looking up post july 9, they may want to continue this. in principle, the mandate should end on the the night of july but that is not guaranteed to happen. with regard to dohar, 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 population of darfur in any nations to take place that would define darfur. the reason for that was because this is what the population in darfur itself had said. when the president was saying that when we started off work on the instructions of the african union, we spend a long time with them. we decided that we couldn't answer that question without asking the darfurans themselves what thaw think. -- they think.

darfuran -- they said it would be very important to achieve a peace in darfur. we must be involved from negotiating that durable peace. part of the agreement in 2006 failed was because it was negotiated by the government. and they met and had an agreement and came back and asked the population of darfur and say here is a peace agreement and the population your peace agreement has nothing to to with us. so they say please don't repeat that.

so we said fine and that won't the african union as a recommendation and they adopted this policy. so then we get the infraction from the african union that this is a policy that you must issue. it relates to this question of an interview -- inclusive network shaping process in darfur. and all of us agree except the support negotiations in darfur and they're saying that it's important that those negotiations -- it is among the

belligerence, they have to concentrate in particular on issues of late to assess fire, -- cease-fire and other security arrangements. because that's an important part of any peace agreement of darfur that we get the dissertation of hostilities which can only be negotiated by the people carrying guns. it's important that that must continue. the problem with regard to this is a matter that you've raised of encouraging everybody to participate. encouraging all of the groups to participate. and the mediators find this very difficult. -- to get, to go to doha and

engage in the negotiations. and now, with the new developments to get minimum hour to go there. it's proved very difficult. the mediators do to attract -- all of us have been talking to them, saying all of us the same thing, please go to doha because it's all of us need. this is why i saw it, i'm quite sure that will continue to try to persuade to them -- to engage that process, we have to focus on the matter of determination of hostilities. now, i don't think anyone of us can guarantee the success because the decision is not in our hands. it's in the hands of these other groups.

whether they want to come or done want to come, but that we should encourage them to do so. in fact i should have said that. this was one of the message that we got from the darfurians in 2009 and they said please talk to the leaders to talk peace and indeed, we conveyed that message. in addition to discussing the issue of a security aremain, they've discussed issues, the broader issues that got to do with the peace of darfur. the justice consolation, et cetera. they've -- which are the matter offense the population of darfur said we got those issues, we have to be involved in their

discussion. so what we're then saying is that fine, let doha proceed with that, and what should then happen necessarily is that the outcomes of doha will then feed into this interview political process in darfur, which would bring in the various constituencies. -- in darfur. there's no disconnect what has been a challenging issue is a question of time. when we spoke earlier, the president talked about the ref lance -- relevance of darfur in terms of the constitutional review process of not sudan.

it will have to decide how it governs itself and therefore the process must take place. it cannot exclude darfur. dareus very much part of the north and indeed, they're a very important part of the north. that's why i'm talking about this timing issue. yes, indeed, we want the city's outcome of doha which would then feed into the popular inclusive political process in darfur. but we need to move this process forward faster because if we don't do that fast enough, we are going to create another problem. which is stalling. stalling at the process of the constitutional review in the

north, which is going to create other complications. and therefore, what everybody is discussing in this regard is how to speed up those processes so that north dakota --ed from -- indeed we get that sequencing. now obviously, if you condition get that sequencing right, bearing in mind the other pressures i'm talking about, it is still possible to do parallel processes, to allow the negotiations of doha to continue and at the same time, to convene this inclusive process with darfurians and in term offense that process in darfur, whatever might have been agreed or not agreed. whatever might have been drafted, i could still take that

point. so they will have -- it would be good to have their way to take into doha, into the border inconclusive process the outcomes of doha. but the outcomes of doha are too dependant, not on the mediators and so on. one solution. but too much on what the groups decide. so when they decide not to come, the mediators can't do anything about it. so in the event that it is therefore a delay of that kind, let's go ahead and get that population in darfur, including the groups themselves because they are darfurians. so what we're saying an inclusive process at the groups. that to run them parallel, side by side. so i hope that that answers your

