rest of the world how a small group of people could have a strategic effect. that is the legacy we will have to deal with and learn how to compensate and cope with for generations to come. i would like to thank you for joining us today. we hope that you will continue to participate with us in this attempt at scholarship in studying these issues and we hope that you will come back to the institute of the future. thank you very much. [applause] >> avenues conference today, president obama was asked about the killing of bin laden a year ago. that is next up on c-span. then it nobel prize winners at a summit in chicago. british prime minister david cameron said there was no evidence a cabinet minister

broke any rules in dealing with rupert murdoch's news cor poration. >> i have earned a place where people will listen to me. the greatest generation in that book gave me a kind of a platform that was completely unanticipated. i thought i ought not squandered that. so i ought to stepup not just as a citizen and a journalist, but as a father, husband, and grandfather, and if i see these things i should write about them and start this dialogue about where we need to get to it next. >> tom brokaw urges americans to redefine the american dream. sunday live, new questions for the former anchor of nbc news.

in depth, sunday, noon eastern, on c-span2. >> president obama said aggressive actions by north korea are a sign of weakness, not strength. we joined this news conference with the japanese prime minister. this is about 30 minutes. >> it is a great pleasure to welcome prime minister of noda of japan, one of america's most closest allies in the asian- pacific region. one of the reasons we enjoy such a strong alliance between our nations is because it is rooted in the deep friendship between our peoples. i felt in my own life in my visits to japan, and we have

seen less on display very profoundly over the last year. last month, we marked the first anniversary of the tsunami in nuclear crisis that followed. all across japan, people stopped and stood in silence at 2:46 p.m., the moment that the earth shook. mr. prime minister, on behalf of the american people, i want to say to you and the people of japan that we continue to stand with you as well. we stand with japan in honoring the lost and the missing. 19,000 men, women come and children who will never be forgotten. we stand with you as you rebuilt what you, mr. prime minister, have called the rebirth of japan. we stand with you in the asian- pacific and beyond. even as it has focused on the hard work at home, japan has never stopped leading in the world. it is a great to be to the

japanese people and to leaders like prime minister noda. i am told many japanese have found strength in the bonds of solidarity between friends and neighbors, a bond which cannot be broken. the same could be said about the bonds between the united states and japan. today, we welcome you in that spirit. i have worked to strengthen the ties between our two nations. when prime minister noda and i met, we talk about strengthening. i want to thank you for the personal commitment you have brought to this endeavor. you have called the united states is japan's greatest asset. through our determination and humility we have seen this through. during our discussions today, the prime minister compared his leadership style to that of a point guard in basketball.

he may not be flashy, but he stays focused and gets the job done. that has helped make this visit a milestone. am proud to announce we have agreed to a new joint vision to help shape the asian-pacific for decades to come. this is part of a broader effort i discussed in which the united states is, once again, beating in the asian-pacific region. this will remain the foundation of the security and foundations -- security and prosperity of our two nations and a cornerstone of regional peace and security. we reviewed the agreement that we reached last week to realign american forces in japan which reflects our efforts to modernize with more forces that are more broadly situation. this will reduce the impact on

local communities like okinawa. this will improve our commitment for trade. our exports to japan and japanese companies in the u.s. support more than 1 million jobs, but there's more we can do as we work to double u.s. exports, so i appreciate the prime minister updating me on his reform efforts in japan including liberalizing trade and playing a leading role in the asian-pacific economy. the jury the trans-pacific partnership would benefit both economies and the region. we also talked about nuclear safety, clean energy, and cyber security. third, our joint vision lays out the future we seek in the asian pacific, a region where international rules and norms

are upheld, contributing to regional security, commerce, freedom of navigation. we continue our close consultation on the provocative actions of north korea which were a sign of weakness and not strength and only served to further p'yongyang's isolation. we want to encourage more reforms that improve the lives of the burmese people. our joint vision reaffirms our role as global partners down by shared values and committed to international peace, security, and human rights. our nations are the largest donors in afghanistan. we are planning for the nato summit in chicago and plan for the transition in afghanistan and japan will plant for a donor conference to sustain development. i want to think this time to

commend the prime minister and japan for showing leadership with regards to the iranian nuclear program. they are now appealing the crunch and one reason is that countries like japan made the decision to reduce imports. this is one more example about japan continuing to serve as a model and a true global leader. finally, this commits us to new collaboration between our scientists, researchers and includes new exchanges that will bring thousands of our young people together including high school students to help japanese communities rebuild after last year's disaster. mr. prime minister, thank you for helping to revitalize our extraordinary alliance so we enjoy even greater security and prosperity for both our countries. once again, i salute the people

of japan for the resilience and courage that they have shown during this past year. more than ever, the american people are proud to call you a friend and honored to call you an ally. before i turn it over to the prime minister, i want to warn the press that the prime minister is a black belt. if you get out of line, i have protection. mr. prime minister. [speaking japanese]

>> i want to thank you, mr. president, because i know how busy you are. i have had a good exchange of views with the president today on bilateral relations between the u.s. and japan. we talked about the asian pacific region and various global challenges. we were able to confirm broader perspectives and their present its significance and where the japan-u.s. relations should be headed in the long term. the president just now spoke about his support, and i would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for the support given by the government and the people of the united states starting with the operation conducted by u.s. forces during the earthquake of last year.

yesterday, [unintelligible] he took care of children until his last moment following the great earthquake. i also met with representatives of the search and rescue teams who, immediately following the earthquake, deployed in the region. i was able to meet with these true friends of japan. i have always held the conviction that our bilateral alliance is the benchmark of japan's diplomacy. having had conversations with my friends [unintelligible] one of such convictions, i am particularly [inaudible] [inaudible] [translator inaudible]

[speaking japanese] major opportunities and challenges exist side by side in the region. we are determined to in the

shared vision to realize the realignment plan in accordance with the security committee during a statement released and to step up bilateral security and cooperation in a creative manner. we need to work with regional partners to build a network that is open, a comprehensive, and build on utilizing such frameworks especially with u.s.-japan, australia, and aipac. this is an important partner. it is also when portents that japan and the united states cooperate to promote necessary rules in the area such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, and security.

in the economic area, we need to fortify the growth and prosperity of the promotion of economic integration in the asia-pacific region. to that end, and both of our credit, both countries will work on regional trade with the working on free-trade in the asian-pacific region. this will advance consultations to participate in the trans- pacific partnership. the shared vision calls for the strengthening of cooperation. we discussed today expanding exports to japan. that is stated in the shared vision among the next generation use. this will further step up exchanges among youth and such

endeavors as the u.s. side and some got she leadership. >> we will have two questions on each side. >> president obama, could you confirm if the dissidents cheng in beijing? would you grant him asylum? prime minister noda, how likely do think north korea's tests will continue? how're you likely to respond? >> i am aware of the press reports on the situation in

china, but i will not make a statement on the issue. what i would like to emphasize is that every time we meet with china, the issue of human rights comes out. it is our belief that the only is it the right thing to do because it comports with our principles and our belief in freedom and human rights. but also because we think china will be strong. they need to open up and liberalize their run system. we want china to be strong, and we're very pleased with all of the areas of cooperation that we have been able to engage in. we also believe that relationship will be that much stronger and china will be that

much more prosperous and a strong as you see improvements on human rights issues in that country. i know it was not directed at me, but i will make a quick statement on north korea. this was a topic of the extensive discussion between myself and prime minister noda. our consultation throughout the failed missile launch was, i think, reflective of how important our alliance is, not just to our two countries, but to the region as a whole. i have tried to make sure that the north koreans understand that the old pattern of provocation that then gets attention and somehow insists on the world putting up with this behavior is broken. what we have said is that the more you engage in a

provocative act, the more isolated you will become. stronger sanctions will be in place. the more isolated you will be diplomatically, politically, and commercially. i do not want to hypothesize on what might happen in the coming months. i think p'yongyang is very clear that the united states, japan, south korea, other countries in the area that are unified in insisting that it will abide by its responsibilities, abide by international norms, and they will not be able to purchase anything from further provocative act. >> with regards to north korea, between myself and president obama earlier, with regards to the so-called launch of a satellite, a missile launch, we

share the view that it undermines the efforts to achieve a resolution through dialogue. in the latest round of the missile launch, the also conducted a nuclear test which means there is a great responsibility. it the international community needs to call for restraint on behalf of p'yongyang. the measures incorporated in the recent u.n. security council needs to be complied with. we all need to communicate with each other. i cannot stress that china's role is very important. we to maintain close coordination with in the united

states and we share this deal with president obama. of tbs from japan? >> i have a question for both president obama and prime minister noda. how do you regard the location issue in the context of destroyed statement? although you did not refer to the location. on the u.s.-japan military realignment, it leaves the question open to some extent. what do you think of the possibility that they will be recruited to to a different place? >> it is most meaningful that in the joint statement as well

as the summit meeting today that we were able to confirm that our two countries will cooperate in the context of a bilateral alliance towards the realization of the optimum u.s. forces posture in the region and the reduction of the burden on okinawa. we will continue to work for the resolution of this state issue in a window. >> as the prime minister just noted, we think that the realignment approach that is being taken is consistent with the interests of both japan and the united states. we think we have found an effective mechanism to move this process forward in a way that is respectful of the situation in okinawa, the views of the residents there, but also is able to optimize the defense

cooperation between our two countries and the alliance that is a linchpin of our security in the region as well. we're confident that we can move forward with an approach that realigns our basic posture, our deployments, but also is continuing to serve the broad- based interests of our alliance as a whole. i want to publicly thank prime minister noda for taking a constructive approach to an issue that has been lingering in our bilateral relationship for quite some time. next question. >> we're coming up on the one- year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden. i was wondering if you could share some thoughts on that

anniversary. i also wanted to mention that you're likely opponents said, "anybody would have made that call, even as jimmy carter." i'm curious what you would say about that. mr. prime minister, on the same topic. you mention the international fight against terrorism in your opening remarks, and i'm wondering if you can reflect on president obama's record here. do you think, from an international perspective, the u.s. is playing it right in marking this anniversary? or do you think you might advise against excessive celebration? >> a few points. first of all, i hardly think you have seen any excessive celebration taking place here. i think the american people -- rightly -- remember what we, as

a country, accomplished in bringing to justice somebody who killed over 3000 of our citizens. it is a mark of the excellence of our intelligence teams, our military, a political process that worked. i think, for us, to use that time for some reflection, to give thanks for those who participate in is entirely appropriate and that is what is taking place. as far as my personal role and what other folks would do, i did recommend that everybody take a look at previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go and pakistan to take out bin laden. i assume that people meant what

they said when they said it. and has been at least my practice. i said that i would go after bin laden if we had a clear shot at him and i did. if there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then i would go ahead and let them explain it. >> president obama has been in the fight against terrorism and i told him in high regard for that. although bin laden has been killed, terrorism has not been rooted out. concerted efforts will be needed, and we will be there for the united states. the forms of terrorism are

becoming very diverse. that just in japan, but also in cyberspace, and the oceans. we shall work together to root out terrorism of all sorts. next question from japan. >> i would like to last a question for prime minister noda and president obama. there is no direct reference to china in the joint statement. what sort of exchange of views did you have on china in the context of a working on stability in the asia-pacific in connection with their advances in the oceans and their buildup?

what discussion have you had on these subjects? >> let me answer first. the shared vision does not refer to any specific country, but we recognized china as a major partner in the region. both of us confirmed that china is an opportunity for the international community, for japan, and for the asian pacific. i explained in the meeting the president obama that when i visited china last december i approach chinese leaders with my six-point initiative including cooperation in the eastern chinese see to further advantaging mutual beneficial relationship and have worked steadily to implement this.

i have also told the president about the strategic dialogue i have had with china. of course, there were also discussions that we need to seek a response and we had an exchange of views. >> i think i have said in the past and firmly believe that we welcome a peacefully rise in china. we have developed a very important strategic and economic dialogue with china. we think what they have

accomplished in terms of lifting millions of people out of poverty is good for its own sake and it is also potentially good for the world and the region. as prime minister noda and i noted, we do believe that, as china continues to grow, as their influence continues to expand, that it has to be a strong partner in abiding by international rules and norms. whether those are economic, like respecting intellectual property, norms of dispute resolution, like in maritime disputes and ensuring that small country than large countries are but respected in the international forum of responding to these issues. across the board, we want china

to be a partner with us in international rules and norms that everyone follows. its interests as well to abide by these rules and norms, and sell all of our actions are not designed to in any way contain china, but that are designed to assure that they are part of a broader international community in which rules and norms are respected and in which all countries can prosper. and 60. >> thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> white house drug patrol director was at the center for american progress tomorrow. for an outline on the administration drug control strategy and the more than $10 billion request for the treatment access program. this is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow, an all-day summit on the economy, hosted by bloomberg, and also, examining government spending, the housing crisis, regulation, and corporate taxes.

speakers include the former federal reserve chairman alan greenspan, the afl-cio richard krumpka. this is on c-span2. >> four years ago, i was a washington outsider. four years later, i am at this dinner. four years ago, i looked like this. today, i look like this. [laughter] and four years from now, i will look like this. [laughter] [applause] that is not even funny. [laughter] >> mr. president, do you remember when the country rallied around you in hopes of a

better tomorrow? that was hilarious. [laughter] [applause] that was the best one yet. honestly, it is a thrill for me to be here with the president, a man i think has done his best to guide us through some crises and has paid a heavy price for it. there is a term for people like president obama, probably not two terms. >> ms. any part of the white house correspondents' dinner? watch online at the c-span video library. behind-the-scenes, the red carpet, and all of the entertainment at c- span.org/videolibrary. >> nobel peace prize laureates spoke at a summit in chicago last week. the criticized unnecessary wars and discussed the harm terrorists and in barbara's do. the panel included former

president jimmy carter and mikhail gorbachev. this is about one hour. >> this afternoon. -- good afternoon. hello. it is great to be here and obviously a great honor for all of us to be able to see four presidents, four nobel peace prize winners, four men a part of history. [applause] and while we are getting the audio portion of our program together, i know there were introductions to these four great men, so i will be brief. to my immediate right, jimmy

carter, former president of the united states. [cheers and applause] he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 2000 to four decades of his untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflict. president miguel borja of of the soviet union, his policies of glass nose led to the downfall of communism and the breakup of the soviet union in 1991. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1990 for helping to end the cold war. "time" magazine named him man of the year and man of the decade. mikhail gorbachev. [applause] f. w. de klerk is the former president of south africa, a one

of the peace prize in 1993 along with nelson mandela with efforts to end apartheid and initiate the first fully democratic constitution for south africa. president de klerk. [applause] and lech walesa was the president of poland, helping to lead the poles out of communism. there are the other members, including the pope and mikhail gorbachev. [applause]

is that a high five? we are together with men who have changed the course of history, but they are here with a message for all the young people an audience and who are watching, not just across america but in many places around the world, and that is you, too, have the tools to bring about change. it is very simple. there are many examples. but perhaps the most global what happened in 2010 when a series of protest by young people started that spread to egypt and libya and syria and yemen and became known as the arab spring. they are still riding the future of the arab world as a result of what the young people did there, and in the united states, the u.s. have led the occupy wall

street movement, to bring about change in the conversation in a way that the news media is covering this very controversial election here in the united states, a change in the conversation in washington, and so we want to talk to them about things about changing the world and also advise for you about how to change the world. president carter, let me start with you. what do you think the biggest challenge is in the world today? >> i think the biggest challenge is the international community to go to war only as a last resort. it should also apply to the united nations and all of the regionals. i think now humankind in general are much more inclined to resort to armed conflict instead of negotiations and mediation

and a commitment to peace, because all of the major religions say that peace should come fourth -- first, watching the prince of peace, not war. if we all did that, we would not have any more wars, and i am not saying that islam and judaism and others, humankind has got to say that war comes last, peace comes first. [cheers and applause] >> are there places in the world, president gorbachev, that give you pause right now? >> well, i feel that people are disturbed.

