designed to be a replica of the statue of liberty the young man i can't remember his name right now who came up with the idea actually had a post card of the statue of liberty and he was from some town about three hours by train from beijing. the reason i know about this is that he was interviewed in the new yorker and in one of the talk of the town columns and so he told the story, he gets on the train and goes to beijing with the photograph of the statue of liberty and he goes to the art school and he and other students there decide that they need to represent their movement by creating a statue of liberty. and they build this goddess of liberty as you all know and at the last minute they changed the features of the statue to make it look more chinese for fear that the government would come down on them if they produced too obviously western

an image but there's a photograph that unfortunately i couldn't get the rights to so i couldn't put it in my book but there's a photograph of the goddess of liberty in teen min square looking straight at a huge banner of mow as if to say, we're going to make it and you're not. so i think that's the clearest representation or way that other people have used the statu of liberty to represent ideals of liberty that they want. but there are almost 40 countries around the world that have replicas of the statue of liberty. there are four in japan, there are two from earlier periods of china from pre-communist periods in china, france has 13 replicas of the statue of liberty. there are three in paris alone. there are in ukraine there's a statue of liberty. any place where at a point in

time people have wanted to express their desire for liberty for change, for a better way of life, the statue of liberty is an image that has come to mind and that's why i think there are so many rep cass. >> and i love one of the things that i've heard you say before that she comes to represent whatever we need her for. and i think that's a great idea that she's both a piece of the past but she's also leading the way for ideals. >> i think that's -- after 9/11 we needed her for reassurance, for a sense of persistance. she had been there in new york harbor for over 100 years. she was unscathed by the attack. and so we could look at the statue of liberty as a hope that she's persisted and so will we. >> great. i know this is only a fraction of what you touch on in your

book the statue of liberty, a transatlantic story. i would encourage everyone to learn from it and to continue to visit us here where the statue is always our companion. thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you.

>> to my right president jimmy carter, former president of the united states. he was awarded the peace prize

in 2002. president mick kalegoer bachove of the soviet union, his policies led to the downfall of communism. he was awarded the noble peace prize in 1990 for helping to end the cold war. time magazine named him man of the year and man of the decade. [applause] f.w. declerk is the former president of south africa, he was awarded the noble peace prize in 1993 along with nelson mandola. in recognition to end apartheid and initiate the first fully democratic constitution in africa.

and electric wallsa was president of poland awarded the nobel peace prize in 19 3 as the founder of the solidarity movement that led the polls out of communism. his contribution, the end of the cold war, stands beside that of his fellow poles. were proud to have you all here together on this stage. [applause] is that a high five? we are together to talk about new challenges for peace with men who change it had course of history, but they are here also with a message for all the young people who are here in this audience and all who are

watching not just across america but in many places around the world in that you too have the tools to bring about change and the proof is very simple. there are many examples but perhaps the most global one happened just in 2010 in december when a series of protest business young people that started in tunisia and spread to egypt and libya and syria and to yemen became known as the arab spring. they are still rewriting the future of the arab world as a result of what the young people did there. and in the united states, youth led the occupy wall street movement, much of it to bring about economic change, and they certainly have changed the conversation you see it in the way the news media is covering this very consequential election here in the united states and they changed the conversation in washington. and so we want to talk to them

about the thing that is they did that change it had world but also advice for all of you in ways that you can change the world. and since our topic is new challenges for peace, president carter let me start with you. what do you think the biggest challenge is to peace in the world today? >> the biggest challenge is the commitment of the international community to resort to war only as an absolute last resort. and that should apply to individual nations who start wars, it should apply to the unite nations. and now i think humankind in general are much more inclined to resort to armed conflict instead of to negotiations and mediation and a commitment to peace because all the major religions say peace should come first. i worship the prince of peace not war. and if everybody did that if we had 2 billion christians, for instance, all of whom were committed to peace we would not have any more wars and i might say that islam and judism and

budism and hinduism are just as much committed to peace as we are to christians. so humankind has got to say war comes last, peace comes first. >> are there -- [applause] >> are there places now in the world that give you particular pause that you think are the greatest threats to peace right now? >> well, i feel that people are disturbed, that people are krnt everywhere. and i think that once again, people are asking the question that we were asking 25 years ago. will there be a nuclear war? is there something fatal that's happening in the world? i have heard that again. i heard that years ago and now

i'm hearing it again. and we must -- i fully agree with jimmy that we -- like we should not be worried -- i remember how one member said it would take a couple of tanks. well, thousands of tanks cannot solve problems. the most important thing is people want change and people see that often change is not happening. there are, there were opportunities that have not been used and again it's the lack of political role. and i am now convinced more than ever before that without

