stored in america because it cannot be processed in china. they've signed an agreement to build a joint venture refinery in southeast china to handle venezuelan crude a 400,000 barrel per day refinery. the project is progressing very slowly. there have been disputes between the chinese and the venezuelan about how much oil will be upgraded and venezuela and how much trephining is done in china. .

and the concern there was that petro ecuador was going to be turning petro china into a com petor and be selling crude in the same places ecuador wants to sell it. if that happens, we'll continue to see the chinese oil companies as major on-sellers of oil in the americas. >> but here's an example. if the refinery is actually built in guangdong -- >> it is built. >> it would seem to be one example of economics superseding politics.

>> one question i don't have the answer to is if you, any volume of oil if you ship enough of it is going to be economic. i don't know if that's the case. and the other thing is what's going on domestically in china over market share in china. it is -- it's where their domestic rival is dominant and they're very anxious to increase market share there and i think domestic competition for market shares are also coloring what is happening in this particular case. that's another part of the j.b. refinery story. >> oh. very good. i think we've got -- well, i don't know. do we have time for another one? he's the boss. we'll go to the lady here. then this is one bind -- behind her and that might do it. maybe we can sneak in three.

? lauren gill wert if eastern university. -- gilbert from american university. my question would be mostly to this mauricio. but fundamentally assuming if we take your thesis that latin america trade cannot not shall be based on the east asian model, that it simply won't com peete, would would you say to other models, services-led models such as india's or israel's? they seem to have a little bit more stable or a little bit better analogy to the situation of the latin american countries. >> ok. very good. there's a question right behind her as well. the gentleman? >> thank you. my question is i guess to any panelist to -- who wants to speak on the future of chinese

overseas investment, specifically do we see an sentence of private sector actors investing in latin america? and to protect market share in latin america in terms of exports do you see chinese companies buying fact -- creating factories or buying out latin american competitors both to provide employment and to retain market share? >> yeah. very good. that's an important question. barbara, raise your hand -- there we go. >> all right. thank you, and thanks, erik, for sneaking me in. great panel just a quick question. i wonder if you see any implications other than exports for china of the republican min b denominated loans for latin america? if you have a greater picture of the currency for latin america? >> great questions.

how much time do we have? what is the model of development for latin america in 30 seconds or less? and are there models out there like india, israel -- israel, and others that might be usefully pursued? >> very good question. very difficult question though. i mean there are several latin americas. it's very hard to generalize. i mean small countries, big countries. but it's good to be clear that india is not a service-led development at all. i mean you just have to look at the figures and see that it's a lot of hype. it's an important source of foreign exchange for india. almost 40% of total exports. but if you look at the g.d.p. in india's growth the last 20 years, the contribution is

pretty small. so it's hard to generalize or to label the type of development india had, and it's a mixture. you're going to see agriculture make a huge contribution, manufacturing making a huge contribution. the fact of the fat -- matter is they had a very repressed economy, so in a sense they're benefiting from the sort of reforms latin america did in the 1960's and 1970's so i'm not sure you can see much in india in the seps that it would be a model for the large countries in latin america. but for the smaller countries, think of chile, bolivia, the central americans, i think services is an option, and israel could be clearly a good example. there are lessons there to be learned. but for the bigger countries and there i agree with

mauricio, there is an issue, where are you going to find, generate the employment that people need? i don't agree that this is possible via manufacturing. we're going to have to find other options, try to raise productivity and services particularly by reducing taxation, those factors. and use all those rents, perhaps, to, perhaps to beef up the cash transfer programs that are already in place. so they're going to have to be creative. i think it would be wonderful if you could have sort of a chinese-asian type of, a much faster way of reducing poverty but it's just not there any more, i believe. >> thank you. well, erika, we talked a trade -- lot about trade but not a whole lot about investment. i know time is very short and this topic deserves its own

panel but who -- would you have any thoughts or comments about what you have observed about how chinese investment is progressing in latin america? and do you see that changing to perhaps more of a private-sector led he fassis over time? ok. i'll answer that and i'm going to quickly take the question on republican min b loans. these are a -- ren min b loans. i think to the extent they can persuade their borrower to accept loans in ren min b currency they're happy to do so. it heaps them fulfill the mission to create business opportunities overseas for chinese companies. i think that there is probably some resistance in some countries to accepting loans in that currency.

they're less interested in having a loan in another currency. and in the course of doing research for this paper i stumbled across an article about negotiations between the government and they kept wanting them to take the loan in ren mip b's and the burmese wanted them in euros. i'm not sure how that worked out. i think it's probably up to how much does the borrower want the cash. that's my take on that. to the extent c.d.p. can extend loans in the renmin b, they can -- they will do so. most of my research focused on major state-owned companies so i'm not in a position to comment on what chinese private sector firms are doing in latin america. but it's a great me.

there's certainly been a big uptick in investment in the last year and i think that has to do with other countries farming out. if you look at the investment chinese oil expects -- companies have made in brazil, that's because they put up assets for sale and chinese companies were quake to take those. a lot were made by companies in argentina. they used these investments as a way to get a foothold in the region the >> when they make those investments, are they taking majority stakes? or are they comfortable with minority stakes? >> a lot of it simply depends. what they do is determined by what's available. so if someone is farming out a project and it's a 40 pers -- 40% stake, it's, they're going to end up with 40%. >> but they don't insist on

majority control. ok. well, mauricio, we're going to come to you for this last word. >> on the last point if we were to characterize the relationship between latin america and china, it's about trade. these investment deals have been marginal. very few examples, most of them in the oil sector. smaller investments. so nothing to compare with the trade figures. we've seen a new element in this landscape which is the financing through china's development bank. but stilt financing, very concentrated in a few countries and a few deals. venezuela, ecuador, brazil, some argentina. so if we're going to talk about the whole region, it's trade. and it's trade that really matters.

these have had tremendous positive implications for the region overpblt the fact that the growth rates were high during the global recession is related to the fact that commodity prices were high, and this is overall positive news for latin america. but there is this side effect which is the economic structure, the expansion of services, informal services that latin america needs to address. and for that it's necessary to first adopt the right policies but also to think about increasing interaction with other parts of the world where the economic relationship is more balanced between trade, investment flows, not particularly concentrated in one sector of the economy. so these processes of diversification is very important and something i think

the u.s. should take note of. >> well, this has been a terrific panel, with one exception. that's that the panel has gone beyond time. that is clearly the fault of the moderator who did not do his job very well but the panelists were fantastic and i hope there is sufficient interest here to come back and continue the conversation because frankly there are many different avenues we could take this conversation and many areas for further discussion and research. so until the next time, which i hypo will be soon, thank you all for coming and thank you to the panelists today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] .

>> for politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, american history, it's the c-span networks. all available to you on television, on radio, and on line and on social media sites. search, watch, and share all our programs any time with c-span's video library and we're on the road with our c-span bus and local content vehicles showing events from around the country. it's washington your way, the c-span networks, created by cable. provided as a public service. coming up in about 45 minutes, a look at emerging nonviolent

political movements. johns hopkins university school be advanced international studies on why the movements are popping up in some countries and not in others. and then book tv live tonight, with the author of "pitched," who -- it don peck at politics and prose book store in washington, d.c. again, that's live at 7:00. >> the july 20 u.n. declaration of famine in two regions of somalia was not made lightly and truly reflects the condition of the people there. on the basis of that we estimate that in the last 90 days, 29,000 somali children have died. this is nearly 4% of the chirp in southern so many alio.

our fear and -- somalia. our fear and the fear of the governments in the horn of africa is that the famine conditions in those two regions will spread to encompass the entire region of southern somalia. the next rains are not due until october and even if they're good we could see a raise in water borne diseases. >> late last month the white house and u.s. automakers agreed on a requirement that would raise the fuel and economy standards to 54.4 approximate miles a gallon by 2025. we talked sfw on "washington journal" with the bureau chief for the "detroit news." al" continues. host: we are talking about the

standards. why is this such a historic big deal? guest: it would change and reduce the amount of gasoline we use. it should reduce about 1.7 billion gabarrels of oil. dramatically increase in fuel efficiency, that idea has been pushed by the president. 341 mpg by 2012-2016. -- 34.1 mpg by 2012. host: how are we going to get there? guest: 3 more hybrids, fuel-

efficient engines, turbocharging -- through more hybrids, fuel-efficient engines, turbocharging, making electric vehicles, especially pickup trucks and suvs. most electric vehicles on the road today are cars such a n as leaf or the chevy volt. 54.5 is not what people are going to get in real life driving. it isbout 25% less. the epa says 54.5 really means 39 mpg in real driving.