and i think that once again, people are asking the question we asked 25 years ago. will there be a nuclear war? something happening in the world. i have heard that again. i heard that years ago, and now i am hearing it again. and i fully agree with jimmy that we should not be worried. i remember in the politburo, they said it would take a couple of tanks. thousands of tanks cannot solve problems. the most important thing is people want change. and people see that often change is not happening.

there are opportunities that have not been used, and again, it is a lack of political will, and more than ever before, without democratization of politics, without political leaders listening, without them listening to civil society, i think we will never succeed. the democratically minded people everywhere in the world should unite in should understand. the production, industry, agriculture. that is important, but there is

a more important thing. the people everywhere in all countries. unless we do that, unless we have governments practically everywhere in the world take kind of a condescending attitude towards the people, we will never put an end to the kind of problems that we are facing. and very often, the old tricks are being used in this new world. we must unite. we must have solidarity. we must support each other. to change the world for the better.

and i think the awards and the nobel peace prize, awarded it for some contribution, for making some difference, so you, too, must act. civil society must be more active than before. >> the role of the people. and the role of government with some examples. last year, for example, president obama cited a directive to the civilians in libya deciding to allow military power there, and i think many have seen the video. millions have now seen this video of the fanatical head of the resistance army, notorious

for murdering civilians and kidnapping children. in october, the president dispatched about 100 troops to you gone back to hunt down joseph kony. and there are human rights activists. in syria, to stop the killing there. where is the role of government in modern society? can you make any sort of broad statements about that? has it changed? >> i think governments and the opposite, bad government, lie at the root of improving the quality of life of people. for that reason, i have formed an organization called the global leadership organization. prime ministers, presidents, cabinet ministers, and we are

all prepared, and we give our advice not-for-profit, and we give our advice sort of beneath the radar. what initiatives to take in order to end conflicts, in order to settle conflicts, in order to govern better, in order to get the economy going, in order to create a better economic climate for foreign investment and the like, so this is extremely important. i do not think the united states as the only superpower right now should accept the role of policing the entire world. [applause] in all countries, there are

governments. a president said there is a time for a big stick and a time for speaking softly. too much big stick. is it not time for speaking softly? of the south african experience, i can testify that we did not change because of oppression, because of the many big sticks wielded. at times, that delayed reform, and president carter was right when he questioned the effectiveness of sanctions and the like, and is not such an effective instrument to bring about change. peace can only be achieved if

you get people involved in that which stands in the way of peace to go to each other. i do not know of any peace effort, a country torn apart by violence, but conflict, which has been achieved without former enemies sitting down, negotiating, and reaching an agreement which becomes part of an accord, so i am a great believer that the world now needs in addition to an act of civil society needs a sort of private diplomacy to bring about the change of hearts and minds. if we analyze the root causes of those things which suppress

people, which causes so much misery, i would identify some, but there are others. for one thing, we are failing to manage diversity. all countries are becoming more diverse. an overwhelming majority of all the countries in the world have important minorities consisting of 10% or more of their population. are we managing diversity? how do we make important minorities feel -- and appreciated building block of the greater whole? instead of them feeling and actually being marginalized in the country where they have been born, where their children are being born, and where their grandchildren will be born.

and the second root cause of all of the misery and all of the oppression lies in the fact that 2.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this earth live as an absolute misery. are hungry. live beneath. so if we look at the bigger picture, i think we need to develop a vision, and world leaders should put their hands and their heads together to develop a vision of how we effectively manage diversity. secondly, how do we win the war against poverty? people living beneath the bread line, giving them a better life, giving them hope, giving them opportunity. [applause]

you areident's waalesa, someone -- president walesa, you are someone fought to give people a living wage, to have them work their way out of poverty, and i certainly do not want to draw a direct comparison. when you look at the youth unemployment numbers in the united states and the difficulty even with a college degree now of getting employment, there is some understanding of what it means to fight to be able to support yourself. here is a classic picture. you have may be seen it in your history classes. some of you are old enough to have seen it while we were alive. the class emission of you standing up with workers at the shipyard and bringing about the solidarity movement, which changed, again, the course of

communism and certainly changed the course of history. tell me what you think the world today is a protests in society -- tell me what you think the world is -- role is to day of protests in society. >> young people tell the truth. so therefore let us be truthful and implement the truth here, so here i am asking, the chinese nobel peace prize winner, asking yourself in your conscience and ask yourself how we should be a if when our laureate is in

prison. but returning directly to your question, until the end of the 20th century, places were divided, continent divided, and there was a great disproportion in the development and standard of living. in the united states, perhaps you cannot see it that clearly, but in europe, we can see it. now, we have advanced to the technology so much that it is no longer single states and countries. we have come to realize that we have to enlarge the structure in which we organize ourselves, and

during the lifetime of this generation, we need to quickly and large our organizations, or otherwise it will continue increasing in the future. for me as a revolutionary, i believe there are three major questions that we need to answer, and the answers to these questions will determine which way we will lead our countries. the question is what should be the economic system in europe as a single state? not the capitalism we have in place today. we improve it. unless we reform it, it will not

survive this century. certainly, we will retain the free market economy. there is no question about that. but certainly not the kind of injustice that we have. on the internet, we can get together over a few hours, and humorous are no longer scared of their neighbors. the world seeks justice. just checking the weather cheat on them. and the development by improving economic systems to prevent the waist and damage. this is a question we have no

answer to. the second is democracy. today, people do not consider this seriously. they emit some representatives, and the following day, they try to write it and get rid of them by rioting on the streets. democracy. we need responsibility on various levels, where technology should safeguard leaders, making sure they implement the platform, and a question that would really be the fundamental one, what should be the foundation that would allow stable european integrity and stable globalization?

ourselves with different freedoms, and this is half of mankind's thinking. the future of civilization. the remaining half claims that nothing stable can be established. this will really miss the media. the stands the best of a chance for prosperity. it has to be safeguarded. but when we speak of values, there are so many different ones. and what is worse, we do not have an entity or in individual that we can all share and values to serve as a foundation for any solution. if we manage to find that foundation, then, the

contraction that we are anticipating. the challenges and opportunities for us all. [applause] >> i would like to make one positive piece on what president walesa just said, which is the prospect for prosperity, the prospects for the future of the young people out there, and i was looking at some old, if you do not mind me saying, television footage. 1978, the treaty, is that right? and at the signing ceremony, but what struck me was your daughter amy. she would have been 12 years old, and she has a grandson about that age.

two grandchildren. do you think these opportunities for peace and prosperity and maybe nuclear peace as we were talking about, but to president walesa's point, are the prospects for peace and prosperity as good or better for your grandchildren as for amy, and how about moving that forward? >> i think the prospects of peace for my grandchildren are better than they were earlier, and amy has two sons right now. one is 12 years old, and one is just 18 months old. the 12-year-old goes to school. he has no other text books, and he is able to communicate with children, for instance, in china. in china, i went to give one lecture, but he communicated

with the school children in china about the common things we have to address for the future. i think by the time we go through another four or five years, maybe when the war in afghanistan is over and iran, and the world sees that peace is possible, then i think there might be a turning of attention for more opportunities for children of all nations to communicate with each other and to learn about one another. >> and does not technology make it easier? we certainly saw the way the pictures were, for example, in tahrir square, in egypt, when we were able to be interconnected and were able to organize because of twitter, because of facebook, because of the internet. how has technology changed the prospects for peace and for the involvement of everyday citizens to make a better world >> well, the carter center is deeply involved in egypt.

i will be going down in a few more days, and i do not think any one of those revolutionary -- would have been possible without the modern technology. the cell phone and that sort of thing. people in communities within libya and within tunisia and within egypt and so forth to gather together with a common purpose, and the point i made earlier about my grandchildren, not only are the children in china and japanmaybe north koree israelis and the egyptians -- those children are going to be able to talk to each other and communicate with one another, so i think what has happened in egypt or tunisia is likely to

happen in the future among children of different nations, and they have something in common, the benefit of peace and prosperity and environmental and equality, i think that will be a major contribution to them wanting to get along better with each other instead of to go to war of the drop of a hat, so i think it is going to been in peace and not war because we understand each other better pure growth harks -- we understand each other better. >> you and i were talking about presidential candidates who were not going to be allowed to participate. i know all of you have talked about your frustrations in not

seeing the war come out of and what you have accomplished. is it harder to create peace or to sustain it? >> they are different challenges. it requires them to fully accept the need for fundamentals. it is the starting point, and this is what needs to happen. we cannot just maintain the

status quo. we need to change in order to improve the environment in order to bring a better life to our key bove and -- in order to bring a better life. it demands adhering to the cornerstones of the agreements of the constitution, which was negotiated. this was effective protection of private ownership, freedom of the press and freedom of association. all of those are under threat, because it is argued what was good 20 years ago maybe is no longer good tuesday -- today

because of bad government. education has not improved. what was needed was a effective governance, good management, and when that falls away, it can significantly damage what has been achieved. >> those their need to be a face to that change? it occurs to me there were faces to the camp david accords, iconic images and we have had. we know mikhail gorbachev was the face of change and nelson

mandela is so connected with the end of apartheid. one of the criticisms of the occupied movement is they will never affect the kind of change they could not, and the coasts -- because they reject being part of the structure, so by not having a face to represent that change, it is difficult for them to do it, and i am sure there are a lot of students in this audience who went to the occupier movements or were interested in them. do you think without a strong leader it can affect change? >> ladies and gentlemen,

whenever we looked up the problem, and we have to the get- respective term. it is a different problem when you have an outsider. good let's look at it differently. each of you can drive almost anywhere all around the world. now won the advancement as also does, it -- assaultive us, we have to a depth of things we can have that are the same kind, whereas with the different taxation system, a different social benefit systems.

the disproportions' are simply too big. but is why when we have this vote, are we talking about respective states problems? we are facing the challenge of greece. they have much better social benefits and poland, and poland is supposed to be helping increasgreece. a similar thing will occur when we come to terms with governments. we should really begin to think what should be the foundations and only then decide what we can afford three today, bearing in mind all of this is necessary when one country dominates the

other. then we assisted those who were the fastest runners. and we should assist those who live behind. isever does not pay tax thoses not to our advantage. everyone is essential. as we must find jobs for everyone. if we felt there will be revolution. the discrepancies are so great, we have of wide platform for integration. we need to level disproportions

in order to enlarge freedom for all of us. these are the challenges of today, but before we were not even allowed to ask such questions. today we have realized it is no longer anyone's benefit. we can create better benefits, but the discrepancies do not allow us to implement the decision, and we have political leaders. we cannot invent a new vision. hopefully we will find some structures that can lead us forward. good sex does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is an -- >> does there have to be a singular

leader? the answer is who is the singular leader in egypt or yemen or syria. the answer is there is none, but you do not need a leader to take charge and say, let's all do this endeavor -- and to gather followers. every student or everyone who believes in freedom or peace or environmentally qualities beaks independently, but their voices combine and make a powerful weapon that can change a government and bring revolution. in the past you have to have a singular leader. now you do not. i think that is a good signal to say, i can do something. i do not need to wait for someone to tell me what to do. good >> i would like to pick up on that, because i think there

is a sense the internet and social media has had an opportunity to bring us together, and president carter, you are known as a peanut farmer. you went on to become a nuclear physicist as well as president of the united states and a nobel peace prize winner. he is one example. if you were in a school in chicago earlier today, president gorbachev was talking about where he grew up, and it was one of the most impoverished areas, and raised by peasants. can use the globex -- can you speak to youth about the opportunities that were out there, and to say, i came from

plains, ga., or from a small town in poland. what can one person june? -- do? >> i think certainly we should not speak about region we should speak about things we have achieved, and they are important. they must be continued, freedom of speech, freedom of protest. if there is a protest, it may go too far, of but we should definitely preserve the ability of the people, the right of people to peacefully protest, and that is a great responsibility on all of us on the current generation. what i would like to say is but

i think the government in many countries understands the importance of youth in every country. we have recently had an election campaign, and there are some youth organization sponsored by the government. one is called our people. what about the government? what about the rest of the young people? they are not ours? many people do not want that kind of divisiveness, that kind of split of young people into those who are good and those who

are not. i think there is a great responsibility of the municipal level and also of the national level to have the right kind of attitude towards young people, confidence and respect. i am sure young people should not the pactiv on the back, should not be controlled. good at is not a way -- that is not the way to work thwith yout. we will not succeed if young people are just supposed to do someone sitting -- someone's bidding. i think very often that results

in irresponsibility, and distortion of the democratic process. that results in the way real problems are ignored, and that may result in extremist and fascist organizations and radical nationalist organizations. we have recently discussed this problem of young people, and the leaders of some news organizations -- youth organizations have recently taken the path of some kind of extremism. i think it is only within the democratic city that young

people can look forward, debate, shows solidarity. without the democratic framework, we could get something quite dangerous and very harmful to reuter >> you bring up a good point about two sides of the corn. good one is what we saw with the arab spring, but there is also up a clear link between poverty and youth and terrorism. no longer the greatest threat being the soviet union, but the greatest threat in the early 20th-century was considered to be al qaeda, and i am wondering with the splintering of outside the, the you think terrorism is -- of al qaeda, d do think

terrorism is less of a threat, particularly in the way discontent and poverty conceived extremism? >> i think it is a real threat, and i think we should start the change in approach and ask why do young people learn in the hands of people like the late osama bin laden, who quiz their minds, who motivate them towards terrorism? why are they vulnerable to that sort of thing? i think it relates to issues like bad education, failed education systems, issues like

unemployment, and no hope for a better life, because of bad economic situations. they have nothing to lose. there is an element of truth. therefore, improving the living conditions of people here give where do the terrorists come from? they come from suppressed countries where people are surprised. and they come from countries where the masses do not have a good living conditions, and it is stimulated by a fanaticism, so i think terrorism remains of threat. i think if we want the youth to

be activated in a more constructive way, and we need to also remember to heads are better than one. i am sitting next to to people who made a tremendous difference, but they had organizational structures, and they were right to say, choose your cross, and a line with an organization. people believing in the same thing can do better if they develop new and action plan rather than each of them developing narrowness action plan and promoting it on their own -- developing their own action plan and promoting it on their own.

and this becomes part of modern technology, which can exercise tremendous influence. i do not think we should glorify process for the sake of process. [applause] >> i could see you wanted to get in on this conversation. >> we should start with a proper diagnosis and a treatment. there was a legacy handed down to us. we used to have people trained to fight against one another and arm them, and when they collapse and we loved those people without any money, and they began creating their own private wars, and we continue to have

problems. people continue to adopt the same methods of struggle, though their motivation is different year ago -- is different. we need to globally identified terrorists, and we will have a proper education, a proper institution, so i think with the diagnosis, they are appropriate. the treatment can be appropriate, too, but your question regarding young people and leadership, i know when we were young, and one needed to be more than the other.

