unacceptable for the iranians to develop nuclear weapons and we can be in close alliance with the israelis. as you know, there is a new government. within and yahoo!. -- with benjamin netanyahu. i think that gives you more latitude on talks with palestinians. i also think it gives him a broader range of support if the israeli government, and i emphasize if the government works militarily. and finally, could i say, everybody is worried about the reaction in the arab world to an attack by israel on an iranian nuclear facility, my friends behind closed doors, there would be celebration in arab countries all over the world. have no doubt about that. when they do not want -- the arab world does not want iran to have nuclear weapons. it triggers proliferation

throughout the region and rivalry is what is taking place in places like bahrain and others. including competition in iraq, so, all i can say is that it was a little disappointing to hear that our first meeting was so great and wonderful, there was frank conversations, they agreed to meeting again. in baghdad. now i hear that they are already planning another place to me after that. -- meet after that. we've seen the movie before. >> joe? right here. >> joe bosco with the defense department and the program here. senator, thank you for another great speech. you just mentioned north korea. two weeks ago, secretary panetta said china has been

providing technical assistance to north korea's missile program, missiles that are targeted to the united states. in light of that, what is your view of the administration's position to lift export controls to china? on lethal weapons? >> you know, one of the -- it is conventional wisdom, but it is very wrong. the conventional wisdom is a china that looks hundreds of years in the future, they have thousands of years of history. china knows, they are thinking three moves ahead of us on the chessboard. if that's true, why do they continue to prop up a north korean regime? why would you want to prop up a regime that has 150,000 or 200,000 people starving to death?

why would you want one that continues? it's only cash is nuclear weapons, and continuing to not only move forward but exporting those kinds of technologies into the most volatile parts of the world. the chinese leader was here in town, and there were four or five of us. i said why? why do you continue to prop up the regime? it is a blot on the reputation of your government. and his answer was -- and i'm not making this up. chinese translator, senator mccain is well known in china for his candor. that was his answer. that is not a serious answer. i am a serious person. that is not a serious answer. but it was this kind of charm toward that he was on in the united states. -- a charm tour he was on.

behavior on the part of north koreans. i worry about a young man -- i guess, general custer was a general at age 23. well, now, we've got a guy in north korea and he is a four- star general at age 27. great. butthe point is, there is instability there, and it is a very unstable situation. we need to worry about it. while china and russia continue to veto sanctions on syria, why the chinese continue to prop up this regime and they are the only ones that can really influence this regime, as you know, is something that i do not understand. and with all of these recent events and the murder of the

british citizen, i wonder about the real permanency of a regime that is now running china and whether with things like a blackberry and a tweet and all of those things, whether there may not be some real dissent in china as a result of some of the things that we are finding out. i do not see how a group of men wear 1.2 billion people in china do not even know their names can continue to run the country from a seaside resort without something having to change either sooner or later. i do not predict any cataclysmic events in china. please, do not get me wrong. i guess what i'm trying to say in summary is,, when i was

president -- present as a naval officer, there was a group of us seeking to normalise relations with china. in the great hall. and on shopping -- everyone was having to drink that kerosene. [laughter] and i'm sure he was drinking water. we had high hopes for china. we thought there would be a significant amount of progress and in a number of areas i do not think we have seen -- in a number of those areas i do not think those expectations have been fulfilled. between the u.s. and china. it is not in the chinese interests. i do not envision that. but i do think there will be some internal problems that the chinese will have to grapple with.

>> the young woman in the back in the black. >> thank you. i am with the voice of america. yes, thank you for your candid answer. a follow-up to joe's question, the united states and china concluded the strategic depth -- strategic economic dialogue not long ago. i remember years ago you voted yes to normal trade relations to china. do you think the trade between the united states and china is on the right track? also, and will you please elaborate on what you just said, that you support a free trade agreement between the united states and taiwan. thank you. >> i do support a free trade agreement between the united states and taiwan. and i support free trade agreements -- actually, you know, the proposed specific

overall trade agreements. the first part of the question -- on the right track. the china trade. >> [inaudible] >> i think that the trade, we obviously know how serious isi think we could make significant improvements there. competitive. if there is any bright spot in have been through is that the productivity of the american worker has dramatically increased and made us far more competitive throughout the world, at great cost. but the looming issue between the united states and china is cyber security.

we are grappling with that issue in the congress as far as legislation. we created a seiberg command. we are trying to address -- we created a seiberg command. -- cyber command. issue not only militarily, but intellectual property issue. we know for a fact that the chinese have hacked into and gotten a lot of our technology. it through the "cyber activities." i'm not saying cyber warfare, campaign. that shows you the depths of the plan it. it must have been a boring day in beijing. [laughter] i think the situation can show significant improvement.

but the issue of cyber security between the united states and china, and the united states and other countries -- not just china -- but china as the greatest violator is going to be a serious issue between our two countries. >> i am with cnn. nice to see you. to build on your response to the question of china the only influence over north korea, is that to say [inaudible] >> i think the united states should do everything it can. unfortunately, the sanctions were lifted by the bush bank accounts in macau and other activities. i think it is one of the great mistakes the bush administration made. i think we should continue to

make every effort to modify their behavior. we could do that through closer relations with south korea, presence. we continue to be active in. really force change in north they could shut down their economy in a week or two. that may be an exaggeration, but they can certainly have a significant effect on north korean behavior. i keep hearing from -- maybe it the certainly, those who have a different view from what i do. they're saying, china has unified korea. if they became unified, the thing china had problems absorbing what was then east germany into their economy? this was since 1945 a country

that had no principles of capitalism, free enterprise, of democracy. the challenge would be -- and to integrate north and south korea, it would take years and years. it would not be a threat to china. how does a unified career really pose a threat to a world superpower? it is foolishness. all countries develop reputations in the world. i want us to have the closest and most progressive relations with china possible. but when they veto sanctions, join russia in vetoing sanctions on syria, and and this resent. -- this recent activities such as mr. chen having to come to the embassy, the murder of a british citizen, they have to understand that as a world

superpower, there's a certain level of conduct that the world expects them to maintain. make the judgment that they are not measuring up to those standards that a major making. >> two more. i am vietnamese american. i thank you for all of the tonya -- time you of served in vietnam, and now as well. convention on the law of the sea, you had promised us that he would vote for the ratification of that, but you did not. and coming to the second part,

that china had exerted in the south china sea, two days from now on may 16, they are about to ban fishing in the whole area. 80% of the south china sea from may until august. that will affect millions of people living around the area officially. -- fisheries. and i would like to come back to one statement, just to thank you for your focus in asia. to the focus that president obama has somehow initiated to pivot to asia. u.n. he somehow share the same interests -- you and he somehow share the same interest in asia. the level playing field requirement that he put out, i feel that is very much important to keep putting

forward. we need to observe that. thank you. >> i am all in favor, as i said, of a partnership agreements i want us to move forward with it as quickly as possible and place it as a high priority. i do not think the word. is the right word to use, emphasis on relations in asia. a lot of things are happening in that part of the world, too. and we do not want our european friends to think that it means that we are leaving one part of the world. -- means that pivot means that we are leaving one part of the

and to secretary clinton's credit, she has not use thatyou covered a lot of ground. >> [inaudible] president of utter one word that he wants to see this treaty ratified. pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> yes, but it has to do with presidential leadership. it has to do with the president saying he wants the treaty passed by congress. there has not been one word that i have heard. second, now it is probably going to be up to the second obama administration or the brahney -- romney administration as to whether the treaty is move or not. and that will be the decision -- the leaders of congress follow the leadership of the president of the united states. we will see whether the incoming romney administration or the continuation of the obama administration replaces the law of the sea treaty as a priority.

as you know, it has been languishing for some four years or so. my dear friend john warner continues to come see me and advocate for it. >> thank you very much. senator, i would like to introduce myself. i am mohammad with h our communications. -- h.i. communications. why are we so focused on iran if they are so far away from us? >> i think we're worried about them developing missiles so that they can reach us. the iranians -- well, they notwe

all know that. there is great debate as to how far along they are and what their real intentions are, but they have enriched uranium and have taken other steps to nuclear weapons. badly throughout the world, states of america. they have a plot to assassinate the saudi ambassador here init is too expensive for my taste, but i can see why the saudi arabian ambassador can afford to pick up the tab.

it is a very fine restaurant. [laughter] look, only part of their activities are the effort toand this is my criticism. we need to look at iranianright now, there are iranians on the ground in damascus showing people, and there are a iranian well. unspeakable. this is the government that when a young woman named nedda was bleeding to death in the streets in iran and 1.5 million people were demonstrating saying, "obama, obama, are you with us?" and this administration refused to stand with them, which was a mistake in my opinion, -- i want and iran that is -- i don't want an iran that is dedicated to an extreme islamic agenda. >> there is some that may find that to be an idle threat.

i do not when it dedicates itself to wiping a neighbor off the map. i guess, you and i have a very different view of the threat that iran poses to peace and stability in the world. i respect your obvious views and i hope you will respect mine on that issue. can i say that i thank csis again for not only been -- having the opportunity to talk, but to have an exchange with some of the smartest people i know. it is totally black. thank you. [applause] national captioning institute]

cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> republican representative ron paul announced monday that he is suspending his presidential campaign. you can learn more about what the -- what author brian dorthy calls "ron paul revolution." he is a senior editor. and you will hear from kentucky senator rand paul. in a few moments, president obama as a commencement speech at barnard college in new york city. we will hear in military spouses and children at the white house.

at 10:00 a.m. eastern, reducing the cost of hiv/aids drugs. and then a subcommittee here's an update on the status of a chinese dissident. >> reading has become over the last 200 years the ultimate democratic act of the ultimate democratic country, because it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what if you once held close. the president can " mark twain because he has read huckleberry finn, and the postman can because he has read it, too. the demagoguery, although still -- still possible, it requires

more stealth and cleverness. with careful reading, the flaws are revealed to ordinary people like us. it was not for nothing that the '90s may bonfires of books. >> in 1992, a pulitzer prize for her columns on a wide range of personal and political topics. in a few weeks, you can talk to the best-selling author on booktv. get a head start by watching some of her other comments over the years online at the c-span video library, on her writing, belize, and convictions, and her life in journalism all archived and searchable. >> president obama told college graduates on monday to never underestimate themselves. his speech was about 40 minutes.

