones confidencompetent enough to do . as i was saying from the beginning, it is perfectly obvious that the sudanese are saying, "no more war. must have peace." this is the challenge that led to the wars in some dosudan.

it is the issue of the management of diversity in sudan. the south will separate, the north will remain as diverse as it was before the south separated. the issue of diversity is not going to go away. the south is also faced with this issue of diversity. i am saying this from experience with this. if you mismanaged that diversity, it leads to conflict. i am sure that my colleagues are very clever people. [laughter] >> thank you. >> they say, thank you very much for abolishing this. [laughter] but i am absolutely certain that the sudanese, both north and south cannot do not need -- do

not need advice about where we need to take sudan to. the reason i'm saying all of this is because there are people who think that you need a particular set of sanctions to apply to the sudanese to understand where their true interests lie, and that is wrong. you do not need -- the sudanese do not need anybody to impose sanctions on them to understand that they must make peace. but there are people who come at this thing with that frame of mind. these once do not quite know what is good for them, therefore, i must impose these sanctions so they do what i know is good for them. i am saying that is wrong. the u.s. is important to these issues, and in particular, we

have to find a way of addressing the sanctions matter because the assumption that the sanctions necessarily are playing a positive role in terms of encouraging movement forward is not necessarily correct. it is assumed to be so, but not necessarily so. thanks. >> thank you. it's very good point. [applause] >> i'm sure you all agree that this has been an extraordinary presentation of the issues and the complications, but with some hopeful signs of a way forward. we are grateful to our three presidents for their presentations. before closing, i just want to mention that john payne is going to be here tomorrow. we have a full house, but we may

be able to squeeze a few more people in tomorrow afternoon. on april 28, you have already been introduced to the chair of the southern sudan referendum commission and the deputy chair and the general secretary. they will be here on april 28 at 10:00 a.m. to make a presentation on their work. i hope you can make it for that. thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in his weekly address, president obama talks about his administration's efforts to combat rising gas prices, including rooting out fraud and manipulation in the oil markets and investing in renewable energy. he is followed by the republican address with the nebraska senator, who discusses how increased spending and regulations are hampering job creation. >> this is a time of year when people get together with family and friends to observe passover and celebrate easter. it is a chance to give thanks for our blessings and reaffirm our faith, while spending time with the people we love. we all know how important that is, especially in hard times. that is what a lot of people are facing these days. even though the economy is growing again, and we have seen businesses on add jobs these -- this past year, many are still facing work. even if you have not faced a job loss, things are not getting

easier. college for your kids to gas for your car, the prices are going out. $4 per gallon for gas is just another burden when things are already tough. whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians trying to grab headlines or score a few points. there is no silver bullet to bring gas prices down right away. there are some things we can do, though. and we can pursue for state production of oil at home, which we are pursuing. last year, we reach our highest level since 2003. on thursday, my attorney general also launched a task force with just one job, rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators. we will make sure that no one is

taking advantage of the american people for their own short-term gain. and another step we need to take is to finally end the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year. that is $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they are making record profits and you are paying near record prices at the pump. it has to stop. instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy sources, we need to invest in tomorrow's. we need to invest in clean, renewable energy. that is the long-term answer we need. that is the key to helping families at the pump and reducing our independence -- our dependence on foreign oil. thanks to agreements we, secured with all the major auto companies, we are raising the gas mileage of all automobiles in america. as a result, if you buy a new car in the next few years, the better gas mileage is going to save you about $3,000 at the pump. but we need to do more.

we need to harness the potential i have seen at promising start- ups and innovative clean energy companies across america. that is part of the debate we are having right now in washington about the budget. most democrats and republicans agree that we need to reduce the deficit. that is where we agree. the question is, how do we do it? i propose a balanced approach to cut spending while still investing in things like education and clean energy. they are so critical to creating jobs and opportunities for the middle class. it is a simple idea. we need to live within our means, one of the same time investing in our future. that is why i so strongly disagree with a proposal in congress that cuts are investing clean energy by 70%. yes, we have to get rid of wasteful spending, and make no mistake, we're going to every line of the budget scouring for savings. but we can do that without sacrificing our future. if we can still invest in the technologies that will create

jobs and allow the u.s. to lead the world in industry. that is not only how we will reduce the deficit, but it is also how we will grow our economy and leave our children a safer planet. thanks for listening and have a wonderful easter week -- weekend. >> policymakers tend to toss out the term job creation very broadly. it is a very popular talking point. but what does it mean to create jobs? the claim is often made the new federal policies will create jobs and paychecks for americans. the idea of government creating jobs, that simply misses the point entirely. it is just not how we get our economic engine firing on all cylinders.

job creation in this country does not start with government. it starts with our businesses, especially our small businesses. small businesses create between 60% to 80% of all new jobs, according to the small business administration. our small businesses, when free to grow and prosper, need more and more employees to sustain that success and that economic growth is job creation. but that is stifled when the federal government spends more than it takes in, throwing a cold, wet blanket on the entire process. the current record-setting deficits and the $14 trillion and more accumulated national debt are impediments to job creation because they have a ripple effect right to main street. our job creators cannot thrive in an environment where creditors hold back because of our government's debt. because without credit, small

businesses cannot grow. our debt threatens to devalue the dollar, which will lead to increased costs and interest rates, which has a chilling affect on small business growth. the past two years of running up the dead are a test of mahdavi of the fact that what we cannot spend our way to -- a testament of the fact that we cannot spend our way to prosperity. my constituents to thank me for getting government out of their way so they can create jobs. an example of this is the nine- month battle it took two finally repealed the 1099 tax reporting mandate, which the president has signed. job creators are saddled with a mountain of costly new paperwork due to this law. repealing it open the door to rehiring by closing the door on

accounting red tape that businesses would have faced. since then, i have heard directly from small-business owners thanking us from ghosh for removing this -- thanking us for moving the stumbling block and getting government out of the way of small business. it was a collective effort. thousands of small business owners made their voices heard. their analysis allowed us to place the debate in a real-world framework and i wholeheartedly thank everyone who supported freeing up our job creators to create jobs. 1099 repeal was a big victory for small businesses in our economy, but there is so much more to do. the red tape and bureaucracy continues to pile up from this administration. in the state of the union address in january, the president pledged to eliminate "burdens that have stifled

innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs." since then, his administration has proposed or enacted more than 250 regulations, amounting to more than $24 billion in regulatory costs. and again, that is just since january. that is $24 billion needed by small businesses across the country to hire new employees and to grow their businesses. it should not be funneled out of the economy and rerouted back to washington and to the government. washington is out of touch with folks on main street trying to do their share to boost our economy. they hear us talk about job creation all the time, but they also bear witness to the constant contradictions. if everyone is serious about job creation in addition to reducing

the debt, let's reduce burdensome regulation that serve no purpose other than to insert more government into the lives of citizens. our small businesses, which had nothing to do with our current financial troubles, wrote about the cause in last year's regulatory reform. why are they being targeted for a tax hike? they offered solutions to the problem. it is time to change the culture in washington. we cannot tie up small businesses in regulations and red tape and then expect them to boost the economy. the federal government cannot boost jobs. we must create an economic environment conducive to job creation. it is our task to unshackle job creators to enable them to grow, to flourish.

my republican colleagues and i will continue to push for ana scaled-back governmental environment that will allow for a prosperous society that benefits everyone. that means reining in spending, reducing the deficit and eliminating red tape that holds businesses back. it is clearly time for government to get out of the way. small businesses will respond with innovation and job creation. this is mike johanns of nebraska. thank you for your time and i hope you and your family enjoyed it very blessed easter. >> coming up, a discussion of the conflict in the and the future of egypt. also, a look at osha and how they are making a difference in the american workplace. and later on the communicators, sec commissioner ordaz -- fcc commissioner on the proposed deal between at&t and t-mobile.

>> now i discussion on the future of libya -- the conflict in libya and the future of egypt. this is part of a conference hosted by the jamestown foundation. it is about an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is great to see ever won here for these compelling and events going on in north africa and the middle east. will focus on north africa for today's panel. we have excellent speakers with wide knowledge of this area and the events going on at the moment. we have first, graeme bannerman, who will be speaking on the future of egypt. he is a scholar at the middle

east institute. he is formerly -- has formally worked with the department of state and the senate foreign relations committee. he has a doctorate in modern middle eastern history from the university of wisconsin and has taught at several well-known institutions. we are looking forward to what he has to say about egypt. after that, we'll have camille tawil. many of you may be familiar with his columns he has written for jamestown. in major pan-arab publication as well. he is an expert on libya. he has worked on this for many years, so he is fully prepared to analyze the events going on now. we are looking forward to that.

after that, we have derek henry flood, who is also with the jamestown foundation as the editor of the militant leadership monitor. if you have not had a look at this publication, i would suggest that you do so. derek has been doing a great job over the past year and we are very privileged to have him here today, as he has just returned from a six-week stay in north africa, most spent in libya right on the front lines. derica will have a very interesting perspective on what went on there -- derek will have an interesting perspective on what on their firsthand. lastly, i will be speaking about a security situations in the wake of the north african and arab revolution. my material has been handed out

if you care to look at it. without further ado, which can get started with graeme bannerman, speaking on egypt. >> you want me to take the podium? >> if you like. whatever you feel comfortable with. >> ok, i will stay here. let me say that i do not have any surer view of where egypt is going. it is evolving every day and any of us to look at the egyptian revolution had better be able to, just what we say on a daily basis, and certainly, on a monthly basis. for me, this is the most important event occurring in the middle east. egypt has the role of being a fulcrum of events. in the last 60 years, it is the only country that has been able to tip the balance of power in one direction or another. what i mean by that is, the 1952 revolution in the arab world -- and egypt tipped the balance for

the next two decades almost in the favor of russia. the jurisch resolution decided to go. and sadat did -- in favor of the west. -- take it back in favor of the west. we are now in another time when egypt may tip one direction or another, and we do not know what is going to happen. they are in the middle of a result -- revolution. it is an egyptian revolution and those of us on the outside will have little influence. this is also a very exciting moment. it is an extraordinary moment. i first went to cairo in 1963 and i went and watched the russians build the high dam. it is a very different country than it was in 1963. it is changing rapidly, which for egypt is amazing. but because this is an extraordinary situation, we are

sometimes curst that we have ordinary analysis. all of us will have to look at everything we have thought about each of and rethink it on a daily basis. things are changing rapidly. first, the source of our information is limited. we are fortunate there are lots of people there, and clearly, i am one who believes that having aljazeera broadcasting regularly from cairo has brought us much more information than in the past when events are occurring. that is not mean, however, that we do not need our own analysis. even the best reporting has a bias and a slant to it that is unrealistic. each one has to figure out what that slant is and do our own analysis. the problem i have is that we describe the revolution and he does democratic. i am not sure what that means in egypt. i am not sure what democratic means for all of us.