-- real world driving. numb, it.5 54 the. will cost a lot more money. it could be $30 billion a year. what people will say it will far exceed the higher prices. host: we want to hear from you if you have questions or comments about the new vehicle fuel efficiency standards. democrats: (202) 624-1111 republicans: (202) 624-1115 independents: (202) 624-0760 outside u.s.: (202) 737-2579

david, this is released that to the white hou send out, regarding the amount of fuel we are talking about. the fuel u.s. consumption is about 6 9 billion barrels of a fuel. the trucks make up about 45% of the fuel we are talking about. are there estimates about how much reduction this will bring the ta? guest: the estimated at 1.7 billion barrels of oil will be saved through this program. they are trying to make cheaper to drive. will it encourageeople to drive more miles. $2 trillion miles per year. that number has been pretty flat

the last couple of years, because of the ecomy. these estimates are predicated on the price of oil, which ia large determinant of how much people drive. and gas prices are so much higher and taxes are higher on fuel. and they are reluctant to raise gas taxes. host: baba, a democratic line, texas. -- bob, democratic line, texas. we will move to the republican line from shreveport. caller:this is bob. how come germany has already

gotten the soars that are getting 54 miles to the gallon, and we have to wait 20 years to t here. that is ridiculous. there is no reason why if they have the tecology, they can put it to work and put that in the united states and get us off of the european thing. they are trying to prolong and protect the oil companies. guest: a very go question. the reason why it is more prevalent in europe is the tax policy. the gasoline tax is much higher than diesel. however, german companies operating in the u.s., volkswagen, up to 30% of their models in the u.s. are diesel. jetta, passat, a number of

diesel vehicles. mercedes and bmw -- american companies are also looking at diesel.u host: how was it made on this deal at the end of last month? there was a lot of back-and- forth and criticism about what happened during closed doors. you followed it very closely. when did that process began? was that after the 2009 deal was announced? guest: that has to get finalized and will take another six months to get finalized. about one month ago, later --

june, early july, the first proposal was made -- saying we are considering 56.2 mpg, an increase per year b5%. that was about a month of talks. california is involved in the talks, because they have the legal authority to impose its own statewide standards. the clean air act, they were grandfatherein. a number of different regulations. they sought a waiver from the bush should ministration to have their own standards. the obama administration reversed that. as part of the deal in 2009, california agreed not to seek its own. host: the concern was that

statesould make their own regulations across the country. guest: you would have to manage each fleet of numbers. you'd have to sell enough fuel- efficient hicles to oset your larger as dvds. it would be much more difficult -- suv's. they worried that it would create a patchwork of standards and would lead to not being able sell certain vehicles in certain states, if you have not met the numbers. this is about the national program that would be easier for the auto company. that was late june, early july. top officials from the auto companies, people like ron blown, the white house autos are, -- it culminated in an

announcement the president in late july said they had reached a deal. host: tell us about what the standards will do. guest: the biggest issue came down to trust. the telling capacity, and boost the efficiency of those vehicles will cost more money. the administration agreed to a concession that the first four years of the program, the light trucks will face 3.5% increases per year the versus 5%. they will also get additional credit incentives to meet those numbers. then they would have a midterm review, to make sure in the

final years, they would meet the 5% number. making sure americans buy the cars and trucks to meet those standards. host: could california walk away from this? guest: probably not. as long as epa admits, basis the decision on whether to continue the program the same way. california should remain at the table. they would have the right to sue -- and national program for decades. it is probably unlikely -- depending on how the review those. host: we have a few people

waiting toalk to you, kevin from louisiana. caller: i come from another side. i work for an american domestic automaker. host: what plant do yowork for? caller: shreveport, and general motors. we used to build the homummer. the condition of the bailout i that we stop build h in ing the hummer. so some of us are out of a job. now if they raise their mpg and will use less fuel -- not true.

when car makers increased their miles per gallon, and gave people an incentive to drive more, move to the suburbs, where you travel 20 miles to get to work, because you can afford it. we are not going to use less fuel. all we have done is make it hard for someone like general motors -- even after the bailout, it is contingent on an increase in sales in a trust. you are putting us out of work by adding costs. that is all you're doing. guest: these regulations can be very expensive. if you make it cheaper to drive and increase fuel efficiency, people wildrive more. we do not know how much. they will not drive 60 miles per

week. you will make some trips that you wod not make if the prices were higher. i am not supporting or opposing the regulations, i am just trying to lay out what they are. host: last week, the obama administration released a differentet for trucks. explain that and what we heard about that the debate going on at the end of july. guest: in 2007, congress passed an energy bill. medium and heavy-duty trucks, such as semis, trailers, garber -- garbage trucks, most vehicles over 8,500 pounds -- this is the first time they have not been regulated 4 mpg. under the new rills -- rules

starting 2014, they have to improve their efficiency by 20%. the administration said it will save about $50 billion over that period. some of this tck owners will save $73,000 session fuel over the lifetime of the vehicle. a small increase can reduce fuel dramatically. host: so over the lifetime o the vehicle, we are talking big numbers. what will be the cost for the auto industry? americans for ta reform put out the light duty and the patrick standard came out.

$5,700 to $6,700 per vehicle? does anyone know the actual cost? guest: there have been studies that it would be around $2,100? $2,500, and that is too low. no one knows exactly where it is. we know the 2012 standards will cost the industry about $50.5 billion. there is nothing free. one of the unintended consequences is how do we fix our roads through gas taxes? host: in the estimates on that? guest: $60 billion in tax revenue that can be lost. there have been some proposals,

especially looking at electric vehicles. host: we are talking with david at detroit news. shepards john, independent line, san diego, california. caller: thanks for c-span. david, i realize you are from detroit. you worked in the motor industry, which obama saved. a previous caller said the same thing. you remember when we went through this whole scenario back in the 1970's. it is not 54.5.

it is 39. you never see that in the media. the media will say obama -- this will not save any gas. you are telling the real facts. it did not work in the 1970's. by the 1990's, they will have to lower it. i cannot remember it. they kept up the mileage per gallon. and then it all went away. if you want to put a general motors car on the market, no one is telling us -- no one can afford a $50,0 car.

it is so easy to save money 20 years ago. they cannot afford that. my sister wants to buy a new car. she has always bought a subaru. it is still showing 80 miles per gallon. she said -- 18 miles per gallon. i asked -- she is going to buy the subaru until it stutters. if they are really serious, they should have subaru get their cars out of there. guest: the big issue facing hybrids and the electric vehicles is the cost. the nissan leaf starts at

$32,700. they are very expensive vehicles. when people go to the showrooms and are debating whether or not to buy it and see a traditionally powered vehicle, still very fuel-efficient, many are getting 40 miles per gallon -- a lot of customers to go with their pocketbooks. americans wl go across the street to buy a hamburger that is 10 cents cheaper. it is difficult to get people to buy these vehicles given the cost. host: here is a tweet. how did they come to that number? during the debate, there were original proposals in the '60s.

how did the meet in the middle of this? guest: there is nothing magical about 54.5. 5%, 66.2. 54.5 was going t 3.5% for the first five-year period. we will not know exactly how they came up with the numbers until we see the regulations. in september, we will have thousands of pages of material to pour through. why not 55 or 53? there are some many functions. they are guided a by the fact of the maximum speed per year, taking into account factors such as jobs.

host: let's listen to something president obama said in michigan. we will come back and get a few more colors. >> we are investing in clean energy. that is why i brought together the world's largest auto companies, who agreed for the first time to nearly double the distance their cars can go on a gallon of gas. [applause] that is going to save customers thousands of dollars at the pump. it will cut our dependence on foreign oil. it will promote innovation and jobs. it will help companies such as johnson controls. that is how america will lead the world in automotive innovation. we did not go through congress

to get this done. host: how does congress feel about the standard announced with the white house? guest: 2007, congress made is legal to increas fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars. they gave the administration authority in 2007 to do that. i think one reason it happened is because of california. the auto industry has a huge incentive to make a deal to get national certainty that they would face one set of standards. california is not in the mix. this deal came about for a number of different reasons. you cannot say it happened just because of a of an industry and the government working together.

everybody had incentives to reach that the deal. host: one person the same the upset was the congressman from california. he has launched a formal investigation into how the standards were come up with. i will -- a little bit from his letter he said i am concerned about the lack of transparency, the failure to conduct an open enrollment process, and increases on consumers. this agreement is out of the authority agreement. does he have a case here? guest: this is not the traditional way regulations get made. they will go through a formal process. the public will have months to comment after public hearings. traditionally, the way

regulations are done is administration proposes a rule, they find out the same day as everyone else, they fil comment, and fight it out. [unintelligible] they have set a number at 54.5. if they did not reach something similar to that in the final rule, they would have the right to back out of this deal. you can raise the question, why is the process only around closed doors? the administraon will argue th they pay the billions of dollars to meet these new targets. this is the best way to get everybody to agree. if they did not do something like this, california could go on their own. i think they would argue there are a lot of good reasons to

make a deal like is behind closed doors. if you do not do this, you could face years of litigation. host: dennis, a democratic a line from davie, florida. caller: i have a comment and then a question. if president obama was able to circumnavigate the congress on those mileage standards, maybe he can do the same thing for a jobs bill. that may get a more effective bill. puttingt we talk about governors on engines? we need to change lifestyles. we could control the amount of fuel used, where they go, how fast they drive.

host: i did not mean to cut you off, just wanted to get a response. guest: theigher you speed, especially going above 55 or 65 miles per hour, dramatically increases the amount of fuel you use in your car and is the least efficient. congress and administration could agree to put governors on vehicles, but when people slowdown, that is what 55 miles per hour became the national law in the energy crisis in the 1970's. that would go a long way to reducing fuel use. host: republican line, minnesota. caller: this is the final blow to our economy. it is a radical idea by obama to ruin our economy. why does general motors only

sell when hundred 20 bvolts last month? where can i buy a natural gas vehicle? guest: on natural gas, currently only honda is building a vehicle for consumer use, but other vehicles -- companies are considering bringing more vehicles to the u.s. market. the volt, the reason gm sold very field last month was they ok the plant down for a month retool. but still sell -- plan to sell between 15 and 20,000 worldwide. host: there is anrticle on

hydrogen cars and stealing. how much does that enter the market as a right now? guest: it isomething that has been talked about for years. toyota and honda are big on hydrogen vehicles. toyota wants to sell hydrogen vehicles by 2015. gm has also spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching. the problems have been one, the expense. the initial vehicles cost two miion dollars, and then second is the infrastructure. we have about 180,000 gasoline stations, and very few hydrogen fueling stations. st: andy on the independent line from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning.