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

practically everywhere in the world now take kind of condescending attitude to the people, we will never put an end to the kind of problems that we are facing. we have not yet ended those problems. and very often the old tricks are being used in this new world. so we must unite, we must have solidarity. we must support each other. we must work rezzluletly to change the world for the better. and i think that if we look at the awards and the nobel peace prize to, we were awarded it for some contribution, for making a difference. but there is not a great -- now a great need to make a

difference. so we too must continue to act and above all civil society. civil society must be as active, more active than before. >> i'm going to start with the role of the government and with some examples if i may. last year, for example, president obama cited a threat to civilians in libya in deciding to allow military power there. and you've seen the coney video. something like .8, 9 million people have seen this video of the fan atcal head of the leader in uganda who is to tor yuss for murdering civilians. in october the president dispatched about 100 u.s. trooped to yugeganda and to its neighbors to try to hunt down coney.

there are some activists who say the administration needs to do more in syria to stop the killing there. where is the role of government in modern society? can you make any sort of broad statement about that? has it changed? >> i think that good governance and often the opposite, bad government, lies at the root of improving the quality of life of people. for that reason, i have formed an organization called the global leadership foundation where i draw together 34 former prime ministers, president, cabinet ministers senior diplomats and we are all prepared to give advice to governments and we give our advice not for profit and we give our advice sort of beneath the radar, advise on how to

identify what initiatives to take in order to end conflict, in order to settle conflict, in order to govern better, in order to get the economy going, in order to create better economic climates for foreign investment and the like. so governance is extremely important. i don't think the united states as the only super power in the world for the time being, can and should accept the role of the policeman of the whole world. [applause] in all countries there are governments. president roosevelt i think said there's a time for the big stick and there's a time for speaking softly. haven't we had too much big stick? and isn't it tike for speaking

softly? from the south african experience i can testify that we did not change because of the many big sticks wielded. at times that delayed the form and president carter was right when he questioned the effectiveness of sanctions and the like. and when he suggested that it is not such an effective instrumental -- an effective instrument to bring about change. in the end peace can only be achieved when you get people involved to talk to each other. i don't know of any peace effort in a country torn apart

by violence, by conflict which has been achieved without former enemies sitting down, negotiating, and reaching an agreement which is then, becomes part of an accord of -- or of a treaty. so i'm a great believer in what that the world now needs in addition to an active civil society needs a sort of private diplomacy to bring about the change of hearts and minds. if we analyze the root causes of those things which suppress people, which causes so much misery, i would identify too there are others, too. the one is we are failing to manage diversity. with globalization all

countries are becoming more diverse. an overwhelming majority of all the countries in the world have imported minorities consisting of 10% or more of their populations. are we managing diversity correctly? how do we make important minorities feel that they -- and appreciated building block of the greater whole? instead of them feeling and actually being marginalized in the country where they have been born, where their children are being born, and where their grandchildren will be born? and the second root cause of all the misery and all the suppression and all the deppization lies in the fact that 2.5 billion of the 7 billion people on this earth lives in absolute misery.

are hungry, live beneath the line. so if we look at the bigger picture, i think we need to develop a vision and world leaders should put their hands and their heads together and develop a vision. how do we effectively manage diversity? secondly, how do we win the war against poverty? how do we reduce the percentage of people living beneath the bread line dramatically giving them a better life, giving them hope, giving them opportunity? [applause] >> you are someone who fought and won the peace prize for your fight for workers rights to give people a living wage, to give them decent working

conditions, to give them the opportunity themselves to work their way out of poverty. and i think it's actually -- well, i certainly don't want to draw a direct comparison when you look at the youth unemployment numbers in the united states and the difficulty that students even with a college degree now have in getting employment. there is some understanding of what it means to fight to be able to support yourself. there is a classic picture -- and you've maybe seen it in your history classes. some of them are old enough to have seen it while we were still alive but the classic picture of you standing up in the shipyard and bringing about the solidarity movement which changed the course of history. tell me what you think the role today is of protest in society in bringing about the kind of change that can alleviate things like poverty, alleviate

things like economic inequality. >> young people tell the truth and so the, thus far let us implement the truth here. so here i am asking, where are the chinese nobel peace prize win center ask yourself in your conscience and ask yourself how we should behave in front of that fact that our laureate is in prison. and for what doing what we have been doing. but returning to your question,

until the end of the 20th century the world was very differently divided, continents were divided, countries from one another and the borders. of course the fact there was great disproportions in the development and standard of living. in the united states perhaps you could not see it that clearly. but in europe we can see it perfectly well. now when we have advanced the technology so much that we can no longer become confined to single space in countries we come to realize that we have to enlarge the structures in which we organize ourselves and during the lifetime of this generation we need to quickly enlarge our organizations or otherwise we shall lead protests which have already started but will continue increasing in the future.