courage is not as needed anymore. we need to better organize ourselves to face the challenges and we have to meet. then i had two strong arguments , one was my belief in god, and i see how far i have gotten, but if i was to become the leader today, i would need to adopt a slightly different approach. if i want to be a union leader, i would say in 20 or 30 years from now we would need to solve the conflicts and problems in an equal sided triangle. all the conflict should be solved once we sit down to debate in a three-sided

triangle. the other side is business owners, and the other side is the level of the administration, depending on what level our original organization is. we should meet in a triangle of like this with the first question being what to make of 20 computers. we will never reach an agreement if it were not on a computer, so once we decide, we have a second question asked, about the respective demands. we follow with a third questions.

how many variations do you 1 2/5 want? only the fourth question is out -- when should we meet again, and this is calculated, and the young people have answered within 20 or 30 years you will help us solve conflicts and antagonism, and leaving a motion for our lives, and the same should be for political leaders. they should recall every single move of the politician, because i do not want a control of the politicians. i want this shift of records

everything in the computer. this is something you have to introduce, because otherwise, the world will not be transparent. i believe this is something we can reach. that is why i do encourage young people, and then we will test things. >> i have a handful of questions , and iom the audience pinhol think they are fantastic.

sam but it is out -- sam is out there. he wrote which very nice handwriting, do you believes faith and religion have any place in humanitarian efforts? if so, are they a help or a hindrance? >> i believe they have a positive place to exert themselves in the future. when you look at christianity, whether it is protestantism where catholicism, you find the

principles are the same, then it is peace. >> it creates a extremism. it creates fundamentalism, and fundamentalist in any religion,

and then the disagreement can deteriorated into feeling the other person is inferior, and that can go further, and saying that person's life is not significant and i can go to taking advantage of that person because they are inferior when in my opinion and in the eyes of god, and i think when we look at all aspects of religion, so the

common goal could lead to the same goals nobel prize leaders try to strive for and the canvidual human beeing adopt. >> there are so many things did have the potential to have an impact, but this comes from brandon. >> i think every country who that should have capacity is the product of developments. we in this organization held in

hiroshima a conference in pleading for a world without nuclear weapons. i think the basis of the old agreement needs to be revisited. [applause] it is good that it failed. it is good we are talking again but a powerful delegation has started a dialogue. we must stop proliferation, and we must bring down the stores of weapons everybody has who is entitled to have it with

international agreements, and the end result is no one can hold nuclear weapons. we should unite to achieve fact. it can be done, maybe not in my lifetime, but it can be done in the last time of young people -- in the lifetime of young people. >> no one claimed to this question, but it is a good one. how do you get people to care about in justices in the world? a trick question for one of the last questions. >> if i knew the right answer to that question, i could have a new nobel prize.

you cannot come up with a think we answer, but i sa all feel responsible, so let's take care of injustice in case we are faced with one. for them to be proper for the world in which we are living and will continue to live, but i do not know if anybody really knows the answer. your request as anyone here have the answer? maybe not. i think we have time for one more question, but perhaps this speaks to many of the issues we

have been talking about today. my teacher wants me to work on many different projects, but i do not feel safe in my neighborhood. how can i make my city safer? he wanted me to give that to president corporate shobes. he wanted to weigh in. >> you have to have more faith. you have to have more faith in other humans, in destiny, and providence. >> the gross inequities within a community between the rich and seem to put tremendous pressure on the poor to commit

crimes because they cannot support their family or because spain and lose self-respect. they do not feel they are part of society -- or because they lose self-respect. they do not feel they are part of society. the first is to remove the inequity. the second thing is to make sure the police and officials try to understand the problems in the neighborhoods where a crime eggs this theory give we had a program in atlanta, and we found out of third of a glance of people -- a third of atlanta people were desperately in need. the police had good enough job so they can live in the ninth part, and the same with the welfare officers and school teachers. they did not live in the community where the poor people live, so i think that issues the

biggest thing, to let the poor feel like they have an opportunity puree good -- an opportunity. >> i hope you feel as privilege as i do to listen to the wisdom, about isgoing to tweet because it is going to be on line, and we want people to have the opportunity to watch ipsit. [applause] and perhaps they can be inspired, as i hope all of you have been, by these words of wisdom, and i hope it helps you think about how one person can make a difference and promote positive change, whether it is

in your community, in your home, or throughout the world. and honor, of privilege. thank you. >> you did a great job. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> british prime minister david cameron deny it inappropriate dealings with rupert murdoch and james murdoch over sky broadcasting. that is next on c-span. and john brennan defended not a u.s. program targeting al qaeda operatives. tuesday, a look at the state of out high-and afghanistan and pakistan one year after the death of osama bin laden.

then we will hear from the environment and energy reporter. she will discuss the impact of environmental policies on the economy, and later, a special report by the veterans affairs department. mark thompson has an update. washington journal takes your calls live every morning. special advisor items smith resigned last week after testimony in front of an inquiry at the traditional media practices. today's british prime minister david cameron tonight inappropriate dealings over a bid for british sky broadcasting. the he was in front of the house of commons, where he also defended the secretary. this is about an hour.

>> mr. ed miliband. >> to ask the prime minister if he will refer the conduct of olympic sports to the independent adviser of ministerial interesting. >> let me set out the position again. i answered this. i set up their relations with inquiries. full access to papers and records. no government before has ever taken such comprehensive action. it is this government that is putting these issues properly on

the table and getting them dea with. let me deal of the three issues in this question. the conduct of the secretary of straight, the culture of media and sports, the nature of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of issues and the wider issues of the relationship between politicians and the media. first the culture secretary -- as was made clear in his statement last wednesday, with regard to the news corp. bid, the culture secretary followed up. he acted fairly and impartially and line with the advice of his permanent secretary. as he sat at in his statement last wednesday, he acted against the interest of news corp. on four k decisions, referring the bid to the competition commission, on refusing to accept news corp.'s undertaking without advice first from oft and extending the consultation

and on going back oft-comm on the importance of phone hacking. i see no evidence that he acted in a way that was contrary to the ministerial codes. in terms of the sectaries, the chairman of approved the approach. that included small number of people acting as contact points with these corporations as is required and rollins to process. required and follows in the process. it is quite clear that this contact became improper and inappropriate and went on the requirements set out by the secretary of state or the permanent secretary. that is why the special adviser resigned and he was right to do so. there are correct procedures to follow in this regard and they ne to be followed

scrupulously. that is why last week, i ask the cabinet secretary and head of the seacoast predicts its service to write to the department's clarifying the rig is procedures that shoul be in place for handling cases of this nature. the second issue is the nature of the inquiry. all inquiries best suited to get to the bottom of this issue. i consulted the cabinet secretary and decided it was right to allowed lord justice average and to conduct his inquiry and not commission a parael process to address _ the facts. we have a judgment inquiry with witnesses required to give evidence under oath, to accs papers and records, all live on television. there is nothing is difficult for this rigorous that the cigarette -- that the rigorous civil servants can provide. is not for the judge to

determine whether a minister has broken the minister of code. that is an issue for me and i will do it properly. >> we must and shout at the prime minister. i want to hear what he has to say. it must be heard with courtesy. >> i will not wait until the end of 11 setting gori to take action if action is needed. new evidence emerges fm 11 cents inquiry that the ministerial code has been broken, i will either seek the advice alex allen or take action directly. in order to do this, it is neither necessary nor right to have a parallel investigation that could duplicate or possibly preempt what lord justice said he was doing. you're just as offered his view on wednesday when he said " although i have seen requests for other inquiries and other investigations, it seems to me

the better course is to allow this inquiry to proceed." i agree with him entirely. i am and always will be a fierce defender of the freedom of the press in this country. is what the central pillars of our soccer is a. the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close for decades. the levenson inquiry that this government set up gives power and politicians of all parties the opportunity to get this right for the future. already, we have been introduced transparency. everyone here can see which proprietor or as their i need. like other party leaders, in our country for decades, i have tried to convince media outlets to support the policies of my party and now my government. there was not and has never been any grand bargain between the conservative oregon and rupert

or james murdock perr and. . the idea that there was some agreement that in return for their support would somehow allow the merger to go through is simply not true. right hon. member for detck responsible for this? >> members must calm down. there will be opportunity to question. >> the proprietors of news corp. have testified under oath and denied any type of deal and i

will do the same period on like the party, we were not trying to convince a center-right propetor of a cent of newspapers with solidly center news to on a change at position. we argued that the last government was irresponsible, exhausted, and that for our country and often goes. i have said that the relationship between politicians and the media has been too close, i know that none of the people opposite ha disclosed any of the meengs. they did that for other newspaper executives while there were in office. they just lie one-sided party politics. it is time they are honest about whathey did in government and face up to the real mess they

have left. mr. speaker, the reason this was essential for the prime minister to come to the house today is because the culture secretary is in clear breach of the misterial code. the ime minister stands by and does nothing. he asks why this matter is? it matters because we need a government that stands up for families, not the rich and powerful. he is scaling back fans. playing for time, he says we should wait for the levenson inquiry. lord justice leverson could not be clearer. he said that he is not the arbiter of the minister tell code. whatever anybody else says, there is somebody else o has that role, alex alun.

lord justice leverson is doing his job and it is time the prime minister does his. there are no fewer than three breaches of the military codes by the sun -- by the culture secretary. he told us "all the exchanges between my department and news corp. are being published." he has now admitted that he knew when he gave that answer that there was exchange's key himself authorized between his special adviser and news corp. now those changes were disclosed. we have won this -- we have 160 pages to prove this. will he confirm to the house that this is a breach of the code but said that ministers must provide full and curate information for parliament? second, the culture secretary

gave a speech to this house on january 25 and renown no that two days before that statement, news corp. was given confidential inside information darie. the prime minister does not need to wait to leverwson inquiry. will he agree with the high standards of propriety? the culture secretary was on a freelance mission. six months of daily e-mails leak in a leak of confidential information. on one of the biggest media blitz is today is the prime minister rlly reduced to the news of the world's defense.

one roby individual acting a lot. if the culture secretary was that close about the previous issues facing his department, he should be sacked any way. the central answer that the prime minister must kiev - must give, why esn't he refer a it tolex allen. the prime minister is defending the inf accord -- indefensible and he knows it. the special adviser had to go to protect the culture secretary perry because a secretary had to stay to protect the prime minister. the prime minister has shown today he is incapable of doing his duty, he is too close to a powerful few and out of touch with everyone else. weak and wrong, that is what we

learned. >> members on both sides -- need to calm down. the prime minister is used to being heard and i wish to hear him. prime minister? >> 15 years of secret meetings, pajama parties, christmas and all the rest of it and not one word of apology. let me answer very directly the three points he made. first he spoke about the sponsibility to my hon. friend but if he had done as research, if you're going to make these accusations, get your facts right. the second iss, he raise

specifically the information provided to news corp. which was completely wrong and a special adviser has said that while it was part of my role to keep and was corporation informs throughout the process, the content and extent of my compact was done without authorization from the secretary of state. that is the second accusation completely wrong. the third accusation is also about the special adviser and the ministerial code. my friend took responsibility and can the house and explain what happened and gave a good account of himself. can anyone remember the minister taking responsibility cha forrley wieman or mc eni inbride. what a lot of self-serving double standards we have. let me just make two further

points -- he says this is an issue of judgment about what steps to take. let us examine briefly what the deputy leader of the labor party pastas and wise. she was asked and said you called for the secretary of state's resignation within 23 minutes of getting the evidence. she was asked if she read the evidence and c saidno, i didn't need to. she said because i heard the evidence of james murdoch. he is the arbiter of standards. what complete nonsense. i am not be levelling this issue but it is not as serious as the euro is done, the jobs, the investment and the debts. it is time to focus on that. your endlessly questioning

someone who does that have the credibility will come back on you. simon hughes " -- order. simon hughes. >> every lead has sought to break these video relationships tween the neighboand the tory government. the leverson and korea is doing a credible job. this will be referred to the top adviser.

it should be done independently. >> i agree with what my hon. frie says. the opportunity provided for the inquiry, we should be frank. the relationship between the media and the police chief and the media and politians and some of the ethics and problems in the media have not been dealt with properly. this gives us an opportunity to deal with it. on this specific issue of the secretary, what is more robust than a judgment inquiry with minister is under oath holding the bible, wang larose, answering questions. that is the point. >> on wednesday, theecretary of state told this body that the permanent offics have agreed to authorized and approved of

this action. on thursday, the permanent secretary refused to 10 times concern for my committee that this was the case. on friday, he then wrote to me stating merely that the tea was aware and content. the secretary of state failed to provide full information to parliament or the secretary of state failed to require his subservience to provide accurate information to a assembled committee. both are breaches. of the minierial code. >> rather than brained noisily, let's allow the question to be finished. >> both sides of ride roughshod over the rights of parliament.

>> there was an appearance and what the ministry secretary said he backed with his assistance said. when asked to clarify, he made clear thate agrees the arrangements within the department as i said in my statement and he was pleased with the role of the special advir. i know the gentle lady allows our committee to drift into these kinds of things but she is completely wrong. >> there is an urgent need to restore public confidence and the processes lead to decisions in this process and to achieve that, an increase to be held in the open in which witnesses give evidence in public subject to cross-examination and under oath. well the concern -- if there is

concern is that questions remainhe will refer that to someone else. >> i can give you an insurance -- having seen some of the inquiry on tevision, it is mentally powerful that people are questioned under oath. that is far more robust than anything the independent adviser or sell the service can provide. i am not waiting for leverson to complete his investigation. if an amazing comes out that shows anyone has breached the code, i would act. this is the right way to approach it and i think people should respect the integrity of the fact-finding mission. it does not remove from me the necessity to plead for the military code. that is my job. isone of the clear duty iies

before the conduct of the special advisers. given what the prime minister knows already about the possible dereliction of duty, why is the minister still advising him? are there not matter is under the ministerial code which now merits investigation by the independent adviser? no one understands why you are seeking to shut this behind a smokescreen. the duty to do this is on you. >> i respect your right of the gentleman and his experience in government and he would know that i consulted with the cabinet secretary. what is the right process to follow to make sure we get to

the truth and we deal with this issue? the right process is to allow lord leverson to find the facts of the case and if there is y question about theinister of code being broken, i can then acts. the ministerial code is absolutely clear. ministers are responsibile. >> given that the role of the adviser of a ministerial code is purely to advise the prime minister on whether the minister's actions are in breach of that code and not to investigate or establish the facts of those actions, is an essential to allow the inquiry to establish the fact and the advance that they discover there is a prime offensive, then they need to refer it -- referred to the ministerial adviser. >> you are entirely right.

it is worth examining what would happen if you commission that the independent adviser to set down a process of factual discovery. you have to look at all the information that is about to be provided l to theeverson finding and would duplicate the facts. >> the prime minister hasust claimed began at in relation to theb sky b, that the government had independent advice every stage. will he confirm that on december 31, 2010, the government was advised to refer the bid to the competition's commission. the government did not do so. they both said last week and it is simply not true. >> we were acting in accordan

with a law passed by is government, the enterprise act. this requires you to consider the company's reputation to you in terms of reference to the competition commission. if you don't take that into account, you could be subject to judicial review. i said that aid each stage, he took in a bad advice and all that independent advice of correct. >> all sensible people will welcome the approach. but will he agree with me? what appeared wrong to rest the judgment and that he has a duty to follow as does the process? >> i think this is right. this is something we can recognize if you go back over 10

years in politics, it is the easiest thing in the world for a prime minister to say to a member of congress that it is getting a bid to e gulf, you have to let go -- be let go. i believe we need to get to the facts, it is natural justice and we should have more. >> the prime minister is aware that machinery has been in place for investigations in relation to the preacher codes of conduct for many years because of context of a citizens and members of the house of commons. why doesn't the fight -- prime minister implement that instead of going to a third party? >> kenyon across as that is more robust and that a minister having to provide under of information to incorporate the answer questions and under oath and knowing that all the time, anything in that information if it breaches the minisrial code can trigger another judgment.

that is what is happening. that is what i agree with the cabinet secretary. i am absolutely convinced it is the right approach. >> this morning, i checked with my office to see if there are lots of complaints about the department that colfer me during sports. mrs. bonesaid there were hundreds and hundreds. they wanted to know why harried was not becoming the football coach. she wants to let the prime minister get on with running the couny and getting results. >> this is important but there are many more important issues like jobs and living services and dealing with the debt that we should be getting on with. >> all these problems stem from

the prime minister's original judgment. having taken responsibility for the news corp.bid for b sky b away from the business secretary because he was sympathetic to news corp., it was stupid of him than to handed over so that because the secretary was already on record and in favor of the bed >> i don't accept that at all. it was not just antipathy. he was recorded as saying he wanted to destroy this visit. he could not carry on running that part of his department. i sought advice from the cabinet secretary and the cabinet set -- cabinet secretary as to the secretarof state. >> the prime minister just reassure the house that we are

getting maximum value for money in these cash-strapped towns in the offi of the independent adviser. [laughter] >> yes, i can. >> i was at the meeting of the public committee where, according to the prime minister's the statements just now, the press secretary said he approved the approach which was taken by the department in relation to using adam smith as a conduit. the press secretary said the secretary of sta made a statement and made it clear he is providingull written evidence for looking forward to providing normal evidence l to theeverson inquiry. this makes no reference to the ministers of parliament, how can lleverson deal with this?