questions. thanks. >> two questions in the back. >> my question relates to outstanding issues. in every mediation, there are standards taken by africa that are always outstanding issues that were meant to be resulted time and again often a repeated period of time. but experiences have shown that these outstanding issues are never resolved. they talk about people get independence or what they want

at the bargaining table. as soon as they sign the agreements, independence is given, fresh issues come out. we take a look at it and there is fear but it is never resolved and they give an independence and we also talk about the issue of zim ba way, my country, the outstanding issues that have been resulted two years from now. so haven't you learned a lesson in trying to resolve these issues, where you leave outstanding issues. this is the issues of the border and you know the importance of the border to your country at your region and you give a country independence without determining where the region is at the end of the day and everybody is almost armed and you leave those issues unaattended and you think those issues will resolve themselves over time. thank you.

>> i had a question regarding the popular schultz in blue niles. the popular schultz has will be conducted but not concluded and i was wondering could the panel could comment first on the political practical impediments to issuing your report and initiating negotiations and second, if you could comment on how those negotiations will likely play out given the anticipated political and constitutional changes in the north. thank you. >> jason. >> you toke spoken about darfur

and the need to make process. because of the implication with the board constitutional review in the north, similarly, it's become apparent that the popular consultation has constitutional implication and i was wondering if you could comment on your thoughts on whether or not these processes need to proceed in order to positively inform the constitutional making process or whether or not sudan might not be better served by having a national constitution making process try to at one solve these problems. thank you. >> i just would like to thank mr. mbeki for achieving peace in

sudan and his colleagues. and i think the issue is the most important issue among those positive issues. what do you think if you make an additional effort to resolve the a.e.u. issue because the rest of the issues can be negotiated even after the succession of the south of sudan. thank you. >> yeah. the outstanding issues you have

a concern that are always outstanding issues in sudan and elsewhere in africa. i think we could add -- and unfortunately, it is not always possible to solve all the problem at the same time. then you have outstanding issues. you have unresolved issues in many countries of the world. you have india and pakistan. turkey and greek. and in many other countries. palestine.

we have palestine. i think what do we try to reach is to solve all those problems possibly before 9 of july. it won't be possible for all of them. and i think if you take for example, the issue of the border , even in active area of africa, the border has not necessarily been tied to the time that it wants to be independent. it can be after. it can then after. what are we trying to do now is for those issues who can't be involved before 9 of july to show the way maybe time limit,

when they have to be solved. i think it's the most important because other way, it will be impossible to solve them. the issue of the constitution of the review has much to do with popular consultation in the blue nile, in the south, and maybe also the darfur political process because what means popular consultation. popular consultation is a way for those two areas, blue nile and south darfur to define their

relationship with the second, with the central government. i think one of the issues in a negotiation in doha is the relation between darfur with it being one region or many region. then there is a very close tie between popular consultation and the constitution review process. popular consultation in the blue nile has taken place that is no negotiation yet between the state and the central

government. the government of blue nile is pressing to intervene and the central of -- pressing the central government to start these negotiations we permit to him that with this matter. in the south, as i said earlier, the popular consultation has not established, but i think the end game is the same. once it's completed, it will be a negotiation between the state and the central government to try to see what kind of relationship and i think the constitution of review is also talking about this matter. for example, the government of

blue nile is the same that he would like to see a kind of federal system in sudan where the state have an autonomy for development, have financial autonomy. maybe those issues will come in the constitution of review process. it has to be seen. but we are convinced that maybe this exercise is the way to find a solution on these issue of popular consultation. everybody is saying like the

issue is one of the most important and the most difficult now. it's clear. but it doesn't mean that we have to put aside other issues. we're here to work on a.e.u. -- i.b.a. and the parties tried everything to solve it with the help of many third parties. for example, i think it was in september, october, the u.s. government tried very hard to help the parties to come to an agreement. it didn't succeed. by the end of the year, the

panel, we took over, we made some proposal, some proposals to the parties did not agree. we said again to the president we are going to try it again. now, we are hoping that the pears will come to an agreement. everybody is saying now let the other issue move so that maybe it can be what they call a holistic approach. -- to solve all of those issue including i.b.a. then i think we are -- very important issue. we can see it now.