i hear this talk aboutetter fuel economy, yet i see them put ethanol in gasoline, which cuts down still mileage. they talk about raising it. they should stop putting ethanol in gasoline. go back to using regular gasoline. the electric cars -- we do not have enough power to run air conditioning in big cities, and now they want to put more strain on our energy by running the electric cars? it does not make sense. we have to solve the energy problem before you start making these cars. host: can you start with where we are on ethanol? guest: the caller is absolutely right. ethanol is about 25% less energy intensive than gasoline. a more ethanol, the less miles

per gallon. congress, as a part of the 2007 energy act, required a huge increase to the amount of ethanol the americans will use. so, at this point, almost all fuel, more than 80% is now 10% ethanol. the epa has approved this for new vehicles. still is not been sold yet. there are still technical issues the need to be resolved. e15 could be sold. it is not above mpg. it is about policy from oil to buy and corn.

host: let's go to james, on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to make a statement. our government and auto companies lie so much about gas mileage. we have technology to get 35 miles on virtually every vehicle, and all it would take is one model change. ethanol, why do they not is sunflower oil? all you have to do it is filter it, and it produces twice as much per acre. it is all of all lobbyists. thank you. host: geese think we can go higher, james? -- do you think we can go higher, james? caller: the problem is we have

the standard to get 30 miles a gallon on virtually every four- wheeled vehicle. host: you do not think it will take until 2025 to get that high? caller: we have the technology. it is the lobbyists control in the gas companies and politicians. host: do we have the technology? guest: we have technology, but it is expensive. turbo-charged engines, lighter- weight materials, there are ways to improve fuel efficiency. you hear this suggestion that the auto companies are not improving fuel efficiency because of oil companies. the oil industry is one of the most profitable industries consistently. the auto industry is a boom/bust industry with sales going up and down based on the

economy. there is no evidence the auto companies are keeping back technology to aid the oil industry. frankly, fuel efficiency has grown dramatically on consumer preference lists. look at the advertisements touting the vehicles or 40 miles per gallon. they certainly could raise the fuel efficiency far more than it is currently, but they would ha a much more expensive vehicle. host: one of your colleagues in "detroit news" wrote about some of thehings we will see to get to the standard. what will we see coming down the line? guest: there is our role -- rule that encompasses credits that are not captured by the active

standard like active grill standards or solar chargers for your battery which would reduce your overall co2. host: actually putting solar panels on your car? guest: right. turbo-charged engines. there is a number of -- light- weight material. there's a lot of technology that will not change the way your car looks. host: and the government is funding some of the research, correct? guest: right. it is funding of about $175 million over five years. the government funds all lot of research, helping to prod auto companies to build efficient

vehicles, giving loans to tes la, ford, nissan. the lea in builds t the united states as a result. host: harvey, virginia. do you have a question? caller: my statement and concern is that as they increase the cafe standar on cars it reduces the amount of gasoline neceary, therefore the fuel companies, who provide the gasoline, if their market opped in half, they would have to increase the value -- you

know, they would have to charge more for gasoline to stay in business. this thing about ethanol, and methanol, he'll hear about energy you hear us about cellulose ethanol. in brazil they have been running cars on methanol for 25 years. let's get real. host: let's give david a chance to respond. guest: the government has put a lot of money into research. a lot of companies are working to produce ethanol from switch grass, corn stalks, waste material, woodyulp, b the caller is right. very little has been used for commercial use. the government wants refineries

up and running over the next couplef years. part of the 2007 energy law requires 35 million gallons per year of ethanol use and most of that is a chlenge given that there is not really any commercially-rival been produced yet. host: pscilla, and the republican line from minnesota. -- on the republican linerom minnesa. caller: i have a comment. all of this talk is high in the sky. we will never get there. i have lived in many decades, let's put it, and we have had goals of 38 miles per gallon. 54 is pie in the sky.

i wish obama would understand we have a republic, not a kingdom. host: thank you. sam, go ahead. caller i have a friend that gets 30 -- host: did i se you? go ahead. caller: he has a model ford that gets 42 miles a gallon, dves it all summer lon on two tanks of gas. host: he is going in and out there. guest: the point the caller makes is one you heard during the cafe standards debate. the model t had 35 miles per gallon. those cars have no safety

equipment, no air bags, were extremely light weight, and would not pass modern american safety standards or crash tests. the echoes have got much heavier. it is -- the vehicles have got much heavier. you are carrying around more weight. host: were you talking about technology to lower the way? guest: high-strength materials. some of the money the administration announced it is to go toward research for this high-strength of aluminum or steel, getting the same safety benefits, but a much less heavy vehicle. host: will, and the independent line -- on the independent line. from tennessee. caller: i appreciate c-span.

unfortunately, our government is not ing his job and most american citizens are really disgusted. the gentleman you have on today is anoth bureaucrat getting ready to fit his pockets -- filled his pockets. if you get down hit -- fill his pockets. if you get down to facts, this government, if they get scientists on board, thecould do away with a lot of this crippling the economy, and p america back on the front of all of the other nations. simply looking to technology, which so of us can provide --

i am a retired schoolteacher, can tell you there is technology that wouldut as 100 years ahead. host: what is the technology? caller: you could tell apart human beings. host: we will keep it to fuel efficiency standards right now. in the one minute we have left, i want to get to what you will be watching when congress comes back after their recess? gut: we will be looking for the rule coming out at the end of september. yes, it will be expensive, but one thing the administration wants to do is say to people we will reduce the cost of driving. you do not le gas prices. we know there is nothing we can short-term, but long-term,

you will get more miles per gallon, and you'll see the president talking about this issueecauset is a big issue for americans.

>> this is a month-long training on the practical skills needed to bring violent conflict to an end. we actually have some of the alumni in the room tonight.

they have lanyards like this around their neck and a fee of a question, you can ask them and we have a table with some materials. this is the second out come of the association between the two and it is the first of what will be 3 yearly panel discussions on issues we believe are pertinent to the time. i think we can all agree that 2011 has been your defined by tremendous social upheaval across the globe. some of the upheaval has been successful in its aims and some have had tragic consequences for those involved. some has been extremely violent and some have come to a close with little or no bloodshed. from tunisia to thailand, and egypt to chile, syria to yemen, it from london to wisconsin, people are struggling to change the system that governs their lives. we of four experts with a deep knowledge in non-violent action

and they will grapple with the topic why here, not there? why did nonviolent action successfully take root and sprig transformation in some places and not others. you have the speakers biographies in front of you and you can also find them online. i know that most of these speakers don't need an introduction, but i will do it away. jack duvall as the president of the international center and non-violent conflict and a well- known producer and author. i know some of you grab copies of his book. they disappeared quickly. he's one of this -- it is one of the cornerstone tasks -- text on strategic nonviolence. his documentary, there are also some copies out there, narrated by ben kingsley, outlines non- violent conflict around the world and has been translated into 10 languages and viewed in

over 80 countries. dr. cynthia irmer is from the department of state and leads interagency teams from the u.s. government to prevent violent conflict, mitigate its effects, and transform society's afterpiece is assigned. she has worked all over the world with significant time spent in southeast favorite -- southeast asia and africa. third, the senior association for the andes, she's a leading expert on internally displaced persons, refugees and human rights. she has fought tirelessly for the rights of over 4 million internally displaced persons in colombia and afro colombians and indigenous communities. she worked on the brink -- and the brookings institution project on internal displacement. last but not least, the professor emeritus from the

johns hopkins university school of events international studies and the founder of the conflict management department here. he's one of the most influential and well-respected academics in the world in the field of conflict management and invented much of the vernacular used in classrooms and on the ground by pretty much everyone else. we can thank him for concept that government how the world thinks about approaching conflict situations. he also happens to be the charm of the board of the international peace and security institute, which is why i made him come today. each speaker will have 10 to 15 minutes to give their opinions on the stated topic. we will hold questions until the end and we will do a 30 minute question and answer session. with that, i will go to jack and start the panel. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here and to see everyone here and enthusiastic about the subject.

some of us in this field endeavor intellectually and the practitioners around the world had to beg and besieged audiences to gather and hear a little bit about this subject 10 years ago. the time of the relevance of this has never been more acute than it is now. what i would like to do in my remarks is to set table for the discussion by surveying what has happened historically with respect to the use of nonviolent resistance in the use of social change and then define what we believe to be the inherent dynamic in what impulse movements and campaigns when they are successful. then to give you a rundown on the lesser-known struggles occurring today that are not as conspicuous and in fact to some

extent less conspicuous in the last several months because of the general media attention because of the arab spring. the success of non-violent resistance of the way to struggle for rights, freedom and justice is quite stunning when you look at it from the level of orbit, if you will. within the last 100 years, there have been dozens of successful movements. all of us know about the ones that are usually mentioned in the first few minutes of a media report about this, but just to survey that again for you, the indian independence struggle lead in the 1920's and 30's principally by gondi. -- principally by ghandi.