for me as a revolutionary, i believe there are three major questions that we need to answer and the answers to these questions really will determine which way we will lead our countries. the first question is, what should be the economic system in europe as a single state? and then for the globalized world certainly do not really joke, not the capitalism we have in place today. unless we improve it and unless we reform it will not survive this century. certainly we will retain the free market economy. there is no question about that. what we have to retain is private ownership. that's unquestionable but certainly not the kind of injustice that we have had in

place. on the internet, we can get together over a few hours, and now and the working masses have questioned the guards. humans are no longer squared of their neighbors because we are not willing to fight will seek justice. equal opportunity, just for checking whoever cheats on them. i would like to anticipate that development by improving the economic systems in order to prevent the unnecessary waste and damage. this is the first question that we have no answer to. the second question is what should be the shape of democracy? today people do not really take seriously the democratic seriously. one day they elect some representatives on the following day they try to riot and get rid of them by rioting

in the streets. so next to the rights that are granted to us by democracy we need to put responsibilitys on various levels where as technology, including -- should have our political leaders making sure they should implement the platform and the third question should be really the fundamental one what should be the foundation that would allow stable european integrity and stable globalization? should foundations? half of mankind think that it should be enough to grant ourselves in different freedoms and the legal regulations will safeguard this. this is the mankind thinking in such stance and for the future of civilization. the remaining half claims that nothing stable can be established sooner or later

they will really mislead you. this world that this generation has opened up, this world really stands the best ever chance for prosperity and security has to be safeguarded by values but when we speak of values there are so many different ones followed by different religions, many nonreligious people. and what is worse, we do not have an entity or an individual who ral little identifies values that we can all share. and values should serve as the foundation for any solution introduced into the world if we manage to find that foundation, then we will be able to begin the contraction of the first millenium in which we are participating. this is the revolution and this is how i perceive the challenge and opportunities for us all.

[applause] >> i would like to take one positive piece is the prospect for prosperity, the prospect for the future of the yupping people who are out there. and i was looking at some old, if you don't mind me saying, tv footage. we have a 1978, if it was the start 2 treaty. is that right? and you were at the signing ceremony but what struck me in the front row was amy your daughter, at the time she would have been 12 years old and now she has a child, your grandson about that age. two grandchildren. do you think that the opportunity for peace and prosperity and maybe nuclear peace since we were talking about the start treaty at that point. but to the point are the opportunities for peace and

prosperity as good or better for your grandchildren as they were for amy? and how can young people in this audience help effect moving that forward? >> i think the prospect force peace for my grandchildren are better than they were earlier. and amy has two sons now one is 12 years old one is 18 months old. the 12-year-old goes to a school his only textbook is an ipad. he has no other textbooks and he is able to communicate with children for instance in china. the semester that he studied china i went and gave one lecture but he communicated with school children in china about the common things that we have to address for the future. i think by the time we go through another four or five years when thabe the war in afghanistan in is over and we

avoided a war in iran and the world sees peace is possible i think there might be a turning to attention of opportunities for children in all nations to communicate and learn about one another. >> does technology make it easier? we all watched the arab spring. we saw the way the pictures were able to come out of pictures in egypt, when they were able to organize because of twitter because of facebook because of the internet. how have technology changed do you think the prospect force peace and for involvement by everyday citizens to make a better world? >> well, the carter center has monitored already the election in tunisia and we are looking at egypt. i don't think either one of those revolutionary successes would have been possible without the modern technology of the cell phones and that sort of thing to let people in

widely separated communities within libya and within tunisia and within egypt and so forth to gather together with a common purpose and the point i made earlier about my grand children, i think in the future we are going to see children not only in china and japan, maybe even in north korea, the hamas and also fata and the palestinian community and they and the israelis and egyptians, those children are going to be able to talk to each other and communicate with another because it's almost instant translation. so i think what has happened within egypt, say or tunisia is very likely to happen in the future among children of different nations. and once they see they have something in common, that is of benefits of peace and the benefits of prosperity and the benefits of education and the benefits of environmental quality, i think that will be a

very major contribution to them wanting to get along better with each other instead of forming a war on the drop of a hat. so i believe that the general communication is let's go for peace and not war just because we understand each other better. >> there are some growing pains in this parts of the world that have seen extraordinary change and something that could have been anticipated in egypt, for example there are complaints about -- and you and i were talking about presidential candidates who are not going to be allowed to participate. having said that, do you think president deklerk is -- because i know all of you on this stage have talked about in the thing that is i've read, your frustrations in not seeing more come out of what you have accomplished. and obviously we all want to work for that perfect society. is it harder to effect change or to sustain it?