>> let me be clear -- the approach was approved taken by the department to the clause i- judicial process. this included adams met acting as a contact point with news corp.. it is normal and required to have contacts and a promise secretary has made clear that he was aware and content for adam smith to be one of those was a contact. you can keep digging into this area but i'm afraid is not getting anywhere. >> could the prime minister tell us if he like other prime ministers have zero telephones of the murdoch empire? does he think what we see here today, but call for openness? >> i am perfectly prepared to

with a relationship between politicians and med proprietors and it got too close. the party opposite has not revealed any of the meetings they had while they were in government. we have been completely transparent. >> of prime minister has relied l on theeverson process. in doing so, by providing the leveson to mr. frederick about b sky b. >> it is a judgment inquiry. he is able to ask for any papers or materials and this government will provide it. >> mr. speaker.

the prciples of fair play and natural -- it should be determin after the secretary of state had the opportuni to give his side. the most -- it is more about the failure of opposition and the people of britain. >> i think the motivation is they would do anything than campaign. >> i am willing to keep them here as long as they like. that's my guess. >> the one fact that they cannot get away from is the fact that james murdoch knew in terms what the secretary of state was going to say before he said it had

before commercial operators in opposition to murdoch knew it. is that clear example of collusion and a shabby deal between the prime minister and murdoch? i would have thought that when he stands up in this house should make an apology. he stood up last week and claimed a series of facts, based on privileged access he has had. the facts turned out to be wrong. a man ofonor would stand up and apologize. >> speak up.

[unintelligible] >> that is in sharp contrast to a process, directed the high bidder. >> order, order. most questions have focused on the terms of the urgent questions. that was a million miles away from it, completely out of order. >> a proposed takeover bid it was given the same level of rutiny as the b sky b has been given. >> the transparency and scrutiny has been a proper process.

he took steps that were not welcomed by news corp. he was open and taking transparent advice. >> getting better employment rights than the rest of the workers in britain? is it possibly because he knows that whatever the culture secretary is in the private life, it presents the bully from hitting him, the prime minister. >> he can take his pension at any time and i advise him to do so. >> mr. speaker, i welcome the open process. i welcome the prime minister who will be responsible for insuring his government -- require lord

justice leveson to report directly to him. >> the report is going to be a major political media and regulatory event. he is reporting to everybody in rliament and politics and in public life that cares about these issues. we have an opportunity to deal with relations between politicians and the media, which have not been right in this country. >> the secretary of state -- the only way the minister's communicate with the special advisers is through e-mails. why has the prime minister forgot the letter that a

resignation delays is a disgrace? >> what i would say is if he is concerned to make sure that all the information is properly looked into. what is preferable -- where you can look at papers and ask questions or a inquiries with ministers asking questions under oath where all of the documents have to be revealed. this is what i do not understand or the opposition is coming from. if you want full disclosure before making a judgment, this must be the process. >> in a previous scandal, a

respected member of this house suggested the prime minister did not take responsibility. why he thinks the situation is any different now? >> taking responsibility for your special advisers means coming to this house and explaining what is happening. he gave his reasons for resigning. he has not broken the ministerial code. >> when they have the opportunity to question the this is an-- important issue. when the parliamentarians get the opportunity -- a key person was the special adviser. >> it is up to the door justice

leveson. -- it is up to lord justice leveson. in this house, you are able to call whenever you like and you can ask those questions. about the way the department ran the process -- all the parliaments have been writn to. >> would my honorable friend agree that a company which would sack the director would never achieve anything worthwhile at all? >> this argument -- if ministers resigned every time something was wrong, we would have a new

government virtually every week. >> the real reason the prime minister is reluctant -- if as a resu the secretary of state were forced to resign, he would find himself on the front line having to answer from every revelation of the code between the empire -- as a result, is it not inappropriate that the prime minister who has a vested interest should take this position rather than parliament itself based on a stunted motion of the house. >> you can find any kind of explanation you wanted. you could go to the simple one.

the best way to find out the facts is to allow it to run its course. that is the answer. sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. >> if any major business was bidding for a company, it would be normal for them to of dialogue with the departments involved. >> it is important that the dialogue is carried out appropriately. the special adviser to not act properly and that is why he resigned. there are wider issues. we should get this right. >> people will compare this to

the cavalier way for television in wales. this is small in the grand scheme of things. >> i did not accept that. we have done right. this has been a great success. look, all media cpanies have their great causes and lobbies. you get as much pressure from the bbc, from regional newspapers about things that they are concerned about. that is worth putting on the record. >> we should remember just a

week ago he said we should let them do their job. >> that is exactly what he said. i think it is right that the leveson inquiry take its course. a good headline 23 minutes after the -- >> mr. speaker, this is something that concerns me, the role of the special advisers. people work closely with their minist. i do not believe the prime minister does not know that the special adviser must have known everything that was going on, hour by hour, day by day. >> all of that information it is

going to be provided to the leveson inquiry. the special adviser has been clear about the role he plays and that he went beyond anything he was authorized to do. the difference is these people are going to be answering questions under oath, questioned by barrister in a court. >> they would almost be heavily guided by the leveson inquiry. >> i think my good friend makes a good point. you cannot guarantee an independent adviser would be quicker. it will be cutting across

cutting what levelord leveson is doing. i could not be clearer about it. >> he did not discuss this with james murdoch. i wonder why he felt unable to admit -- >> i have not had any inappropriate conversation about this issue andndeed i haven't . it is important to record everything you possibly can -- to report everything you possibly can.

a minister said he was trying to destroy it a media company. it was inappropriate for me to say that was not correct. that was a sensible thing to say. >> i share the mystification -- this has been breach of the ministerial code. >> she put her finger on it. he does not want to wait for the evidence or the information. he saw a crossing band wagon and he jumped on board. >> the culture secretary sd he wod publish all the documents,

all the exchanges between my department and news corp. does he no no problem whatsoever? >> his answer was given to explain the situation. >> mel stride. >> a civil service inquiry would have no power to summon the minister under oath. would you agree that the best way to give the secretary state the best way to find the truth? >> i do not want to belittle what the cabinet secretary is capable of in terms of proper inquiries, because this has happened in the past. the process we are engaged in is

many times more robust in terms of getting to the case about the facts. >> mr. speaker, what does the prime minister agree that sensitive information -- in advance of an announcement that that would bring a breach of the code but also illegal/ ?i >> i agree. that does need to be properly investigated. charlie and david were ecial advisers. both resigned in disgrace. there was an quiry at the time.

>> that is a very good point. special advisers have misbehaved and the minister has tried to shrug it off. >> did the secrary of state out by was being sent special advisers? if he did not know, how could he argued he wain charge of the department? >> i agree with the first half. it is important we establish the full facts of the case. the difference between this case and other cases is this will be examined by a judge in a court.

>> newspapers were driving an illegal market in personal information, yet there was no judicial inquiry. now that we have the leveson quiry, they should be given the chance to explain why they did so little. >> it is a point for the opposition. there were powerful reports. our political system did not react to them. we should try to get to a situation whe, so that when problems show up they are properly dealt with. >> do you think this exceeded his authority.

this will benefit smith in pleasing the murdochs. >> adam smith has made clear his role. he said it was part of his role. this was done without authorization by the secretary of state. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister recall the words of his predecessor who said advisers' advice and ministers preside? a socialist yahoo make up his mind in 23 mutes. >> my old friend is quite right. it is the easiest thing in the

world to react to any opposition politician, calling for a scalp. you have to take the time and get the issue right. people are going to have to be patient. >> as a former competition minister who dealt with some of these judicial matters, why eight special adviser -- why a special adviser was used? how could the prime minister get to the bottom of whose idea it was? that's something that has not been told. >> there were a range of people who were authorized to have contact with the news corp.

there have to be some contact with t department. the authorization was given. i think he is barking up the wrong tree. >> throughout the process, senior tea on a regular basis -- in the interest of transparency, all parties should publish all correspondence between their representatives. >> i think that is a very good idea. we all need to be transparent. >> i have heard 42 and to receive

>> today, president obamas topic counter-terrorism adviser defended the use of drones in counter-terrorism operations. then whether osama bin laden is that should be in the presidential campaign. >> i seem to have earned a

certain place where people will listen to me and i've always cared about the country. the greatest generation right in that book gave me a kind of platform that was completely unanticipated. i thought i ought not to squander that. i thought i should step up not just as a citizen and a journalist, but as a father and a grandfather. if i see these things i are to write about them and try to start the dialogue, about where we need to get to next. >> tom brokaw urges americans to redefine the american dream and a sunday, live, in death, your questions to the former anchor of nbc nightly news. and he has written about the greatest generation from the 1960's, and today. -- the greatest generation, the

1960's, and today. >> john brennan defended the u.s. drone program today. he said targeted strikes are necessary to prevent future attacks and that they target specific al qaeda terrace. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the wilson center, and its special welcome to the chairman of the board, joe sonoran, and his wife, alma. she is very active on the wilson council. this afternoon's conversation is, as i see it, a great tribute to the kind of work we do here.

we care intensely about having our most important policy makers here, and in getting objective accounts of what the united states government and other governments around the world are doing. on september 10, 2001, i had lunch with l. paul bremer. jerry bremer, as he was known, chaired the committee on tourism, on which i served. at that lunch, we limited that no one was taking our report seriously -- we lamented that no one was taking our report seriously. the next day, the world changed. in my capacity as a senior democrat on the house intelligence committee, i was headed to the u.s. capitol at

9:00 a.m. on 9/11 when an urgent call from my staff turned me around. to our mind, the capital was the intended target of the fourth plane. congress shut down -- a terrible move, i thought. i frantically tried to reach my youngest child, then at a d.c. high school, but the cell towers were down. i don't know where john brennan was that day, but i do know that the arc of our lives can together after that. when he was deputy director of the cia, when i became the ranking member on the house intelligence committee, when he became the first director of the terrorist integration center, an organization set up by then-president bush 43, when i was the principal officer of

legislation that became the intelligence reform and at terrorism prevention act, a statute which we organize our intelligence community for the first time since 1947 and renamed the national counterterrorism center. when he served as the first director of the nctc, when he moved into the white house's deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counter-terrorism and assistant to the president, and when i succeeded lee hamilton here at the wilson center last year. finally, when he became president obama's point person on counterterrorism strategy, and when the wilson center commenced a series of programs, which are still ongoing, the first of which we held on 9/12/2011, to ask what the next 10 years should look like and whether this country needs a

clearer legal framework around domestic intelligence. clearly, the success story of the past decade is last may's takedown of osama bin laden. at the center of that effort were a senior security leadership of the country. i noticed dennis mcdonald in the audience, right here in the front row. certainly, it included president obama and john brennan. they made the tough calls. but i also know, and we all know, how selfless an extraordinary were the actions of on an intelligence officials and navy seals. the operation depended on their remarkable skills and personal courage. they performed the mission. the wilson center is honored to welcome john brennan here today on the eve of the first anniversary of the bin laden raid. president obama will headline

events tomorrow, but today we get an advanced peak from the insider's insider, one of president obama's most influential aides, with a broad portfolio to manage counterterrorism strategy in far-flung places like pakistan, yemen, and somalia. activities in this space, as i mentioned, at the wilson center on going. as are terror threats against our country. i often say we will defeat those threats by military might -- might won -- we won't defeat those threats by military might alone. we must win the argument. no doubt our speaker today agrees that security and liberty are not a zero sum game. as benjamin franklin said, "those who would give up liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." i want to congratulate him and

president obama for nominating the full complement of members to the privacy and civil liberties board, another part of the 2004 intelligence reform law. at the end of today's event, we would appreciate it if everyone would please remain seated while mr. brennan departs the building. thank you for coming. please welcome john brennan. [applause] >> thank you so much, jane, for the kind introduction and that nice and memorable walk down memory lane. our paths did cross so many times over the years. thank you for your leadership of the wilson center. it is a privilege for me to be here today and speak to this

group. you have spent many years in public service, and it continues at the wilson center today. there are few individuals in the country who can match the range of jane's expertise come from intelligence service to homeland security. i would just say that i am finally glad to be sharing the stage with you instead of testifying before you. [laughter] it is a privilege to be next to you. thank you for your invaluable contributions, your research, your scholarship, which helps further our national security every day. i very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss president,'s counterterrorism strategy -- president obama's counterterrorism strategy, in particular its efficacy. it was here in august 2007 that then-senator obama discuss how

he would bring the war in iraq to a responsible end, and the war against al qaeda, particularly in the tribal regions of afghanistan and pakistan. he said we would continue this fight while upholding our laws and values and work with our partners and allies wherever possible. he also made it clear that he would not hesitate to use military force against terrorists who pose a direct threat to america, and he says that if he had actionable intelligence on high-value targets, including in pakistan, he would protect the american people. it is especially fitting that we have this discussion here today. one year ago today, president obama was faced with this scenario that he discussed here at the woodrow wilson center five years ago he did not hesitate to act. soon thereafter, our special operations forces were moving towards the compound in pakistan, where we believe it was, bin laden might be hiding. but the end of the next day,

president obama could confirm that justice had been delivered to the terrorists responsible for the attacks of september 11, 2001, and so many other debts around the world. the death of -- deaths around the world. the death of bin laden was our biggest blow against al qaeda. credit goes to the many intelligence professionals who pieced together the clues over the years that led to the bin laden hideout, and to president obama, who gave the order to go in one year later, it is proper that we assess where we are in this fight. the end of bin laden marked neither the end of al qaeda at nor our will to destroy it. it is fair to say that as a result of our efforts, the united states is more secure and the american people are safer. here is why.