then, the 30-year long, really 40-year-long entirely non- violent struggle of african- americans under the leadership of eventually dr. martin luther king jr. in the united states. in the 1970's, an extraordinary struggle unfolded in argentina launched by the famous mothers of the disappeared in buenos aires and against the military junta in argentina and the scale of the oppression which began a series of events that led to the disillusionment of that regime. the movement against the dictatorship of augusto pena shea in a chalet which resulted in him having to step down as president, a long-running movement in eastern europe and the former soviet union against one-party authoritarian perhaps

represented by the solidarity movement in poland, the people power revolution by filipinos to detach ferdinand marcos from power in 1986. the bell that revolution in czechoslovakia which should be mentioned if for no other reason that its leader was one of the century's greatest terrorist of the internal dynamic involved in success should -- successor -- successful nonviolent struggles. the notable and different and not well explored nonviolent transition for majoritarianism to democracy in mongolia. in 1989 and 1990. the non-gallon transition to democracy in the african country of mali in 1991. the non-violent resistance to the attempted coup against gorbachev and yeltsin in 1991. the long-running struggle which was also successful about that

time to accomplish a regime change in south africa, the anti-apartheid struggle led by the african national congress and the national democratic front in that country. then, the so-called color revolutions in serbia, georgia and ukraine, each much different from the other but all of which ended up in a transition to a more democratic state that existed before. the orange revolution in ukraine which was a defense of an election more than it was a fully nation jets -- nation- changing democratic movement. there are lots of ways of selling these up. one was done in a study by freedom house which noted in the 35 years between 1970 and 2005, there were a total of 67 transition's around a world of all kinds from authoritarian to

democratic systems. in 50 of those 67 transitions, the pivotal force, the propellant was some sort of non- violent coalition. some sort of civic group of those engaging in protest strikes and demonstrations to be the instigator initially of the transition. not all of the transitions were revolutionary. revolution is a word that is way over used with respect to these kinds of transitions. but without that factor, there was always some sort of non- violent force. in a larger historical study finished just a few weeks ago, it is still going on, but a cut was made in the book was published this year called "why civil resistance works'" that evaluated the 323 non-violence

and violent insurrectionary campaigns and movements between 1900 and 2006. the headline finding was that violent campaigns could be said to have been successful in some important phase of their operation in about 26% of violent cases. nonviolent campaigns or movements could be said to have been successful in about 53% of the non-replicase is. this is not -- non-violence cases. this is why there is so much coverage in the first five minutes from any cable broadcast company in the world and it's not the best filter on objective fact about what is going on. it's not that they want to distort the truth of what is happening. they don't see it in many cases even when it is happening. work from a historical

point of view and from a attention-acquiring perspective was seminal but it was all so he was a master strategist of non- violent conflict. he sequenced and innovated in the use of non-violent tactics to put strategic pressure on his opponent. his work prompted an american scholar to identify hundreds of different kinds of non-violent attack -- non-violent tactics and group them into three categories -- protest of persuasion like petition the marches and walkouts, tactics of non-cooperation -- we actively withdraw our consent from the state or the oppressor through boycotts, strikes and civil disobedience and raise the cost of repression and holding control, and tactics of direct physical intervention to impose a greater economic cost on the oppressor. the dynamic of the use of non-

violent or civil resistance can be reduced to this -- when people acting together in large, organized groups using these various kinds of tactics in a sequence way advertise to the rest of the country that they are depriving that oppressor of their consent, they say we do not believe you have legitimacy in calling the shots in this society because of what you're doing and then they list their grievances and what's wrong with the country. that discourse and the active withdrawal of consent reduces the perceived legitimacy of the existing system. that is a weakening of the concept, the idea behind the hold on control that the system has. when enough people participate in this withdrawal of cooperation, that physically and

socially and economically increases the cost of holding control. police have to work overtime, soldiers have to go to different parts of the country to confront demonstrators, cost to be borne by a system which has resorted to that kind of oppression in order to hold control. this is not simply beseeching get oppressor to stand down, -- be seeking an oppressor to stand out, it's putting pressure on the system that those defending in enforcing it have doubts about whether it is sustainable. most of them are not tethered ideologically to the oppressive system. they are only working for the system. they are taking a paycheck and they have to then began to think, if this group is not going to be in power in five or 10 years, where does that leave me? once this question pervades the structure of the state or oppressive system, not only do you have hard this will cost

being paid and legitimacy being challenged, by what appears to be a campaign or movement, even a challenge to an authoritarian ruler, but even the expectations of what the future will be begins to change. the ability of that state or system to freeze people in a system that holds control begins to be challenged. the movements in the campaign's going on today are not simply anti-authoritarian struggles. they are important struggles going on against occupation and for autonomy and independence. they're increasingly for social justice that take the political form of social justice against political reform. perhaps it is because it is paid to stay at of the action. there are a protracted struggles which continue. some have made real progress in

the last decade in palestine, burma and tibet and zimbabwe. they are overlooked today by the media. in vietnam, a pro-democratic struggle in western sahara, a great deal is going on. in ethiopia and azerbaijani. in fiji, a struggle against a military coup. in kashmir. there are countries in which there is a great deal of aggregated resistance among the number of different issues which cumulatively represents a challenge to the system. in iran, china, india, brazil, nigeria, russia and even a initial signs of this in saudi arabia. there are brand new movements like the one against systemic violence in mexico which is a movement against political corruption within the state itself. there are a number of others i have not mentioned. but all of these effectively

meet a few criteria of whether they are a movement. political change is being advocated and also being resisted by a ruling elite or group of some kind which wants to hold society in its existing state and accommodating this force for change. there are self-organized coalition or groups and campaigns with people campaigning around clusters of issues or for systemic change. in the course of events that these movements are the protagonist for, you see catalytic events that involve either some outrageous manifestation of behavior on behalf of the regime to which people who have not been involved in the campaign decide now is the moment, this is why there has to be action, which is what happened in tunisia which was followed by egypt, which opened up, took the lid off the enormous political and social discontent in the arab world. i hope i have drawn the

landscape for you of what we have seen historically, what is we're looking at systemically, and where it's happening around the world. alonguess we're moving and i am next. i'm going to get a slightly different perspective on this question, answering this question, for the reason that my background is not non-violent conflict. non-violent conflict, engaging in non-violent conflict. i'm honored to be with the panel have perjured presentation and always honored to be on the panel with bill and my colleague on my right. thank you for being here and allowing me to be here and to present to you. i work for the united states government.

i'm in the state department. that will tell you a little bit about my perspective right there. let me also add quickly that everything you will hear coming out of my mouth this afternoon is the view, the thought, the opinion of me and not necessarily the pot, perspective or view of the united states government. don't hold them to it, hold me to it. as i thought about the question why here and not there, it occurred to me that by best and most truthful response to you is that i do not know. i'm not sure any of us knows. i won't speak for all of the rest of everyone, but not sure that we know. i can speak from the perspective of conflict resolution, the peace studies field and say part

of the reason we do not know the why from that perspective is that we are instead most of them looking at the mechanism of how conflict becomes violent. we actually have, a good understanding, some systematic and regularized thinking. good thinking on that mechanism. some of those things that you are familiar with include the basic human need, grievances of identity groups, key actors, the things that motivate them and the ways they have to organize or mobilize people around their grievances. these are the kinds of things that help us understand how a situation can become violent. it occurs to me that if we want to get to understanding why, we

may have to ask ourselves of different kinds of questions. we may have to shift your refocus our looking. we needed different world view. i think i can safely say that to this room of people. you cannot safely say that to any room of people, trust me. we may need to do that. we may need to say if we're going to look at key actors, maybe in addition, if not instead of looking at political, state, and non-state actors that are at a very high level, if not only looking at actors to have enormous resources, and can get into the news media every day, we may need to look at key actors to look more like wise people. or sages.

or community activists. people we might not always be looking for. we may be looking at a different scale of analysis. in addition to looking at the state level of conflict, we may need to start looking at conflict at the community level. that may sound overwhelming or like something we cannot do. but there is no way we can understand why violence if we don't understand community. if we don't have a sense of why people who are living in the violent condition or in a passive non-violent position, if we don't understand what community means to them in their words, not in our projection onto them of what we think of as community, but what it means to

them and their work, how community coalesces. how do people come together? what do they come together around and why? questions that help us understand that are of the at most important and we want to understand why non-violence. also, how communities vivify. how do they get energized? they coalesce, but what gives them live? what gives them the ability to move through space and time and stand up together and resist when that is what they do? we need to understand that. i don't even have the beginnings of understanding that except to say i think it's critically important that we understand it. in addition to that, how communities manifest. what do we see?

again, not only in our discussion, not only standing back saying corrupt, rebel, but instead going and listening to the people who are looking at and saying what do you say? how does a community forum here? they may not have even thought of it, but we still get good answers if we ask those kinds of questions and get them thinking about it rather than us speculating about it. it moves us one step further away from reality when we speculate. it moves us closer to reality when we asked. let somebody struggle with an answer and listened to their answer in their words and don't talk -- don't try to translate it into our words. finally, manifest. how do communities manifest?

do they coalesce? they vivify, they take life and what do they show up as? do they show up as a peaceful resistance? do they show up as people angry with guns and bombs who will destroy things because they feel on her door and acknowledge? these are things we need to find out and always from the perspective of the people we're looking at. it would be very helpful to take a mirror and hold up and say how does community coalesce, vivify and manifest in the state department in the united states of america? those kinds of questions would be useful because it gives us more information about what our world view is and how it might be filtering the information coming in. the thing about this -- it

sounds a lot, but in truth, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. if we want to begin this sort of inquiry into community and understanding why violence or wide non-violence, we can take a few pages out of the lesson books of other movements, other activities, other events that already occurred. some of these things are known to us as civil organizing, a civic organizing, our very own president of the united states wrote a book about this. there are lessons in how they go about doing this and what they understand that what connections need to be made that we would do well to understand why violence or why not violence? there's a big body of work and effort called public participation. don't know how many of you are familiar with that.

many years, two decades of work, working with the public, getting them to engage and be part of decision making that affects their lives, this can help us understand that. a third one that would be useful to look into, the approach used and the underlying philosophy is community mediation. mediation done on a community level for community purposes. a lot of things that already exist so we don't have to start over from the zero. thank you. i would like to end of a high note and this is as high as i get. my high note is that this is my opinion, not the opinion of the united states government, that the president of the united states is in fact very much aligned with this kind of thinking. this is a very good thing and a

good sign for those of us who work in the u.s. government. it's part of what helps me get up every morning and go to work with a smile on my face and energy in my bones. not only the president, but the secretary of state. the secretary of state, i don't know how many of you follow the things she does, but from my perspective as a government employee, when she issued at the quadrennial policy and development review, she said conflict prevention is a core capacity of this state department. wow. that's huge. knowing that this is already resident in those leaders of hours, the level of the president and the secretary of state, it is very empowering.