we a all enthralled with the way the young people in the square has managed to remove and autocrats, managed to transform their society. and have taken their country to replace or we never thought was possible. six months ago, let alone today. is continuing to change. the problem for me is that i worked on the senate foreign relations committee for a long time and joe biden always made a very important observation. the most important characteristic of politician can have is thebility to count. my problem is, too many of us view this as a democratic revolution and are blinded by the inspiration and a forgotten our ability to count. that is what worries me. i am concerned aut our week of. -- about where we go out. for the referendum on march 19, the christians, all the useful

opposition democratic groups and the square, every business person i've spoken to have voted no. they all ved no. together, they could not get 23% of the population. if by any democrats, i am asking who are the other 77% of the population? the biggest group everybody talks about is the muslim brothers. nobody believes that the muslim brotherhood can generate more than 25% of the vote. all the sudden, we now have the 23% that will fall into the reformist movement plus the 25% that fall into the muslim others. en route is the 52%? where did those people come

from? where did they go? none of us note. we'll to speculate what they are thinking. that is what it makes it so difficult. you get some idea of where these people come from if you go back and look at the two dozen 5 parliamenty elections. in those elections, mubarak tried to reform the ndp to be in a more western oriented party. what he did was in the party convention, he engineered the replacement of the traditional candidates from rural areas with young,rban aggressive people they were ople who were world lead. they had gone to school in english. they knew the world. they replaced the traditional leaders in those areas with this candidate. the traditional leaders did not accept that.

they all ran as independents against the candidate. they beat the candidates across the board. they replaced the ndp. all these people said, we will have our traditional leaders, the people we care about. they know us and we will vote for them. i would expect -- when they got to parliament, the all rejoined the ndp. all the independents who were not muslim brothers joined the parliament. they really did not want to be out of the party. data base of support -- that the base of support still exists. therefore, that is a very strong stable factor within egyptian society.

the muslim brothers are almost all centered in urban areas of. cairo, alexandria and some of the other towns. why? those areas where people have lost their traditional village in family identities. the traditional leaders in the village do not have the influence in the cities where they come from? that is a problem that we face because we do not know where these people are going to go and. those people on the outside were looking for ways to help the democratic people become more popular. 23% of the population of. within that 23%, you have many of the people supported the old regime. these ministers who are being prosuted today -- they would all fall within that 23% of the

population who are reformist. they were reformists'. what we see at this point is not the removal of -- is a removal of the regime, but is also in those people who would be called reformists. at the government reformist became too corrupt. when people talk about wanting to change the democratic structure, they're trying to figure a way to get that 23% to be a majority. that is what we want. if you listen to reforms, we want to break down the system. break down the system and create lists. who do you open it up to? if it will replace it? will it be democratic reformers? will it be muslim brothers?

it is a problem that we face. and then you see the other pillar that is coming under attack, the army. the army in egypt is different than anything we know. it makes you uncomfortable as americans to see how they function in. but they have functioned in egypt their own way. they are an institution and they had been separate from society. they are not an institution that wants to interfere in the internal affairs of egypt. they want to be on this side and they believe that they are responsible for providing stability. when they came into the square, at those who knew the army knew they would never fire on the egyptian people. kit -- their job is to protect the egyptian people, not to harm them. en you had the pro-mubarak people attack the square, they

were not going to fire on those people either because they were also egyptian people. their job is to bring stability. they did not want this job, they do not want to be in power, they want to see a civilian government come back. 10 years ago, i think the structure of the army would have preferred a military officer to take over. there's been an evolution in their own thinking. they do not want to control the country. they know they need the civilian people. the real problem they face today is the revolution for most egyptians was not a democratic revolution. that is not what they're in the streets. it was an economic revolution. that revolution continues. the social economic problems of egypt are tremendous. if you see the news reports about factories,trikes, things are not worng, the economy is

going downhill. the fear is that those people who have not participated in economic growth over the last decade, they did not participate that much in the revelation. this is the 77%. but expect their lives to get better. if this government cannot deliver on improving the lives of the masses of people, this revolution is likely to take a second revolution. we have the -- we may have something happen that we do not know. we do not know where this is going to go. the crucial thing for the government is to get goods and services to as many people as possible so it looks like the government is doing something on their behalf. boring about the democratic revolution is fine, but you need -- worrying about the democratic revolution is fine, but you need to aress the economic problems. the world is going to makes its

sorry if they did not help the government of egypt address the economic issues. >> thank you very much. very enlightening perspective on the egyptian evolution -- revelation. we will take some questions at the d of the session. we can move on now to the next speaker. >> let me start by a st. thank you for the jamestown foundation for inviting me. is a pleasure to be year. -- it is a pleasure to be here. thank you for coming. before i start, i would like to say something. it has not bee easy preparing this paper. itll depended on whether gaddafi folded. in the beginning, the only a few

people believed tt colonel gaddafi could stay for long. the two countries bordering egypt,he regime fell quickly and. -- fell quickly. in egypt, the regime of president mubarak felony few weeks. -- fell in a few weeks. he was not only facing an internal rebellion, he was facing the whole world, including the mighty army of the u.s., britain, and france. we are in the third month of the libyan crisis and gaddafi has managed to stay in power. he may fall indeed as the american government hope he will

do. gaddafi has managed to weather the storm and has lasted almost 43 years in power. can he manage but he did in the 1980's and 1990's? we will see. in this paper i will try to point out some strengths and weaknesses and the gaddafi regime. i will also talk a little bit about the opposition party, the rebellion, and i will also mentioned the implications of what is going on in libya and algeria, a country that i believe is a very important country that should not be ignored.

before i start, let me say something very briefly. libya presents a golden opportunity for reconciliation between america and some of the the odds -- jihadts. the end rult could lead to a more weakens -- there is also the possibility that the policy could backfire by and you will end up with a stronger al qaeda in the whole of north africa. we will talk about this a little bit later. let me start by saying something about the gaddafi regime. the regime is very weak from the outside. , gaddafi is the man who makes the decisions and libya. no order can be issued without his approval. he claims to be needed to be a

president nor a prime minister. he is the leader of the relution, king of the african kings, of course. [laughter] a 1 and regime is not the thing to do -- a one-man regime is not the thing to do. in practice, it is a very difficult, as gaddafi has proved for the last 43 years. the 1969 military coup was not a one-man show. the three officers came from all over the country. they were maly influenced by the popular movement at that time. gradually, colonel gaddafi started to change.

he wanted power all to himself. this led -- in the 1980's and 1990's, gaddafi regime defeated three major plots carried out by one opposition group. the sidents of colonel gaddafi in tripoli. at the end of the 1990's, -- at the end of the 1980's, the national front moved its fighters to algeria from which it was hoping that it would fight algeria and it failed in doing so. some officers from a very powerful tribe tried agast

. we will talk about a little bit later. gaddafi defeated an insurgency led by the jihadists. it is formed by a -- he defeated all of these attempts in the 1980's and 1990's. his base was shrinking. d.s.o. many enemies within the country's. -- he has so many enemies within the country's. all these attempts led gaddafi to change the way he organizes his armed forces. he started to see the army as a

prep. the army could one day produced an officer who may try his luck with a coup attempt. gaddafi created what can be described today as a parallel army. it is known today in libya as the gaddafi brigade. peace brigades are -- these brigades were fighting the rebels in. when the doctor created these brigades, his aim was that these units are able to defeat any coup attempt that could start inside libya. the main task was not figing an outside army. the main mission was to topple the and the coup attempt against the regime from within the country.

one of the most famous brigades was the one headed by a friend colonel gaddafi. in addition to these, the regime depends on its survival on a complex map of tribal allegiances, especially in the west of the country. the survival of the regime its demise depends a great extent -- i know that some people dispute the influence or the importance within libya today. the pointes the fact that the insurgencies or the rebelli has supporters from across the country, from all the major tribes within libya. at the same time, -- they also say, even the tribes that are

still balking gaddafi in the west of libya are doing so because of fear of reprisal of his regime. i also accept this argument. however, i sll believe the survival of the regime or its demise depends a gat extent on what these major tribes do in thnext few weeks or months. the first tried on which gaddafi depends -- this tried -- this tribe is in central libya. it is very powerful. its members hold sensitive positions within the state and the armed forces at. they are currently fighting the insurgency. y spiting units -- the most

important tried for the regime is in the south of libya. a great number of the figers who were fighting on the front of, gaddafi come from that region. and their loyalty to the regime should not be questioned. they have a pact with gaddafi, there is a family relation beeen them. it is cemented by family ties. the brother and lot of, gaddafi, from that tribe. -- the brother-in-law comes from that tried.

-- tribe. to highlight the influence of the importance of that tribe in libya. colonel gaddafi exerted so much pressure on britain to free the bomber, enormous pressure from with the tribe. before making a lot of threats against british interest. some critics would say that it was his own interest was to bring him back to libya in case he were to tell the secrets of the bombing. this tribe is considered the largest tribe in the libya.

its members lived all over the country, all over libya. even in the capital of the rebellion. the people also control a vast chunk of the military and security institutions within libya. in 1993, there was a problem between this tried and gaddafi. its relationship with gaddafi it was set back after the 1993 failed coup, which some of the officers were implicated. gaddafi had trusted this tribe and allowed them to control the

military institutions. in 1997, members of the tribe, loyal to gaddafi, executed the implicated officers. some would argue that they were forced to do this by gaddafi. whether this is true or not true, at the end of the day, he managed to keep the blood of these dead officers on the tribe itself. it became an internal issue. in some arab cultures, we still have this problem of taking revenge. if someone from a tribe is killed by someone from another tribe, the tribe family has the right to go and take -- and kill someone from the tribe wch kill that person. thisit-for-tat things cannot be the case. by making thtribe executed

some officers, gaddafi managed to keep it an internal triable issue. he has nothing to do with it. it was the tribe. it was the leaders of the tribe who killed their own officers which betrayed their regime. also, a very quick point here, at the beginning of the rebellion, the revolution, the uprising in libya, it was said that the tribes joined the rebellion. many people said so. if they indeed joined the rebellion, the regime would have fallen by now. they only live a short distance from misrata. they could march to misrata and ta the siege of the third biggest city in libya and gaddafi's regimeould fall very

quickly. there is debate on whether the're still with gaddafi or at least not joining the rebellion. i will say a few words why. the fourth tribe is also seen as loyal to gaddafi. they occupy an important potion. their role became more important after 1993, because gaddafi said that he was putting his trust in them. when the officers tried to go against him, he wanted to diversify, make more alliances and pacts with other tribes. others were indicted and became very powerful within the regime. -- were invited and became very powerful within the regime.