it is a matter that can be -- completely, the whole process. but i think at the end, the parties would have to make a compromise. it is after them to make compromise. we put on the table different possibility, then it would be up to them to solve the issues. >> we'll take two final questions. one down here. going to come across the row to you.

>> thank you. john, is this working? >> yeah. >> i have two good questions. the first about the -- >> speak up. >> the first question is about the negotiations. i'm seeing the progress made is mainly influenced by the u.s. government relationship with the two parties, rather than the parties willing to achieve peace in sudan mainly, it depends on what the u.s. government is willing to give of the two parties. would you agree on that? and my second question is about darfur, just a follow-up question. i they will can't understand how we would have a peace process in darfur knowing the situation is not right. what needs to happen between now and july in order for us to have

peace process inside darfur? do you have any conditions for improvement and security situations? >> i pass it down here. >> fist question. could you repeat the first question? >>[inaudible] >> final question. >> i want to go back to the darfur issue. i understand that the government has recently announced a referendum for darfur. and secondly, it has proposed

introducing or creating two new states in darfur. and i wondered if you could comment how you think that fits into the other processes relating to peace in darfur. and then secondly, on the issue of blue nile, and really, again, this is for comment rather than a question for you to comment on, please, i'm sort of puzzled by the claims being made in blue nile, particularly by the government of blue night. because as i understand, the current constitution of sudan gives significant and it is quite strikingly substantial powers to the state in the north and i wonder how you understand the relationship between the current constitutional position and the claims that are being made at the moment.

>> with the -- with regard to the last question, the point that was made by the governor of blue nile was indeed exactly what you said, that in terms of the constitution, they have this power, which address autonomy, but in the practice that things are not working. for instance, issue of giving sufficient resources and the control of the states so that the state is able to take whatever decision it is the exercise of that aonmy. that is not happening. and that is the issue that you are raising. so therefore in working out

indeed the point that is being made about these popular consultations and indeed the darfur process would have to feed into a national constitutional process that the terms of that national process which is what comes out of the popular consultation, out of darfur and then so on that in that process, this issue would have to be agreed. yes, indeed here and this power in terms of the constitution but what else needs to be done to translate this theoretical power into actual power? he's the issue that you are raising. so you are quite correct in terms of what the interim constitution says. but the issue that we're raising is that intact with or the. which needs to addressed. now, the -- with regard to the referendum issue. one of the matters that is

approved to be a big stumbling block in the doha negotiations even between the government and the lgam is the same issue that is being questioned, stumbling blocks in 2006. this issue of darfur being one region, one state, it was agreed in -- already that this matter would -- it couldn't be resolved in the negotiations but therefore, this matter must be resolved by referendum for the people of darfur to sign. same thing has happened now. so in the same way again, incapable of resolution among the negotiator so the government has said send it to referendum.

let the people in darfur decide. this matter arose in 2008. there was a very broad inconclusive sudanese negotiation process. we brought in every party. the ruling party, the opposition parties, people from regions, traditionally, and so on. and one of the issues that arose was this question about should darfur be one region, one state? should it continue to be three states? or should it be more states.