also, one smaller bit is the office i currently work for, the coordinator for stabilization and reconstruction -- stabilization reconstruction -- it's actually going away and there will be a new bureau. it is my sincere desire as a government employee that many of the things we are already doing in this bureau and in this office right now will show up in this new bureau. some say like the tool ec out there -- we have already used it around the world in several embassies -- going out and listening to people, analyzing natalie conflict but social, local and indigenous resilience and strength. what's already strong and working right here and how can we see that growing up in a way

that may be u.s. foreign support -- for a system supports it. maybe this support comes from the u.s. but it's grounded in local and indigenous strength and resilience. thank you very much. >> i would like to begin by thanking the organizers for inviting me to this very special event. everything seems very small dmitry that's what happens when you come back after 12 years. i would like to talk about non- violence, what are known as resistance communities in colombia. all of the know that colombia has spent embroiled in a horrible and protracted conflict since 1964 and it has had a great cost in terms of human- rights violations. it has led to the displacement of over 5 million persons,

mostly rural peasant communities. many of them are afro descendant, and didn't -- indigenous communities. when you look at the paper in the u.s. and read about columbia, you all fed -- often you're out violent groups, drug- traffickers, you hear about the military taking over some area or another, you hear about guerrilla groups and the horrible actions they commit against civilians. what you do not hear about, which is rather unfortunate is the real courageous colombians who are out in these areas where the conflict is taking place who are trying to figure at a way out of the conflict, first for their own benefit, to be able to feed themselves and do their daily lives, but also they see the military solution and

violent solution to the conflict is not working and has not worked. in terms of these non-violent movements, there are several different categories. one of them is the piece communities. the peace community concept is basically an idea that came about in the mid 1990's when internally displaced persons returning to their homes decided they were going to designate a certain area where they were going to live and demarcate that area with signs and other offenses and put big posters up stating that in that area, only civilians could be present. all of the armed groups, whether official or unofficial could not be in that space. all of the members of the community would pledge and the oath to not deal with the armed groups and not carry arms and

munitions and not engage the armed groups when they had a conflict between themselves. the idea was to designate a whole area where the population could live in peace and about its business. since many of these communities were developed in areas where people were lightly surrounded by the illegal armed groups which meant their livelihoods were often at stake because they could not travel from one place to another because of the restriction of movements, they develop a community project which involves self sustainment in that land, so rotating, working together to make sure the community has what it needs to feed itself and remain in that space during times of blockades and so forth. the most well-known piece community in colombia is

located in a region in the northwestern part of columbia and that has been the web -- that has been the most well- known community, but it is not the only one. another form of a civilian resistance initiated by internally displaced persons who decided to go back to areas where the conflict was still taking place are the humanitarian zones and a biodiversity zones which we have seen in different parts of colombia apply international humanitarian law on the ground. they take the geneva conventions and principles of civilians not being engaged or forced to be engaged by armed groups in the conflict and make it a reality. also designating a certain area where they live and work, but

they do not go as far as the peace community in terms of making sure all their needs are met within that zone. another form of community resistance that has been a more utilize the zone in areas where there is a high rate of narco trafficking is what are known as in colombia, in the south area of the pacific whereby afro colombians have decided that the problem for us is not just the internal armed conflict but the fact that these groups come in and force us to grow coca and once that happens, they bring in their way of life and recruit people and basically, when they get mad, they kill our people, so we have to get rid of it.

what you have seen is that rural farmers come together and have eradicated the coke up themselves. by doing it in numbers and eradicating it, it makes it difficult for the guerrillas to just kill all of them because it makes them look really awful. it pressures the guerrillas into accepting that these communities do not want to the part of the drug trade. those are some of the examples. what we see most recently, and this happened in the past 10 days, is some of these movements are joining together and you have seen peace resistance movements with the afro colombian movement joining together to figure out a way forward in terms of the internal conflict and going on beyond

their localized situation to see how they can spur a movement that promotes peace in the country. since the topic of this evening is why, i was trying to think of why these non-violent resistance movement said one thing i can say they all have in common is they all agreed the military solution is not working and you need to find another way. they are also very much commentary on the political and social elites in the country, saying they are not solving the problem. since there is such a high level of corruption, corruption linked to illegal armed groups like the paramilitaries and others, they have decided that as our rural farmers and the more marginalized community, they were going to take this on themselves. another reason these movements continue to gain ground is

because there is a practical need for these people to find a way to live among the armed people and have basic security for themselves. 5 million colombians have been displaced. most are displaced three or four times because even within the country, they cannot find an area of refuge because they are often stigmatize or seen as suspicious because they come from a certain region or face tremendous discrimination. this is a practical solution. they are at high risk of becoming victims. also key to these movements is the idea that justice is a big part of peace promotion. in the case of the peace community, they have documented over 180 human-rights abuses

committed against them during the time they were formed until now. they also been able to unfortunately documents and get a trial moving on some of the massacres that have taken place, but not very far. what you see among these different movements is that combating impunity and pushing for justice and human rights all go hand in hand in constructing a political climate that would lead to peace. have these movements been a success? it depends on how you look at it. on one hand, you can say it is not a success. you have had multiple bailed peace efforts which are very localized solutions of conflict resolution and mediation with a group. it has not worked or, you can look at it as the fact that of

all the communities we are talking about, the ones that have been able to prevent further displacement and have a certain level of security have been these groups. so they have established a localized peace effort for them. it is also kept columbia in the spotlight in terms of that there is an internal conflict taking place. it has helped generate international solidarity that raises the problems that are the root conflict. what shall we say about? one of the reasons it has not transformed in terms of these movements from delocalized peace movements to the broader movement has been a failure of the international community. it has been a failure of the

international community the siding that a president that was looked on a platform of a military solution and taking a very hard-hitting approach to civilians around the country in order to gain military ground is something the international community has accepted as a given. and not decided they want to push for support in other ways of resolving the conflict. it is also exposed a lack of political will on the part of all the armed groups and parties to the conflict in terms of caring about seeing if they could move forward for peace because in many cases, especially in the case of the guerrilla groups being so truck -- so tied to the drug trade, their self sustaining movements are able to keep themselves going without their usual

conflict resolution mechanism by which you get to the point where, due to attrition, he have to initiate something. if there is any thing i would say about these movements is that the people who are involved are incredibly courageous and costs them a lot in terms of death and so forth to keep going. there is tremendous hope in these movements that there is another way forward in colombia. in closing, i would say that it is very important for practitioners of conflict management, policy makers and others, to learn more about these movements and see how they can support them and find a way to transform what is a localized, a practical solution to something that leads to an end to the conflict. >> i am here to talk about the

arab spring, maybe the arab summer, maybe the arab autumn, if not the arab fall. that's what brought us here and that what brings up the subject. i would like to go back to the beginning of this event to try to understand what happened and why and then look at some characteristics of the men see why not and then where else. to begin with, it is important to recognize that what has been going on is an exhilarating event. it is a spontaneous, widespread, secular protest against a repressive state. it is first of all important to recognize this is a protest against a state that is arrogant, nonparticipants tory, doesn't care about its people. you know about the tunisian incident. it embodies that nature of the

protest and is a good symbol of it. the economists and other people will tell you that everything is economics, i'm a political scientist, so i will tell you everything is political. part of the uncaring as of the state is that it did not provide jobs for a large number of young people. let's put that in perspective. that's a supporting element for what i describe as a protest against the legitimacy of the state. it is not the leading element. we have here conditions that we might call and the world bank might call prone mess. characteristics we find in the states that have undergone a rebellion from an uprising and intifada in the era spring. conditionsnd those

everywhere else throughout the arab world. probably more specifically throughout the arab world than through much of the african world or other places beyond my knowledge. places in that general area of the world. there are two other specific characteristics that help us sort those out. first of all, in all places except one, we had a revolt against an aging leader who was about to disappear and the house and did not have accepted successor. excepted is important because as we know in the case of jose mubarak, he was grooming his son. as intelligent as the sun is coming was not accepted by the population. in all other cases except for

syria, we have someone who is going to go anyhow. that added to their right thus, to be prone ness of the situation which led to the intifada. the other thing that is important, the turning point in this event is whether the army will fire on its people or not. in the two cases where the change of regime or the overthrow of the old regime was accomplished, the army specifically decided not to fire on its people and indeed were part of in the case of the egyptians were part of the decision for the leader to step down. in yemen, half the army decided not to fire any other have decided to fire, so we have a mixed event. so as we have seen, the army decided to fire on as people. to go back to the point the

first speaker raised, were these peaceful and nonviolent protest? they started out that way. so we have an event that brings up 50% in the statistics we have cited. but when they did not succeed, it then turned violent. not violent with tanks against tanks, but the kind of violence a mob can very effectively use against forces of the government. not effectively against tanks, however. we have that 25% success when it turns a violent because the government is able to mobilize of more violence than the protesters are. that's why we are up in the air. we are kind of dangling and it's much more complicated, but the

outcome is somewhat in doubt in yemen. so where else might this occur or why has it not occurred in some other places? there are two places, perhaps three places that are relevant. one is algeria, which is so full of prone this, that you could cited as a classic case. but it has not happened there. in algeria, the conditions are relevant. on one hand, we have an aging leader who is going to disappear at some point and has no designated heir at all, let alone and accepted one. on the other hand, there is the question of the army. in algeria, you know the army will file -- will fire on its people. that's all it fires on. oft's a chilling aspect

algeria and helps to explain why nothing has happened there. at other part that has to be added to that and the army notion has to be strengthened by the idea that in algeria, they had it 10 years of violence led by extremist islamic groups and army-led retaliations against them and other people who may be suspected of being sympathizers. so the public is tired of taking on the state. but the state is very clever in algeria. when protests arise, and there are protests, manifestations as we call them. not riots, but manifestations. the state always comes in and in that wonderful word that is so effective, it satisfies them.