the backbone of tripoli to be defended comes from that region. the populatio within tripoli itself originally comes from there. if the opposition wants to do anything within the libyan capital, maybe that tribe could play a role in that. i only named a few of these tribes still seen as loyal to the regime, but at least not fighting with the rebels. the reason for them staying loyal to the regime may be related to their wish of honoring their historic pact. also, they could be fearful of losing the power they have held all the time if gaddafi falls. members of these tribes have occupied important positions in the government. now, a new regime ismerging,

based in the east of the country. the rebels attacking gaddafi's forces are mainly from the east. it may be normal that some tribes in the west of libya may feel threatened by the emergence of a new rival power in the east that may try to take away the power they have held for so long. this would lead me to talk about the formation of the rebel forces, the opposition. it seems that american colonists -- columnists are debating who the rebels are. it is not easy t answer this. began as a popular movement before it quickly became an armed rebellion. this quick transformation of a peaceful movement into an armed struggle has not allowed time to identify properly who the leaders of this new rebellion are. i will try here to identify some

of the mai players in the rebellion, but before i do that, i would like to say a word about the absence of political parties and culture inside libya. for the 42 years of colonel khadafy is rule, the political parties were -- colonel gaddafi pose a role, the political parties were banned. -- colonel gaddafi's rule, political parties were banned. people were rolling themselves. even under the rule of the king -- people were ruling themselves. even under the king, political parties were banned in libya. the libyans are not accustomed to having political parties. so, when colonel gaddafi's regime fell quickly after the

revolution in february in the eastern regions of libya, there was a vacuum. who would fill it? no party existed to fill or take advantage of the fall of the regime. the people who went to the streets against the regime were mainly ordinary people belonging to different backgrounds of the libyan society. there were no known names among those people to take charge of the uprising. so, the responsibility fell on former officials who were part of the regime and only defected after the start of the uprising. the most noun -- the most noun among those was the former justice minister -- known among those is a former justice minister. he is well respected. he is a decent man. but there is a problem here.

he does not seek power. he is very willing to relinquish any post he has. he has the national council. he says his job would finish the minute gaddafi's regime falls. he does not seek power. in addition, many of the council members were part of the gaddafi regime before joining the revolution. the interior minister, as the amssador, all of the known names within the opposition have now been part of gaddafi's regime. so, the absence of proper elections, it seems impossible today to say if these members of the council have any true representation of the masses who led the uprising.

all the opposition groups have come back to libya now in order to reconnect with their supporters and also to reconnect with the people who led ts uprising. the libyan national salvation sent some of this members to reconnect with their members. the muslim brotherhood also sent some people. but i think the quickest to act with it than this -- were the jihadists. they are part of the libyan people and felt that it was their part to participate in the military struggle. some of them have retned from outside libya. they were these people who came from outside, a fraction of the

jihadists operating within libya itself. as you know, libya freed around 100 jihadists when they were conducting peace negotiations. some of these people were young people who did not know anything about the struggle against the regime in the 1990's. they were mostly young, influenced by i iraq and allied a -- in iraq and al queda. these people were freed by the regime and, i believe, many of them have joined the revolution.

others have made statements in support of the revolution, but i believe that their role is very minimal in the things that happened within libya. a final point here before i move on, colonel gaddafi has been saying from the start that the armed rebels fighting his government are al queda. he seems genuinely hurt that he once helped the west fight against that group and now the wests fighting to topple him with what he sees as an insurgency led by jihadists. by this degree, i believe that will play a role in any government that comes after the gaddafi regime. i believe they will not try to hijack the uprising. they will work within any system

that comes after gaddafi. he will be glad that i will finish. a few things should be mentioned about algeria. i think it can play an important role. algeria actually feels that these actions have led to al queda in t north taking advantage of this situation. you have seen the recent briefings of military intelligence of al qaeda possessing weapons from libya. i do not know if this is true or not, but it seems the president also believes that al queda has also managed to gain weapons from libya now. syria alsdoes not feel comfortable when it sees its arch enemy, france, meddling in

the affairs of the country. you also have to take into account the the algerians are very sensitive to seeing the french bombing and killing libyans, even if the dead people were gaddafi supporters. the algerians still remember french planes bombing them during their push for independence. also, algeria is sensitive to the moral policies. when morocco fights with the western alliance against the libyan regime, it seems normal that algeria wants to take a totally different if not opposing policy. the final point, algeria may not be comfortable seeing the end of the conflict in libya with the victory of one side against the other, not now at least. a victory for the rebels in libya will encourage its people, the algerian people,ho want to seek change, to act now.

if libya descends into a civil war,lgeria could point to some people and say, if you want to start a revolution, you have the example of libya. do you want a civil war? three points. algeria's point of view should be listened to in any serious effort to resolve theibyan crisis. the algerians are very well -- they know how to negotiate. they have done it for some many years including the american hostages in iran in the 1980's. if algeria can play a role, i think it should be encouraged to do so. maybe it can offer gaddafi and his family some kind of exile. second point, aurances of some kind should be given to the tribes in western libya still fighting with the regime.

if you want these tribes to switch sides, you have to offer them an incentive to doing so. this incentive should not be seen as the trail to gaddafi's own trib it should -- be trail -- betrayal to gaddafi's on drive. -- own tribe. finally, actions in libya may turn out to be a genius masterpiece of brilliant foreign policy. it could resolve your long- running struggle that you have had in the middle east or at least most of them. it was you saved them from gaddafi's tanks when they were approaching their base in benghazi. your interventions won the battle to their favor. someone about -- some will no

doubt grateful. others will surely disagree. they are mostly al queda people. they're not very strong now, but they may be in the long run, especially if libya descends into a civil war. they will have plenty of time and a proper place, and most importantly, access to weapons, plenty of them. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. that was very >> my name is derek flood.

and the editor of the publication included in your packet. showing a visual multimedia presentation. these are some of my photographs from the couple of weeks that i spent in libya from the last day of february to mid-march. these are from my own experiences, and i am going to be giving a talk the sort of the company's the photos. these will help to explain some -- accompanies the photos. these will help to explain some of the points i am making. the title of my talk is, "the mitsubishi war i chose that title sort of tongue-in-cheek as an all monished to the toyota war -- an homage to the toyota war of

1987. pickup trucks were fitted with guns and anti-aircraft weapons used against america in the early 1990's. a little bit of background. before i arrived to libya, i arrived to broke on february 28th. the libyan conflict began as a small cluster of lawyers demonstrating ofebruary 15th in downtown benghazi. people who had been inspired by the revelations -- revolutions to the east and west in egypt and tunisia. by february 28th, a full-scale armed revolts had broken out. as libyan security forces gun down an unknown number of protest is, told to me by a libyan civilian, to be in the

100, in what was called -- to be in the hundreds, in what was called the dayf rage. the libyan revolution began. what personally drew me into the libyan revolution was that libya was a deeply closed society, say for the bangladeshi migrant workers and the odd italian tour group that would come to visit roman ruins from time to time. libya's on a need to throw out over four deces of gaddafi rule to open the area to mass tourism. libya has been a largely closed society akin to north korea, relative to the beaches of

tunisia and the pyramids of egypt and so forth. the people of eastern libya, cut off from most of the west of the world, clamored to make their voices heard. journalists were bombarded with every type of political and emotional sentiment. some older libyans for wanting to tell 30-40 years of anecdotes and stories of how they have suffered under the gaddafi regime since the revolution of 1969. the peripheral fects of the libyan war. the implosion of libya threatens most of the mediterranean littoral states. gaddafi has often threatened to turn the southern tier of the european union black eye unleashing migrants and reference -- black, by unleashing migrants and refugees with italy being the most

vulnerable. what happened with the collapse of the libyan security state was much different. hundreds of thousands of migrant workers were flooding not necessarily italy or the canary islands in spain, but the egyptian and tunisian borders, very vulnerable, destabilized, still in revolutionary states. virtually every other african state-the republic of south africa had an unknown number of migrant workers. the egyptian border, the organization of migration had charts of order for all of the people living there, people from every single african state from guinea, gambia, equity oriole guinea -- the equatorial guinea.

the scale of which i will personally admit i had no idea how fast this crisis was in that regard. -- vast this crisis was in that regard. when i cross the border in february, there were thousands upon thousands of bangladeshi man between the ages of 18-35 who were just camped out at the border. the bangladeshi government could not or would not come to their rescue. on the flip side of that, when i returned to egypt several weeks later, there was not a single bangladeshi man left and there were thousands upon thousands of people from chad and the sudan, most of whom were without papers, passports, many of whom had been outside of their native countries. some of them were born in libya and had no identity documents of any kind. let's see.

gaddafi pose a resistance to the eastern-led revolt -- gaddafi's resistance to the eastern-led revolt has ripple effects that will be felt as far afield as bangladesh, a vietnam and the philippines. this is actually a global crisis. many of the migrant workers who had been working in libya for many years actually do not have a place to go back to. i spoke with people from chad and some of the south and north sudanese, and many of them told me that they do not have homes in the countries they were from because they had been in libya for an incredibllong time. the rebels themselves, who are they? this is a question that has constantly been asked in the media here in the united states and in the european union, which i was able to read some of online when i got out of a very

internet-restricted libya. lydia's rebels are, as you might discern from media accounts, or anything but monolithic. every fighter i spoke with claims to be fighting for what they called a free libya. most say they're looking to transform the gaddafi state into a representative government that includes a rotating presidency. many said theyished it would be four years, consistent with the united states, coupled with some form of open, cyclical democracy. there are implements -- there are islamists involved in the fighting. some are the dedicated front- line fighters. however, these fighters not in any way make up the demographic majority of the rebel movement. if anything, they are in allied air. some of them came into the conflict as -- they are and out liar -- a outlier.