>> i think it's two different challenges. and i think both of them are equally challenging and equally fulfilling if you succeed. to effect change requires from the roll players involved to fully ooblingsept that -- accept that there is a need for change. it's the starting point of how to bring about change. and this is what is happening in south africa and this is what needs to happen in many countries where there are problems. the leadership needs to accept that it cannot go on -- we can't just maintain the status quo. we need to change in order to improve the environment in order to bring a better life to our people. to sustain then after you bring

about changes demands a different approach. it demands that this is a problem which is beginning to emerge in south africa, it demands adhering to the cornerstones of the agreement or the accord in the constitution which was negotiated. cornerstones in our case is independent courts, protection of private property ownership, freedom of the press and freedom of the association. all those cornerstones are under threat because it was argued that what was good 0 years ago maybe is no longer good for today because of bad governance things are not as well as they should be. education hasn't improved. it has actually deteriorated so on and so forth. so what was needed to build on

the constitutional agreements and the social agreements which was reached was good effective governance, good management, and where that falls away it can severely damage that which has been achieved through the process of change. >> does there need to be a face to that change? and it occurs to me as i'm looking at all of you there were faces to the camp david accords. again, these iconic images that those of us who lived or studied history books have had. we know that you were the face of change that you and nelson mandola are so associated with the end of apartheid and you with the solidarity movement. one of the criticisms of the occupy movement is that they will never effect the kind of change that they could and maybe should because as often

as the case early with movements they reject any sort of establishment, they reject organization, they reject being part of a structure. and so by not having a face to sort of represent that movement or rement that change is very difficult for them to do it. and i'm sure there are probably a lot of students in this audience who either went out to the occupy movements or were very interested in the occupy movement. do you think that without a leader, without a strong leader, a face to a particular movement it can effect change? >> whenever we look at a problem, we have to look at the respective time and location complexes. internal problems that is a different thing than when you

have the outside domestic argument is something that when you have an outside enemy. each of you can drive almost anywhere all around the world. why can we do that? simply because the traffic regulations all over are very much alike. and now when the advancement forces us the structures in which we organize ourselves, we have to look at and identify the things that we can kind of immediately have of the same kind where as today as the legacy we have different for example taxation system, different social benefits systems, different health code systems. that's why we can not really level the disproportions because they're simply too big. that's why when we have this debate, which is beautiful, are we talking about globalization? are we talking about respective state problems in europe, for

example we are facing the challenge of greece where as greece is enjoying much better social benefits than poland and poland is supposed to be helping greece. the discrepsizz do not allow us to do that. a similar thing will occur when we come to terms with globalization. therefore we the panelists here should really begin to think what should be the foundations on which we work ourselves? and only then decide what we can start doing today and bearing in mind that all of us are necessary when we race one against another, when one countries wants to dominate the other then we insisted and assisted those who were the fastest runners, when we no longer race against one another we should provide platforms and institutions focus on both who

are runner up runners and lag behind. be it whoever does not, it works to our disadvantage and they might start a revolution not paying taxes. so everyone is essential. therefore we must find jobs for everyone and if we fail to do that, then they will start up a revolution. or else the discrepancies continue to be so great and therefore we cannot really implement a wise platform for integration. we need to identify the targets among which we will move leveling the disproportions in order to enlarge the freedom justice for all of us. these are the tragedies and challenges for today. but before we were not even allowed to ask such questions because we had those laws, that

wanted to attack one another. today we have realized that it is no longer to anybody's benefits, we can make better business without waging wars. but the discrepancies do not allow us to implement that decision. and we also lack political leaders who would help that decision to implement. we belong to this therefore we cannot invent any new vision. hopefully we can find some that will lead us forward. >> the answer is a sipping lar leader? the answer is clearly no. take the arab spring. who is the singular leader? egypt or yemen or syria? no there is none. but the fact is that now you don't lead a leader to take charge and say let's all do this and gather followers.