it buys off elements of the protestors and abate move on. we're very interesting case in algeria with explanations of why things are not taking place. in jordan, we had some serious protests and a strong state hand. and just recently in the last couple days, we had a serious but perhaps not adequate reform movement, constitutional provisions that have been introduced and now have to get through the mechanism of the state, still leaving the team and the forces of control -- probably not repression, but control, very much in hand. the third case is morocco, where one thing that is very important is that you do not

have an old king ready to go, but a king that is of the generation and some are protesting. there have been demonstrations and its striking that none of the protests are asking for a change in the system, but rather greater and accelerated reform and the system has responded with changes in the political arrangements within the state. they were in preparation before the intifada began elsewhere in the world and in morocco. in morocco, the explanation for why it hasn't occurred is that the system is still a legitimate and the people are skeptically or what we're really hopeful. we have said that what people are rising up against is the old

order and they want to put into effect a new order and bring in a new regime. what is like? the striking thing is that nobody knows. the people who were rising up against the old regime had one demand -- maybe expressed in a number of different ways, but focusing on the downfall of the old regime. what is it to be replaced with? we are busy at the moment. we have to get the old regime down and then we will think about what we want to replace it with. that is a big thought to be thinking about. it takes a lot of time. in tunisia, the regime is a bumbling along, trying to deal with elections and sequences of

constitution making and so on and they're making sincere but slow progress. in egypt, we see that there is a force that is present, the army. it does not want to take over. it wants to preserve its skin and privileges and it has to deal with a number of forces from different directions. the process is slow and perhaps less open, less hopeful that in to the ship. people are getting impatient. young people is started the intifada in the first place are saying where is the new regime and where are our jobs? the second demand is utterly unrealistic. you can imagine just thinking about it -- jobs are certainly not going to just appear and particularly not at this time when a regime falls, economics

godown and tourists go away and therefore jobs become scarcer. it is unrealistic to say where is our jobs, but it's a natural demand and people are getting very concerned. a little town in tunisia where it all started, a young group of people said you better get us something quick or you will see it all over again. we should be looking for that. the questions now are where does a ghetto if there is an early or late overthrow of the regime? if we have an early overthrow of the regime, i described the impatience that comes up as people are looking around for the replacement of the old regime and the institution of a new order. we're not sure what will happen if it is a late overthrow of the regime except that we think we

know from past experience that leads to a hardening of the uprising, a hardening of demands and a radicalization of the uprising and a hardening of groups within the uprising rather than cooperation together, even though they are focused on that one demand, the overthrow of the regime. we are standing before a continuation of these events. a continuation of a search for answers to what started out in the first place. do not be misled by what we hear in the papers all lot about subversion of these movements. people say in yemen there is an al qaeda member among the group trying to overthrow the regime. in egypt, there is the brotherhood. everybody will be grabbing, trying to find out where this

opening in politics can be led. the basic demand of the people who started is that it's for an open, accountable, participatory regime. they may not be able to pull off, but the fact that other people are trying to push for it doesn't mean it's lost, it means that it remains and is exhilarating and exciting and a rather open. it will take a long time before it finally works itself out. where else can this happen? the prone mess is not the same in the rest of the continent. the old leader who is ready to go, the army on the fence about firing on its people or not, they are not around in many cases. people have cited the case of uganda, about which i know very

little, but there is a place where we see initial signs and where the intifada may cross the sahara and that is in settle where you have an old leader who wants to run again and he is grooming his son who has zero qualifications except he is the son of his father. where there have already been demonstrations in the streets against the legitimacy of the regime. there, the army is most unlikely to fire on its people. therefore, we have the possibility of a crossing of the sahara. there is another place that comes to mind. that is zimbabwe. it as all been tried their and their reaction we have talked

about when the army will fire willingly on its people is borne out there. there are possibilities out of the sahara. they are limited by the conditions we have seen in the northern part of the continent and in the arab world. but, we might find little pieces of an african fall. [applause] >> i know there are going to be a lot of questions, so we will move immediately into them. a couple of ground rules. please leave it to only one questions. no multi-part questions. if you want to ask a second part after we have gone to everyone, you can ask then. all questions and with a question mark. it's not a comment. that's not a question either --

and try to keep them less than 30 seconds. we're going to try to take to questions or three questions at a time. three questions at a time. we of a couple of people passing the microphone, so just raise your hands and they will come to you. >> first, thank you for an enlightened panel. my question has to do with your views on having, or the need for the value of a unified leader. as a part of a resistance movement. aka ghandi or martin luther king. what value do you think that would have in your experience? thanks. >> thank you again.

i have enjoyed this so much so far. looking forward to hearing your answers. i wanted to know, i feel like so often non-violent protests and movements have such good intentions but they feel like you mentioned. they failed to put real pressure on the oppressive force. i know it is -- must have some any answers to such a broad question. we even want a good example. something that can predict a positive outcome. you mentioned in is easy to predict what will lead to violence. maybe if you could enlighten us with some predictions of successful nonviolent movement. thank you. >> i am with csis. my question has to do with i'm

wondering after the regime transition. has there been any pattern in the american response to regime, whether that is intervention. we talked about how there have been transitions within the last hundred years. has there been any kind of pattern? >> and mr. first. a unifying -- unifying leaders are rare. another characteristic was there was no leader. there is no group. even in places in tunisia and egypt, where there is a group -- guru in waiting, he wasn't the

leader and they were slow in coming in. a leader would be nice. the nice thing about pluralism, about the diversity and not quite knowing where you're going but having to work it out is that is the beginning of a more open system. rather than one in which some the men in the white horse likes of their and stays. there are great down sides to having a strong leader. it is a predictor for peaceful protests. is it likely the army will fire on its people? you can make an evaluation of what the army will do. it was predictable in tunisia that it would knock -- would not

and not in senegal. what is the u.s. response? i will let my colleague talk about that more. unofficially. i do think we have to understand one thing. a country like the u.s. and there are not any other countries like the united states, has to make a forward looking bet. there are two parts of that that is important. it should not just make a backward looking bed. often the u.s. said this guy was our friend through thick and then and we're going to stick with him. that is irrelevant. we're grateful for what he did in the past but we do not want to go down with him. there is a lot of criticism about the u.s. not sticking with the beard. you did not remain stickable.

you outlasted yourself. there is criticism of the u.s. being slow to react. in hindsight that is true. we should have seen where things were growing. a little hard to see where things were going in an event like this and you do not want to be in a position like we are in libya. backing the people who are not winning and killing civilians for the purpose of saving civilian lives. and coming in kind of late when it was more difficult, when it would have been easier to do the same kind of thing had we come in earlier. it is not an easy call. >> in terms of the communities in columbia, what we have seen is a shift away from the leader.

we have -- leaders have been killed. by teaching the idea of the collective and committee, if you lose people, it goes on. and we're seeing that a lot. in terms of when some of these non violent efforts have -- what would be the way for them to put real pressure, cohesion and the message has been one way. finding a way to shame the parties and embarrass them internationally, figuring out a way to get economic pressure and to give one example, the peace community in 2004, the colombian military along with paramilitary members dismembered several members of the

committee. while that action -- a land -- only in that case were they were able to get the united states evolved -- involved. it would free a portion of military aid. you saw this tremendous pressure that leveled the playing field between the community and the government. it does work. also when you have media attention and international support in the case of another community, we had a series of people who are about to be evicted. it was something that was going to happen but the media and the international support made it thabo -- made the political cost too great for that to happen. it is a question of the tactics used and the cohesion of the message. >> i would like to talk about

the question of leadership. it is a common misconception that a non-violent movement needs a single charismatic leader. the exception who was gondi -- gandhi does not prove the rule. less was known about how to devise, plan, and then instruct people on how to use different kinds of resistance tactics in the 1920's and 1930's that is known today. today you can download hundreds of thousands of pages on how to do nonviolent resistance and they are doing it all over the world. the knowledge, the accessibility of knowledge about how to plan and execute nonviolent resistance is orders of magnitude. > it was 70 or 80 years ago. it was much more necessary in his circumstances to be a single

leader. speaking of gandhi. the question is how to build the capacity of a part to support it -- participatory are present -- rep campaign or movement to do the kind of pressure that one of the questioners asked about. movements have to exhibit unity, diversity, and representation so they can have legitimacy, so they can accumulate political force. and how to do that is a form of knowledge. it is a skill. you have to acquire that skill. you have to learn how to plan a campaign. and you have to know how to remain disciplined which most important means not to be violent. that is a serious problem in trying to cause the military or security force to hesitate or stall. you can i get someone to defect

to your side. it does not work that way. all these things have to do with the skills or the movement. the skills to not have to be channeled into one or through one individual. once a movement or campaign to acquire skills and capacities, you may not need as much rightness. because conditions do not dictate whether movements or campaigns was successful. it is the collective intelligence, they will and the ability to put that will into a fact or a campaign that a movement requires. they are nascent political parties. there was -- just as a political party needs to acquire certain political and organizing capabilities, so too does and

non violent campaign or movement. those skills have to be broadly distributed. within, there is no such thing as an effective movement that is not an educational organization. that trains its people, that imparts those and distributes those skills. what a movement really does if it is a movement trying to campaign for democracy, it does the work of democracy before democracy is open for business. when it does then began to acquire those capacities they're able to bring the kind of pressure you're talking about. >> great answers. i would just add my own thoughts with regard to the leadership. i do not necessarily -- i go along with jack here. i do not equate leadership with a single person or single identity or ego. i believe that leadership is necessary that you do not need