in pakistan, al qaeda's leadership ranks have continued to suffer heavy losses. this includes one of al qaeda's top operational plan is, until one month after bin laden. it included the man who was killed when he succeeded ayman al-zawahiri. it includes the planner of attacks against the united states and europe until he was captured. with this most skilled and experienced commanders -- with its most skilled and experienced commanders being caught quickly, al qaeda has had trouble replacing them. this we have been able to piece together from documents seized from bin laden's compound, many of which we will release this

week. bin laden or read about "the rise of the world leaders who are not as experienced, and this will lead to the repeat of mistakes." al qaeda leaders continue to struggle to communicate with affiliates. under intense pressure in the tribal regions of pakistan, they have fewer places to train and groom the next generation of operatives. they are struggling to attract recruits. morale is low and at some members are giving up and returning home. no doubt they are aware this is a fight they will never win. al qaeda is losing badly, and i bin laden knew it at the time of his death. in documents we seized, he confesses to disaster after disaster. he urged leaders to flee the tribal regions and go to places away from aircraft, photography, and bombardment for all these reasons, it is harder than ever for the al qaeda a car in pakistan to plan and execute large scale and potentially catastrophic attacks against the homeland.

it is increasingly clear that compared to 9/11, the core of the al qaeda leadership is the shadow of its former self. al qaeda is left with just eight handful of capable leaders and operatives. continued pressure, it is on the path to its destruction. we can look ahead and envision a world in which the al qaeda core is simply no longer relevant. nevertheless, the interest threat from al qaeda has not disappeared. -- that dangerous threat from al qaeda has not disappeared. it continues to look to affiliate's and adherence to carry on its murderous cause. yet these affiliates continue to lose key commanders and capabilities as well. in somalia, it is or in to witness al qaeda's merger with al-shabab --. -- it is worrying to witness al qaeda's merger with al- shabab. at the same time, al-shabab is a focus on regional attacks, and this is a look at two organizations in a climat -- in decline.

al qaeda in the arabian peninsula continues to suffer from the death of ayman al- zawahiri. nevertheless, aqap continues to be al qaeda's most active affiliate will continue to support the government of yemen in its fight against aqap. in north and west africa, another a little bit affiliate, -- another al qaeda affiliate, aqim, continues efforts to destabilize friends and engage in the kidnapping o -- destabilize governments and engage in the kidnapping for ransom activities. and a group that aligns itself with al qaeda's violent agenda is increasingly looking to attack western interests in nigeria, in addition to the

nigerian government targets. more broadly, al qaeda's killing of innocents, mostly men, wom -- mostly muslim men, women, and children has tarnished its image around world -- >> are you willing to speak out against -- what about the hundreds of innocent people we are killing with drones in pakistan and yemen and somalia? i speak out on behalf of those innocent victims. they deserve an apology from you, mr. brennan. >> ma'am -- >> how many are you willing to sacrifice? why are you lying to the american people -- >> thank you, ma'am, for expressing your views. there will be time for questions and answers after the presentation. >> in pakistan, who was killed because we wanted to document the drone strikes. i speak on behalf of abdul awlaki, who was killed in

damages because his father was someone we don't like. -- in yemen because his father was someone would all like to i speak on behalf of the constitution, the rule of law. you're making us less saved by killing some innocent people. shame on you. >> thank you. more broadly, al qaeda's killing of innocents, mostly men, women, and children, has tarnished its appeal an image around the world. even bin laden and his lieutenants new desp -- knew this. they detonated mosques and spill the blood of scores of people. bin laden agreed that large

numbers around the world had lost trust in al qaeda. so damaged his al qaeda's image that bin laden consider changing his name. has he set himself, but what u.s. officials have largely stopped using the phrase "war on terror." simply calling them al qaeda reduces the feel of muslims that we belong to them. to which i would add, that is because al qaeda does not belong to muslims. al qaeda is the antithesis of the peace, tolerance, and humanity that we associate with islam. al qaeda and its associated forces still have the intended to attack the united states. we have seen a lone individuals, including american citizens, often inspired by al qaeda's murders ideology, kill innocent americans and seek to do us harm.

the damage inflicted on the leadership or in pakistan, compared with how al qaeda has inflicted damage on itself, allows us to look forward. in the ticket after 9/11, the time of a -- in the decade after 9/11, it was the time of its decline, and i believe this decade will see its demise. it is the result of efforts made it more than a decade across two administrations, across the u.s. government, with allies and partners. this includes the counterterrorism strategy guided by the president's 5 responsibility, to protect the safety and security of the american people. in this fight, we are harnessing every element of american power. intelligence, military, diplomatic, a development, economic, financial, law enforcement, homeland security,

and the power of our values, including our commitment to the rule of law. that is why, for instance, his first days in office, president obama banned the use of intense interrogation techniques, which are not needed to keep our country say. staying true to our values as a nation includes all holding the transparency upon which our democracy depends. a few months after taking office, the president traveled to the national archives, where he discussed how national security requires a delicate balance between secrecy and transparency. he pledged to share as much information as possible with the american people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. he has consistently encouraged those of us on at the national security team to be as open and candid as possible as well. earlier this year, attorney general holder discussed how our counter-terrorism efforts are rooted in and strengthened by an appearance to law, including the legal authority

that allows us to pursue members of al qaeda, including u.s. citizens, and to do so using technologically advanced weapons. in addition, the general counsel to the department of defense has addressed the legal basis for our military actions against al qaeda. the cia has discuss how the agency operates under u.s. law. these speeches build on electorate two years ago by -- a lecture two years ago by harold koh, who mentioned at how the use of unmanned aerial vehicles comply with all aspects of applicable law, including the loss of more. i venture to sit -- that the -- including the laws of war. i venture to say that the government has never been more open regarding its counterterrorism policies. there is some debate about how they are sometimes used against the fight with al qaeda. in the course of the war with

afghanistan and the fight against al qaeda, i think the american people expect us to use advanced technology. for example, to protect attacks against u.s. forces and to remove tourists from the battlefield. -- terrorists from the battlefield. we do, and it is saved the lives of men and women in uniform. what is captured the attention of many is a different practice, beyond battlefields like afghanistan, identifying specific members of al qaeda and targeting them with lethal force, often using aircraft remotely operated by pilots, who can be hundreds if not thousands of miles away. this is what i want to focus on today. jack goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general in the administration of george w.

bush, now a professor at harvard law school, captured the situation well. he wrote, "the government needs a way to quickly convey to the public that its decision about who is being targeted, especially when the target is a u.s. citizen, are sound. first, the government can and should tell us more about the process by which it reaches high-about you targeting decisions. the more the government tells us about the eyeballs on the issue and the robustness of the process, the more credible will be the claims about the accuracy of the factual determinations and the soundness of legal ones. all this information can be disclosed in some form without endangering critical intelligence talk as well, president obama agrees, and that is why i am here today. i stand here as someone who was been involved in the nation's

security for more than 30 years. i have a profound appreciation for the truly remarkable capability of our counterterrorism professionals, and our relationships with other nations. we must never compromise them. i will not discuss sensitive details of any specific operation today. i will not, nor will i ever, publicly divulge sensitive intelligence, sources, and methods, for when that happens, our national security is in danger and lights can be lost. at the same time, we reject the notion that any discussion of these matters is as slippery slope that inevitably and teachers our national security. too often, that fear can become an excuse for saying nothing at all, which creates a void that is filled with myths and falsehoods. that, in turn, can erode credibility with the american people and foreign partners. and it can undermine the public's understanding and support for our efforts. in contrast, president obama believes that, done carefully, deliberately, and responsibly,

we can be more transparent and still ensure our nation's security. let me say it as simply as i can -- yes, in full accordance with the law and in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the united states and save american lives, the united states government connects targeted strikes against specific allocated to risk, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones. i am here today because president obama has instructed us to be more open to the american people about these efforts. broadly speaking, the debate overstrikes targeted at individual members of al qaeda has centered on their legality, ethics, the wisdom of using them, and the standards by which they are used. for the remainder of my time today, i would like to address each of these in turn. first, these targeted strikes are legal. attorney general holder, harold

koh, and j. johnson have addressed this question at length. to briefly recap, as a matter of domestic law, the constitution empowers the president to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack. the authorization for the use of military force, aumf, passed by congress after the september 11 attacks, authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate forces against asians, organizations, and individuals responsible for -- 9/11 against na -- against nations, organizations, and individuals responsible for 9/11. as a matter of international law, the united states is in our conflict with al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we use force consistent with our international rights.

there's nothing that bans the use of formally piloted aircraft for this purpose, or that prohibits us from using lethal force against our enemies outside of an active battlefield. at least one of the country involved is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat. second, targeted strikes are ethical. without question, the ability to target as an individual from hundreds or thousands of miles away raises profound questions. it is critical to use the strike against the basic principle of the law of war that governs the use of force. targeted strikes and forms with the principle of necessity. the requirement that the target has definite military value. in this armed conflict, individuals who are part of al qaeda or its associated forces are legitimate military targets.

we have the ability to target them with a lethal force, just as we target and to meet leaders in past conflicts. such as german and japanese commanders during world war ii. targeted strikes conform to the principles of distinction, the idea that only military objectives may be intentionally targeted and civilians are protected from being intentionally targeted. with the unprecedented ability of a remotely piloted aircraft to precisely target a military objective while minimizing collateral damage, one could argue that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to extinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. -- distinguish more effectively between and allocate it to rest and innocent civilians. targeted stocks conform to -- the notion of -- targeted strikes conform to the notion of proportionality. by targeting an individual

terrorist or small number of tourists, it can be adapted to avoid harming others in the immediate vicinity, it is hard to imagine a tool that can better minimize the risks to civilians that remotely piloted aircraft -- thanfor the same red strikes conform to the principle of humanity, which requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering. for all these reasons, i suggest to you that these targeted strikes against al qaeda terrorists are indeed ethical and just. of course, even if a tool is legal and ethical, that is not necessarily make it appropriate or advisable in a given circumstance. this brings me to my next point. targeted strikes are wise. remotely piloted aircraft in particular can be a wise choice because of geography, with the ability to fly hundreds of miles of the most treacherous terrain strike their targets

with astonishing precision, and then returned to the base. they can be a wise choice because of time, when windows of opportunity and close quickly and there just may be only minutes to act. they can be a wise choice because they dramatically reduced danger to u.s. personnel, even eliminating the danger altogether. yet they are also a wise choice because they dramatically reduce the danger to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury or death far beyond the intended target. in addition, compared against other options, a pilot operating the aircraft remotely, with the benefit of technology and the safety of distance, might actually have a clearer picture of the target and its surroundings, including the presence of innocent civilians. it is this surgical precision, the ability, with laserlike

focus, to eliminate the cancerous tumor called an al qaeda terrorist while limiting damage to the tissue around it -- and that is what makes this tool so essential. there is another reason targeted strikes can be a wise choice, the strategic consequences that inevitably come with the use of force. as we have seen, deploying large armies abroad will not always be our best defense. countries typically don't want foreign soldiers in cities and towns. in fact, large commenters of military deployment is playing into al qaeda's strategy of trying to draw us into long, costly wars that train as financially, and fleming anti- american sentiment, and inspire the next generation of terrorists. in comparison, there is the position of targeted strikes. -- precision of targeted strikes. i knowledge that we as a government, along with foreign partners, can and must do a better job of addressing the

mistaken belief among some foreign publics that we engage in these and casually. as i will describe today, there is nothing casual about the extraordinary care we take in making the decision to pursue an al qaeda terrorist and the lengths to which we go to avoid the loss of innocent life. still, there is no more consequential position than it deciding whether to use lethal force against another human being. even at terrorist dedicated to killing american citizens tried to ensure that our counterterrorism operations are legal, ethical, and weiss, president obama has demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards.

this reflects his approach to broader questions regarding the in his speech in oslo accepting the nobel peace prize, the president said that all nations must adhere to standards that govern the use of force, and he added, "where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in finding ourselves to certain rules of conflict. even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, i believe the united states of america must remain a standard-bearer in the conduct of war. that is what makes this different from home we fight. that is is worth -- source of our strength." mission to regularly use remotely piloted aircraft against targets. president obama and those of us on the national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we

are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may -- and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians. if we want other nations to use these technologies responsibly, we must use them responsibly. if we what other nations to adhere to high and rigorous standards for the use, we must do so as well. what we will not do it ourselves. president obama has therefore demanded we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards, that every step we would be as thorough and delivered as possible. this brings me to the final point i want to discuss today, the rigorous standards and processes of review to which we

hold ourselves today when considering to authorize a strike against a specific member of al qaeda outside of the hot battlefield of afghanistan. what i hope to do is give you a general sense in broader terms of the high bar we require ourselves to meet when making these profound decisions. that includes not only whether a specific number of al qaeda cannot legally be pursued with lethal force, but also whether he should be paid over time, we've worked to refine and clarify and strengthen this process and standards, and we continue to do so. if our counterterrorism officials assess that a member of al qaeda poses such a threat to the united states to consider individuals and for consideration. it goes through the review and as appropriate, will be reviewed by the most senior official in our government. first and foremost, the

individual must be a legitimate target under the law. earlier, i describe how the use of force against members of al qaeda is authorized under both international and u.s. law, including both of the inherent right of national self-defense and the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which courts have held extends to those who are part of al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces. if, after a legal review, we determined that the individual is not a lawful target, end of discussion. we are a nation of laws, and we will always act within the bounds of the law. of course, the law only establishes the outer limits of the authority to which counterterrorism officials can operate. even if we determine it is lawful to pursue the terrorist and a questio -- in question, it doesn't necessarily mean we should.