[cheers and applause] honor and privilege to have you with us today. before represent your citation, i want to share two special guest that barnard presented to you just a short while ago. class of 2012 from sasha and melia obama. [cheers and applause] the seniors, who are so happy to have you as their commencement speaker, have written messages daughters. we want them to know that they are welcome at barnard any time. [cheers and applause] the second gift for you and the

furs later -- first lady is a barnard prides itself on its short -- it's extraordinary writers. and we want to give you a collection of books written by barnard alumni and inscribed by the authors. we hope you will enjoy. [cheers and applause] the president of the united [cheers and applause] barack obama, 44th president of the united states of america. in this exuberant presentation of the college of highest honor, we pay tribute to your

leadership of our nation and your place in our world. to today, the chronicle of your life has enthralled us. the early years in indonesia that spark your independence and open your eyes to the breath of humanity. college, first paulick -- first york city, were you burn your bachelor's degree from the great columbia university. [cheers and applause] communities in need and then on to harvard law school, becoming the first african-american review and graduating magna cum laude in 1991. returning in chicago -- to chicago, you deep in your commitment to public service because you understood that

grass roots were the way. as your mentor put it, if you are not trying to change things out there, you might as well forget it. then in 1992, in one of your all-time best slam dunks, you nichelle. [cheers and applause) with her by your side, you served as a u.s. senator, gave a speech at the 2004 democratic national convention that was as brilliant as it was decisive. [applause] when you said that we stand on the crossroads of history,

perhaps you had no idea that the country and the world would forever know your name. on january 20, 2009, standing smack on those historical cross through -- crossroads, you were sworn in as the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] since then in three years and and providing affordable health care. [cheers and applause) on reforming student loan programs and cutting credit-card debt and financial regulation, you have reinvigorated the auto industry, raising fuel efficiency, and overturned restrictions on stem cell research. [cheers and applause] you have ended the war in iraq, turned the tide in afghanistan, and made certain that regardless

of sexual orientation, those serving our country have the freedom both to ask and to tell. [cheers and applause] and just days ago you affirm your belief that the right to marriage belongs to us all. [cheers and applause] for women in particular -- [cheers and applause) for women in particular, you have helped that we get -- helped us get equal pay. you signed an act into law. [cheers and applause] you have removed barriers to women in the military, improved repeatedly supported our right to choose. [cheers and applause) and time and again, you have

put your trust in the long list of gifted and remarkable women leaders, supreme court justices sonia sotomayor and elena kagan, secretary of state hillary clinton senior advisor valerie chad, -- jared, janet nepalitano, susan rice, lisa jackson, kathleen sebelius, susan rice, lisa jackson, home lan security -- -- homeland security -- [cheers and applause] -- to the eta. -- epa. your wisdom in these selections comes as no surprise because after all, it is these extraordinary women in your life that shaikh did most profoundly. the strength that you learned -- that shaped it most profoundly.

the strength that you learn from your grandmother as well as for constancy and capacity for wonder. the special bond with your terrific sister and barred alumna -- barnard alumni, miami. -- mya. and your devoted partnership with michelle and sasha and melia, who give us hope. clearly, mr. president, you know something that the graduates seated before you are well on their way to discovering, that there is no opportunity that they cannot embrace, no dreamyou have

demonstrated that you have stayed true to your own amazing story, your own compelling example, your own irrepressible spirit. it is a profound honor for us to come together on this historic day not only to prevent you president barack obama with the 2012 barnard medal of distinction, but to give you our like you, in pursuit of a sounder, freer, and a lot smarter world. [cheers and applause) >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you very much. thank you so much. [applause] thank you. thank you.

class of 2012. -- hello class of 2012. [cheers and applause] thank you for the honor of being able to be part of it. there are some many people who are proud of you -- your parents, family, faculty, friends, all of whom share in [applause] [cheers and applause] of these folks graduate. [applause] i have to say that whenever i come to these things, i start thinking about melia and such a

-- sasha and malia graduating and the start of tearing up - [laughter] together. i will begin by telling you a hard truth. i am a columbia [laughter] college graduate] i know there can be a little bit of a sibling rivalry here. [laughter] but i am honored nevertheless to be your commencement speaker [applause] cheryl sandberg, these are not easy act to follow. i will point out that hillary is doing an extraordinary job and is one of the finest secretary of state's america has ever had.

[applause] medal of arts and humanities. [applause] cheryl is not just a good friend, she is also one of our the old saying -- keep your fans clothes and your barnard -- keep your friends close and your barnard [applause] [laughter] now, the year i graduated, this area looks familiar -- the year columbia. american woman in space.

we had the walkman. [applause] no more walking today. [laughter] times square was not a family destination. [laughter] i know this is all ancient history. nothing worse than commencement speakers and droning on about bygone days.

but for all the differences, the class of 1983 actually had a lotwe, too, were heading out into a country was still recovering from a particularly severe economic recession. it was a time of change. political debates. you can relate to this because just as you were starting out than 5 million tons towards the -- 5 million jobs toward the end of your freshman year. since then, some of you have seen parents put off retirement, france struggled to find work -- france struggled to find work in -- friends struggle to find work in committee looking toward the when we were sitting where youof course, as young women, you are also going to grapple with unique challenges like whether you will be able to earn equal pay for equal work, whether you will be able to balance the demands of your job and your family,

whether you will be able your own health. while opportunities for women have grown exponentially over the last 30 years, as young people, in many ways, you have a crucial, the job losses steeper, politics seems nastier, congress more gridlock than ever. some folks in the financial corporate citizenship. no wonder that faith in our lower particular when good news ratings as bad news anymore. every day you receive a steady

stream of sensationalism and scandal and stories with a message that suggests change is not possible. you can't -- you can make a difference and you will not be able to close that gap between life as it is a life as you want to be. my job today is to tell you don't believe it. tougher. i've seen your service. i have seen you engaged and i have seen you turn out in record numbers. i have heard your voice is in the older generations cani have seen a generation eager, in patients even, to step into the rushing waters of history and change its course. and that defiant, can-do spirit is what runs through the veins

of american history. it is the lifeblood of all of our progress and it is that spirit which we need your rekindle right now. the question is not whether things will get better, they always do. the question is not whether we've got the solutions to our challenges, we have had them within our grasp for quite some time. we know for example that his country would be better off if more americans were able to get the kind of education you have received here at barnard [cheers and applause] if more people could get the specific skills and training that employers are looking for today, we know that we would

all be better off if we invest in science, technology and that sparks new businesses and medical breakthroughs, if we develop more clean energy so we could use less foreign oil and reduce the carbon pollution that is threatening our planet. we know that we are better off when there are rules that stopped the big banks from making babette's with other people's money -- from making bad bets withwhen insurance companies are not allowed to drop your coverage when you need it most surcharge [cheers and applause] indeed, we know we're better off when women are treated fairly and equally in every aspect of american life, whether it is the salary you earn or the health decisions you make. [applause] we know these things to be true.

the question is whether together we can muster the will in our own lives, in our common institutions, in our politics to bring about the changes we need. i am convinced your generation possesses that will. i believe that the women of this generation, that all of you will but help lead the way. [applause] i recognize that as a cheap

applause line when you're giving a commencement at barnard. that is the easiest thing to say but it is true. [laughter] in part, it is simple math. becausetoday, women are not just half of this country, you're half of ahead earning their husbands and you are more than half of our graduates and ph.d.'s. [applause] you got as outnumbered. extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and this world. how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world, well, that will be up to you.