one single person to do it. that is worth quoting. i believe that the best predictor for success might the leadership, that is about service. in service of what? you can see the greater good but in service of the goal of a group of people being represented by the sense of leadership. do we see a pattern, the only pattern i have seen is people at the state department, very credibly struggle with each one of these things. the comments about it is hard to say before something unfolds, what is you need to be doing is

right on point. and i see people, the people who are assigned the task of looking at each of these developing policy for the response, really wrestling with this each day and reaching out hoping to get input from different offices. will we keep trying to make the right decision, i hope so. i am not one of those people making the decisions but i believe so. thank you. >> my question is do think the happenings in the arab world could influence countries like central asia. if you think so, do you think that impact will be positive or negative for the young

generation in central asia? thank you. >> i want to ask about the influence of religion and ethnicity as far as non violent conflicts are concerned. it looks as if religion and ethnicity play a major role. >> my question is about whether or not it is important to have a reduction in support for the oppressive government, whoever it is. does that make a difference? does that hard in the

resistance? thank you. -- harden the resistance? thank you. >> ok, that last one was two questions. i may only answer the first part. it does not make a difference. i think it will say -- i will say yes. there is no evidence to prove one way or the other. it seems reasonable to assume it would make a difference, and would it cause the opposition to harden? everything i learned about conflict analysis and resolution tells me the right answer is yes. i do not know other than just making my own: a. central asia, will be impacted by what is going on in the arab spring? i am no good at predictions.

i grew up as a lawyer. i do not cancel -- answer a hypothetical questions. one thing that bill brought this up before. this is an exhilarating time. i do not know if you noticed. exhilaration, passion, joye, those kinds of things catch john oliver. people feel it and get carried away with it. could it? yap. will it? i have no clue. it is definitely something that is inspiring. that is what exhilaration does for you. i would say my feeling about that are they are two things around which this kind of movement can call us. this is one i talked about communities. these are easy things to do that

around. can they play an important role? yes. must it be ethnicity and religion that calls for revolt and peaceful or violent revolt? i do not think that is required. i would not call that at this need. i would call that a sense of this is my home with that. >> let me jump in on the question of the extent to which an international power can inhibit the work of a movement or campaign. in general, the influence of external actors is exaggerated. there are many examples of campaigns or movements against authoritarian regimes that have been successful despite the support of the united states for the regime. there are other examples of

movement and campaigns that have not been quickly successful. that have inhibited themselves by spending too much time worrying about whether they could acquire external support and not enough time developing internal capacities of their own. societies are complex. there are specific to themselves. although their cases and categories and there can be templates and generic plans, every society must make a decision for itself about what its future is going to be. and the idea that there could be either external assistance or -- in addition to political events going on, in a country. i think overrates the knowledge

and the intelligence of external factors, usually. having said that, there are some examples of external sanctions as well as external support. that has been well timed at particular moments and has assisted in robust movements are campaign. the best example is south africa. where external economic sanctions were effective. why? because the whole world participated in those sanctions including united states corporations and when economically, the ability of a particular authoritarian regime to operate successfully, financially and in trade terms around the world is seriously challenged, even if that power is a super power. by the community of nations, you bet your life that can have a significant effect. i would go so far as to suggest

a democratic transition in south africa was driven more by economic factors in the -- more than any other. half of that was factors of strikes by blacks in south africa. putting pressure upon institutions across the board. within the apartheid state. the objective is to summon pressure and poes costs and drive up the costs of the oppression so it is not sustainable any longer. if an external power is able to do that, fine. that is a double-edged sword. it appears as if a regime is being extremely challenge, it can use that to challenge the legitimacy of the internal movement. i do not think it is a useful strategy for an internal movement to over-identify with, much less to ally with an

external power. there is a contest for legitimacy with in the country itself. one additional comment about religion. it is not so much religious faith or belief that has played an important role as it is religious institutions and leaders. who because of their internal legitimacy, once the become alive with a civilian movement or defect from silence about the non-violent movement into active support, can make a change. that was the case with catholic prelates in chile and the philippines. given -- giving material support, space, planning space, to people involved in the challenges to peter shaye and markers. also explicit terms providing support to the leadership and to

the organizations and groups involved in challenging those authoritarian leaders. those were, the catholic in chile and poland, poland, chile, and the philippines were respected sufficiently within the civilian population so that where they were taping was noticeable and could help to enhance the political momentum of a group for campaign within the country. i would put that dimension on the value perhaps of religion, religious leaders and institutions, within a country if they are already important social players. >> in terms of the influence of religion, and business today, i would say that the movements i have described have not really been supported by institutionalized religion. religion has not been the main role that has led to these

movements. however, that said, there are individual related actors that have supported these movements and have lived with these communities or that have played a role such as a prominent jesuit who played a big role, speaking out in the media and so forth and supporting these communities. with us and the -- ethnicity, when it comes to the after- colombian indigenous movements, it played a huge role. it was not until 1991 that the constitution was changed for there to be acceptance of a plural ethnics society and these groups have collective lander wrote -- rights and so on. and part of these movements is the concept of ethno-education. creating their own educators so

that the world is seen through the perspective of ethnicity. in terms of the regional influences in the case of columbia, the u.s. and colombia are interlinked politically, financially, and in the anti- narcotics efforts and their the u.s. plays a major role in terms of opinion, shipping in colombia in perception. it has been in terms of these movements, the u.s. has given colombia over $7.50 billion since 1999 mostly in military aid. and anti-narcotic efforts. the same government has pushed for justice and protection in the cases of these communities and then had a huge role in these movements being able to last as long as they have.

when you talk to the people of these resistance communities, all of them reject u.s. funding because they see the u.s. as a player, as a party to the conflict. because of the military aid. as such, they would want to have no engagement with funding. however, political engagement they do have with the u.s. >> could the arab revolt have an impact on the near abroad? it can have some impact in all but not -- not all the impact is the same. you have kazakhstan and turkmenistan that has continued itself from one generation to the next. but -- you had a revolt of a

type in kurdistan. yes, in a limited way, but you cannot transplanting is completely. does a regional support matter? i think it matters a good deal. that is what you see with -- what the arab states have doing. increasing condemnation of assaad's behavior. but not by everyone. that is a crucial factor in what the west can do in this case. we could save lives in libya but it is more dangerous to intervene and save lives in syria. although more lives are being lost. libya is our hit man when the syrians blow up a disco in

berlin, we bombed libya. and libya is a place where we have taken an active intervening role. they were reluctant to do so. because of the repercussions this might have in the rest of the arab world. ethnicity and religion. -- ethnicity and religion are both the visit factors. even when the country is the same ethnicity, the division's go down the next level. -- the divisions go down the next level. that is not coming through, either. is that coming through? ok. all those good things i said are

lost? so, ethnicity is very divisive and religion is divisive. there is nothing more divisive than the drive for religious unity. and the fact that they are muslim in this part of the world merely opens it up to different interpretations. a couple weeks ago i was in tunisia. they were saying to their representatives of the party, you are muslim, you say you are a muslim party, we are muslim. why are you -- are you more muslim that we are? why should we vote for a moslem party -- muslim party? what difference will it make when you come into power? what is your program about a muslim? there was a lot of questioning from the inside, so to speak. about this.

these are two very divisive types of alamance. there are now rallying points for this kind of intifada. -- they are now rallying point for this kind of intifada. wantedm melindaa, , and i to ask the question with regard to the arab spring. specifically in regard to egypt. what are your thoughts on the role of the international community in supporting constitutional reform and the shift from non violent movements and to institutional and government changed? can there be a role played or should there be

these places are unique democracies to that region? >> i wanted to ask, given the deepening economic inequality in beyond the long- term patterns and low level of participation in various communities, what white mean -- what might we learn about pathways are possibilities for social change here in the u.s. ? >> i am nancy from the university of maryland. i heard two very different predictions of the arab spring.

in one case, i carried a spontaneous revolution. in the other, we heard a very well thought out and strategic one-third the campaigns. i am wondering somewhere in between the truth probably lies. can you comment on what is likely to have been the history? >> i do not know that there is a great deal of distance between us. in the seven or eight countries in the arab world in which there have been at least significant protests if not deliberate and systematic work by a movement organize in some fashion, there has also been a great deal of spontaneity. while the moment was largely provoked to be a clearly

successful and non-violent uprising and a contagion effect occurred and process began in other countries, in egypt, there had been over a time frame of almost 10-years of occasional mobilize them. labor andocused ion constitutional questions at our summer institute. award to a member of the egyptian revolution. she had been a part of just about all of these events in the preceding six or seven years and was a personal emblem of the necessity of repetitive persistence organizing in action

over a time frame. and this is not mean that '80s t -- 80% were not spontaneous. they were. they were in the spirit of the occasion. that is the 11th hour in what is otherwise the organizing of a sequence of events that developed this capacity for resistance. that had not happened. that had happened in syria. the resources in syria existed. there is even a certain tolerance of literary dissent. much more was going on than is even visible today. it is nowhere near as front as this increase politicization of opposition in egypt that have

taken place over a number of years. i do not know that there is a lot of difference between the two of us in response to that question. the first question about egypt and the second question about the united states share something in common. there is a factor that i can address. resistance in democracy is different from resistance in non-democracy. to the extent that what you do tactically and how you do it is affected by the degree to which you initially have space in which to organize. when i first began talking about non-violent resistance publicly, soon after the release of our first documentary series, one of our documentary's would be shown and i would speak after work. they would be very energized. i want to know how we can have a

non-violent revolution in the united states. why can we not do it here? i said, one advantage americans have is that there's a lot more organizing space. i wonder how it is being used right now and whether it is being used to summon resistance against particular targets of action on which pressure can be placed in order to force a response. this is all about power and how you some of power from people and focus it and apply it in particular circumstances. i think that one of the fsx of-- tableauof this year's of resistance will be that there will be increased use of it here in the united states, which i undoubtedly hope there is. it is a way of keeping those who

are elected, much less those who are on democratically -- who have on-democratically and chief power, out of power. power is never accountable unless you force it to be accountable. i think there will be this ample notice being taken. there have been some signs of that. i think there is that beer. most of the movement i have mentioned in non democracies can be learned so that campaigns and movements can be undertaken as needed. it was 40 or 50 years ago so they can be seen in democracies as well. >> i will pick that up. it is a shame that i cannot come

in fighting with my fellow colleagues. 0% spontaneity figure. this is a good characterization. think about it is a dam that has burst in the stream closes out. there are logs that came together. to the fact is that what happened then was spontaneous. the people in that movement would bring organization. many of them are frustrated for not being mentioned in the past. who are our friends sex who do we want to coalesce with. a cut in mu'min will we build of?