some of them ce into the conflict as opportunists. some came to the front line wearing flip-flops, a cliche you have heard about the taliban in afghanistan. th rebels are incredibly disorganize despite their spirited corps and a wasteful display of bravado that was carried on for foreign after day.s davy they have lots of finite ammunion. they looted weapons stores to have massive displays of much she's no -- machismo. thatte gaddafi's claims the rebels have allocated ties i saw noda timees,

evidence of this in over two weeks. i appear today with my head still attached to my body. libya in 2011 is not iraq in 2004, despite claims to the contrary. the biggest threat to journalists is gaddafi forces, not jihad force or nihilists. a colleague of mine is currently in captivity from the libyan regime, along with three other journalists, one who has not been reported missing, and the other three have been reported in a detention camp. various media outlets are trying to work for their release. they do not have the diplomatic clout of the new york times, unfortunately for them. i asked specific front-line

fighters about their views of the islamic fundamentalist groups. one said to me that is irrelevant. most libyans consider the lifg a spent movement that has nothing to add to the current revolution. ey consir it something that was more important in the 1990's. they wanted this to be portrayed desperately as a civil society revolution with an armed wing that was trying to overthrow the gaddafi regime. the rebels were often insisting that their cosmopolitan, pan- libyan movement, their very thinly drawn out initial platform in the courthouse in benghazi says the tripoli is the capital of the united libya. it was essential to the rebels that they did not want to

portray libya as a place that was about to fracture down the center, dividing tripoli in the north and the stronghold in this apparent desert with benghazi in the east -- the saharan desert with benghazi in the east. they were insisting that the country not be cleaved in two. on to the rebel equipment and their inherent conflictslong with and alongside nato. the people of eastern libya and the people of the central coast that i spoke with have a very bitter memory, a very bitter collective memory, of 30 years of italian fascist colonialism that existed fm 1911-1941. older libyans, some of whom are actually involved in theebel movement -- there are very senior men fighting in this movement, told me that they fondly recall allies, or their

parents had told them about allies getting out fascist powers. you ever heard about the australian forces fighting against german and italian fascism in 1941. the older generation of people and libya have instilled in the young people and the fighters at deeply anti-occupation sentiment that exists within the current rebel movement. not only does this stem from the first pillar of this almost xenophobia, stems from the legacy of italian colonialism, which is very bitter. my colleague wrote about this. he was a resistanceighter to italian colonialism who was

hung and is a pen ultimate symbol of the rebel movement. he is depicted on the bottom of a flag which is the red green and black flag from before gaddafi's green, monotone flag. the other main factor with libyan hostility to any potential western ground intervention is the libyans observation through mass media of eight years of heavily destructive war in iraq. as one rebel said to me at the conclusion of a battle, forget about baghdad. if all the troops enter libya, we will make mogadishu look like a lk in the park. they are operating from a position of the inherent weakness in terms of arms, manpower and training. but they also still believe they hold the cards in that, they

came to demand heavy western air power but said that if one western beirut, french, british, italian or american -- one , french, british, italian or american was walking aroundenghazi, they would shoot them. they're very fearful of occupation. both sides have their red lines. the rebels have the town which was once a secure place but now many of you have likely heard of. it has a desert road that bypasses benghazi to the south and connects to the egyptian border. the rebels insisted that if it was genuinely breached, it is

possible that the war would be lost without western a intervention. i left libya just before western air strikes began. on the other side, we learned -- and a colleague of mine washot in the calf -- that they have a red line. the rebels were telling journalists a bit of their own propaganda mixed in with their bravado that they were going to storm that line any day. foreign journalists like myself learned about this geographal buffer, and a breaching it was absolutely unacceptable. they ended up putting of a very strong fight. some colleagues of mine were pinn down in a firefight with

machine guns and snipers along with mercenaries for several hours. that was the initial battle, and then many western journalists retreated to points further east. once the rebel movement realized that this was an insurmountable task, theoppling of this area, the calls for ao-fly zone increased among both war fighte and civil society actors in benghazi and other areas. that was until the air strikes actually came to fruition. the libyan revolution has reduced itself to a contest over the heavy oil producing basin, the most valuable of the oil producing areas. there seems to be a pendulum swinging to and fro between the oil areas in the rest -- in the west and another area in the

east, which is where we are today in the back and forth fighting. i would like to make a point about some of the rebels equipment and how they're actually fighting the war. the rebel equipment consists of an army of chinese and cheaply produced chinese and better produce japanese technicals outfitted with a 50 caliber anti-aircraft guns. soviet era double and triple quod mounted guns with ammunition which are used when the gaddafi regime was launching airstrikes. they would fire wildly into the air trying to shoot down whoever was overhead. the rebels are fighting amongst extremely difficult physical conditions, sandstorms combined with poorly trained fighters were often little more than can

fodder. the supply lines along the central libyan coast were constantly being struck as the front lines started moving further and further west toward the aforementioned town. one weakness the rebels had was an inherently diminishing amount of limited military material. without a resupply from the outside which gaddafi had reportedly had access to himself, the rebels did not have a way -- it was really unclear at the time. i'm talking about mid march. i was made privy t information that the french government had actually sent a shipment of weapons and munitions to the rebels in the port of benghazi

march 11th and 12th when it was clear that a leader wanted to be declared in this pan- mediterranean conflict. i would like to talk a little bit of the civil society aspect of the war, the home front. i am primarily referring to benghazi. outside of the courthouse in benghazi, there would often be people chanting no, no, no al queda. a lot of these people were women, interesting for a north african and arab conflict. those on the home front insist thathere is basically no political space for anti- democratic islamists within libyan civil society. that is despite the fact it

there are islamist fighting on the kinetic war front. insistence that there be no western footprint on the ground, not even the lightest intelligence 1, was evidence to me of a politically immature mind stead -- mindset among the revolutionaries. if air power was going to be used, as it now is, if there were westerners from these intelligence services correlating armed forces, i'm not sure how the libyans thought that nadir destruction of rebel tanks was going to be unavoidable -- nato destruction of rebel tanks was going to be unavoidable. nato spokesperson said he did not know the rebels had tanks, which i find someone astounding. one of the things i found by talking to a wide swath of

libyan society is that the libyan people are essentially exhausted from not being active participants in an increasingly unevenly globalized world. the reasons for the beginning of the revolution, besides nearing their neighbors in egypt and lia, were economic, social, and a massive grudge that many people had against the regime regarding the 1200 men killed in a prison massacre, which was a lot of the legacy from something happening 15 years ago and a place like libya with the history of the italian occupation. even young people have a long memory. in conclusion, where do we, or rather, the libyan people go fromere?

the military pendulum continues to swing back and forth with no end in sight. reports of oil terminal towns being captured, lost, recaptured, seem to continue ad nauseum. nato on board and across the mediterranean coast may he indeed averted -- nato on board meant -- bombardment along t mediterranean coast may have indeed averted civilian deaths. their limited air and sea engagement will unlikely topple the gaddafi family in the immediate or near term. in my view, from the hundreds of people i spoke to over several weeks, something has to give to alter the current course of the

conflict as the status quo is unsustainable. the rebels must be better trained and equipped and willing to sustain mass casualties if there to try to take misrata entirely in rebel hands, and eventually mount a very difficult assault in tripoli which would be immensely violent and le to many debts. nato and the united states may have to ultimately be willing to decapitate the regime, depending on how much the western public is willing to take in the political will of the united states and the european union and its counsel partners in the conflict. ultimately, the somewhat xenophobic rebel movement may be forced to except when stern -- accept western boots on the ground. they may ultimately have to

have a self recognition of their very limited military capabilities and the fact that gaddafi believes he is in this conflict for the long haul. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you for those interesting firsthand observations about libya. i am going to try to gather of some of the more specific things we have heard this morning and

talk about revolutions in general. i think that nostra thomas himself could not have foretold nostradamus himself could not have foretold what is a happening in the middle east, all sparked by a tunisian food vendor. revolutions are dangerous creatures that can unleash all kinds of social forces that can take a revolution a long way from where it started. e french revolution of 1789, which both inspired and terrified europe, began with days of mass action much like the days of anger that we have been seen today in the arab world. though the king and queen were leto their death, it was not long before leading revolutionaries had their own meetings with the guillotine.

liberty, fraternity and equality became mere slogans as napoleon bonaparte restored authoritarianism to france and began directing the slaughter of a generation of young man in pursuit of imperial conquest. what are the areas of revelation that have -- one of the areas of revelation that has many parallels was the european revelation -- arab revolution. in most closely resembles what should the continent at that time. there was a rapid spread from country to country despite eats nations revolution having -- each nation's revolution having a difrent character.

it often attracted a reluctant middle-class. governments appeared to cave in at first. too many university graduates were pursuing too few jobs, a condition we have in north africa right now, many of these folks making up the core of revolutionary forces, both in 1848 and in today's north africa. most importantly, no charismatic leader emerged along the lines of fidel castro or even a george washington. what was the resultf this kind of revolution? at that time, small concessions from the government's lead to a dwindling interest in revelation. when the casual revolutiaries gave up, the revolutions became doomed.

by the summer of 1848, the forces of counter-revolution had time to reorganize and began clearing the barricades with the loss of thousands of lives. in two places the revolts became larger wars of national mobilizaliberation, hungary and italy. with a one year -- within one year, both had been solidly defeated. the revolts failed, but they laid the foundation and provided inspiration for later revolts such as the russian revolution of 1917. they signaled that the end o absolute monarchies was in sight. in this sense, even failed revolutions can have an enormous impact decades lat. it has been suggested in some quarters that the military weakness of libyas rebels can be

overcome with modern supplies of weapons. it must be noted that every influx of arms into that region in the last century has been followed by years of violence. for example, it was an influx of arms that contributed to the breakdown o ordern darfur that eventually resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. darfur used to use a centuries old inter-tribal resolution system, usually involving compensation in cash or animals to deal with incidents o violence such as murder. however, this system broke down when the introduction of automatic weapons allowed the slaughter of dozens of people at a time by a single individual. traditional methods of conflict revolution were simply overwhelmed by advances in killing technology. arms may be the solution to gaddafi, but they will not bring stability to north africa. those advocating a shipment of

modern arms to libya as rebels speak about controls over whose hands they might end up in. this is wishful thinking. once arms are sold, abandon, lost, stolen or even given away. some have already found their way into theands of al queda. that should give pause to those backing the supply of arms to the libyan insurrection. the half-hearted eorsement of a no-fly zone by the arab league was taken by nato as a gree light for attacks on gaddafi's fces. in reality, with the exception of wealthy but distance cutter, most of the arab league h kept qatar, most of the arab

league has kept a distance. there are rumor that algeria is providing arms and aid to gaddafi. algeria has no desire to see the arab revolution washup on the shores of tripoli, and giving the libyan rebels a bloody nose way togo along discouraging like-minded incidents in algeria. in sudan, political survivors will not be hasty in counting out gaddafi. both nations have deep if turbulent ties with libya, which has fluctuated beten assisting their development and interfering in their internal affairs. in the meantime, both are keeping their distance. but if gaddafi falls, it is likely that both will attempt to exert their own influence on the formation of a new regime. the fall of tripoli would not necessarily mean the end of