you got to want it. it will not be handed to you. as someone who wants that you and for melia and sasha, as fortune of being a husband and the father and son of some strong, remarkable women, allow me to offer a few pieces of advice. that is obligatory. [laughter] bear with me. my first piece of advice is thisfight for your seat at thebetter yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. [applause] indeed, it was 225 years ago today that the constitutional convention opened in philadelphia and their founders, citizens all, began

crafting an extraordinary document. yes, it had its flaws. there were flaws that its bid -- this mission has strived to protect overtime. -- over time. there are questions of race and gender that were unresolved. no women's signature grace the original document although we can assume that there were founding mothers whispering smarter things in the years of the founding fathers. [applause] that is almost certain. what made this document special was that it provided the possibility for those who had been left out of our charter to fight their way in. reach. it allowed for protest and movements and the dissemination of new ideas that would repeatedly, decade after

decade, forward movement that continues to this day. our founders understood that america does not stand still. we are dynamic, not static. we look forward, not back. and now that new doors have been open for you, you've got an obligation to seize those opportunities. you need to do this not just for yourself but for those who don't had, the choices you will have. one reason many workplaces still have outdated policies is because women only account for 3% of the ceo's at fortune 500 companies. one reason we are actually re- fighting battles over women's rights is because women occupy

fewer than one in five seats in congress. i'm not saying the only way to achieve success is by climbing to the top of the corporate ladder or running for office although, let's face it, [applause] yourself of the table, at the very least, you have to make sure that you -- you'll have to have a say in who does. it matters. before women like barbara mikulski and olympia snowe and others got to congress, take one example -- much of federally funded research on diseases-- on man. it was not until women got to congress and passed title 95 --

to compete and win on the [applause] ledbetter showed up a rock doesn't have the courage to step up and say this is not right, women are not being treated fairly, we lacked the tools needed to hold the basic principle of equal pay for equal work. construction of the way things ought to be. it is up to you to right the wrongs. it is up to you to point outit is up to you to hold the system accountable. sometimes you need to up and it -- up end it entirely. it is up to you to stand up and be heard, to write and lobby in march and organized to vote. don't be content to sit back and watch. those who oppose change, those who benefit from an unjust status quo, have always bet on the public's cynicism or the

public's complacency. throughout american history, they have lost a bad bet. i believe they will this time as[applause] ultimately, class of 2012, that will depend on you. don't wait for the person next to you to be the first to speak up for what is right. maybe, just maybe, they arewhich brings me to my second piece of advice -- never underestimate the power of your example. the very fact that you are graduating, let alone with more women now graduating ben mann, -- graduating, it is only

possible because of earlier generations of women, or mothers, grandmothers, aunts, shattered the myth that you couldn't or shouldn't be where you are. [applause] i think of a friend of mine who is the daughter of immigrants -- when she was in high school, for guidance counselor told her you are just not college material. you should think about becoming a secretary. well, she was discovered such a -- she was stubborn, so she went to college anyway. she got her master's and ran for state office and she won and she ran for congress and you want and lo and behold, hilda solis did end up becoming a secretary. [laughter] america's secretary of labor. [applause]

think about what that means to a like her. think about what it means to a young girl in ottawa which is a -- in iowa when she sees presidential candidate who looksthink about what it means to a young girl walking in harlem write down the street when she like her. do not underestimate the power of your example. possibilities. reach back, convinced the young girl to earn one, too. -- convince a young girl to ear one too. -- earn one too. area where we need more women like computer science or engineering, [applause] reach back and persuade another student to study it, too. if you're going into fields where we need more women like construction or computer engineering, reach back, hire someone new. be a mentor. the role model. until a girl can imagine herself and picture herself as a become one.

her to ignore our pop culture obsession over beauty and fashion and focus instead [applause] on studying and inventing and competing and leading, she will that girls are supposed to care about. nothing wrong with caring about that a little bit. that is machel's advice. [applause] never forget that the most important example a young girl will ever follow is that of a parent. melia and sasha will be outstanding women because of michelle and mary ann roberts -- and mariann robinson and our outstanding women. -- are outstanding women.

is simple but perhaps most important -- persevere. persevere. no one of achievement has avoided failure. sometimes catastrophic failures. but they keep at it. they learn from mistakes. they don't quit. when i first arrived on this campus, we have little money, fewer options but it was here this world. i knew what to make a difference but it was vague l i would go about it. [laughter] i want to do my part, to shape a better world. even as i worked after graduation in a few on fulfilling jobs here n.y., i will not list them all --even as

i went from motley apartment to a monthlyi started to write letters to community organizations across the country and one day, a small group of churches on the south side of chicago answered offering me work with people in neighborhoods hit hard by steel mills that were shutting down and communities where jobs were the community had been plagued by gang violence the ones i arrive, one of the first things meeting with community leadersi had worked for weeks on this project and we invited the police and made phone calls and went to churches and we passed out fliers. anticipation of this crowd and we waited and waited

and finally, a group of older folks walked into all and they sat down and the little old lady raised her hand and asked if this is where the bingo game was. [laughter] it was a disaster. nobody showed up. my first big community meeting, nobody showed up. and later, the volunteers i worked with told me that's it, two years even before i arrived and had nothing to show for it and i will be honest, i was discouraged as well i did not know what i was doing and i thought about quitting. as we were talking, i looked up and i saw some young boys playing in a vacant lot across the street and they were throwing rocks at a boarded up buildings. they have nothing better to do late at night, just throwing rocks. a set of volunteers, before you -- i said to the volunteers, before you quit, after one -- answer one question.

what will happen to those boys if you quit? who will fight for them if we don't? who will give them a fair shot if we leave? decided not to quit and went back to those diprovan we kept -- to those neighborhoods and we kept at it and register new voters and set up after-school programs and we fought for new jobs, helped people live lives with some measure of dignity and we sustained ourselves with those small victories. we did not set the world on fire. some of those communities are still very poor, there are still lot of games out there, but i -- a lot of gangs out there, but i next victories that helped me win the bigger victories of my last 3.5 years as president. i wish i could say this perseverance came from some innate toughness but the truth is, it was learned. i got up from watching the people raised me. more specifically, i got it from watching the women who shaped my life.

yep, i grew up as the son of a single mom who struggled to put herself through school and make ends meet. she had marriages that fell apart, even when on food stamps -- went on food stamps at one point, to help us get by and she did not quit. she earned her degree and made sure that through scholarships and hard work, my sister and i earned hours and used to wake me up and we were living overseas and wake me up before dawn to study my english lessons for it when i complained, she would just look in and say this is no picnic for me either, buster. [laughter] my mom ended up dedicating -- herself to helping women are around the world access the money they needed to start their own businesses. she was an early pioneer in micra finance. -- micro finance. that meant she was gone a lot an adder on struggles to figure career. when she was gone, my

grandmother stepped up to take care of me. she only had a high-school education. she got a job at a local bank and hit the glass ceiling and watch man she once trained promoted up the ladder ahead of her but she did not quit. rather than grow harder angry -- hard or angry she kept doing your job the best she knew how and ultimately ended up being vice-president of the bank. she did not quit. later on, i met a woman who was assigned to advise me on my first summer job at a law firm and she gave me such good advice that i married her. [laughter] michelle and i gave everything we had to balance our careers and a young family but let's face it, no matter how enlightened i must've thought myself to be, it often fell more on her shoulders when i was traveling and when i was away. i know that when she was with

our girls, she would feel guilty that she was not giving enough time to her work. when she was at work, should feel guilty to is not giving enough time to the girls. both of us wished we had some superpower that lesbian two places at once. -- that would let us be in two places at once. but we persisted. we made that marriage work. the reason michelle had the strength to juggle everything and put up with me and eventually the public spotlight was because she, too, came from a bunch of folks that did not quit because she saw her dead-- dad even though he never finished college, even though he had cripplingms. crippling ms. her mother never finishedshe was in that urban school every day making sure michelle and her brother were getting the education they deserve. michelle saw how her parents never quit. they never indulged in self pity no matter how stacked the odds were against them.

they did not quit. those are the folks who inspire me. people ask me sometimes, "the view inspires you, mr. president?" those quiet heroes all across this country, some of your parents and grandparents were sitting here, no fanfare, no articles written about them. they just persevered. they just do their jobs. they meet their responsibilities. they don't quit. i'm only here because of. them they may not have set out to change the world but in small and poured ways, they did. they certainly changed mine.

whether it is starting a business or running for office or raising amazing families, remember that making a mark on the world is hard. it takes patience. it takes commitment. it comes with plenty of setbacks and it comes with plenty of failure. whenever you fill the creeping cynicism, whenever you hear those voices say you cannot make a difference, whenever somebody tells you to set your sights lower, the trajectory of this country should give you hope. previous generations should give you hope, what young generations have done before should give you hope. young folks who marched and mobilized and stood up and sat in from seneca falls to selma to stonewall did not just do it for themselves, they did it for other people. that is how we achieve it women's rights. [applause] that's how we achieve voting rights. that's how we achieved workers' rights. that's how we achieve a gay- rights.

that's how we made this union more perfect. [applause] if you are willing to do your part now, if you're willing to reach up and close that gap between what america is and what america should be, i want you to know that i will be right there with you. [applause] if you are ready to fight for that brilliant, but radically simple idea of america that no matter who you are what you look like, no matter who you love or what got you worship, you can still pursue your own happiness. [applause] i will join you every step [of the step [cheers and applause] now more than ever, america needs and what you the class of 2012 have to offer. america needs you to reach high and hope deeply. if you persevere and what you

decide to do with your life, i have every faith not only that you will succeed but that through you our nation will continue to be a beacon of light for men and women, boys and girls in every corner of the globe. so thank you and congratulations. [applause] god bless you, god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [applause]

[applause] >> ron paul announced monday he is suspending his presidential campaign. you can learn more about what one of other calls "ron paul's

-- what one author calls "ron on monday.lution" following the talk, you will hear from rep rand paul. in a few moments, michelle obama and killed biden hope -- opposed military mothers at the white house. michelle obama and jill biden posted a group of military spouses, mothers, and children at the white house. this is a half hour.