there are, after all, literally thousands of individuals who are part of al qaeda and the taliban and associated forces. thousands upon thousands. even if it were possible to go after every single one of these individuals with a gleeful force would neither be a wise nor effective use of our resources. we asked ourselves whether the individual's activities rise to a certain threshold for action, and whether taking action will enhance our security. for example, when considering a lethal force, we ask ourselves significant threat to u.s.this is absolutely critical, and it goes to the very essence of why we take as an exceptional action. -- take this kind of exceptional action. we do not engage in legal action -- lethal action to

eliminate every single member of al qaeda and it will b -- in the world. most times, as we've done over a decade, we work in cooperation with other countries who are also interested in removing these tourists within their own capabilities and -- these terrorists within their own capabilities and ans law. we are not seeking vengeance. we conduct targeted strikes because they and necessary to mitigate an ongoing actual threat, to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and to save american lives. what we mean when we say "significant threat" -- i am not referring to some hypothetical threat, the mere possibility that al qaeda my attackers in the future it is significant threat might be posed by an individual who is an operational leader of al qaeda or operational force. or perhaps the individual himself is an offer to in the midst of training for planning

to carry out attacks against u.s. persons and interests. or perhaps the individual possesses unique operational skills that are being leveraged in a planned attack. the purpose of a strike against a particular individual is to stop him before he can carry out his attack and kill innocents. the purpose is to disrupt his plans and plaats before they-- and plots before they come to fruition. our purpose is to only undertake lethal force when we believe that captain the individual is not feasible. -- capturing the individual is not feasible. i've heard it said it tested at -- said that the obama administration somehow prefers killing al qaeda members and capturing them. nothing could be further from the truth. it is our preference to capture

suspected terrorists whenever and wherever feasible. for one thing, this allows us to gather intelligence we might not be able to obtain any other way. the members of al qaeda let me have been one of the greatest sources of information about al qaeda, its plans and intentions. once in u.s. custody, we prosecute them in federal courts or reformed military commissions, both of which are used for gathering intelligence and preventing future terrorist attacks. you see our preference for capturing in the case of a member of alpha about who had significant ties to al -- a kid in -- member of al shebaa who had significant ties to al qaeda in the area peninsula. -- arabian peninsula. since 2001, such unilateral captors by u.s. forces outside of hot battlefields like afghanistan have been exceedingly rare. this is due in part to the fact that in many parts of the world, our counterterrorism partners

have been able to capture or kill dangerous individuals themselves. moreover, after being subjected to more than a decade after relentless pressure, al qaeda at ranks have dwindled and scattered. these tourists are still seeking a remote and hospitable -- places te -- terrorists are skilled at seeking remote and hospitable terrain. oftentimes, attempting capture could subject civilians to unacceptable risks. there are many reasons why captured may not be feasible, in which case lethal force might be the only remaining option to address the threat, prevent an attack, and save lives. finally, when considering legal force, we are mindful that there are important checks -- when considering lethal force, we are mindful that there are important checks on our authority in foreign territories. international legal principles,

including respect for state sovereignty and the laws of war, impose constraints. the united states of america respects national sovereignty and international law. those are the questions we consider, at the high standards in the end, we make a decision, member of al qaeda warrants being pursued in this matter. we consider all the information available to us carefully and responsibly. we reviewed the most up-to-date intelligence, drawn on the full range of our intelligence capabilities. and we do what sound intelligence demands. a challenge it, question it, including any assumptions on which it might be based. if we want to know more, we may ask the intelligence community to go back and collect additional intelligence or refine its analysis so that a more informed decision can be made. we listened to the departments

and agencies across the national security team. we ask for them and encourage them. we discussed, we debate, we disagree. we consider the advantages and disadvantages of taking action. we also consider the cost of inaction, and whether a decision not to carry out a strike could allow a terrorist attack to proceed and potentially kill scores of innocence. nor do we narrow ourselves to counter-terrorism implications but we consider the implications of an action, including the effect any action might have on our relationships with other countries. we don't simply make a decision and never revisited again. quite the opposite. over time, we refresh intelligence and continue to consider whether a lethal force is still warranted. in some cases, such as senior al qaeda leaders directing and planning attacks against the united states, the individual clearly meets our standards for

taking action. in other cases, individuals have not met our standards. indeed, there have been numerous occasions where after careful review, we have concluded that lethal force was not justified in a given case. as president obama's counter- terrorism adviser, i feel i.t. is important that the american people know that these efforts are overseen with extraordinary care and thoughtfulness. is capture not feasible? it is these individual a significant threat to u.s. interests? is this the best option? have we got through the consequences, especially unintended ones? further attack -- is this really going to protect the country from further attacks? is this really going to save lives? we only authorized a particular operation and its best is of the individual if we have a high degree of confidence that the individual being targeted is the terrorist we are pursuing. this is a very high bar. of course, how we identify an

individual naturally involves intelligence sources and methods, which i will not discuss. suffice it to say that the intelligence community has multiple ways to determine, with a high degree of confidence, that the individuals being targeted is indeed the al qaeda terrorist we are seeking. we only strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances. the unprecedented advances we've made in technology provide us with greater proximity to target for a longer period of time, and as a result, allow us to better understand what is happening in real time on the

ground in ways that were previously impossible. we can be much more discriminating and we can make more informed judgments about factors that might contribute to collateral damage. i can tell you today that there have indeed been occasions where we have decided against conducting a strike in order to avoid injury or death of innocent civilians. this reflects our commitment to doing everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties. even if it means having to come back another day to take out the terrorists, as we've done previously. and i would note that the standards for identifying a target and avoiding the loss of lives of innocent civilians exceeds what is required as a matter of international law on the typical battlefield. that is another example of the high standards to which we hold ourselves. our commitment to ensuring accuracy and effectiveness

continues even after a strike. in the wake of a strike, we harnessed the full range of our intelligence capabilities to assess whether the mission in fact achieved its objective. we try to determine whether there was any collateral damage, including civilian deaths. there is, of course, no such thing as a perfect weapon. remotely piloted aircraft are no exception. as the president and others the knowledge, there have been instances where, despite extraordinary conscience we take, civilians have been accidently injured or, worse, killed in these strikes. it is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. when it does, it pains us, and we regret deeply, as we do any war. when it happens, we take it very, very seriously. we go back and review our actions, we examine practices, and we constantly work to improve and refine efforts so

that we are doing everything in our power to reduce the loss of civilian life. this, too, is a reflection of our values as americans. ensuring the efficacy of these strikes include regularly in forming appropriate members of congress and the committees who have oversight of our counterterrorism programs. indeed, our counterterrorism programs, including the use of lethal force, have grown more effective over time because of congressional oversight and the ongoing dialogue with members of the staff. this is the seriousness, the extraordinary care that president obama and those of us on the national security team brings to this weightiest of questions, whether to pursue legal force against a terrorist was plotting to attack our country. when that person is a u.s. citizen, we ask ourselves additional questions. attorney-general holder has already described the legal authorities that clearly allow us to use lethal force against an american citizen who is a

senior operational leader of al qaeda para it is discussed the careful review, including all relevant constitutional considerations, that are to be undertaken by the u.s. government when determining whether the individual poses a threat of a violent attack against the united states. to recap, the standards and processes i have described today, which we have refined and strengthen over time, reflect our commitment to ensuring the individual is a legitimate target under let, determining whether the individual poses a significant threat to u.s. interests, determining that capture is not feasible, being mindful of the important tax on our ability to act unilaterally on foreign territory, having a high degree of confidence, both the identity of the target and that innocent civilians will not be harmed, and, of course, engage in an additional review that the al qaeda at -- tourist -- if the al qaeda terrorist is a u.s. citizen. we look to institutionalize our approach more formally so that

the high standards we set for ourselves in or overtime, including, as an example for other nations. as the president said in oslo, in the conduct of war, the u.s. must be the standard bearer. i have made a sincere effort today to address the main questions that citizens and scholars have raised regarding the use of targeted lethal force against al qaeda para i suspect that there are those, perhaps some in this audience, who feel we've not been transparent enough, and i suspect there are those inside and outside of government who feel i've been to open. if both groups feel a little bit on satisfy, i probably struck the right balance today. -- unsatisfied, i probably struck the right balance today. we are a democracy, the people are sovereign, and the

counterterrorism tools are stronger and more sustainable and th -- when the american people understand and support them. they are weaker and less sustainable when the american people do not. as a result of my remarks today, i hope the american people have a better understanding of this critical tool, why we use it, what we do, carefully we use it, and white it is essential to protecting our country and citizens. i would like to close on a personal note. many people in the government and across the country, the issue of targeted strikes raises profound moral questions. it forces us to confront deeply held personal beliefs in our values as a nation. if anyone in government who works in this area tells you they have not struggled with

this, they have not spent much time thinking about it. i know i have. but i am certain of one thing -- we are at war. we are at war against a terrorist organization called al qaeda that has brutally murdered thousands of americans, men, women, and children, as well as thousands of other innocent people around the world. in recent years, with the help targeted strikes, we have turned al qaeda into a shadow of what once was. they are on the road to destruction. until that finally happens, however, there are still terrorists in hard to reach places who are actively planning attacks against us. if given the chance, date and will gladly strike again and killed more of our citizens. the president has a constitutional and solemn obligation to do everything in his power to protect the safety

and security of the american people. yes, war is hell. it is awful. it involves human beings killing other human beings, sometimes innocent civilians. that is why we despised war. that is why we want this war with al qaeda to be over as soon as possible, and not a moment longer. over time, as al qaeda fades into history and as our partners become stronger, i hope the united states will have to rely less on lethal force to keep our country safe. until that happens, as president obama said here five years ago, if another nation cannot or will not take action, we will. it is an unfortunate fact that to save many innocent lives, where sometimes obliged to take lives, the lives of terrorists who seek to murder fellow citizens. on behalf of president obama and his administration, i am here to say to the american people that we will continue to work to safeguard this nation and its citizens responsibly, adhering to the law and staying

true to the values that define us as americans. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mr. brennan. it is almost 1:00. i hope you can state a few extra minutes and take questions, and i would like to make a comment, ask you one question, and then turn it over to our audience. please, no statements. ask questions. first, your call for greater transparency is certainly appreciated by me. i think that the clearer we can make our policies and the better we can explain them, and the more debate we can have in the public square about them, a the more, one, they can be understood and that two, they could persuade the suicide bomber about to strap on a vest

that there is a better answer. i see you nodding. i am not going to ask you a question about that. i also want to say how honored we are that he would make this important speech at the wilson center. there is new material here for those who may have missed it, the fact that the u.s. conducts targeted strikes using drones has always been something that i as a public official against around because i knew it had not been officially acknowledged by our government. i was one of those members of congress briefed on this program. i have seen the feed that shows how we do these things. i am not going to comment on specific operations or areas of the world, but i do think it is in important that our criminologist this and sets out as carefully as possible -- that our government acknowledges this and sets out as carefully as possible the reasons why we do it.

i want at that at the wilson center, we will continue to debate these issues and see what value we can add, free from spin, on a non-partisan basis, to help to articulate more clearly the reasons why, as you said, war is hell, and why, as you said, there is no decision more consequential than deciding to use lethal force. thank you for making those remarks here. my question is this -- one think i don't think he mentioned in that enormously important address is the rise of islamist parties, which have been elected in 20 shock, egypt -- in tunisia, egypt, and probably will be in turkey and other countries. do you think that having islamists inside the tent in a political sphere also helps to diminish that threat of outside groups like al qaeda? >> hopefully, political pluralism is breaking out in

the middle east, and we will find in many countries the ability of the various constituencies to find expression for political parties. certainly, we are very strong advocates of using the political system, the law, to be able to express the views of individual firms with in different countries. rather than finding expression through violent extremism, these groups have the opportunity now -- they have never had before in countries like egypt, yemen, other places -- where they can participate meaningfully in the political system. this will take some time for these systems to be able to much work so that there can be a robust and democratic system there. certainly, those individuals who are associated with parties that have a religious basis to them can find the opportunity to participate in the political system. >> my second and final question, and i see all of you with your

hands about to be raised, and please just state a question as i am about to do -- you just mentioned yemen. i know you have made many trips there. you were eight t architect of the deal to get -- a key architect of the deal to get the 40-year autocratic ruler to accept the deal and leave the country and be replaced by a vice president and restructure government. do you think a type of solution like this can work in syria? beginning the family out of syria and structuring a new government there, perhaps having russia lead the effort to do that? because of its close ties to syria and that is still arming and supporting the syrian regime it? >> different types of circumstances, and they have unique histories. in yemen, they did have a degree

of political party -- pluralism. we were very fortunate to have a peaceful transition from the regime to the government now. certainly, there needs to be some way for progress in syria. it is outrageous what is happening in that country, continuing with the syrian citizens with the brittle authoritarian government. this is something that needs to stop. so i would like to be able to see something to transition peacefully, but the sooner it could done, obviously -- >> thank you very much. please identify yourself and ask a question only. the woman straight ahead of me. just wait for the microphone. >> hello, my name is -- and i am a correspondent. you talked a little bit about

the struggle that you have in this process of the targeted strikes, and there was the question of surrender. that is not really an option when you use a predator drone. i wonder if you can talk about what kinds of issues you found most troubling when you think about these strikes. >> as i said, one of the considerations we go through is feasibility of capture. we would prefer to get these individuals so they could be captured. working with local governments, while we would like to be able to do is provide them the intelligence so they can get individuals so it will not have to be u.s. forces on the ground in certain areas, but if it is not feasible, either because it is too risky with forces, or the government does not have the ability to do it, then we make a determination that the threat this person poses requires that we take action so that we mitigate the threat being

proposed. this could be involved in a very active plot. if it were to continue, it could result in attacks in yemen against the u.s. embassy or here in the homeland that could kill hundreds of people, so what we always want to do is look at whether or not there is an option to get this person and bring them to justice some help for intelligence purposes as well as to try them for their crimes. >> thank you. >> robert from the wilson center and the university of missouri. thank you for your comments. i did want to ask about one area where we see these events in nigeria and molly. i am wondering if you could talk a little bit about your efforts in west africa and also urge you to emphasize the economic development and the strategic importance of economic

development. thank you. >> you raised two important points. one is what are we doing in terms of confronting the terrorist threat and places like nigeria, and then what we need to do in terms of assistance and assistance to these countries so we can build these institutions. nigeria is a particularly dangerous situation right now. there is a group that has links with al qaeda and also al schwab -- a =-shabab, so there is a challenge that it poses. as we know, there is a struggle with the christian communities. so we are trying to work with the nigerian governments, as well as other governments are, to try to give them the ability to confront the terrorist threat, but also there is the issue of building up those

political institutions in nigeria said they can deal with this not just from law enforcement but to also address the needs hot dinner with violent extremism. we have been trying to work with some countries to address the growing phenomenon and threat of al qaeda. it is a unique organization because it has a criminal aspect to it. it nests in the rituals for large ransoms. where these countries pay these huge sums to al qaeda, and they are able to feed their activities, but in molly right now, and then you have a rebellion up in the north. it is such a large expanse of territory, that also requires a balancing of addressing the near-term threat with al qaeda but also trying to give the

government the ability to build up its institutions to address the development means that they have, the ethnic and tribal rivalries that they have, so it is a complicated area. i have been talking with my french and british colleagues as well as others about how there might be some way to address these broader african issues that manifest in kidnappings and piracy, terrorist attacks, so there is something that is concerning in a number of parts of the continent. >> yes? >> hi there. i am -- from the state department. how can we insure that interagency actors, when they are undertaking counter- terrorism actions, are held to proper standards?

to act as prosecutors, judges, injuries, and how we can ensure there are the same standards and processes? >> well, as i tried to say in my remarks, we are not carrying out these actions to account for past transgressions. we are not trying to determine guilt or innocence and then carry out a strike of retaliation. what we are trying to do is prevent the loss of lives through terrorist acts, so it is not like we are judge and jury on their involvement in past activities. we see it developing. we follow it very carefully. we identify the individuals that are responsible for allowing that plot and that plan to go forward, and then we make a determination about whether or not we have the solid intelligence base. we have standards. intelligence is brought forward.

we evaluate that. there are interagency meetings. there are a number involved, scrutinizing, to determine whether or not we have confidence that that person is, indeed, involved in carrying out a plan to kill americans. if it reaches that level, then we look at it according to the other standards that we talked about in terms of the feasibility of capture, the information that will give us the high degree of confidence that we can track the individual, and be confident that we are taking action against an individual who really is involved in carrying out an attack. if we did not have to take these actions, and we were still confident there was no terrorist attack, i think everybody would be very, very pleased. we only decide to take that action if that is the only option available, if there is not an option of capture, if the local government will not do anything, and the only available

option is taking that individual off of the battlefield, we are going to do it in a way that gives us the confidence to limit collateral damage. again, it is a very rigorous system of standards. >> thank you. in the far back. yes, you. >> so i was wondering if you could tell us -- >> to identify yourself? >> sorry. i am with a japanese paper. i am wondering if you could tell me how many times has an individual been denied, and also if you can address the issue of strikes, not necessarily targeted against specific individuals, but those which suspicious activities, could you comment on targeting them? thank you. >> well, i am not going to go into how many times, the

proportion of instances with these recommendations that come forward, but i can tell you that there have been numerous times where individuals that were put forward for consideration for this type of action and was declined. you make reference to signature strikes reported in the press. i was speaking here specifically about targeted strikes against individuals. everything we do though that is carried out against al qaeda and is carried out consistent with the rule of law. the authorization to use military force, and we do it with a similar rigor, and there are various ways that we can make sure that we are taking the actions that we need to to prevent a terrorist act.

that is the whole purpose. the tour will we use is to prevent an attack and save lives, so i spoke today for the first time openly about the drones. that can give you that type of laser light precision -- laser like precision. the metaphor of not damaging surrounding tissue. there is a cancer around the world that has metastasized in so many different places, and when that metastasized tumor becomes lethal and malignant, that is when we're going to take the action that we need to. >> the last question will be the woman in the back. >> what about in a country like -- >> could you identify yourself please?