gaddafi or his regime. the libyan leader would have the option of retiring on military bases in the desert where he enjoys solid support. with access to fighters from neighboring countries, gaddafi or his successors could continue low scale the debilitating attacks on the libyan oil infrastructure that would prevent any new government from getting off t ground without substantial foreign aid. it would not be difficult to rae a tribal forces posed to what many libyans might see as a benghazi-based government intent on giving western and southern tribes power, influence and funds. such a conflict could go ofor years with an effect on oil prices and the global economy. the rebels do not have means, anpossibly not even the inclination, to distribute oil revenues throughout the larger libyan society. should gaddafi feel he is losing

his grip on libya, it is possible he could once again sponsor international terrorism, especially with strikes against the western nations leading the attacks on his regime. we of no reason to suppose a new government would be a force for stability in the region. the question here is not whether al queda will take advantage of instability in north aica, but whether it can operate the in any meaningful way. egypt is the historical crossroads of the world, and as such, it is an appealing theater of operations for al queda, which has ideological roots there. al queda could certainly attempt to penetrate egypt and resume

operations there. of course, that would definitely appeal to them. however, al queda does not appear to have any active cells in egypt or even many sympathizers there. there is little appete for a return to the dirty, back street war between islamic re extremists and the regime that dominated the 1990's. more importantly, egyptians realize that extremism = poverty and deprives them of important sources of foreign currency. al queda still does not present a political alternative beyond slogans and the implementation of sharia law. with insufficient agricultural production, a rapidly increasing

population, massive unemployment and under- employment, as well as threats to a water supply that poses dangers to cultivation, and power supplies, egypt is in need of a more thoughtful strategy than that supplied by extremists. there are many sincere muslims in the region who desire sharia, but they would alsoe questioning of the wism of leaving this in the hands of al qaeda of nth africa. opportunities will nevertheless be presented for al queda from the complex that will inevitably follow revolution. foreign attention and resources will be diverted for their -- from their activities.

let me turn to sudan for a moment. cobbled together from scores of ethnic and tribal groups speakingundreds of different languages, sudan, unsurprisingly, has been a center of dissent, rebellion, an outright civil war from their first day of independence. while popular revolts maybe the mediterranean coast, the sudanese people have already overthrown -- may be new along the mediterranean coast, the sudan and people of ari overthrown two dictators. sudan is now -- have already overthrown two dictators. sudan is now fed with the possibility of an influx of neighbors from libya. a small protest movement has

been firmly repressed so far, but there is enormous dissatisfaction in the north with a president who has failed to keep the country together and has lost most of its oil revenues to the new southern state. in the current situation, there is a possibility of both north and south sudan turning into failed states with enormous consequences for a large part of africa. the crux -- the collapse of the gaddafi regime would have an enormous impact on chad, maui and the share. let -- niger. libya is an integral part of the economy of the states, including the employmentf hundreds of thousands of migrant workers. gaddafi regards this region as a libyan interplant and has played an important role in the area, particularly through his

recruitment and sponsorship of people whose ancient homeland has been divided amongst half a dozen nations in the post- colonial era. having long acted as a sponsor of regimes that consider the presence inconvenient and irresponsible, gaddafi is now trying to get them to rally to his cause. whether he wins or loses, there is immense concern in these nations that the fighters will return to their home states to initiate a new round of rebellions in oil and unium rich regions. egyptian revolution is not yet history. we may have only witnessed the first phase of a process that could continue for years, decades, or even generations. it is unlikely that the egyptian officer corps, unquestionably

part of the egyptian elite, is willing to oversee the transfer of power to the masses. indeed, it woulde unreasonable to think that this would be their first instct. in egypt, political revolution is also social revolution, and these types of things do not usually happen overnight. egypt's internal security service has collapsed in the wake of the egyptian revolution, and they are in the difficult process of being rebuilt and restructured with the new mandate that promises to secure a genuine security threats rather than repress political opposition. while there are many cases of government violence against demonstrators, there are remarkably few incidences of retaliatory violence against the security servis during the revolution. such matters of all is traditionally been handled -- such matters have always

traditionally been handled by the elite. the questions how competent they will be in controlling extremists. they are employing an interior ministry forces three times the size of the military, securing egypt from islamic extremism has come at considable cost to the liberty of the egyptian people, because no longer considered acceptable. the question remains, hever, whether lighter and less intrusive security presence will still be as effective in eliminating islamist extremism. gaddafi's libya has always been one of the major financial backers of the african union.

this has stopped now, with significant consequenc for union that already suffers from underfunding. there is no guarantee that any libyan regime would guarantee such support, nor is it likely that another african state would be able to step in and fill the shortfall. sub-saharan countries have been effectively excluded from partaking in the libyan conflict even though they have close ties with libya and will inevitably affected -- inevitably be affected by what happens there. there are negotiations -- i do not know if anyone heard that they are going on. th were tread as an unimportant sideshow by the same nations that were busy taking out libyan armor and air defenses. at some point, the west will have to shrug off the white man'surden that has become outrageously expensive and

destabilizing. african peacekeeping missions have an uneven record, but they are not going to get any better at this kind of thing by sitting in their barracks. more cooperative efforts between the west and africa that a knowledge the interests of those actually living in the continent and the limitations of external parties in dealing with political crises there would do more to stabilize north africa than a hail of bombs and rockets. in short, revolution is not an easy thing. most failed. it would be presumptuous to assume the revolts in egypt and libya or elsewhere in the middle east will lead to inevitable success regardless of how that success might be interpreted. however, whether successful or not, the repercussions of revolution canarely be tamed, making the recipes for insecurity. at best they can be managed with a bit of luck. at worst, efforts to contain or

refer social and political transformation are only capping the volcano. if it does not erupt there, it will erupt somewhere else at a time of its own choosing. thank you. [applause] >> now back to my role as moderator. we will take 10 minutes for questions. if anybody has one, yes please, you sir. there is a microphone coming. >> there was the possibility that gadaffi could survive by regrouping in the south.

i am wondering how he would then pay. i am looking at your own paper which tells me all of the energy goes out through the north coast. however the you raise the money? >> he has been planning for this a long time. we call him a mad man, but he is not as crazy as that. what he has been doing -- when oil was so, it brings in revenue. he has been buying gold for years. libya has enormous gold reserves. unlike a lot of nations that choose to store their gold reserves in secure places like switzerland and fort knox, he has kept it all in tripoli. he has as well secured there. -- it will sece there. this is a mobile source of

funds. you cannot spend a gold as easily as cash. it might be necessary to sell a bit. he has enough to keep a were going for years. he is not short of funds. he could endure the loss of oil production. >> any other questions? >> thank you very much. he speculated on a little bit about algeria. a couple months back as it was always about what country was next. i was wondering if he could elaborate a little bit on what is next for algeria. is there a potential for an uprising? >> algeria would not wish a

quick and to the war in libya. it the regime of pol quickly, i think there'd be a bigger demand for change. the president has started a process of changing inside his government. the whole regime needs changing. people in the middle east are not content with superficial changes. they want deep-rooted reform. it comes from a dictatorship into a democracy

i think there would be a bigger demand for change inside algeria. it continues. it belongs to libya. i think the government may manage to say that change could have been -- happen, resulting in violence. >> i just want to make a comment about algeria. in speaking with the rebel leadership, it they say that gadaffi is having two core al arab allies. a lot of the people that i spoke to vw it as cause i belligerent. they believe that the government did not want to see gadaffi fall

because it to threaten their own regime. now we have seen that syria appears to be tottering. i am not sure that is isolated to algeria. >> thank you. thank you. i wonder about the chemical weapons that libya has. unaided picture three weeks ago. in 1994, that theyigned an agreement that it will reduce the weapons. they have asked for extensions

until may 2011. i think 23,000 tons is in libya. where are they? it is really hard for them to lose it. what are the prospects? >> thank you. he mentioned the bombs. they are not the same as chemical weapons. the only chemical weapons research that we still have is a certain amount of mustard gas that was in the process of being destroyed. there is only a small quantity of this leg. the forces to not have the means of doing this. that is why you are not seeing a lot of attention being paid to chemical weapons. the lot were eliminated in 2003

and the following years in order for it libya to restore this. >> would you like to take this t? >> they know that it needs to change. they are feeling the heat. the need to change. otherwise they will have revolutions. however, if he manages to extend the current uprising, i think it'll give encouragement to the rest of the dictatorship.

they can also do the same and prevent change. morocco is the other dictatorship. they started the process of reform. they are able to plead. they are trying to reduce this. i think the monarchy needs major reform. many sectors with in the moroccan society have the process of change. i believe the king of morocco has understood the message. we will see it in the next few months what kind of chge he is willing to offer.

>> he is sharing his knowledge. kumbaya own experience, something i observed was the deep penetration of the patronage system write their egyptian society. the importance of keeping this in keeping people loyal. it seemed to be disrupted at the moment. i wonder how the reformers might be able to replace it with more equitable means of distribution of the funds of egypt in a way that would not be designed to simply further the existence of a single regime. >> actually, that is to questions. the purse is over the equitable distribution of wealth. you had reformists in egypt who

and supported by the world bank. there were getting high marks by changing away from the socialist state to being free and more open. this was done three series of prospects. it took all of these industries that have been nationalized and they made them economical and then sold them all. the problem with the system was that they then fired them. thousands of people were without work. the problem was they were sold to cronies of the regime. those people to benefit of the program.

at the same time in order to meet the needs of having an over subsidize society, they've reduced extensivelyhe subsidy system to the port. he created a dual problem in society where you are making a certain group of people very wealthy and the mass of society have a declining standard of living. this was the reason why you never saw much support with the economic reform. you saw the social deprivation of the lower classes as fundamentally destabilizing. the notice to got removed from the regime, it was all the economic reformers. there is seen as having a destabilizing society.

patriot system goes their egyptian society. they take care of problems they solve. he provid funds to the people. this system is still very much in place in the countryside. this is why you see the democratic reformist and the muslim brotherhood filling the gap. if you break down the system, you will have lost a major source of stability. he will have more people who no longer have their identities. that is the problem with where we are now. it suggested that anybody who was in parliament the ban for five years. u end of disenfranchising all this local leaders to have local support. >> thank you very much.

we will take one more question. no takers? the is a mentioning of african union. i wonder if you can comment on the potential role. there has been more important in games. what was the last part? >> i wonder whether the and the game -- the end game is for daffi? >> we are talking.

we feel the african union should be encouraged to play a greater role in the amending recurring conflicts that we see in africa. this is not the solution to every problem in africa. there is a tenancy about states to be more interested in the opinion of their neighbor. sometimes this is better taken. is not to say there is no rule. there certainly better training for peacekeeping forces and intervention forces. it can go a long way to improving the ability of africans to take care of their own concerns. regarding the state of gadaffi,

i think there are a number of ssibilities if he was going to exile. he already offered it a week ago. i did an article about this. hes already offered refuge. he even said it as bit of a model. it is not understand how many african countries have respect for gaddafi. that is the perspective we do

not have here. they look at him very differently. even south africa is another place he might take refuge. who is the person that broke the sanctions and embargoes against libya? mandela was the first person to express his gratitude to muammar gadaffi for his struggle against apartheid. these of perspectives that we do not have. >> i actually visited the african union headquarters in ethiopia last week. i did not know too much about

the inner workings until i sort of showed up at the office. it is a fairly thinly stretched organization that is in a transition. i'm working on an article. i stumbled on to another that is the chinese government. they are solely constructing the new headquarters. be a you is definitely not. the chinese are hoping to change into a much stronger body. i visited the offices in somalia. we are doing some research. the communications with discordant. it is not a completely together organization that is very powerful or strong.

ok. we will take a one hour break for lunch. 30 minutes? ok. >> tomorrow, the head of the drug policy for the white house on the prevention of abuse of prescription drugs and anti-drug efforts of the u.s.-mexico border. now, remarks about how the occupational safety and health administration is making a difference in the american workplace. this portion is one hour and 20 minutes.