>> are all of the kids here? i will wait until they get to their seats. anybody need help finding his or her mommy? [laughter] >> we have one here. >> whose child is this? >>, appeared. we will find your mother. -- come up here. we will find your mother. >> we are going to auction off a kid. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you for being here. it is great to have you at the white house. i want to thank michelle obama who has done so much for military families. thank you michele. [applause] many of you know that i am a proud military mom and grandmother. i am always honored to be in the presence of military families. my son is a major in the milne -- maryland national army guard. when he deployed to iraq, it was a tough year for our family. i know many of you have faced similar challenges. grandparents, moms, and dead's weary third deployment. kids miss their parents. -- and dads worry through deployment. kids miss their parents. it can really be hard.

i have -- want all of you to know how much we appreciate everything your families to do in serving our countries. that is why we started out toward joining forces initiative, to give something back to all of our nation's military families. we are working with americans all across the country to find new ways to show our support. mother's day gives us a special opportunity to say thank you to the mothers who have supported us. now, it is my great pleasure to introduce a military spouse and mom, jennifer pilcher. a pilot inhusband is the navy who has been assigned to six different stations in the past 12 years. with each reassignment jennifer has packed up their home and two

children and started over in a new community, all while enduring eddy's multiple deployment. she recently co-founded militaryoneclick.com -- you have been busy. jennifer, thank you for being here. thank you for your service. happy mother's day. [applause] >> thank you dr. biden for the kind reception. we are so delighted to be here. good afternoon on this beautiful, sunny day here at the white house, the perfect day for celebrating military moms. i am a proud navy spells and mom griffin.and

she is an active duty air force bells. she is up to 12 times moving in 18 years. she wins the award. my husband and i first met when we were in college over 19 years ago. after proposing, he promised me that after his seven-year commitment, we would settle down with a regular job. sound familiar? 16 years of active duty service for him, moving six times, two children born in two different states, and countless deployments, he has yet to have a regular job. throughout our 13 years of marriage, we have chosen to continue serving our country. i am grateful for his unwavering service and our children's incredible strength.

as a military family, moving is hard. however, the love and support of my husband and family and friends, i am able to be a better military mom. we feel so fortunate to be a part of this military community. i would like to thank the first lady and dr. biden for connecting with military families and veterans. just one year ago, these amazing a lady's spearheaded joining forces. mrs. obama and dr. biden realized being a spouse comes first. they have created job opportunities with companies that understand our crazy life style. the employers not only respect our challenges, they recognize the positive impact we have on

their business. the first lady and dr. biden are focused on making a true difference. they might agree with the same, if mom is not happy, no one is happy. [laughter] thank you mrs. obama and dr. biden for highlighting our commitment as military spouses. we mean moms of military members, so many active-duty military mums. we are so grateful for the opportunities you have created, not only for us, but for our future military spouses, moms, and veterans. it is now my great honor and privilege to introduce to you the first lady of the united states, michelle obama. [applause]

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the white house. it is a beautiful day. i hope you all like your mother's day surprises. they worked really hard on them. they were focused. they would diligent. very creative. if you want to know what the black stuff is, they had a few of the cookies. they could not help it. let me start by thanking jennifer for that kind introduction and everything that you and your team do for your family, for your community, and for our entire country. i also have to think my partner in crime, jill. she has been an amazing friend and role model for me of what it means to be a strong military mom. she is terrific. we have to give her a round of

applause. [applause] and, it would not be mother's day if i did not think my own mom. day you are. -- there you are. she is here today. [applause] it is a big deal when grandma does anything. the fact she is sitting in that chair is a big testimony to her respect for all of you. i have said it before, i would not be standing here if it were not for her. my mom is my rock, as many of you know. as many of these young people will understand what being a mom is, she is my rock. she has taught me to believe in myself. to pick myself up whenever i stumble. she is always a shoulder to cry on and talk to. i do that a lot.

she has always inspired me. something that is amazing for my mom, to push myself to dream even bigger than anything she could dream for herself. she has always done that. it is true today. for me, when i think of mother's day, i think of my own mom. this day would not be the same for me without her here. when we were planning this event today to honor our nation's mothers, we wanted to make sure that all of you could bring along the special people in your own lives. we are thrilled to have a wonderful group of moms and grandma's who are here with us today at the white house. as we pointed out, we have military mothers here. some of you are in our country pose a uniform as you can see. some of you are married to someone who wears a uniform. all of you are outstanding role

models for your children, for your communities, and for this country. for all of you, i say this a lot, service is not just something you do once in a while. it is how you live your life. whenever there is something going on in the community, and opening on the pta, or they need a leader to drive the local car pool, or someone asks for volunteers, you have the uncomfortable silence, we have all been there. you of the first ones to speak up and say, how can i help? no matter how busy you are. you are always filling in those gaps for your family is and for the broader community. big round of applause to all of our military moms here today. [applause]

here is to the grandmas here today. i want to say a special thank you. you are all mothers too. that would be one of those obvious points that malia would say duh. so sarah, my speech writer, duh. i cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like to have your baby far away from home and in harm's way. your sons and daughters, their choice to serve this country is a reflection of your love. it is a reflection of your strength and all of the good

decisions you made in raising them, that we know. when a mom or a dad is deployed, it often means that all of you, you a stepping up to help take care of your grandchildren. you of the first phone call when mom with dad gets tied up at work. you are spending long weekends away from your own home, filling in whatever is needed. that is the case in our household. you are always, always there. that is not just important for us as parents, but for the connection you make with the next generation. it is so powerful. for that, the whole country is grateful. that also means you all have earned the right to spoil your grandchildren as much as you want. it happens in my house. what happens to the

grandmothers? it turned into pieces of mush. [laughter] i tell my children to eat their vegetables. grand, is like -- grandma is like, why? i am like, these are your rules. [laughter] she is like, i did not remember. how many people have grandmas like that. to all the grandmothers, thank you, we love you. [applause] into all of our kids -- and that to all of our kids. -- to all of our kids. [applause] all of this, this day, all we do is for you. not for us, we do not care, we do not matter, it is for you.

you are so cute. [laughter] i wanted to know how special you are. really, in each and every one of the. for all of the military kids out there, you are so special. i know it is not easy when mom or dad is a way for so long. i know it is tough to have to be so grown-ups sometimes and pick up and move across the country and try to make new friends. i cannot imagine how tough that must be. i want you all to know that what you do every day, all of the good things you do, the way you handle your business, picking up extra chores, taking care of your brothers and sisters, we know you love them even if you act like you do not. staying on top of your school work, just being good people,

all of that makes you all heroes. today, we are here to celebrate all of you. yay for our children. [applause] keep up the good work. no matter what grandmother says, and eat your vegetables. tomorrow is military's bus appreciation day. may is national -- is military spouse appreciation day. may is national military month. now is the perfect time to think all of you for your service. you are an inspiration to jill and me. whenever we think we are tired, we remember your stories. it gets us up. you are an inspiration to our husbands. you are an inspiration to the entire country.

today, i think you deserve to celebrate. with that, i think we are going to come down there and take some pictures. we are going to go table to table and say hello to everyone of you. happy mother's day. in joy -- enjoy this day and all of us to come. thank you. -- of those to come. thank you. [applause] ♪

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter] [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

norm laho [indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

[indistinct chatter]

>> in a few moments, more about the future of nato. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern with the constitutionality of the filibuster rule. a discussion of banking and financial regulation. several of the events to tell you about on c-span3. a senate subcommittee looks at ways to reduce the cost of hiv drugs. at 1:00 a.m., you'll hear about

right. -- rights. several of the events to tell you about today on our companion network. the senate house subcommittee looks at ways to reduce the cost of hiv drugs. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 1:00 p.m. eastern you will see a hearing on chinese human rights. here is an update on the status of the chinese dissident. the alling has become the bad -- the ultimate democratic act. it makes it possible for the many to teach themselves what the fee once held close.

the president can quote mark twain. the postman can understand the reference because he has read it too. demagoguery, although still possible, requires a lot more cleverness. with careful reading of books and newspapers and material on the internet, all is revealed to ordinary people. it was not for nothing that the nazis made bonfires of books. >> in 1992, she won a pulitzer prize. in a few weeks, you can talk to her on book tv. get a head start by watching some of her other comments over the years at the c-span video library. all archive and searchable at c- span.org/videolibrary.

>> a look at the nato summit this coming sunday and monday. over the next three hours, several panels look at channel -- challenges facing member countries. >> thank you all. it is after lunch. we will try to keep this lively. this is familiar terrain of non- traditional threats. frets that require different responses. responses of resilience and a new understanding of how nations cooperate and get along. i wanted to address -- asked his audience, has anybody read the

article? it is very important. i suggest going on line and having a look at it. it was written by a marine and naval officer last year. they were assigned to come up with a new strategy for the united states. for those who are not into this, the grand strategy is like the plot in the movie. one of the problems since the end of the cold war is we do not have a grand strategy. we have a lot of short stories, what happened in the 1990's. it has not come together as a big picture. what is hopeful about that document is that it tells the story of going from a world where things like national security are looked at -- where nations are ranked. or that power is something over

instead of with. we need to move from these concepts of the terrance -- from detterants to persuasion. there are a lot of concepts we need to start filling out in the security realm. anybody in this room knows it is one of the most stodgy priesthoods of policy-making. i did work in congress for quite a number of years. i got a lot of that beat out of me. i am hoping we can open this up to be more discussion of how we can try to create the language and the ideas to shift the conversation from power. my name is lorelei kelly. i have been washington for more than a decade working on this issue of had it we refrain security.