this relates to the way the population of darfur is composed. the way it has constituted that population. so you get sections of that population saying that in terms of the way the darfurians is arranged into three state, we such and such a group feel the same power. the better that was a state which is more focused on us so that we have -- we can do whatever. others did not contest. now, naturally, what we would say is that you see, all of this matter should be put on hold. they should be put on hold. they might very well be legitimate matters but they should be put on hold until the more global political solution

arrive and it's in the context of that global -- that this matter should be discussed. to say that let's have a referendum now because the matter is arising out of dark and then come back again to say this is part of the agenda of the inclusive negotiation, obviously it is not right. so i'm saying that from my own perspective. whatever the marriage of the issues that are being raised and they may very well be married who are saying nevertheless, they need to be resolved within the context of the bigger, the bigger set of negotiations you can resolve them. but this is a matter that we will discuss at the government and to indicate to them our own view about -- so that is the

response to the matter of referendum and two additional states in darfur. the question raised a the cell process in -- question process in darfur. again as president, we said at the beginning we started life as you know, and had to conserve the population in darfur to get a sense to how they thought this matter should be resolved. that required a very extensive popular consultation it was no different that is taken place in blue nile.

and that -- in that context, we had to say the government of sudan we need to conduct a process which we have to be satisfied. that is a result of this process we have had the true and free of voice of the people of darfur. therefore it is very important that this population must feel free to speak and not feeling intimated if they say something critical of the government, they would be arrested, whatever. let's agree on how to handle all of these meetings to make sure there is no government interference, this is uniquely the process that we organize, where the meetings take place, when it takes place, who comes and all of that. we will decide when to talk to you and your support and so on.

so we've made all of the arrangements and that's what happened. so the population of darfur as we work with them in 2009, we were perfectly happy with the processes that took place. they spoke freely and so on about these things. made their own inputs. nobody got arrested or anything like that. now that's our experience. so we spoke on the government about this so say that we must have this inclusive process and after a lot of resistance on the part of the government, and finally, they greesm they said ok, you go ahead with it. i must say with regard to this is there's a false story that was put out that this political darfur political process we're talking about is part of government party. it isn't. the government of sudan didn't

want this. because what they prefer is an agreement that would be negotiated between them and the rebel leaders. it's a much simpler process. and then it's part of those discussions, you would decide that this one gets such and such a post and the other one gets such and such a post and so the matter is on. and we're saying no. that population is saying you can just talk to those leaders. they must be involved and must also get this population involved. it took a long time before the government said ok, we will accept. in any case, we are saying to them this is african policies, this is not just our view. now, so in the context of that, when we say to the government, therefore we must have this darfur political process, we then say to them we want to

repeat that it's necessary to create the conditions again, which enabled us to conduct that popular consultation in 2009. so they agree. the context of which a matter was raised that we have to address the state of emergency in darfur. so government has agreed. they will also lift that state of emergency as part of this. and we as a partner, we have no doubt that it is indeed possible so to organize this political process in darfur. so to organize it, besides that indeed, it is conducted from a manner, conduct nad manner which will ensure that it is credible.

because it is important that the real true voice of the darfurian -- every darfurians has had. this is from my own experience. this has been done. there's no reason why we can't repeat it. now with regard to the issue of the negotiations, no, i doubt if we would agree that the negotiations between the north and the south have been driven by the considerations of the united states. -- about the united states. this negotiations has been driven by the two parties are saying what is -- again, let me go back to the early -- about let's agree.

we want to have -- to create two viable states. we also agree that we should design a system of cooperation that will produce mutual benefits. not only is it short term, but in the longer term. so one party has been asking themselves. they've been asking themselves a question. therefore, with regard to the economy arrangements, what is it that we need to decide which would address the matter of two viable states. with regard to the issue of security, what is it that we must decide, we must address the challenge of the states. it's not been the negotiations have not been driven by what is it that you must decide which will please the united states. it hasn't been any such concentration. it has been -- what is good for

the two sudans. so i know the negotiations have not been driven by considerations of policing the united states. that hasn't been said. it is clear that it's important that certain decisions are taken here. for instance, again, they president was indicating this. if you have this issue of existentialized debt of sudan, everybody agrees. we spoke to a lot of creditors during this days apart from the imf and world bank the people that is owed billons on and we say to all of them, it's perfectly obvious that the sudanese cannot repay this money. so it has got to be for given