>> president nixon called the act one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed by the congress of the united states. the agency administrator appointed by nixon described it as the instrument of the revolutionary law, the right to receive and helpful -- healthy workplace. before osha, workers did not have the basic right to a safe workplace. 60 years after the triangle shirtwaist fire, the federal government stepped in because neither state governments or

the workers position system had succeeded in eliminating the carnage in work places of that era. before osha, when a worker was killed on the job, perhaps there was an investigation. perhaps there was not. there was no legal compulsion to fix the problem so that another worker would not face the same risks the next day. when a worker died of occupational disease, it was just one of the unfortunate things that workers and their families had to live with. workers did not even have the right to know the names or properties of the chemicals with which they worked. the pre-osha reality is captured by the phrase "occupational hazard." this nation has made great progress since then. record deaths are down from 14,000 per year in 1970 to 4400 in 2009. the work force has doubled in size in the same time.

reported injuries are down from 10.9 per 100 workers in 1972 to less than four in 2009. some of the decline was due to the economic shift from manufacturing to service. but clearly, much of our progress is because of tougher government standards and greater awareness of workplace safety and health practices brought about by osha. despite the progress, there is much work to be done. this month also marks the first anniversary of the death of 11 workers on the deep water horizon platform and the 29 killed at the upper branch mine in west region. all of these are only a few years after the death of the mine workers in west virginia. 14 were killed in the sugar refinery in georgia and others were killed in texas city, texas. these are the tragedies that have been chronicled in the national headlines.

they do not tell the whole story. every day in this country, an average of 12 workers are killed on the job. that is the deepwater horizon every day. if 8 deepwater horizon disaster is on the news every evening, there would be a public outcry. because these 4400 deaths a year usually have been one at a time in different towns across america -- happen one at a time in different towns across america, they are not noted and do not drive change. more than 3 million workers suffered serious job-related injuries every year. thousands more suffer from job- related illnesses that can throw a family into chaos. the walls of the conference room are lined with photographs of workers lost their lives on the job. photographs were contributed by family members who want the loss to have meaning, to ensure that these tragedies will not be

visited upon another family. they understand and we understand what is most important -- that these deaths and injuries are preventable. they're preventable by safety precautions like providing safety equipment. they are preventable by simple compliance to osha standards. in the late 1980's, osha announced the standards to protect grain workers from dust exposure. grain explosions have declined 42%. injuries dropped 60%. deaths in the industry dropped 70%. the osha standard drove down rates of brown lung disease to 1%. since we began, worker exposures to asbestos and been seen -- benzene have been drastically reduced. i never cease to be surprised at

how 40 years after the law was passed, many americans still did not know what osha does. a recent study of low-wage workers in the chicago area found that one in five suffered an injury or illness on the job. almost 1/3 never received proper safety training. almost half of those surveyed had never heard of osha. at a forum last week, a policy maker asked why osha did not have a free service to small businesses before their cited for violations. we do have that program. in fact, we provide free on-site assistance to 30,000 workplaces last year. empirical evidence is clear. osha does not kill jobs. it stops jobs from killing workers. despite the evidence and progress we've made, we are still engaged in a great debate over worker protection from the benefits and costs of regulation, taxpayer dollars the society is willing to invest to ensure that our workers will be able to come home safely after a

hard day's work. our challenge every day is how to make this 40-year old lot work effectively in today's economy. the face of working america has changed dramatically. industrial hazards are still with us. today we face a growing number of hazards in the service sector. we struggle to ensure that programs of the best employers are recognized and in related while improving the tools we have to address hazards in high- risk industries. it is not easy. osha standards have saved countless lives over the past decades. the rulemaking process is becoming a slower. old hazards remain in adequately addressed. some of our chemical standards are truly integrated. our recognition of new our problems like ergonomic hazards and workplace violence grows. osha fines are too low to have

much impact on many businesses. osha and our state partners have about 2200 inspectors to address hazards in 8 million workplaces. too many workers, including millions of public employees, remain in the dark. the creators of the osha law intended to ensure that workers have an important role in securing safe working conditions. sadly, the whistle-blower language in the osha law is old and weak. too many workers today do not know about the hazards they face and the legal rights they have. far too many of those who do understand the problems do not feel safe raising the issues in the workplace. osha cannot face these challenges alone. we're working closely with our present to us from labor and business, academics, and community groups to find new ways to better protect workers. i am excited about some of the new approaches we are

developing. we are embarking on a new way to address safety in the workplace with new programs, a systematic process for all employers will be able to identify hazards and find a way to fix the hazards before workers are hurt. i say this is new because it is new for osha. it is not really new at all. osha first issued the guidelines in 1989, over 20 years ago. the standard we will be proposing is based on a long and successful experience in states with similar requirements including california, washington, and minnesota. they've been the core requirements of the voluntary program that recognizes companies that excelled in protecting employees. in the spirit of keeping workers safe and celebrating the 40th anniversary, i am honored that we're joined by leading experts in workplace safety and health, along with two workers on the

frontlines of workplace safety. before we get started with the rest of the program, i want to take a moment to remind everyone that a week from today is worker memorial day on april 28. the state is dedicated to the memory of workers who lost their lives on the job. -- the day is dedicated to the memory of workers lost their lives on the job. we will establish a memorial to workers for planting a tree on the ground of the perkins building. the trade will be a permanent reminder of the workers we have lost. -- the trees will be a permanent reminder of the workers we have lost. we must address the many challenges facing us today. we must rededicate ourselves to the original promise of the osha act, to ensure that every worker in the united states comes home safely to their families after a day's work. the spirits of those who died and those who lived to fight for better conditions urge us to fight and achieve the goals that all americans strive for -- health care workers, safer places, and a stronger america.

thank you very much. [applause] >> david and john did a great job of setting the context. i am going to introduce cathy and mike and get started with questions. then we will open it up to the audience for questions. cathy stoddart has worked in acute nursing since 1989. she serves on the executive board of her union in pennsylvania. she is chair of the nurse alliance of the politics and

policy committee. they represent more than 1 million health care workers across the united states, including 20,000 in pennsylvania. mike weibel works at a good year in topeka, kansas. during his career, he has held and served in various health and safety positions for the united steelworkers, including his current position with figure. he previously spent 14 years as the first responders, medical officer, emergency medical technician, and safety officer. he has conducted numerous training for union members on osha standards and workplace health and safety. cathy, let's start with you. many people probably do not think of health care workers when they think of osha. you do face dangers on your job. talk a little bit about some of the dangers that health care

workers face, your personal experiences, and how osha has helped to make things better over the years. >> every day, health care workers walked into a disease- infested workplace. they do on christmas and holidays. it is a dangerous place to work, but it is also an exciting and rewarding place to work. since 1979, things have changed so much in the workplace as far as safety. early in my career, a nurse was inadvertently stuck with a needle and contracted hepatitis. she later died from complications of hepatitis. 17,000 of my colleagues in the 1980's died or contracted hepatitis in that time. since osha has instituted safety regulations for blood borne pathogens, that has fallen.

97% of the workers go to work everyday and do not think about it. we're training and education. we are required to offer things so they do not have to worry about hepatitis. the changes have been dramatic. today are going to work and none of my colleagues and up from hepatitis from exposure to blood and body fluids. >> mike, you have also experienced workplace tragedy. tell us about what got you interested in worker health and safety. describe some of the changes you have seen because of the actions that osha has taken. >> when i hired in a good year and 25 years of age, i was a pipe fitter. i work with the gentleman who did on the job training. we had our tools and were going out to fix machinery.

we heard the alarm system go off in the plant. we were to respond with our tools. about two weeks after i was tired, the alarm went off. we went to the area. we found the first responders on the machine. they were pulling a man out of the machine that had been crushed. he was a newly designed machine. they were doing cpr on him. i was 25 years old. i had no idea what to do or what actions by should take. i stood back and watched what was going on. it was a tragedy to know he was killed on a machine. i came to find out that it was a newly designed machine. not completely cleared according to osha standards. they had to go back and modify it.

fighting the same battle every day was simple things like machine guarding. i will tell you another story about how osha has helped over the years. i am third generation with good year. my father was in the union as well. he was an activist. he used to build tires. he was a heavy smoker. he smoked about three packs of cigarettes a day. he is still alive and does not smoke anymore. he had a yellow ryder he always carried in his pocket. instead of going and buying a lighter fluid, he would put benzene in the lighter and use it to light cigarettes. he developed a tumor because of that. osha came out with the benzene law to remove it from the general industry. that played an impact on the changes in the workplace. we have a lot of room to go.