-- how what do we refer aim -- how do we reframe security. we have been working with old institutions to still see the world like it is 1948. it is still the way they refer information and talk to itself. it cannot compete with the 24 hour news cycle. nor can it compete with other information sources out there that have lots of control over the fate and destiny of people and nations and how we move forward. what we are going to do is move from left to right. we are going to start with the big picture about emerging challenges. our first speaker is philip worre. i am not going to go on and on. you can look it up on line.

we will start there and move down. >> thank you. good afternoon. i have the power point presentation -- a power point presentation. ok. my apologies for the delay. i will try to starred in and catch up with a few slides.

good afternoon. my name is philip worre. i'm the executive director of the international information security service. it is a non-profit and independent organization based in russ -- brussels. i am very glad and honored to have been invited to speak in front of such distinguished audience. i have been told to limit my presentation. i will keep my comments brief. my presentation is about how the heat and nato respond to security challenges, focusing on the eu, and using nato as a comparison. i want to thank our program associate who did a lot of research on this topic. this will be divided into four parts. first, if you comment on security challenges.

secondly, a short summary of nato's response. response.u's finally, a few words about new corporations. the last decade has seen an evolution in the understanding and definition of global threat. these are no longer limited by state borders. many are initiated by non-state actors. there are hybrid threats defined as "the ability to employ conventional and unconventional means." these challenges include terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, cyber attacks, cyber terrorism,

piracy and attacks on maritime security, energy and environmental security, and state failure. to respond to these threats, ina created a division august 2010. this was naida's response to hybrid interrelated threat. it came after several years of discussion and debate. it brought together -- prints together various fields of expertise. also echoedach was in its concept. we have a military organization that can adjust its structure to take into other problems to the traditional military pools would be ineffective -- traditional military tools would be effective against biological attacks. the new division focuses on

terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. the bulk that we mentioned, it provides "strategic analysis capabilities to monitor information." in summary, as the nato assistant secretary general colin. -- coined. that is the approach nato took. i am not assessing the degree of success. it is too early to reach a conclusion. the power point presentation is back. the european union puzzle response is different. it is fragmented and much less coordinated. the u has developed action. it has drafted resolution. it has not adapted its structure. why? there are many factors.

the eu's general security and the stunts -- defense strategy is based on documents. these are the security strategies, the 2008 report on the implementation of the strategy, and a 2010 internal security strategy. as you can see, the documents identified by nato. there is a certain degree of common understanding of the nature of the emerging threats. the eu does not prioritize would develop the response is needed. -- prioritize or develop the response is needed. -- responses needed. since 2003, the situation has evolved. piracy and said a security have become topics as important as

weapons of mass destruction. the main document was reviewed in 2008. it is still not comprehensive. the 2010 internal security strategy is more timely. we run into what is the main obstacle. that is institutional complexity. the 2003 and 2008 documents were drafted in the framework of a common security and defense policy, which focuses on the external definition of the eu. the 2010 internal security strategy was focused on justice, from war, and the over all security policy. -- framework and the overall security policy. many are mentioned in the document. the decision is in process at --

decision making process is different. if you look at the institutional structure, you will see a dozen or so groups, committees, working groups, services, and agencies. each one works with others. how they worked very spun threat to correct. an approach has to be developed for each threat. other factors come into play. we end up with a complex structure that even includes nato. the role of the eu is not clear. caught between the institutional complexitiesthethe u leads, it acts as an enabler, it sometimes only follows. recently, the eu has tried to establish itself as an

international actor in crisis management. it was born as an economic organization. the common security defense policy, rolls are clear. you have a comprehensive approach. you need take into account human rights, a financial revolutions -- financial regulations, etc. while nato has evolved from a military organization, for the u, it was the opposite. they now have a security and defense the mentioned. -- dimension. you have to reinvent the wheel several times. what can be done? political leadership is needed. the member states must clearly define the objectives and priorities in terms of emerging security challenges. eu decision makers must be given

the ability to develop proposals and implement them. that is a challenge that will involve member state. many experts have mentioned that a new strategy is needed detailed in objectives and priorities. and mentioning concrete proposals to be implemented. that may be a good idea if the current strategy is not adequate. a new strategy could underline the need for a comprehensive approach. it would reinforce justice and expertise in the european textile action service. it would provide a clear opportunities for cooperation. it would be difficult to adopt the structural reshuffle. the heat wants to remain an incredible actor. -- eu wants to remain an actor. the chicago summit should

provide and this is moving forward. the eu and nato are crucial partners. there has been strong cooperation. 21 eu member states are also nato members. there is political tension that i will not go into. both organizations work together on the operational level. the operation at the horn of africa is an example. i know that burden sharing are the topics of the next session. there is one area that can be used to develop the strategy. tackling esc's requires technological and innovation. the defense budget is fragmented. the financial crisis is taking a toll on research and technology investments. the future capabilities are threatened. the council has underlined the

need to strengthen technology. meant to bridge the capability gaps by coordinating defense budget. the smart defense initiative, doing more with less. the financial crisis could provide impetus needed. one major hurdle for the eu. the ball may have started rolling up with the commitment to concrete projects. there is a possible merging of projects in the framework -- a promising step. in conclusion, i would summarize the key points. the eu and nato share similar fviews. the eu this is complex institutional hurdles. leadership and will buy needed to face esc's affectively.

one starting point could be the defense industry using the financial crisis as it is. there is a scope for increased cooperation between nato and the eu, starting with combining elements of pulling and sharing. the eu has taken good steps. not everything is doom and gloom. the eu is doing its part to combat piracy. two months ago, the hybrid crime center was created. what i wanted to underline was the lack of a comprehensive approach. despite the existence of expertise within the eu coverage of the threats, even in the wider from war, -- eu covering

threats, even in the wider framework. future areas of cooperation could be using the eu's nation- building. common response that it is could be developed -- response studies could be developed. -- startegies could be d eveloped. thank you for your attention. i apologize if i have taken longer than expected. thank you. >> we are going to move right along. jean loup-samaan is here from the defense college. he is going to look at another big picture issue. he is going to narrow in on iran and iraq and politics. thank you.

>> thank you. good afternoon to everyone. thank you to the organ as is for giving me the opportunity to be here for this conference. i will talk about nuclear proliferation and, in particular, the issue of the karate and that nuclear program. just a word of caution -- of the iranian nuclear program. it is a word of caution, i work for nato but i am not giving you an official statement on what nato thinks about the issue at the moment. i am only a researcher. this is the first point before i start. just to have a view about nato and nuclear proliferation. if we go back to the concept of

2010, nuclear proliferation was mentioned as the biggest challenge for the next 10 years. the paragraph you can find on page 10. this is the only common ground that the 28 alliance found at the summit. when it came to the issue of iran, it was impossible to find common ground, to find incentive among country members to assess whether it is a threat or not for nato. -- iran is a threat or not for nato. this is why i thought it was with talking about what happens becomes a nuclear arm country. it does not discount the current diplomatic processes, the

effectiveness or not of the economic sanctions. i think these consequences make it worth analyzing and planning for. to start with, here are five reasons why i think nato should consider these kind of contingencies. five reasons why it would challenge nato. first, this is the most obvious. iran borders, it is bordering turkey. it could have close and immediate consequences in terms of the territories covered. the second reason, some nato members put the region at stake. they could be the target of nuclear strikes. we can talk about u.s. but also

the british and french forces that are deployed in the gulf. the third point, nato partners in the middle east and the have been expressing growing concerns to nato. talking about formal dialogue or informal conversation. the fourth point, the regional chain reaction, i will go back on this element. it could endanger the middle east stability. essentially, it would have implications on how nato implements its policy towards the region. finally, the fifth point, i put it at the end, it is not a short-term issue, it is a long- term issue, it might be an issue

in the next decade. we can go back to the issue of capabilities. because it relates to the ballistic program as well. let's talk about some potential features of what would be this strategy situation. with a nuclear armed iran. the first thing i want to talk with you here is the regional chain reaction. there is the assumption that proliferation begats proliferation. it is true that started in 2006, countries have started expressing their interest for nuclear energy. although you have to take into consideration the new trends in

a nuclear program, i did not think we can talk about proliferation. these countries in gauge in a program, they are trying to hedge the current program, not trying to launch a new type of proliferation. that is my assessment. we can talk about it in the q&a. i think that the most challenging element of a scenario where we have a nuclear armed iran would be the escalation in the middle east. with clear indications for nato. a nuclear-armed iran that would be a miscalculation for a lot of flash point. whether we are talking about

naval publications in the strait of hormuz. iran has expressed assertiveness in the area for the last few years. i am not all the talking about the last stretch in january, but the skirmishes with the u.s. navy in 2008. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

.