the young people have not elections early. give us time to get ourselves organized and together. there are a couple of people who have been organized. we do not want them running away with our revolution. a do nothing this is the revolution. there is the violence and the social upheaval by rigid elements. i do not think that we are that different and our characterization. in the united states, we are not looking for non-violent protests. there is so much organizing space that we're looking for greater participation. we're seeing it. other things are exhilarating here. you see that kind of youth come out. you see the tea party that is a

public manifestation of people getting together about ideas. we are full of it here. we do not need to encourage non- violent protests. we have it. let us see. what else? international support of egypt. first thing, we have to remember and it leads to a strain. it is fair -- their movement. we cannot say we have a plan for a democratic society and the constitution, why don't you call your partner's a republican tax they often do imitate those terms and run with them. it is -- what they are going to work out is what they are working out.

it is a contradiction to say that we oppose democracy. democracy is a government by the people who are putting it together. you cannot impose is. they ran off with it themselves. we brought the idea to them. you should be happy with bringing the idea. we can help them. we can be useful as resource people. we can help them to discuss this together. the moonlighters in tunisia set up a center for the study of islam and democracy which is based in the united states. it tries to work on these themes. purpose was goaded by an

earlier conference that was held by the national endowment of democracy that asked that same question. what can we do? and got the same kind answer that i am going through. they got people together, a couple of outsiders. for the most part, to nations -- tunisian.s we felt enormously successful. they argued with each other across the table. that is what we can do. we hope that we can bring in support it and be useful. >> i think we're going to go ahead and let that be the last word. on behalf of the international security and peace institute, i want to thank all of the first inning your evening with us.

we will continue the conversation directly to your left or we will have food and refreshments and be able to meet each other and talk a little bit more. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this week "washington journal" is taking a look into the fbi with counterinsurgency attacks. the head of the cyber division will be our guest. friday, we will be live from the national crime of punishment museum. a former fbi profiler will discuss forensics and profiling. it is live friday at 9:00 a.m. here, and c-span.

tom ridge said today that even though the united states is more secure, the threat of terrorism still maintains. he spoke about the need for a response system for first responders. this was part of a discussion on home and security. this is about 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much for your warm response. it is great to join you again. i want to thank the sponsors for the event and the chamber for giving us an opportunity to reflect a bit on where we were, what we have done, and what we need to do. i'm glad the public can be a part of this.

i am looking forward to the discussion -- i was privileged to serve with them in one capacity or another. i look forward to that as well. it is important that we continue the discussion of what we have experienced and learned and can still learn from the events of september 11, 2001. i appreciate this opportunity to share some brief and opening thoughts with all of you. i look forward to secretary of soliton no --napolitano's comments. everyone remembers what they are doing on 911. you remember where you were when the president kennedy was assassinated. when neil armstrong walked on the moon. when the challenger exploded. when martin luther king was assassinated.

there are similar events in the history of this country that are burned in our national psyche and burned in our hearts and minds. september 10, 2001, terrorism was viewed as an unseemly part of the world. we were a superpower. we had an and equaled -- an unequaled economy. it was unimaginable that a small group of individuals with a limited funding, despite the intensity of their hatred, it could conceive and execute an attack that could result in a catastrophic loss of life and economic dislocation and hundreds of billions of dollars. the attacks of 9/11 left the country stunned and in grief. if you think about the last 10 years, one thing we have

demonstrated for ourselves and the rest of the world is our own undeniable resiliency. we went from knees bent in prayer to the formation of a plan to make our country safer and more secure. we have become a stronger and more secure. in the decade's time, we have strengthened our intelligence assets and partnered with allies and friends, captured and killed terrace, destroyed safe-haven spirit we set up a new department, homeland's security. over 20 different unit of governments and over 180,000 people. it'll be nice if secretary napolitano could report to a few less congressional committees. local authorities reposition the country as we braced for an emotionally charged and strategically driven national mission.

we improved response capabilities and establish labor's -- levels of security. we designed a new entry system for those international passengers arriving to visit or do work or become students in the united states. one of the things we do today however is recognize that back then, as we do now, the value of an important part of the security solution, the private sector. we all understood that after 9/11 that after a country and government, we would have to learn how to do things differently and better. i truly believe this.

homeland's security is not the exclusive work of the federal government. it is an agency of the federal government. extraordinary people work there. it is surely the work of an entire nation. it is a national mission and a vase and understanding that everything we do must be shared effort and response ability. a national mission needs an integrated mission. partnerships, partnerships, partnerships. we all know that is embedded in the minds of most private sectors. the business community, the private sector, hold a key state in the transfer of goods for all of our nation's national security you routes. the skies overhead. that means the backbone of the country is exposed to many

levels. there is a design of man. or by mother nature. i think we have done a good job of coordinating our efforts at but not a great job. i think we can do better. we need the private sector more involved at the table. not less. more involved in the planning stages. not less. more involved in the response and recovery stages. not less. border security, cyber security, critical infrastructure, wherever you go. you can find yourself in need of that critical partnership with the public sector and the private sector afte. after 9/11, president bush and i met in the oval office. he mentioned we had to do something different at our

borders with our friends and candidates in mexico. after 9/11 we ratcheted up security big time. we slow down congress. -- slowed down congress. i went to a general motors facility assembly plant. they ordered their seats when they put the chastity on the front end. there were made in canada. -- they were made in canada. they put a computer chip on the seats. put it across the bridge. one of the last things on the assembly to be inserted into the chastity was the seats. it is about an eight hour process. what happens if the trucks with the seats are stuck in the tunnel for half a day because the branch of security? and nothing happens in that facility.

it does not have to be a zero game. you can enhance security and you can improve the economic interaction. it is central to the united states. the economy is global. our economic future is tied to our ability to sustain economic relationships. along with that interdependency comes greater vulnerable to vulnerability. hathaway enhance security at the same time? how will we improve congress? how will we improve the connection? one of my friends' works with the chamber of commerce. i shot it that time. -- i shopped there at the time. one of the nice things about being secretary is that you can read to do not like to say give

orders -- -- i do not like to say orders -- but you can set goals. we ought to be able to improve output in the detroit by 20%. okay, go do it. here is a classic example of where you need a partnership. private sector on both sides, and the companies that are entered-dependent. they worked together. customs and border protection agree to reassign people at different times of different foods. the altered their delivery schedule. our goal was 25% with very little money but through the partnerships improved throughput 55%. it did not take a lot of money. it's a cooperation and thinking differently than they historically thought about

delivering schedules and about manpower at the border. that is the kind of partnership that i am talking about. it is not a zero sum game. our economy and our security meet at the borders. we need to continue to be a strong economy. the future is tied to our economic activity. we have to enhance security without messing with economic relationships. a continues to change. we have to admit publicly we have been fortunate that a few others have simply failed.

as we close one vulnerability, we should anticipate that terrorists will try to seek out another. it is a threat and a war. for that reason, we must always use security as an ongoing process not an end point. one of the challenges i believe we have is to remind ourselves even with the death of a psalm of an lot then predict osama bin london -- remind ourselves even with the death of osama bin a setback in the past 10-years, if there's one word or group of words that we have to fill different about is the war on terror. terrorism is a tactic.

a tactic is a device used by those who have been opposed to causes for centuries. it is a tactic. it is a war against the belief system. it is an ideology of hatred. in preparation for that meeting, i read some of for speeches and comments. she observed that you can exile a man and not an idea. you can in prison a man but not an idea. you can kill a man but not an idea. you can bring been logged in -- bin laden to justice but the that etiology rigid

ideology -- that ideology, the idea of terrorism remains. on some server 12, 2001 we were grieving. we had a sense of unity and determination. every day we have learned a little more. every day, where people are working together to find solutions and identify vulnerabilities. every day we get a little further away from the tragedy. we have to be willing to look over our shoulders term time to time and be mindful that terrorists do not rest. i do believe everyone in this room is wearing a wristwatch. we wear watches, terrorists have time. think about that. they are more patient than we are. we will be all be at this for a

while here we can deal with that. even though we're more secure, the threat remains. we cannot underestimate the appeal of their belief system and willingness to be patient in bringing the broader world to except that belief system. espy did the civic and progress we have made, more work remains to be done. a christmas day bomber came close to the goals. this criticism a shred of the department of common security. this is a consumer affirmation.

they're sharing disinformation. this individual's father had walked into the department of state and said i believe my son has been radicalized. by the way, in yemen. we know exactly what is going on over there and to is leading the terrorist groups over there. it people wondered how he could get on the plane. the state department never told the department of common security. we have to understand that as strong as it has become, the department of common security is not perfect. it can only act on information given to it. given to it.