and all of the credits agreed. and these are the major credit. we entirely agree. so 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. these sanctions were i want posed on the issue of darfur -- were imposed on the issue of darfur. it would be impossible for the u.s. administration to move on this matters. and u.s. is one of the major creditors. it would be impossible for them to move this matter unless the u.s. congress moves on this matter. so the u.s. is indeed relative to the process that is taken

place. -- relevant to the process that is taken place. this is part of the challenge. the u.s. legislation was imposed because of darfur. so naturally, u.s. congress will say we want to see a movement on czar. -- darfur so that we can move on the legislation. now the cruelty of this situation is that you then have the government of sudan, which sits in doha every day ready to negotiate an agreement. and the rebels don't come. the rebel -- therefore there is no agreement. therefore the debt must be sustained and therefore, you've got other problems. and this isn't the fault of the government of sudan.

so i'm saying the u.s. is important in this regard. so this is of course as marjerle as you would expect. this is the matter that we've been discussing with the u.s. administration and i guess we need to say this just to conclude with regard to this. we as president, we have been working with this continuously for the last 25 months. we would have to abandon everything as we've been 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 the -- their

own history. have a very clear understanding of their own challenges. and indeed as we keep saying, the decisions about what happens tozan, north and south, and decisions that must be taken about the sudanese , they are the only people comp at the present time to do this. and -- come tent to do this. -- competent to do this. there is a very serious problem, challenge, which led to the war in sudan, the war between north and south, the war between the center and the east, which is an issue of the management of diversity in sudan.

the south was separate -- will separate. the north will remain as divest as it was before this without separating. it is not going to go our way. and similarly with the south, the south is also faced with this issue of diversity and i'm saying to the sudanese that got appearance on this. you mismanage that differencety, it leads to conflict. now, i am sure that my completion are very clever people. and it is -- thank you very much for acknowledging this. [laughter] but, you know, but i'm absolutely certain that the sudanese vote north and south actually don't need their advice about where do we take sudan to? now the reason i'm saying all of this is because you say you have

people who would think that you need particular sets of sanctions to apply the sudanese to understand where their true interest lies. everything's wrong. you don't need -- the sudanese don't need anybody to impose sanctions to them to understand that may must make peace. but if people will comment this with that frame of mind, these ones don't quite know what is good for them. therefore, i must impose this sanction and sustain this sanction so that they do what i know is good for them. i'm saying it's wrong. sudanese , if the u.s. is important to this issues, and in particular, we have to find a way of addressing these sanctions matter because the

assumption that the sanctions necessarily are playing a positive role in terms of encouraging movement is not necessarily correct. it is assumed to be so but it is not necessarily so. thanks. [applause] >> i'm sure you all agree that this has been an extraordinary presentation of the issues and the complications and -- but with some hopeful sign with a way forward and we're grateful to our three presidents for their presentations. before closing, i just want to mention that john 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. and then on april 28, you've already been introduced to the

chair of the southern sudan referendum commission and the deputy chair and the general exactly. they will be here on april 28 at 10:00 to make a presentation on their works. so hope you can join us. but thank you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> today, a ceremony honoring bob dole for-the-his role in creation of the world war ii memorial on the national mall. hosted by tom brockaw. other speakers include biden and salazar. that gips at 4:45 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this year's studentcam competition asks students from across the country to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. today's second prize winner addressed an issue that better help them understand the role of the federal government. ♪ >> does the second amendment of the united states constitution give the right to open carry a h.g.h.? does what role does the federal government play an issue?