>> you get different answers. there are lots of different threats listed by allies when they think about what the future is for this alliance. it ranges from the more traditional article 5 to energy security, cyber, arctic issues. the list goes on and on. what was useful in bringing that together in a comprehensive vision is what we went through at the last summit. to sit down at nato's anniversary and rewrite the strategic concept.

one could argue that maybe it does not provide enough detail, but think it was a helpful exercise to go through. having worked behind the scenes, it was painful and difficult. and as i said, you have some competing visions. finding the sweet spot between article 5 and global security provider is challenging. i do think the strategic concept does provide a basic level of guidance in that regard. again, there will be differences, but with that guidance, you can determine what is required. frankly, the gap between article 5 and more broader security providers outside of the euro- atlantic area is not as wide as someone believe. the truth is, you'll need a basic level of expeditionary

communications to expand to an article 5 samaria. whether it is inside the atlantic euro area or a threat challenging us from beyond that region. if portugal is sticking to responding to some some error in the baltics, it needs to be expeditionary. this is not a scenario where we expect to the thread and charged to come to nato. i think, well, again, different countries can choose to play to their strengths and their regional expertise, it is not that challenging to begin a conversation about the level of capability, the type of capability this is going to need. coming back to the first question, the alliance has

decided collectively at the last summit to exclude missile defense system. they wanted nato to pursue it, not simply the united states. the nato system is expected to bring more to the table. this is no question, the core of missile defense. over time, countries will be able to add on capabilities to it. we now have a situation where we have countries coming forth with contributions. the netherlands has indicated it will be updating some of its frigates. different countries are trying to figure it out. france is working on a different warning. we have about reached phase one

which will be a contribution to the system. we will declare this cable at the summit in chicago. >> i would like to warn those who use this analogy that it is a dangerous path to go down. if we look back the last 20 years, my concern is that we have started spending the peace dividend too early, too happily. i think we have to give back to the understanding. we have to be rational about our spending. i would not encourage the united states to spend less.

i would just say that, i guess, we europeans are very pleased with the u.s. spending so much because, honestly, we count on you. we do not say it, but we count on you to be there for us when we need you. that has put us in a mindset where, honestly, i think most europeans think we can get away with this. most europeans think that in the end of the u.s. will be there for us. in the last couple of years, you know, the u.s. might not be there for us. i think it is important. it is up to us europeans to understand that we do not want the u.s. to go away. we will be rethinking our own spending to make sure you understand we are in this

together. i want to say a few words about the defense industry. it is important the u.s. understands that. there is this concern in europe that smart defense will mean more american equipment in europe. i think it isn't your interest, in the american interest, and it is in our interests that we find a good balance between good competition. between competition that enhances technology. at the same time, that europe itself also keeps up with the technological developments. also, be able to provide proper european equipment. that, by the way, my to be used

in the u.s. as well. i am not advocating european arms for europe. i am advocating that it is important that the industry stays parts of the alliance industry. >> [unintelligible] some of the numbers about reductions. i know the u.s. ministry does not like to talk about it. they talk about rebalancing their commitment to europe. there are currently 80,000 u.s. troops based in europe. there was something like 400,000 at at the height of the cold war. parts of rebalancing their additional commitments to

europe, that includes missile defense. it also includes special forces, as well. [unintelligible] another set of the figures, i think there is a case to be made. i looked up be -- and nato produces -- if you take a look here at defense spending, collectively, european and nato spending is about the same period in 1995 -- about the same. now there are 26. spending has gone down. but, overall, you are still

spending in the same perie. to me, that seems quite reasonable. if you look at u.s. spending from the peak of the cold war to early today, it has gone up something like a 75%. that kind of confirms what he was saying. there is a supply pushed on the u.s. -- a supply push on the u.s. i just wanted to say that and give you a context. >> may i just say something that is really important. the withdrawal of the u.s. troops from europe will have important, not only military,

but social logical impacts. ciological. that is important. don't forget to that. the messages they convey. their participation in societies. you can go on and on. they have been an important part of how this relationship is perceived. >> i am sorry, but i would add that two of the four brigades have not been on european soil. returning those two brigades to the united states means that they will not return to europe from afghanistan. i fully appreciate you are trying to say. and the trust me, as someone who was arguing to keep that brigade

in europe and a succeeded for at least one year, i take your point. but it also needs to be known that two of the four have not been present. those interactions have not been occurring. one could say that with the new brigade assigned to the united states, some of that connective tissue will occur once again that has been lacking since we went to afghanistan. >> yes. i think that view, very adequately and numerically, expressed the problem. the peace dividend disappeared. we are all familiar with what happened. we were able to balance our budget. we were able to do a little bit with some of the money we save, but that disappeared quite rapidly with the doubling of the u.s. military budget after 2000, 2001.

we did not prepare for a transformation of our manufacturing base. we saw the erosion of our manufacturing base as a result of that. the complete cause of relationship there is one of the contributing factors. we did not prepare, when we had a peace dividend, for a transformation of our manufacturing base. in terms of the obesity analogy, obviously, we are the biggest elephant in the room. we are responsible for 43% of all of the military spending in the world. but we're not the only fat cats. there are some pretty pudgy people out there. some europeans are pudgy. out there and the top five, u.k., france, germany -- pretty big spenders. they could use a little sliming, in my opinion. how much as slumming do we do?

i am not a dietitian -- how much slimming do we do? in not a dietitian. as they say with diets, i think it is not just cutting the food we eat -- it is life style. if we are cutting in europe, we have to change the life style, the approach of issues. yes, looking at a variety of different approaches to threaten our non-military base. when we outline various threats that face nato, we have this hodgepodge of threats. they add up to not a whole heck of a lot. road states seem to be a kind of return to the 1990's -- rogue states seem to be a kind of return to the 1990's.

therefore, at nato has to bulk up for that. i find that a problematic concept, as it was in the 1990's. russia, that is always in the background of people talking about what nato might be useful for. ultimately, you know, i think looking at different capabilities in europe that can replace the military capabilities are either being removed by the united states or being reduced by european countries, it is unnecessary conversation to have. i look forward to having that conversation. that could take place in chicago. maybe later at a subsequent nato summit. >> thank you. >> until now, german, the u.s., france, the u.k., you have not

spoken about a small country who is spending more money than they actually should. not only that, but weapons that are not applying. just keeping them. this is my argument. yes, we do not have any money. you have probably realizes that. the options are very specific. what do you do then? but you close that country? goodbye? -- do you close that country? goodbye? it is like a button called reset. you learn from the mistakes of other countries. the correlation between of the leading countries, we have a history on this one.

they play a very important role. that is why we do not allow so easily neighboring countries to join nato. the issue is that we cannot, as a country, play the role of a burden-sharing as other countries to do. basically, this is my point of view. we cannot have a government emanuel. -- manual. instead of making a fool ourselves -- we have been doing that well for the past year. we have decided that we need to specialize in something. that is before our defense came about. we were even talking about specialization. what is the key point for countries that have lots of water around it, have a loss of natural resources, have security

stability? you specialize in an issue that concerns of the world -- transport of goods through the waters. that is called piracy issues, counter-piracy issues. in these days, i would like to hope that government and economics and all the stuff -- we seem to have a lot of money. the problem is that not everybody has a flag with the country on the back due to taxation. maybe, just maybe, other allied- member countries can specialize on the things they are interested in and find a common ground where they can decide. because, the way i interpret things, there is a bit of ego is some, as well. who is the best? who leads? who does not lead?

all of this stuff. instead of making too much conversation, you create the services. you do the human capital trading and so forth and so on. that is very simple because, basically, you cut back on everything and leave only one sector. that makes you a very important player in the world arena. like my colleague who said they need to cut spending, the united states made a very good job in to understanding what are the global threats at an early time. we europeans do not. we are still thinking about integrating ourselves again and again, more and more. now we have a currency. probably, the currency is

falling apart. not only greece. it is italy, spain, portugal. some other countries, ireland. and, yes, big countries like germany need to -- and they do that, they take all of the burden sharing. like france and does. instead of arguing over who is the best and who is the worst, when you specialize, you cut back on everything. this is the most of vibrant solution because you also have to take care of the political situation in europe. it is not a good one. it is not a viable one, a critical one, a trustworthy one. i would say, let's be more honest. let's say, yes, there are things we are missing. yes, we need to find a solution like they do when the clothes themselves until they find hope.

-- like they do in the vatican when they close themselves until they find hope. let's sacrifice some issues in order to find some others. i know how unsafe things are. if we go down the eurozone, there will be a domino effect. if any country falls, there will be a domino affect. not only greece. friendly, let's be honest. let's give nato a chance. i would like to take another batch of questions. >> we are running out of time, so try to be brief. >> [unintelligible] i would like to address the last point because one of the problems is that specific region of the world is the lack of solidarity between two nato

members, that i mentioned. your expenses are not cold war, they are a historical debate, as you said. what can be done in a toe to reduce the tensions between the two? you know there is a burgeoning conflict between the mediterranean and turkey. it is a link to israel and lebanon. even the palestinians. that growing tension, i think, is really crucial. it is an achilles' heel to nato. i think it needs to be addressed. thank you. >> thank you it very much for your remarks.

you talk a lot about resources and niche capabilities -- what countries could do. i wonder if you see trends in that regard since then now that you are in government? >> thank you. but a very quick question. thank you for mentioning partnership in the context of your presentation. in particular, as it relates to smart defense. i was wondering whether you had any sense of the expectations prior to chicago in terms of associating partners to our discussions on smart defense. >> [unintelligible] >> i wonder if anyone on the panel might want to comment on

the link between smart defense and of the nuclear issue, in particular, has already been mentioned. the u.k. to reduce initial investments in favor of maintaining smart defense. what the panel thinks, might be better to go the other way. >> ok. we have four questions. one on the inter-nato tensions. it is all about trust. working with neighbors. how does that pan out. another question, based on earlier studies. partnerships, and the linkage between smart defense and nuclear issues. that will be one of the key topics for two of the discussions we have tomorrow. if i could ask the panel, again,

pick and choose. maybe i will start with the other rent this time. maybe you could focus on the -- >> turkey? >> yeah. >> i have heard this question summit times. i'm not going to go on and say turks have been attacking. i will answer in a different way. israel suddenly declared [unintelligible] we have our own sovereign borders. if our counterparts would like to negotiate, it is not negotiable. however, we can guarantee you that you do not choose your neighbors. you live with your neighbors. i believe that we made a very good start with relations.