>> the pakistan government has repeatedly protested the u.s. government about a drone strike. you mentioned that countries can be incapable or unwilling, so how do you deal with that? a country like pakistan that does not accept the strikes publicly? >> we have an ongoing program. in some of its programs, we are involved in very detailed discussions about bringing some tools to bear. as you pointed out with pakistan, there are ongoing discussions with the government of pakistan about how best to address the terrorist threat in that area. i will point out that so many in pakistan have been killed by the group that is in the borders of pakistan.

many in pakistan have given their lives against these, and so the parliament recently said in its resolution that pakistan needs to rid itself of these foreign militants and these foreign terrorists that have taken root inside pakistan, so we are committed to working very closely on an ongoing basis with the pakistan government, which includes intelligence, security, and various agencies in order to help them address the military threat but also said that they can help us in that area. this is so it is never ever again used as a launching pad. >> thank you. let me just conclude by saying the former cia director used to use the analogy of a football, with the lines on a football field, and he would talk about our intelligence operatives as

the players in the field, and he said we need them to get chalk on their cleats, go right up to the line in carrying a policies of the united states, and if you think about it that way, it is important to have policies that are transparent so that those that are carrying out the mission and those around the world are going to understand the mission and know where the lines are. when you do not know where the lines are, some people will be a risk of course, and some people will commit excesses. abu ghraib comes to mind, and so i just want to applaud the fact that john brennan has come here to spend more than one hour with us, laying out in great detail what the rules are for something that has been revealed today, which is the use of drones in certain operations, targeted

operations. the debate will continue. no question. people in this audience and people listening in have different points of view. we certainly no one woman did during his remarks. this is to offer a platform free of spin and partisan rhetoric to have these issues thoroughly, and you honored us by coming here. thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, join a chairman addressing international peace, discussing a partnership and

security challenges. you can see that live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> president obama held a press conference with the japanese minister. and the nobel prize winners, including former presidents jimmy carter and me tell gorbachev, and later, british prime minister david cameron with the british house of commons and that news corp. and a bid for the broadcasting network b sky b. >> four years ago, i was an outsider. four years later, at this dinner. four years ago, i looked like

this. today, and look like this, and four years from now, i will look like this. [laughter] that is not even funny. [laughter] >> mr. president, do you remember when the country rallied around you about hope for tomorrow? that was hilarious. but, honestly, it is a thrill for me to be here with the president. he guided us through difficult times, and he paid a price for it. there is a term for people like him, maybe not two terms. >> you can watch the white house

correspondents' dinner anytime live at the white house c-span library but all of the entertainment at c- span.org/videolibrary. >> president obama said aggressive actions by north korea are a sign of weakness, not strength. he was with the prime minister. the north korean nuclear program and economic trade and security issues. this is about 30 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the prime minister of japan. [laughter] >> please be seated. good afternoon, everybody. it is a great pleasure to

welcome the prime minister of japan, one of the greatest allies. of course, one of the reasons we enjoy such a strong alliance between our nations is because it is rooted in the deep friendship between our peoples. i felt in my own life in my visits to japan, and we have seen less on display very profoundly over the last year. last month, we marked the first anniversary of the tsunami in nuclear crisis that followed. all across japan, people stopped and stood in silence at 2:46 p.m., the moment that the earth shook. mr. prime minister, on behalf of the american people, i want to say to you and the people of

japan that we continue to stand with you as well. we stand with japan in honoring the lost and the missing. 19,000 men, women come and children who will never bewe stand with you as you rebuilt what you, mr. prime minister, have called the rebirth of japan. pacific and beyond. even as it has focused on the hard work at home, japan has world. it is a great to be to the japanese people and to leaders like prime minister noda. i am told many japanese have found strength in the bonds of neighbors, a bond which cannot be broken. the same could be said about the bonds between the united states and japan. spirit. i have worked to strengthen the ties between our two nations. when prime minister noda and i met, we talk about strengthening.

to meet the needs of the 21st century. and mr. noda, i want to thank you for the personal commitment you have brought to this endeavor. you have called the united states is japan's greatest asset. through our determination and -- we have seen your trademark determination and humility we have seen this through. during our discussions today, the prime minister compared his point guard in basketball. stays focused and gets the job that has helped make this visit a milestone. in the history of our alliance. agreed to a new joint vision to help shape the asian-pacific for decades to come. this is part of a broader effort i discussed in which the united states is, once again, beating in the asian-pacific region. first, we recognize that the u.s.-japan alliance, this will

remain the foundation of the security and foundations -- security and prosperity of our two nations and a cornerstone of regional peace and security. as such, we reached last week to realign american forces in japan which reflects our efforts to modernize with more forces thatthis will reduce the impact on local communities like okinawa. this will improve our commitment for trade. an investment. we are among top trading partners. our exports to japan and japanese companies in the u.s. jobs, but there's more we can do exports, so i appreciate the prime minister updating me on his reform efforts in japan including liberalizing trade and playing a leading role in the asian-pacific economy.

the jury the trans-pacific partnership would benefit both economies and the region. we also talked about nuclear safety, clean energy, and cyber security. to enhance our economic positions. third, our joint vision lays out the future we seek in the asian pacific, a region where international rules and norms are upheld, contributing to regional security, commerce, freedom of navigation. and where disputes are resolved peacefully. we continue our close consultation on the provocative actions of north korea which were a sign of weakness and not strength and only served to further p'yongyang's isolation. we discussed the changes underway in burma. we want to encourage more reforms that improve the lives of the burmese people. fourth, our joint vision

reaffirms our role as global partners down by shared values and committed to international peace, security, and human rights. our nations are the largest donors in afghanistan. we are planning for the nato summit in chicago and plan for the transition in afghanistan and japan will plant for a donor -- is planning for a donor conference to sustain development. i want to think this time to japan for showing leadership with regards to the iranian nuclear program. their regime in tehran is feeling the screws tightening. they are now appealing the crunch and one reason is that decision to reduce imports. this is one more example about japan continuing to serve as a model and a true global leader. finally, this commits us to new -- to deepening our ties to each

other and to new collaboration between our scientists, researchers and includes new exchanges that will bring thousands of our young people together including high school students to help japanese communities rebuild after last year's disaster. so, again, mr. prime minister, thank you for helping to revitalize our extraordinary alliance so we enjoy even greater security and prosperity for both our countries. once again, i salute the people of japan for the resilience and strength and the courage that they have shown during this past year. more than ever, the american people are proud to call you a friend and honored to call you an ally. before i turn it over to the prime minister, i want to warn the press that the prime minister is a black belt. a judo expert. [laughter] if you get out of line, i have protection. mr. prime minister.

[speaking japanese] >> i want to thank you, mr. president, because i know how busy you are. i have had a good exchange of views with the president today on bilateral relations between the u.s. and japan. we talked about the asian pacific region and various global challenges. among others. we were able to confirm broader perspectives and their present its significance and where the japan-u.s. relations should be headed in the long term. the president just now spoke about his support, and i would like to take this opportunity to say thank you for the support given by the government

and the people of the united states starting with the operation conducted by u.s. forces during the earthquake of last year. yesterday, [unintelligible] -- i met with the families of anderson. he took care of children until his last moment following the great earthquake. i also met with representatives of the fairfax county, of the search and rescue teams who, immediately following the earthquake, deployed in the region. i was able to meet with these true friends of japan. i have always held the conviction that our bilateral alliance is the benchmark of

japan's diplomacy. having had conversations with my friends [unintelligible] one of such convictions, i am particularly [inaudible] [inaudible] [translator inaudible] once such conviction that i am happy to announce today -- >> [speaking japanese] >> prosperity in asia. full use of the capabilities. >> [speaking japanese]

>> in other words, major opportunities and challenges exist side by side in the region. to cope with such conditions, we are determined to in the shared vision to realize the new u.s. forces realignment plan in accordance with the security committee during a statement released and to step up bilateral security and cooperation in a creative manner. we need to work with regional partners to build a network that is multi layered, is open, a comprehensive, and build on utilizing such frameworks especially with u.s.-japan, australia, and aipac. the east asian summit.

we shall also cooperate with china. this is an important partner. it is also when portents that japan and the united states cooperate to promote necessary rules in the area such as nontraditional threat, such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy, and security. peace and building. ocean, space, and cyberspace. in the economic area, we need to deepen bilateral ties and to fortify the growth and prosperity of the promotion of economic integration in the asia-pacific region. to that end, and both of our credit, both countries will work on regional trade with the working on free-trade in the asian-pacific region. from this vantage point, as well, this will advance consultations to participate in the trans-pacific partnership. negotiations.

the shared vision calls for the strengthening of cooperation. with energy. we discussed today expanding exports to japan. that is stated in the shared vision among the next generation use. -- youth. this will further step up exchanges among youth and such endeavors as the u.s. side and some got she leadership. i shall further advance these steps and. by thank you. >> we are going to start with laura mcginnis.

>> can you confirm whether he is under protection? how likely do you think it is a they would respond to a test and how are you likely to respond? statement on the issue. is that every time we meet with china, the issue of human rights comes out. it is our belief that the only is it the right thing to do because it comports with our principles and our belief in freedom and human rights. but also because we think china will be strong. they need to open up and

liberalize their run system. we want china to be strong, and we're very pleased with all of the areas of cooperation that we have been able to engage in. we also believe that relationship will be that much stronger and china will be that much more prosperous and a strong as you see improvements on human rights issues in that country. i know it was not directed at me, but i will make a quick statement on north korea. this was a topic of the extensive discussion between myself and prime minister noda. our consultation throughout the failed missile launch was, i think, reflective of how important our alliance is, not just to our two countries, but

to the region as a whole. i have tried to make sure that the north koreans understand that the old pattern of provocation that then gets attention and somehow insists on the world putting up with this behavior is broken. what we have said is that the more you engage in a provocative act, the more isolated you will become. stronger sanctions will be in place. the more isolated you will be diplomatically, politically, and commercially. i do not want to hypothesize on what might happen in the coming months. i think p'yongyang is very clear that the united states, japan, south korea, other countries in the area that are unified in insisting that it will abide by its responsibilities, abide by

international norms, and they will not be able to purchase anything from further provocative act. >> with regards to north korea, between myself and president obama earlier, with regards to the so-called launch of a satellite, a missile launch, we share the view that it undermines the efforts to achieve a resolution through dialogue. in the latest round of the missile launch, the also conducted a nuclear test which means there is a great responsibility. it the international community needs to call for restraint on behalf of p'yongyang. the measures incorporated in the recent u.n. security council needs to be complied with. we all need to communicate with each other. i cannot stress that china's role is very important.

we to maintain close coordination with in the united states and we share this deal with president obama. of tbs from japan? >> i have a question for both president obama and prime minister noda. how do you regard the location issue in the context of destroyed statement? although you did not refer to the location. on the u.s.-japan military realignment, it leaves the

question open to some extent. what do you think of the possibility that they will be recruited to to a different place? >> it is most meaningful that in the joint statement as well as the summit meeting today that we were able to confirm that our two countries will cooperate in the context of a bilateral alliance towards the realization of the optimum u.s. forces posture in the region and the reduction of the burden on okinawa. we will continue to work for the resolution of this state issue in a window. >> as the prime minister just noted, we think that the realignment approach that is being taken is consistent with the interests of both japan and

the united states. we think we have found an effective mechanism to move this process forward in a way that is respectful of the situation in okinawa, the views of the residents there, but also is able to optimize the defense cooperation between our two countries and the alliance that is a linchpin of our security in the region as well. we're confident that we can move forward with an approach that realigns our basic posture, our deployments, but also is continuing to serve the broad- based interests of our alliance as a whole. i want to publicly thank prime minister noda for taking a constructive approach to an issue that has been lingering in our bilateral relationship for quite some time. next question. one-'re coming up on the

year anniversary of the killing of osama bin laden. i was wondering if you could share some thoughts on that anniversary. i also wanted to mention that you're likely opponents said, "anybody would have made that call, even as jimmy carter." i'm curious what you would say about that. mr. prime minister, on the same topic. you mention the international fight against terrorism in your opening remarks, and i'm wondering if you can reflect on president obama's record here. do you think, from an international perspective, the

u.s. is playing it right in marking this anniversary? or do you think you might advise against excessive celebration? >> a few points. first of all, i hardly think you have seen any excessive celebration taking place here. i think the american people -- rightly -- remember what we, as a country, accomplished in bringing to justice somebody who killed over 3000 of our citizens. it is a mark of the excellence of our intelligence teams, our military, a political process that worked. i think, for us, to use that time for some reflection, to give thanks for those who participate in is entirely appropriate and that is what is taking place.

as far as my personal role and what other folks would do, i did recommend that everybody take a look at previous statements in terms of whether they thought it was appropriate to go and pakistan to take out bin laden. i assume that people meant what they said when they said it. and has been at least my practice. i said that i would go after bin laden if we had a clear shot at him and i did. if there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they would do something else, then i would go ahead and let them explain it. >> president obama has been in

the fight against terrorism and i told him in high regard for that. although bin laden has been killed, terrorism has not been rooted out. concerted efforts will be needed, and we will be there for the united states. the forms of terrorism are becoming very diverse. that just in japan, but also in cyberspace, and the oceans. we shall work together to root out terrorism of all sorts. next question from japan. >> i would like to last a question for prime minister noda and president obama.

there is no direct reference to china in the joint statement. what sort of exchange of views did you have on china in the context of a working on stability in the asia-pacific in connection with their advances in the oceans and their buildup? what discussion have you had on these subjects? >> let me answer first. the shared vision does not refer to any specific country, but we recognized china as a major partner in the region. both of us confirmed that china is an opportunity for the international community, for japan, and for the asian pacific. i explained in the meeting the president obama that when i visited china last december i

approach chinese leaders with my six-point initiative including cooperation in the eastern chinese see to further advantaging mutual beneficial relationship and have worked steadily to implement this. i have also told the president about the strategic dialogue i have had with china. of course, there were also discussions that we need to seek a response and we had an exchange of views. >> i think i have said in the past and firmly believe that we welcome a peacefully rise in

china. we have developed a very important strategic and economic dialogue with china. we think what they have accomplished in terms of lifting millions of people out of poverty is good for its own sake and it is also potentially good for the world and the region. as prime minister noda and i noted, we do believe that, as china continues to grow, as their influence continues to

expand, that it has to be a strong partner in abiding by international rules and norms. whether those are economic, like respecting intellectual property, norms of dispute resolution, like in maritime disputes and ensuring that small country than large countries are but respected in the international forum of responding to these issues. across the board, we want china to be a partner with us in international rules and norms that everyone follows. as china make that transition, from a developing country to a major power, they will see that over the long term is in their interests as well to abide by these rules and norms. all of these actions are not designed to in any way contain china but ensure that they are a part of a broader international community in which the rules and norms are respected and in which all countries can prosper. thank you very much, everybody.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tuesday of look at the state of out kinda -- al qaeda one year after the death of osama bin laden. then we will hear about energy on the economy. then later a report now on the veterans affairs department and the excess ability of veteran health care. go -- accessibility of veteran health care. washington journal takes your calls at 7:00 a.m. eastern. white house drug policy control

is of the center for american progress tomorrow. this is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on seas turn your your -- on c-span. the nobel peace prize laureate spoke about threats to world peace of the summit in chicago last week. they criticized on necessary wars and discussed the embargoes of oppressive regimes. this included former presidents jimmy carter and mikheil gorbachev. >> good afternoon.