>> did you want to add something? >> one other thing that has been so important in work place safety for our workers has been legal -- needle systems where i do not have to use a needle for anything. it is changed people lives of nurses. imagine the environmental service worker or laundry worker who happens to find inadvertent needles in lenin's or garments. there was a time when we carried them on a tray down the hall to a room. in every single room now, there are boxes where we can get rid of the syringes that might be contaminated. there was a time when we did not wear gloves. that was for surgery and special cases. imagine that now. they said a the time that the patients would be scared. now they are scared if you do

not have the gloves on. those are things we take advantage today and -- we take for granted today in health care. i am active in my union and the hospital. we have a health and safety committee. we walk around to find things that are not safe to fix them. having a union and that power and an employer like mine so committed to having a city hospital is so important. safe needles and wearing gloves, those precautions have saved lives. >> we have heard mention of the standards. they seem obvious in retrospect and common sense. there were actually challenge is getting them done. they are challenges osha often faces when trying to protect worker health and safety. >> that is almost always the case. when we announce moving to a new

standard, there are some employers who say they cannot make the change. it will cost too much money or is not necessary. every standard has that same history. when we moved towards moving -- issuing the blood borne pathogen standards, they thought we were requiring the you could not give teeth back to little kids. they said that the masks would scare kids. we created a new normal. the best example is for plastics. some were discovered in the 1970's to contain powerful carcinogens. we required full protection in the workplace. the industry said it would cost over 1 million jobs. very quickly, the industry

figured out that they could save money. it did not cost a single job. it made the industry more competitive. of course these are closed systems down. we created the new normal. getting there is always a great struggle. >> what lessons do you take from that as you move forward? >> >> the study stabilized and don't cost as much money as people think they will. >> you mentioned that we still have a ways to go. maybe you could talk a little bit about some of the challenges that we still face on worker health and safety. >> first of all, fortunately i have a contract book your that

is me extra rights above osha regulations. the thing that i see out there with my years of teaching and going out to the general public, either at a community college or whatever is that a lot of workers do not have a voice in what their rights are. david, you said earlier that the osha laws, they just don't know it. we need better education for the workers out there to know what their rights are and how to utilize their rights without being disciplined or discharge for something like that. what we need to do is give those workers strength, some kind of structure that they can say i am part of the safety committee here, part of this process to improve my workplace. that is what we need. >> kathy, in your workplace, what are some of the challenges

that still remain and some of the things that need to be done? >> secretary michael's alluded to ergonomics. health-care workers from lifting patients is significant. working collectively in that arena would definitely be important. airborne precautions. we think about h1n1 and the viruses to come. we need to have stronger standards on airborne pathogens. up-and-coming is workplace violence. health-care workers work in prisons, mental health institutions, they are working out in the communities now. a major focus on workplace violence -- people get mad when their families are sick. we have indeed it is important, but observing patient rights and figuring out what to do and working with our unions are very

important things i would look forward to having regulations on. >> in your introduction, you mentioned that you are working on workplace injury and illness standards. how might a standard like that help situations that mike and kathy are describing? >> oshi cannot have a standard for every hazard. there is a huge range of potential hazards in the workplace. our standards are somewhat like the minimum wage. most responsible employers understand that to really protect workers, you go beyond the standards. you change the culture of the workplace and look at what's what -- -- you look at what the hazards are a new address them. what this standard will do is bring all employers to a higher

level where they assess the hazards and come up with a plan to address them. we think that will make a huge difference. it will really reduce fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. >> i think we are ready to open it up to audience questions. implement tony's vision and make workplace is safe. last week was talking with construction workers and we were talking about how they were trying to develop iphone apps so that workers on construction sites could report violations right away. they were saying the biggest problem for them in terms of putting these powerful tools and workers' hands was that every state had different regulations, that it was tough to make these social media.

what kind of tools of his social looking at to put more power into workers' hands? hawks car hot hot ho>> that is e are looking at. essentially what oshi does, the regulations are basically the same. loman may look different on the surface, surly there is no reason why construction orders and any part of the country cannot use that same application. we will certainly work on that issue.

>> i was looking back at some historical research at the time trying to workplace deaths were estimated to be at 100 a day. that is terrible. my question to you is, looking forward, your budget has been cut by 18% for the rest of the year. what is that going to do to enforcement to the new program that you are talking about? >> i should qualify that. our budget is not being cut at all. the budget agreement that was reached two weeks ago, there was an across-the-board cut of 2% including ocean, so like every other agency will spend two. for -- 2% less, but we did not have a budget cutte.

the house and the senate recognize that osha should not be cut and it was not cut. it is worth recognizing that 100 years ago, things really were much worse. the national fire protection association began the use of sprinklers. we look at how we can further protect workers. >> i am with bloomberg government. we are just completing a study and one of the reviews of the victims states that have programs in place -- 15 states that have programs in place.

does osha have any plans to change their inspections in light of the implementation or adoption of the new rule? >> we are looking at the enforcement issues in association with any new standard and will try to get comments. we are a few years away from completion of this rule, the issue of the first initial paper and will go with the small business process and the next few months. we will have a very robust public discussion on how to make it work so does not burdensome for the employer but really moves the ball forward. >> michael, you know me and i just have my union at a good question. tell me what difference you think your role as a full-time safety guy, company-wide, has

made in the health and welfare of goodyear employees? >> that is a good question. the thing is that over the years we have had a lot of tragedies at the factories, a lot of sprains and strains and whatever. ,ithout workers' involvement getting active within the safety and health program, with their expertise on the floor, it helps reduce it strains and sprains, finding out the cause of an accident. that is what is important out there, getting the workers involved to improve that. the position i have currently is to network between factories [unintelligible]

and hope to reduce injuries and improve the workplace. >> with over 1 million health care workers in my union, we don't just advocate for ourselves, we advocate for our patients. i am an advocate for quality. the highest quality of care is what every mom and dad, every child deserves. when they come to the hospital, they should not have an infection when they leave. they should be allowed to come in, have their surgery or treatment that they need, and leave. in that time, all the people would touch them, from the people who scrub the floors or wash the walls should be as safe. having the voice on the job is so important, because i can stand up for you. i know where to look. so do other health-care workers. some are not so fortunate. more than 1 million do not have the union that i have. that opportunity to be able to have a voice and have a say and

identify and be safe in it, not have to send a picture but walk up to my hospital and say let's work together on this, and they do. >> how does that interaction were between the union and management? >> is an easy and comfortable interaction. i say my management, but i think i speak for management around the country. i think they do not want people to be heard on the job. they want patients to leave and be healthy. but if there is not someone out there holding their feet to the fire or the regulations or even being education -- being educated. people live because we do training. they leave hospitals without infections. that is the difference. working together with management to have training, having regulations that say you must have trading on some very important issues like blood borne pathogens or ergonomics.

we have saved lived systems -- a safe lift systems that every hospital should have. i think there should be a regulation that note new units should be built without having save ways to move patients. i have 30 years of experience in nursing. takes experienced health-care workers away from patients who need them, and that is not ok. >> i am with the teamsters. just to piggyback off what you said we that ergonomic issues in the sprains and strains you mentioned, do you think the urban standard will be resurrected anytime soon ?uestio .

>> osha has no plans to reintroduce the ergonomics standard, but we still remain concerned about ergonomics. we are taking a number of approaches from issuing guidelines for safe work practices and said lifting, but using our enforcement ability. part of the osha law is a simple statement that every employer is required to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards. when we see a serious hazard the employer should have known about, we will issue a citation on that. >> other questions? one back here. >> i am with farmworker justice here in washington d.c. agricultural workers are ranked

as having a second or third most dangerous jobs in the united states, and yet they are excluded from most of the osha safety standards. i am wondering whether we can hope for any progress on removing that exclusion of farmworkers from some of these safety standards that osha has. >> i think you can. but osha for many years has focused on urban workers and not in the field, and that is something we recognize and are trying to address. in working with agencies like the internal protection agency, we don't pass the regulations on pesticides. we have reached out to them and trying to figure out the ways that former chris get the protection that they surely deserve. >> that is going to be our last question. thanks so much, cathy and mike. we will now transition to our

second panel. [applause] again, i am just going to go ahead and introduce zero new panelists and then we will go on to questions and answers. these are very accomplished people. if you want to see their full bios, they are up on our website. peg is director of occupational safety and have -- and help for the afl-cio. she has worked extensively on a wide-ranging regulatory and legislative initiatives at the federal and state level and coordinated campaigns on a worker right to know,

ergonomics, and other key job safety issues. she has also served on numerous federal agencies and scientific advisory committees and is the organizer of worker's memorial day, observed annually on april 28, to remember workers killed, injured, and disease on the job. joseph van houten's responsibilities include global leadership of johnson and johnson's industrial safety, toxicology, ergonomics in the fleet safety program. his background includes 30 years of experience in the pharmaceutical and health-care products industry, initially as a research scientist and now as an internal health and safety leader. david wilde is professor of economics at boston university school of management.

he is the author of three books and previously worked as an adviser to the u.s. department of labor and a number of other government agencies. he served as mediator adviser on a range of labor-management issues across the globe. peg, let's start with you. when the afl-cio works closely with osha and often pushes osha to do more. can you talk about the relationship that unions like yours have with the agency? >> we have a long history with this agency and with this law. it was the unions who fought for and got the osha law passed back in 1970, and since that time i would say that we have been both a friend to the agency that many times and at other times, pushing the agency. when you look at the standards

the agency has set over the years, and the earlier panel talked about blood borne pathogens and the standards in the steel industry, virtually all of those games because the union's petition. sometimes we had to go to court. then we followed up in defending those rules. our history is one of pushing, pushing, pushing for stronger worker protections, unfortunately, over the many decades here, there have been heads of the agency that were very committed to safety and help, going back to president ford and the first president bush. we have had a good relationship, but it has always been one of trying to push the agency to do its job, because there are a lot of forces against that. at a couple of times we have not

had such a great relationship, unfortunately. during the most recent bush administration, they did not really want to work with unions and there was a policy in place where the head of osha was not allowed to come and talk to the unions about safety and health. so again, we work closely with them, but our role primarily is to hold the agencies the to the fire and keep remind them what their job is, which is to protect workers. >> how does johnson and johnson approached worker health and safety, and how you interact with osha? >> johnson and johnson has a longstanding commitment to health and safety that is probably as old as the company. we are celebrating our 120 bit anniversary this year. -- 125th anniversary. our credo was put together by

robert wood johnson, who had the title of brigadier-general because of the work he did for the country during world warii. the credo details are responsibility to the people that we serve. they are customers, are employers, our community, and our shareholders. working conditions are clean, orderly, and safe. while osha has had a general duty called for 40 years, johnson and johnson has had their general's duty calls for the last 68 years, and that is what drives us for health and safety. we have a systematic approach that looks to identify and control of health and safety risks. it involves management, employee

engagement, and together we come up with a system that yields an extraordinary results. when dr. michael stocks about injury and illness prevention programs, this is something we think is what on in terms of the directions for standards as well as for osha, and we support them because we know it works at johnson and johnson. osha is often attack for imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. how do you view these attacks and how you describe the cost and benefits of what osha does? >> in public economics, we talk a lot about the benefits and cost of any intervention the statistics have already been stated, but i think they have to be restated. john podesta managed it is mentioned that in the beginning