turkey is very keen on missile defense. at the same time, turkey is suddenly becoming a power. now, to disengage those two countries between them, turkey is an $18 million developing economy. greece is a developing-market economy. the only thing that binds us together is that, if we fail, they will fail. other than this, if you want me to criticize turkey, i do not see any reaction. it does not solve an issue. nonetheless, we are at their best ally. they are our best ally. [unintelligible]

the director is basically a naval officer. if only we would see that on hq vessels. i would love to see that at some point. this is my answer. >> thank you. >> just briefly on that issue, allianz is sometimes have perverse of facts. there was an attempt, a couple of years ago, where leaders sat down. -- alliances sometimes have perverse effects. there was an attempt, a couple of years ago, where leaders said down without too much thought about how that might impact the relationship between greece and turkey. it is not a peculiarity of the nato alliance. we have the same thing with south korea and japan. we pushed south korea to spend more money without thinking necessarily that south korea and

japan, some of our other allies, have a serious territorial conflict. the fact that the call one of their destroyer's the island of dispute outside of japan's out grid, does it send warning signals to the united states that it is not a good idea to encourage our allies to spend more money without thinking or preparing for some kind of confidence-building alternative? some kind of military-reducing formula between our allies? that is the kind of discussion i would like to see, not only within nato, but that the united states losses among its allies in general. -- united states fosters among its allies in general. >> just really quickly, i think it was before its time. 2003. we have seen a little bit of traction on that report.

it is taking root now, primarily, because of the financial crisis. it is obviously front and center in everybody's minds. this is not the answer to all of our problems. there are a lot of questions on the table similar to the questions we heard when we heard the report about sovereignty, about handing over responsibility of security to your neighbor or a collection of neighbors. there are still questions about where to invest and who is coordinating its. i think it could take root. i think it smart defense -- but the real proof will be in whether or not this is a concept that is sustainable if pursued a long-term. we do not want to have this summit opened with a smart defense and close with smart defense because 20 multi- lateral initiatives is by no means a enough.

i think we are putting -- by no means enough. i think we're putting the keys in the engine and we will see how it goes. >> i think you are certainly right. just two comments. one is that i do not think we should conclude on a pessimistic note of what happens to the eurozone. my personal belief is that it is tough. i do not see it falling apart. there is clearly an option that we will figure out how to get beyond the situation we have now. i have to say, i disagree with your pessimism. but on the partnership notes, i want to be very clear. i have very strong views on this. i do feel that it's -- that finland and sweden have come

very close to -- the difference between finland's ability to participate and the ability of a full-member states. i think that has to be -- a full-member state. i think that has to be appreciated. nato should appreciate this fact. i do not think nato should push either sweden or finland towards making their cooperation condition to their membership. there are internal factors, historical factors that this should not prevent finland or sweden and countries like them to make a full contribution to nato operations. that is really my very strong view. what chicago will bring in this respect, i do not know.

i am almost certain the topic will come up. i hope that this whole concept of a special relationship will be supported in chicago. >> thank you very much. i am not going to attempt to some of the discussions we just had, in part, because i think she did that herself when she said that chicago is an opening act. continuing this tomorrow. i think you will agree that there are a really good series of smart discussions today. i encourage you all to join us tomorrow for our continuation of these discussions. i would like to urge you to thank me for participating in discussions this afternoon. [applause]

i would also urge you to stay and join us for a reception. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> more about the future of nato with nick burns. washington journal is alive at 7:00 eastern with the constitutionality of the senate's filibuster rule. >> several live events to tell you about on our companion network on c-span 3. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. there'll be a hearing on chinese human rights. there is an update on the status. saturday's this month, c-span radio. hear more from the nixon tapes.

securely recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. this saturday, hear conversations between president nixon and a chat colson, who passed away last month, as the talk about the democratic presidential nominee. >> you do not think so? >> no. [unintelligible] >> in washington, d.c., listen on 90.1 fm. and streaming on c-span.org. >> more now on at nato's future, from nicholas burns, the former ambassador. the upcoming nato summit is in chicago on this sunday and monday.

>> good afternoon, and thank you for coming. i am fred kempe, and we are approaching the nato summit, the gathering in chicago for the first nato summit in the u.s. since 1999. the council has been active all year. but ever since the lisbon summit and remaining at the forefront of thought leadership on all of the issues that will be addressed in chicago, including but not limited to the issues of afghanistan and defense capabilities and of global partnerships and, of course, missile defense, and those will dominate the discussion. however, as important as those issues are, it was our feeling

that something underlies all of this, and the most important thing of the alliance, from the beginning of the alliance, has been the leadership question. all of these will be influenced by the kinds of leaders into influence them as we go forward. secretary robert gates made that clear in his farewell remarks in brussels last june, where he talked about the alliance is facing a dismal future. if we did not get our act together, he pointed out, some of those challenges lie with american allies in europe and canada, whose lack of defense spending and political will risked creating a two-tier alliance. last week at the annual awards dinner, ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary-general, who received our distinguished international leadership award, rarely

addressed a dearth of leadership as a challenge facing the system. quote, everywhere we look, he said, it seems as if we see growing insecurity, growing in justice, growing social inequality. if i were to speak like an economist, he said, he would say it might be like we have an oversupply problem and a deficit of solutions and a deficit of leadership. fortunately, we do have a leader on our board of directors. ambassador nicholas burns, who was able to of recommendations for the nato member states to stay off the prospects of this dim and dismal future. there have been different ways of leading the alliance in the past. there have been many times when the u.s. was way out in front. there have been many times when at the u.s. -- when nato met in the quad, after world war ii,

and i think in this paper, there is a good look at what sort of leadership will emerge now. nic made numerous visits from his perch at harvard to washington to meet with top officials and experts with in the transatlantic community. i was lucky enough to sit in on some of these meetings along with others of us with the a atlantic council. we are delighted with the product we have been able to produce, and a look forward to being able to share its findings and conclusions with you all. you will find some of them controversial. as well as quibble with many of the underlying arguments there. we are also fortunate that this report has the endorsement of a vast array of senior officials who have done some of the most important jobs at major road and in the alliance, such

transatlantic luminaries as madeleine albright, robertson, it david miliband, and others. three former secretary generals of nato signed off on this. the report has benefited from their guidance, their wisdom, and the it supports a broad findings if not each and every one of the specific recommendations. before i turn the floor over to nic, i briefly when to call attention to another atlantic council effort. the atlantic council foreign policy magazine survey on the future of nato. they built a survey, which we sent to some of the most senior figures in the transatlantic community.

this is in light of some of the challenges i just mentioned. i think the survey can give us a sense of the political obstacles facing the alliance, which this report argues must be overcome. if you did not grab a copy of this survey coming in, please do so on the way out. now, before i hand the floor to nic, i want to invite you to come back next week in may, where you can fill out a report card on how the alliance did in addressing its key issues from chicago at our post summit conference. so now, it is a pleasure to turn the floor over to one of america's finest and most distinguished diplomats to talk about the report and its findings.

ambassador burns, as i said earlier, it is a council board director. he is a professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at the kennedy school at harvard. he is also the director of the aspen strategy group, which has the chairman of our board. he retired from the u.s. foreign service in 2008 under secretary of state for political affairs, and he did that after 27 years in the diplomatic corps, where he served as u.s. ambassador to nato. he was ambassador to greece and a state department spokesman. he worked with president clinton and george h.w. bush working on russian and east european affairs and also with the bipartisan nature of the atlantic council. i do want to tell just one story about him. just to give you a feeling not only of his biography but of the impact he has in crucial times. he was u.s. ambassador to nato while i was sitting as the

editor of "the wall street journal" europe, in brussels, and that was one of the most challenging times in the history. he arrived just days before the tragic a tax of 9/11. the next day, the alliance showed its unique and enduring alliance. this was the first and only time in nato history. it was not an easy time to be the u.s. ambassador to nato. and the alliance had achieved a historic and transformational summit in prague but also went through one of its deepest crises ever during the iraq war, which i think at the time he referred to as a near-death experience for the alliance. i think likely in part thanks to your leadership that the alliance got three those turbulent times and is in the shape it is in now. he has done more than just shape of the nato alliance. he has helped shape the council.