hello. it is great to be here, and a great honor for all us to be able to see four presidents, four nobel peace prize winners. [applause] while we are getting the audio portion of our program together, i know you heard introductions to these great men, so i will be brief. to my right, jimmy carter, former president of the united states. [applause] he was awarded the peace prize in 2000 to four decades of trying to find solutions to international conflicts.

president mikhail gorbachev of the soviet union. his efforts led to the breakup of the soviet union in 1991. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1990. time magazine named him man of the year-end man of the decade. mikheil gorbachev the former president of south africa was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1993 along with nelson mandela during your -- nelson mandela. [applause] the president of poland from

1990 until 1995. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1983 as the founder of the solidarity movement. he ended communism in europe. we are proud to have you on the stage. [applause] we are together to talk about new challenges for peace with man who changed the course of history, but they are here with the message for all the young people and all who are watching not just across america but in many places across the world,

and that is that you, too, have the tools to bring about change. the most loyal to one happened now with a series of protest started in tunisia and spread to egypt and yemen and and became known as the arab spring. they are still writing the future of the arab world as a result of what young people there did. in the united states youth fled the occupy wall street movement to bring about change. they have brought up a conversation. you can see that in how the media is covering the election, and it changed the conversation in washington, so we want to talk to them about the things they did to change the world and also advice to all of you on

ways you can change the world. what do you thinks the biggest challenge to peace is today nemesis a package should apply to all of the regional organizations. -- >> i think it should apply to regional organizations. there is a commitment to peace, because all of us say peace should come first. if we had to billion christians, all of whom are committed to peace, we would not have a need , and i would say islam

and buddhism are just as committed to peace as christian. we have to say war comes last. peace comes first. [applause] >> are there places in the world of you think are the greatest now?at to peace is right know >> i feel people are disturbed, and once again, and people are asking the question, is there something fatal happening in the world? i heard that again. i heard five years ago -- i heard that years ago, and i a

degree -- i agree with jimmy that we should not be worried. i remember one member said it takes a couple of tanks. thousands of tanks cannot solve problems. people want change, and people see often change is not happening. there are opportunities that have not been used, and it is a political world, and i am convinced more than ever before and without democratization

of politics, without political leaders listening to society, i think we will never succeed, and that means the democratically- minded people everywhere in the world should now unite and should understand. of course, the production industry and agriculture is important, but there is a more important thing, and that is the proper relationship between the authorities and the people everywhere in all countries, everywhere in the world. unless we do that, unless we have governments who are practically everywhere in the world take a condescending attitude to the people, we will

never put an end to the kind of problems we are facing. very often the old tricks are being used cintas -- in the new world. we must support each other. we must want to change the world for the better, and i think if we look assets the nobel peace prize -- if we look at the nobel peace prize, it is awarded for some contribution, but we must continue to act in civil society.

civil society must be as active as ever before. >> i am going to start with a role of government president obama cited a directive in libya. i am sure many students see something like 8.8 9 million people have seen this video of the fanatical head of the lord , who is notorious for murdering people, kidnapping children. there are some who say the u.s. needs to do more in syria to stop killing there.

can they change? >> i think it lies the root of improving the quality of the lives of people. what initiatives to take in order to end conflicts, in order to settle conflicts, in order to govern better, in order to get the economy going, in order to create a better economic climate for foreign investment and the like, so this is extremely important.

i do not think the united states as the only superpower right now should accept the role of policing the entire world. [applause] in all countries, there are governments. a president said there is a time for a big stick and a time for speaking softly. too much big stick. is it not time for speaking softly? of the south african experience, i can testify that we did not change because of oppression, because of the many big sticks wielded. at times, that delayed reform, and president carter was right when he questioned the

effectiveness of sanctions and the like, and is not such an effective instrument to bring about change. peace can only be achieved if you get people involved in that which stands in the way of peace to go to each other. i do not know of any peace effort, a country torn apart by violence, but conflict, which has been achieved without former enemies sitting down, negotiating, and reaching an agreement which becomes part of an accord, so i am a great believer that the world now needs in addition to an act of civil society needs a sort of private diplomacy to bring about the change of hearts and minds. if we analyze the root causes of those things which suppress

people, which causes so much misery, i would identify some, but there are others. for one thing, we are failing to manage diversity. fatall countries are becoming more diverse. an overwhelming majority of all the countries in the world have important minorities consisting of 10% or more of their population. are we managing diversity? how do we make important

minorities feel -- and appreciated building block of the greater whole? instead of them feeling and actually being marginalized in the country where they have been born, where their children are being born, and where their grandchildren will be born. and the second root cause of all of the misery and all of the oppression lies in the fact that 2.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this earth live as an absolute misery. are hungry. live beneath. so if we look at the bigger picture, i think we need to

develop a vision, and world leaders should put their hands and their heads together to develop a vision of how we effectively manage diversity. secondly, how do we win the war against poverty? people living beneath the bread line, giving them a better life, giving them hope, giving them opportunity. [applause] >> president's waalesa, you are someone -- president walesa, you are someone fought to give people a living wage, to have them work their way out of

poverty, and i certainly do not want to draw a direct comparison. when you look at the youth unemployment numbers in the united states and the difficulty even with a college degree now of getting employment, there is some understanding of what it means to fight to be able to support yourself. here is a classic picture. you have may be seen it in your history classes. some of you are old enough to have seen it while we were alive. the class emission of you standing up with workers at the shipyard and bringing about the solidarity movement, which changed, again, the course of communism and certainly changed the course of history. tell me what you think the world today is a protests in society -- tell me what you think the world is -- role is to day of protests in society.

>> young people tell the truth. so therefore let us be truthful and implement the truth here, so here i am asking, the chinese nobel peace prize winner, asking yourself in your conscience and ask yourself how we should be a if when our laureate is in prison. but returning directly to your question, until the end of the 20th century, places were divided, continent divided, and there was a great disproportion in the development and standard of living. in the united states, perhaps you cannot see it that clearly, but in europe, we can see it. now, we have advanced to the technology so much that it is no longer single states and countries. we have come to realize that we have to enlarge the structure in which we organize ourselves, and during the lifetime of this

generation, we need to quickly and large our organizations, or otherwise it will continue increasing in the future. for me as a revolutionary, i believe there are three major questions that we need to answer, and the answers to these questions will determine which way we will lead our countries. the question is what should be the economic system in europe as a single state? not the capitalism we have in place today.

we improve it. unless we reform it, it will not survive this century. certainly, we will retain the free market economy. there is no question about that. but certainly not the kind of injustice that we have. on the internet, we can get together over a few hours, and humorous are no longer scared of their neighbors.

the world seeks justice. just checking the weather cheat on them. and the development by improving economic systems to prevent the waist and damage. this is a question we have no answer to. the second is democracy. today, people do not consider this seriously. they emit some representatives, and the following day, they try to write it and get rid of them by rioting on the streets. democracy. we need responsibility on various levels, where technology ahoy should safeguard

leaders, making sure they implement the platform, and a question that would really be the fundamental one, what should be the foundation that would allow stable european integrity and stable globalization? ourselves with different freedoms, and this is half of mankind's thinking. the future of civilization. the remaining half claims that nothing stable can be established. this will really miss the media. the stands the best of a chance for prosperity. it has to be safeguarded. but when we speak of values, there are so many different ones. and what is worse, we do not have an entity or in individual that we can all share and values to serve as a foundation

for any solution. if we manage to find that foundation, then, the contraction that we are anticipating. the challenges and opportunities for us all. [applause] >> i would like to make one positive piece on what president walesa just said,

which is the prospect for prosperity, the prospects for the future of the young people out there, and i was looking at some old, if you do not mind me saying, television footage. 1978, the treaty, is that right? and at the signing ceremony, but what struck me was your daughter amy. she would have been 12 years old, and she has a grandson about that age. two grandchildren. do you think these opportunities for peace and prosperity and maybe nuclear peace as we were talking about, but to president walesa's point, are the prospects for peace and prosperity as good or better for your grandchildren as for amy, and how about moving that forward? >> i think the prospects of

peace for my grandchildren are better than they were earlier, and amy has two sons right now. one is 12 years old, and one is just 18 months old. the 12-year-old goes to school. he has no other text books, and he is able to communicate with children, for instance, in china. in china, i went to give one lecture, but he communicated with the school children in china about the common things we have to address for the future. i think by the time we go through another four or five years, maybe when the war in afghanistan is over and iran, and the world sees that peace is possible, then i think there

might be a turning of attention for more opportunities for children of all nations to communicate with each other and to learn about one another. >> and does not technology make it easier? we certainly saw the way the pictures were, for example, in tahrir square, in egypt, when we were able to be interconnected and were able to organize because of twitter, because of facebook, because of the internet. how has technology changed the prospects for peace and for the involvement of everyday citizens to make a better world >> well, the carter center is deeply involved in egypt. i will be going down in a few more days, and i do not think any one of those revolutionary -- would have been possible without the modern technology. the cell phone and that sort of thing. people in communities within libya and within tunisia and within egypt and so forth to gather together with a common

purpose, and the point i made earlier about my grandchildren, not only are the children in china and japan and in south korea, maybe even north korea, hamas and fatah >> you and i were talking about i think what has happened indonesia is unlikely to happen in the future among children in different nations, and once they see they have something in common, the benefits of peace and prosperity of education, i think that will be a very major contribution to them wanting to get along better instead of

going to war of the drop of the half. -- drop of a halt. better pure growth harks -- we understand each other try as we talk about presidential candidates not allowed to participate. having said that, i know all of you have talked about the things i have read. you have not talked about your frustrations in not seeing more come out of what you've accomplished. is it harder to affect change or to sustain it? >> i think it is too different

challenges, and i think both of them are equally challenging an equally fulfilling effusive scene. to affect change requires you to accept their is a need for fundamental change. is the starting point for how to bring about change. this is what happened in south africa. this is what needs to happen in many countries where there are problems. the leadership needs to except you cannot just -- to accep we cannot just maintain the status quo. we need to change in order to improve the environment in order to bring a better life to our key bove and -- in order to bring a better life. it demands adhering to the cornerstones of the agreements

of the constitution, which was negotiated. this was effective protection of private ownership, freedom of the press and freedom of association. all of those are under threat, because it is argued what was good 20 years ago maybe is no longer good tuesday -- today because of bad government. education has not improved. what was needed was a effective governance, good management, and when that falls away, it can significantly damage what has been achieved. >> those their need to be a face to that change?

it occurs to me there were faces to the camp david accords, iconic images and we have had. we know mikhail gorbachev was the face of change and nelson mandela is so connected with the end of apartheid. one of the criticisms of the occupied movement is they will never affect the kind of change they could not, and the coasts -- because they reject being part of the structure, so by not having a face to represent that change, it is difficult for

them to do it, and i am sure there are a lot of students in this audience who went to the occupier movements or were interested in them. do you think without a strong leader it can affect change? >> ladies and gentlemen, whenever we looked up the problem, and we have to the respective term. it is a different problem when you have an outsider. good let's look at it differently. each of you can drive almost anywhere all around the world.

now won the advancement as also does, it -- assaultive us, we have to a depth of things we can have that are the same kind, whereas with the different taxation system, a different social benefit systems. simplyproportions' are too big. but is why when we have this vote, are we talking about respective states problems? we are facing the challenge of greece. they have much better social benefits and poland, and poland

is supposed to be helping greece. a similar thing will occur when we come to terms with governments. we should really begin to think what should be the foundations and only then decide what we can afford three today, bearing in mind all of this is necessary when one country dominates the other. then we assisted those who were the fastest runners. and we should assist those who live behind. whoever does not pay taxes is not to our advantage. everyone is essential. as we must find jobs for everyone. if we felt there will be

revolution. the discrepancies are so great, we have of wide platform for integration. we need to level disproportions in order to enlarge freedom for all of us. these are the challenges of today, but before we were not even allowed to ask such questions. today we have realized it is no longer anyone's benefit. we can create better benefits, but the discrepancies do not allow us to implement the decision, and we have political leaders. we cannot invent a new vision. hopefully we will find some structures that can lead us forward. it.

we can create better the answer is an -- >> does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is who is the singular leader in egypt or yemen or syria. the answer is there is none, but you do not need a leader to take charge and say, let's all do this endeavor -- and to gather followers. every student or everyone who believes in freedom or peace or

environmentally qualities beaks independently, but their voices combine and make a powerful weapon that can change a government and bring revolution. in the past you have to have a singular leader. now you do not. i think that is a good signal to say, i can do something. i do not need to wait for someone to tell me what to do. good >> i would like to pick up on that, because i think there is a sense the internet and social media has had an opportunity to bring us together, and president carter, you are known as a peanut farmer. you went on to become a nuclear physicist as well as president of the united states and a nobel peace prize winner.

he is one example. if you were in a school in chicago earlier today, president gorbachev was talking about where he grew up, and it was one of the most impoverished areas, and raised by peasants. can use the globex -- can you speak to youth about the opportunities that were out there, and to say, i came from plains, ga., or from a small town in poland. what can one person june? -- do?

>> i think certainly we should not speak about region we should speak about things we have achieved, and they are important. they must be continued, freedom of speech, freedom of protest. if there is a protest, it may go too far, of but we should definitely preserve the ability of the people, the right of people to peacefully protest, and that is a great responsibility on all of us on the current generation. what i would like to say is but i think the government in many countries understands the importance of youth in every country. we have recently had an election campaign, and there are some youth organization sponsored by the government. one is called our people. what about the government?

what about the rest of the young people? they are not ours? many people do not want that kind of divisiveness, that kind of split of young people into those who are good and those who are not. i think there is a great responsibility of the municipal level and also of the national level to have the right kind of attitude towards young people, confidence and respect. i am sure young people should not the pactiv on the back, should not be controlled. good at is not a way -- that is

not the way to work with youth. we will not succeed if young people are just supposed to do someone sitting -- someone's bidding. i think very often that results in irresponsibility, and distortion of the democratic process. that results in the way real problems are ignored, and that may result in extremist and fascist organizations and radical nationalist organizations. we have recently discussed this problem of young people, and the leaders of some news

organizations -- youth organizations have recently taken the path of some kind of extremism. i think it is only within the democratic city that young people can look forward, debate, shows solidarity. without the democratic framework, we could get something quite dangerous and very harmful to reuter >> you bring up a good point about two sides of the corn. good one is what we saw with the arab spring, but there is also up a clear link between poverty and youth and terrorism. and youth and terrorism.