why do they have different interpretations of this right if the answers are not just black and white. ♪ ♪ >> you think the language in the second amendment is clear

enough? >> of course. every american has the right to hang up their bear arms on the wall. how could it be misconstrued? >> all right. fantastic. >> the recent supreme court decision stated the obvious as it is written in the bill rights. adequate real-regulated militia being necessary of a security of a free state, right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> and what is that? >> it basically, well, it's somewhat opened for debate but it's been pretty much proven just recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individuals citizen it was the united states. >> a right to bear arms? >> it's a right to keep and bear arms. >> all 25 people interviewed identified the second amendment correctly. >> you know, when the

authorities can't protect you, they've got no business and no authority trying to deny you the right to protect yourself. >> do you feel safer when -- with handgun? >> yes. being a woman automatically, the weaker target than any other man would be. so i feel that with a handgun here, i would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> depends on the -- but if you're talking about the robbery, obviously i think somebody sees a gun would not bother trying to rob you. >> my research even though the new -- crime as you mentioned shows that these gun-free zones are actually magnet for criminals attacking. >> it is a way from what the

police need to be doing, fighting bad guys, they're having them check out people and make sure what they understand. >> madison and i are here today at shooters in wisconsin. after interviewing dozens of individuals, we are both very curious as to why open carry enthusiasts feel it is essential to have training before they wear their firearm. >> one of the things i appreciate seeing is appropriate training to how to handle a firearm before you can actually purchase it. >> the only way that we feel we were able to answer these questions is to shoot a handgun for ourselves. it is important to know that we have never fired a handgun before. today we will be the first-time shooter. >> for safety reasons and because we cannot legally fire a handgun in wisconsin due to our age, a professional, some shooters and a legal guardian are closely monitoring us.

both of the handguns we will be shooting are man-stoppers because of the powers of the rounds of the chamber. i will be shooting a 4510 double single revolver with a five-pound capacity. >> i will be shooting a semi-automatic pistol. >> ♪ why don't you hit me with your best shot ♪ hit me with your best shot ♪ fire away ♪ >> do you want to shoot again? because i don't. >> i don't know. maybe. it's scary, though. would you feel safer carrying a gun like this? >> i wouldn't because i don't feel like i can control it well. i can definitely see why training is so important to anyone carrying a gun. >> me too. >> just because you can feel the power you have.

>> just gimme my gun. >> sorry, the law requires a five-day waiting period. we got to run our baggage check. >> five days? but -- background check. >> five days? but i'm mad now. >> there's an a.t.f. form that has to be fill outside for the purchase of a long gun. it also has to be filled out for the purchase of a handgun. the state has laid on a requirement in addition to the federal form 4473 to fill out their state form for the purchase of a handgun. >> here in wisconsin, we have a state constitutional amendment which is article one, section 25 which says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms foruation, hunting and any other purpose. >> it is called p.o.o.. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. interestingly enough, wisconsin

also has right to keep and bear arms and that's in section 25, article 1 of the wisconsin constitution and that reads the people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. so it's lawful both under the federal and also the state constitution. >> most gun regulations that are at the state level and the problem is most states doesn't do any regulations -- >> we make it too easy in this country for dangerous people to get guns. so you got the local and state level most of the time. there is a strong connection to what happens to the federal level in terms of the power of the courts interpret the constitutions. >> we're open carry advocates in wisconsin. there an emergence between the federal government, citizens

rights and state and local law regulation. presently, each of these factions are standing their grounds and carefully observing what others make. will the federal government through the recent supreme court ruling continue to support the right to bear arms as constitutional right? we'll start -- will expectations be added? will wisconsin government clarify and enforce a uniform policy that will standardize all the local governments and municipalities enforcement of this issue? hopefully, a resolution to this issue will be reached without coming to a conflict. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning video and continue the conversation about today's documentary at our facebook and twitter pages. >> the ipod mini is no more! no! don't take it away!

what are you doing? i give you the ipod nano. [laughter] [applause] >> in his monologue, mike daisey on the world as he sees it. his latest, the agony and the equity of steve jobs examines apple and americans' love of technology. >> all my monologues come out of my obsessions. they spring out the obsessions that i have in collision with one another. >> find out more of his obsessions tonight on c-span's q&a. it's one of our many signature interview programs available online at espn.org/podcast. >> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." then, "newsmakers", after that, president obama at a town hall meeting in california. this morning, a reporter's