i met with him at the state department to get his views on what the atlantic council ought to be doing. he was undersecretary of state for political affairs at that time, working with our allies on forging a position on iran, and an array of other issues. he described his ambition of a transformed transatlantic community capable of serving as a catalyst for global action and partnership with the united states on the greatest challenges we face in common. a lot of the partnership initiative that you now see in chicago grows out of that kind of thinking. it was a compelling vision, which she later described in a speech in 2007, which you can still find on our side, just prior to his retirement. that became the atlantic council vision, so, thank you, for your able service to the

country but also to the atlantic council. [applause] >> fred, thank you very much, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. a lot of friends in the audience, and i want to thank the ambassador to denmark particularly for being here. a lot from the foreign service are here. i went to begin by thanking fred and the president of the atlantic council. this council is the place in washington were the transit atlantic community needs and has been for decades, but under their leadership, this council has been transformed, and it is not only the center of the transatlantic partnership of intellectuals here in washington, d.c., it has taken on new programs in the middle east, in south asia. it has rethought interests in asia. even if i was not a loyal member of the board of directors, i would say objectively that it is the

fastest rising think tank in washington, d.c., and as a think tank, is making a real name for itself. i want to thank them for their leadership. the report before you, i will say a few words about it, and then fred and i will sit down and have a brief conversation about its major points, and then we will open it up to you about your questions and observations. any criticism, please feel free to direct that my way, not friend's way. we believe in a strong grenada and believe we need a recommitment for the 21st century. that is the basis of this report. our leaders of the 28 members of the alliance will meet with obama in a couple of days. it is even a broader summit

member in chicago, because more than the 20 partners will be there too, so this represents the combined leadership, power, involvement, not just of north america and western europe, central europe, but the caucasus and central asia as well. that is how big and broad the atlantic ocean alliance is. our view is that nato needs reconfirmed and stronger leadership. we say this for a couple of reasons and go into it in the report. first, nato matters for the united states. we want to meet with that thought today because the conventional wisdom in a lot of areas of our own country is that nato was yesterday's story, that nato was against communism, that nato was the principal vehicle for which germany was unified in october 1990, that nato was the organization that stopped the bloody wars in bosnia in 1995 and close the vote in 1999 and has kept peace.

nato did all of that, but nato is not yet ready to retire, as our former secretary of state colin powell used to say. if nature is yesterday's story, why are so many countries knocking on the door to get in? the fact is that we know this, from some of the bitter issues of the last decade. after 9/11, the bloody and difficult events in afghanistan and iraq, the fact that we live in a highly integrated globalized world, it sounds trite to say it, but if we did not have nato in 2012, we would want to create an organization that looks exactly like it, because the united states has learned we cannot be unilateral. that does not work. and we certainly cannot be isolationists, not in a globalized 21st century, not when terrorism and the juxtaposition of wmd and al qaeda and terrorist groups like that and global climate change and drug and crime cartels require our active involvement

and leadership in the world. we cannot go it alone. and we have this enormous, successful alliance called nato that helps the united states and helps the united states helped allies to negotiate their way and to face these challenges and to overcome them, and the common denominator is we believe in the same things, human freedom, a democratic government, the rule of law, and the alliance. if nato had not been created in 1949, we would want to recreate it today. nato really matters, and that defies conventional wisdom you often see in speeches by our political leaders and by commentary in many leading newspapers. europe still matters greatly to the united states. one of the big issues of the last seven or eight months has been the obama administration's work with asia.

china and its rise, the biggest story of our time. the challenge that the chinese military build a means for the united states and all of our allies is quite profound. we no longer live with china and engage china, we need to be present, and in that sense, president obama made exactly the right choice. the problem is, if you are sitting in europe, and we interviewed a lot of european leaders who believe this, it looks as though the united states is pivoting away from europe to asia. when you look at our largest trade partner, when europe is our largest investor, and when europe as a whole contains the greatest number of allies in the world, 26 european countries allied to us in nature, if there is going to be a pivot to asia, it should be a european- american pivot together to asia, and i want to credit the former secretary of the united kingdom

david miliband for having agreed on this point, and we do give him to credit in our report. nato matters. europe matters greatly to the united states. we are at our core a transatlantic nation by history and by interest, and nato needs new leadership. the core of our report is to ask each of the leading countries of nato to reaffirm that leadership in very concrete ways, and we begin with our own country. we ask united states congress and this report not to cut the united states defense budget. roughly $400 billion over 10 years that has already been agreed. if we go into sequestration, if we are facing in this country over $1 trillion in defense cuts, it will impair the ability of our military and our government to protect american interests around the world, in europe, in the middle east, in

south asia and certainly in east asia, so the first recommendation for the united states is really a recommendation to our political leaders in congress, to both political parties. we understand. i certainly understand as a citizen that every part of our society has to uphold the responsibility of reducing our budget deficit. the military is going to do that with nearly half of $1 trillion in cuts, but we go well beyond that and in danger to our. the greatest force for good in the world. as i said before, the second recommendation is that this should be with europe and that the united states and europe should be acting together on a strategic basis to be actors in south asia, in the middle east, in east asia, and third, there has been a lot of talk about a transpacific partnership. that was part of the president's initiative on asia, with which i certainly agree. how about a transatlantic partnership that goes beyond

just data, which brings about a greater economic integration between north america and europe itself as a visionary ideal for the future? those are some of the recommendations that we have for the united states. they value so much the leadership of france in nature, and as fred said, i went through all along with damon and my friend, an outstanding secretary of state during the bush administration -- we went through some very difficult times. the european allies coming to our defense on september 12, 2001, invoking article 5 for the first time in nato history, and then the near-death experience of native nearly breaking up in the division over the iraq war in 2003. one of the strengths of nato in the last years has been the return of french vigor, french lead, and french leadership

under president nicolas sarkozy. i felt that when i was undersecretary of state. i felt that in the iran negotiations when i was negotiating with the russians and the chinese over iran sanctions. it was the strength and toughness of sarkozy that allowed us to surpass those sanctions between 2006 and 2008. there is a new leader in france now, and of course, we welcome the leadership of france hollande, and we hope that this french policy will continue. obviously, president hollande will have an opportunity at the summit this weekend that we hope to reaffirm about keeping the troops in afghanistan until 2014, as nato has agreed, and

not to withdraw them by the end of 2012, as the president elect hollande said he would do. we hope there is not a division between the new president of france and nato on that level. they had taken france out in 1966, and sarkozy returned it, but that will continue. at first and foremost, that french steel against iran is needed, in a coalition of countries now facing a second round of negotiations with the iranians in baghdad on may 23. i am just speaking for myself now, not as an atlantic council board member. there was a report that a french leader had been sent by the president elect of france to go to tehran to of conversations on the nuclear issue, and i have no idea, of course, what was said in those meetings. i think it would 7 preferable

if they had come to washington to talk to the leading allies first about iran before jetting off to tehran. we of course also mention germany in this report, and in many ways, we have so much support for germany, for its historic leadership of europe, for the role that chancellor angela merkel is playing in the debt crisis, and we hope for the sustained german leadership in nature, but i must say, if we went around and talked to scores of people on both sides of the atlantic over the coming months, we were struck that nearly every person we interviewed serving officials, former officials, said we needed a stronger germany. we need a stronger germany in nato. germany is an economic superpower, but in terms of its political and military leadership, it is not a leader

in any sense of the word, and if nato is due the 16th hour keystone country, really the reason for the nadel existence, think about it historically, germany needs to meet us politically and militarily. it needs to be right in the middle of the leadership group, and i must say, just based on my own experience, germany is not in that group. it sits at the meetings, but it is not providing the leadership that we need. you know, nato, for a long time, just to give you one example, for along time, nato has said that all of a allies should spend about 2% of the gross domestic product. exactly three of us are spending 2% of our gross domestic product, led by the united states at 4.4% or 4.5% of our gross domestic product. germany is at 1.2% or 1.3% of their gdp. you see a gap between the

leadership position of them and the reality that they cannot deploy because it does not have the military capacity to do so. that is an important metric, but i think a more important one that i hope will come out in this report is that we need germany's ambition and germany's leadership, and paraphrasing the polish prime minister in a famous speech she gave last autumn, a polish-born minister saying we need a stronger germany. we heard that throughout our conversations, and we are convinced that a weaker german a politically will weaken the alliance, and a stronger germany will make us credible and energetic in the 21st century. a course, we did not forget the united kingdom. we spent a lot of time in the united kingdom, talking to france and talking to some of the people who have been

directing the government of the past few years. we are concerned in our report, and we say this by the extensive military budget cuts in the united kingdom over the last several years. there is no question that pound for pound, the u.k. is the most capable european ally in terms of its ability to project power, to deploy its forces in the first rate quality, and they have proven that, both in basra and in southern in afghanistan over the past decade. these defense budget cuts, and, course, we understand there is a budget and economic crisis in the united kingdom, they risk that quality over the long term and capacity with the u.k. army forces, and we certainly of the economy revives in the u.k., that britain returned to sustain their defense budgets, and return to the first rank of major, where it belongs. there is one more country that we emphasize in this report, and that is turkey, and if you look

at the landscape in europe and the euro debt crisis, if you look at the realignment of power, with the rise of china and the rise of regional power, there is one regional country that is rising rather dramatically in its power and influence in the world, and that is turkey. i would say personally that turkey is more influential in the united states than germany or france. we have seen a remarkable amount of turkey under the leadership there over the last many years, and a willingness in turkey to lead and to be active in the toughest problems, and so our report calls for turkey to be treated like a leader at native. turkey joined the alliance in 1952. it has never been given leadership opportunities. there is an informal group of four countries, including the u.s., germany, france, and britain. turkey ought to join that group.

we believe that george should be considered to be the next secretary-general of nato. we believe that the turkish generals should be given opportunities in our military in peacetime and in wartime. we believe that turkish leadership is essential. this would require an attitudinal change, all of us. it would require americans to be more, and i suspect this will not be an aspect given the close relationship between the united states and turkey, but it will require europeans to think of turkey as a european power. europe has not made that decision. on the eu, on theiron the eu, oy for the eu, but the transatlantic conference is different. we wanted this report to reflect a strong willingness of the united states tuesday turkey play that leadership role. a final point is that we need nato not to be global in terms of membership but global in