of fatalities were around 14,000 year, and in the last year it they were only 4300. injury rate similarly dropping from close to 11 per 100 workers to 3.5 this year. each of those implies is benefits romankow both with organizations like johnson and johnson in terms of productivity and having people's lives preserved and the benefits that confers to businesses, but there is also a huge public benefit that goes beyond that, that obviously is related to the preservation of life and safety and all the benefits to. the huge reduction of life and injuries, so there is not the enormous benefits that we have to think about every time we reduce injury levels and fatality rates as much as that. i think there is a lot of

evidence out there that can show a lot of that goes to osha, that osha has been responsible for a lot of that reduction. equally on the benefit side, i thought kathy in the first panel made a really important point in describing just the change in how workplaces operate now versus 40 or even 20 years ago. just the expectations about health and safety have been transformed by the presence of osha even where it has not directly investigated. there is enormous evidence that we have gained a lot. the cost side, as david michaels was describing, is usually the side that is most of the to hyperbole when new standards are issued. the evidence has generally shown that the costs that are anticipated, even those that osha has estimated in advance of

issuing standards, are usually much smaller ones those standards are put in place. that is because once businesses are -- they try to do so in a cost-effective way. there is the classic story of the cotton-standard that equally at the time it was issued was going to destroy the american textile industry, and in fact what it did was, by reducing exposure to dust, increase the productivity and quality of american textile mills in the 1980's and 1990's because of that. my sense of the evidence is that the the benefits we receive from osha are much larger than had been anticipated and the costs tend to be much smaller than anticipated. >> david michaels, we have talked a lot about osha standards, but osha has other

ways that it promotes worker health and safety as well. maybe you could topple little about some of those things. >> we have a variety of strategies and tools that we use. they really are tailored to the situation. we have a big emphasis on helping with our on-site consultation program, where we encourage employers who cannot afford it to: get free consultations. we also have corporate programs with a whole range of employers, small and large, who are committed to going beyond osha standards, ensuring that workers are truly protected. that program is good because not only do the workers get

involved, that becomes special government employees and they go out and help other employers address those problems as well. we have a web site with the tremendous amount of information. it's 180 million visitors a year. we are working on a couple of new smart on applications. we really want to reach out and have workplaces change before someone is hurt and before osha has to issue a citation. >> to follow-up on that, you have experienced this with osha and compliance assistance. how does that work, and what is the interaction like? >> we have had a long history of collaborating with osha. while we are mindful of the fact that osha is a regulatory agency and has enforcement responsibilities, we have always worked to build a strong relationship with osha because

we feel we have a common mission. we sent our corporate safety director to become the head of osha in 1989. he spent 10 years as our corporate safety director a johnson and johnson. other valuable collaboration's were, we worked with the folks that niosh at putting together standards for handling -- in 2003 we entered into a formal partnership with osha on ergonomics. we knew that we have something we could share with osha and we wanted to help them understand some of the best practices we had johnson and johnson. i remember specifically the

united postal service facility in rochester, new york, where we had our people going in and help them solve some of their ergonomics problems. while we have had a very strong and good history of collaboration with osha. >> the work that osha is doing around distracted driving is an area of great concern to us. texting on the road is causing many fatalities. we are encouraging employers to follow the lead of johnson and johnson in getting that message out. >> maybe you can talk a little bed about -- a little bit about these partnerships.

>> what unions to bargain with employers. that is the whole role of the union, to represent the workers and deal with employers at the worksite. there really is the primary focus of unions in addressing safety and health. as we heard from kathy and mike, osha has been helpful with its regulations, and sometimes very informal partnerships between employers, osha, and the unions. the steel workers have had a number of those partnerships as have the autoworkers. there is a lot that goes on in safety and health that is not directly things that osha is involved with, but what is key is the fact that it goes on. a lot of that comes from the fact that there are regulations on the books. that is what is in place, the framework, the requirements and also the emphasis and the impetus to address these problems.

there is a lot of work that goes on with the agency, but what of what we have to remember is that osha is a tiny agency. there are 2300 people on staff nationally. it is smaller today than it was in 1980. the work force is much bigger. this is not an agency that is out there in huge numbers, harassing employers. we do our report every year looking at osha inspections and the frequency of inspections. this year we see that they are responsible in some cases in once every 129 years. a lot of it does not directly involve osha on a day-to-day basis.

>> david, you have written about how we evaluate osha's performance. maybe you can talk a little bit about that. we have these infrequent inspections. how do we know we are getting what we want? >> i think it builds on what peg was just saying. you could double the size of osha and is still going to be very unlikely it will show up at any given workplace. what the effects of osha ultimately are or its impact on spillovers and its impact on changing the culture and decisionmaking people have about health and safety. its challenge is it has to affect a whole range of employers. you have employers like johnson and johnson that have always been on the cutting edge and are developing new approaches to health and safety often before standards and all. equally, osha has to think about the other end of the employer

spectrum, people who are dead set against adopting even basic health and safety standards and practices. ultimately we have to gauge how ocean has an impact in changes things. it is thinking about how does it bring up the end of the spectrum that is resistant to change, and moving that end of the spectrum up so that you can continue to support progressive businesses that are doing the right thing and pushing the envelope on new approaches to health and safety. >> there is another way to think about performance, and that is what was talked about earlier by david michaels. that is setting the norms. it is basically setting the bar for where employers need to be. when you look at osha, in the last 40 years it has made a huge

difference through standards, in setting those new norms of performance. as in health care with the blood borne pathogens, that dealt with a particular hazard, the risk of hepatitis and hiv. until that time, there was not a lot of regulation and health care. with that, what can was not only a standard, it brought attention to safety and health and a capacity that began to be built into health care that was not there. because of that one standard, it brought safety and health in to that industry which had not happened before. in textile, it was cotton dust, but they did not just deal with cotton dust. they dealt with other hazards in the sector. one of the challenges we face now is the regulatory process.

it's so difficult to issue rules. the last major standard was in 2010 on cranes and derricks, which had begun in 2003. we have not had this bar setting or setting standards and new norms for a long time ticket without those new norms, and with so much pressure and competitive pressures aren't lawyers, they are not putting the same focus on safety and health at a corporate level. we are concerned that there is reduced activity and resources being paid to safety and health. >> would have been thinking about in addition to standards is the ngo community in terms of

overall sustainability. we have created a set of sustainability goals at johnson and johnson for 2015, and health and safety are part of those goals. one of the ideas i have for david going forward is that companies like johnson and johnson are concerned about health and safety in our supply chain. we'll have the opportunity to influence what goes on with the tens of thousands of small businesses that supply products and services to johnson and johnson. i think it is a nice complement to regulation that larger companies have an interest in ensuring health and safety in the supply chain and we can inform that process. >> david, this issue of ossification in the rulemaking process, what have been your experience is it as osha administrator in getting standards done? >> it is extremely ossify.

a proposal was first placed on the regulatory agenda at the beginning of the bush administration. once we get to a proposal, there will be numerous opportunities for public comments, and this -- our silica standard is 40 years old. it requires using equipment that is no longer available. it is based on old science. about 500 standards for chemical exposures in the workplace, 470 of them are based on a voluntary industry list from 1968 that has been unchanged since then. it will take five or 10 years to change any standard, and we can only do a handful at a time. it is a severe problem and we

are looking for ways to address that, short of legislation. standard setting is one area we worry about, but we also think about, even what we have standards, there are some tragic stories. we have a very strong standard to protect workers from suffocation in grain handling facilities. people go into grain bins and they are given a shovel to break it up. what happens is, the cornstarch to move in a matter of seconds -- the corn starts to move in a matter of seconds and they can be trapped in there and suffocate. there has been tragedy after tragedy. two teenagers, a 14-year-old and

a 19-eurocom on their first day of work, they had not been given any training or any sort of safety harness to go in there and break up that corn, and they perished. the third kid was able to get out. after that we sent a letter to every grain handling facility in the country saying these are the hazards, this is what the rule is. recently went into a grain entrapment situation and pull the worker out. my letter was taped onto the wall. standards will raise the bar for some employers, and some employers simply do not get it. >> one thing that is important to recognize as we celebrate 40 years of osha and the passage of the law, the lot is 40 years old and has never been updated. the environmental laws have been updated, but this law has

never been updated. there have been numerous attempts to do so, but we have not gotten there. so you still have essentially a law that was radical back in 1970, but is pretty weak, particularly in next -- a criminal penalties under osha are limited to cases where there is a willful violation that results in the death of a worker. that is it. we look at what the record it and in 40 years of osha, we've now had only 84 prosecutions for deaths of workers, and in that time we have had hundreds of thousands of workers die. last year the epa had over 300

prosecutions or convictions under its law, so you have more prosecutions and convictions in one year under epa than you had in the entire history of osha. we do need to look at these laws and bring them up to date. there is no reason why the laws that protect workers are so much weaker than the laws that protect the environment and the safety of the public and workers in other areas. david, just getting back to what david michaels was saying about the standard setting process, one of the problems that is often cited is the way the cost benefit analysis is done for osha rules. how is a cost-benefit analysis done? what are some of the assumptions that are built into a cost-benefit analysis? >> you want me to put everyone

to sleep today? i think the reality is, the ideas behind benefit cost analysis make a lot of sense. you want to improve social welfare and make sure any intervention bit of it outweigh the costs. the problem is, the standard setting process is becoming incredibly politicized. even the evaluation of what our corporate benefits and costs become the subject of great conflict. in terms of both the science and the economics of benefit costs, there is more and more agreement on what proper benefit cost analysis looks like. the administration has cost indeed office of administration and budget. there are ways to do it. the problem separating out the

right way to calculate benefits and costs from the politics of around it. that is where the difficulty and the ossification of standard setting comes in. the comment about standards setting and legislation, there is always this tension about changing the law and improving standards versus saying how much can we do with the existing enforcement apparatus and the standards we have in place. one of the promising thing in the last two years has been a real emphasis on looking at the existing enforcement and outreach kinds of capabilities and resources that osha has, not to say that you don't want to do legislation or issue new standards. i think often the enforcement systems we have are not pushed as far as they can to improve conditions, even given what we have. there has been a hard look at

penalty policies, focusing on enforcement and the nature of our reach that is bearing some fruit. >> what are some of the things, what is the appropriate penalty when there is a violation? >> the penalties are set by congress. the maximum penalty for serious violation is $7,000. we often have investigations of fatalities were the penalty is four thousand dollars or even $2,000. we find those are not strong incentives for employers to enforce them as the cost of doing business. we can change the penalty structure and major ways but we can look at what effects we cannot have. one thing we are doing is have a

severe by letters enforcement program. -- severe a violators enforcement program. we are working with other agencies because we know that bad actors in one area are bad actors and another area. we are trying to publicize our investigations were broadly, essentially buy employers on notice that one thing that can happen to them as they will be in the newspaper. attorneys have gotten up and said osha is being very aggressive with its press releases. releases.