now, every student that we listen, they're listening to us or everyone who believes in freedom or the end of war for peace or justice or environmental quality can speak independently but their voices combined and make a powerful weapon that can change a government and bring about revolution. i think in the past without the modern day communications you had to have a singular leader. now you don't. and i think that's a very good positive signal for er student to say i can do something. i don't have to wait on somebody to tell me what to do. >> and i would like to pick up on that because i do think that there is a sense that the internet and social media has had an opportunity to bring us together and president carter you are known as peanut farmer

from a small town in georgia. you went on to be a nuclear fizzsist as well as the president of the united states. so one example if you were in a school in chicago earlier today, president gorbachev was there and he was talking about where he grew up and it was one of the most impoverished areas i think it would be fair to say of russia and raised by pezzents. can you speak a little bit to youth here and around the world who are watching this about the opportunities that are out there and how someone who thinks, well, i came from plains, georgia or i came from a small town in poland, what can one person do? what can they do?

>> i think that certainly we should speak about things that have been achieved and they are pofrpblt freedom of speech, freedom of association. if there is a protest, the protest, while it may sometimes go too far but we should preserve the ability of the people the right of people to peacefully protest and that's a great responsibility too. on all of us, on the current generation. what i would like to say is this. i think the government in many countries now understand the importance of youth in every country. we have recently had an election campaign and today

there are some youth organizations that have been kind of sponsored by the government. one is called our people. it means that they are our people. but what about the others? the government isn't fin ndsing such organizations of young people. so what about the rest of the young people? they are not ours? the protesters are supposed to be not ours? and many people don't want that kind of division, such kind of a split of young people into those who are good and those who are not. i think that is not right. i think that there's a great responsibility. and of the democratic institutions at the municipal level and also at the national level to have the right kind of attitude toward young people.

where confidence and respect. i'm sure that young people should not be patted on the back, should not be controlled. that's not the way to work with the youth. we will not succeed if -- if young people are just supposed to do someone's bidding, if organizations of young people are created for that purpose. for the specific purpose of doing other people's bidding. it's i think very often that results in irresponsibility. that results in the distortion of the democratic process, that results in the way that common problems, real problems are ignored. and that may even result in

extremists tendencies and organizations and radical nationalist organizations. we have recently at our foundation discussed this problem of young people and the leaders of some youth organizations have recently taken the path of possibly some kind of extremism. i think that it is only within the democratic setting that young people can look forward, debate, show their solidarity without that democratic framework we could get something quite tange dangerous

and very harmful. >> you bring up the point of two sides of the coin. one is the positive change that can be brought about in places like we saw like the arab spring but there is also a clear tie between poverty and youth and terrorism. we talk about it a lot in the era of the united states saying no longer the greatest threat being the soviet union but the greatest threat of the early 21st century is al qaeda and i'm wondering with the death of osama bin laden, with the splintering of al qaeda do you think that terrorism is less a threat than it has been in the last decade or so? and how do you see it going forward particularly in the context of what you were just talking about and the way in which discontent and poverty can feed extremism. >> i think terrorism is a very real threat.

i think we should ask why do young people land in the the hands of of the people like the late osama bin laden who twist their minds? why are they mallable? why are they vulnerable to that sort of influence? and once again i think it relates to issues like bad education, failed education systems. to issues like unemployment, no hope, no hope for a better life because of bad economic situations in countries. in other words, they are vulnerable because they have nothing to lose there's an

element of truth in that. and therefore improving the living conditions of people reaching out. where do the terrorists come from? they come from suppressed countries where people are suppressed. they come from countries where the masses do not have good liing conditions. and it is stimulated by fan atism in its worst form. so i think terrorism remains a threat. i think if we want the youth to be in a more constructive way we need to also remember and reply to the previous question of yours that saying two heads are better than one. can one person make a difference? yes. i'm sitting here between three

people who made a tremendous difference. but they had teams around them. they had organizational structures. and in the speech earlier, choose your cause and align with an organization. ten people together believing in the same thing can do better if they together develop an action plan than ten individuals each one developing his or her own action plan and promoting that on their own. so get involved in good organizations, get mobilized, become part of what modern technology which together can exercise tremendous influence. i don't think we should glorify protests for the sake of protest. >> i can see that you wanted to

get in on that conversation. >> ladies and gentlemen, we should start with a proper analysis first and then appropriate treatment. the terrorism that we have in place today was the legacy that was handed down to us. we used to have two antagonistic camps who trained people to fight against one another and armed them and when one of those blocs collapsed we just left those people there without any money, without any and they began creating their own private world and we continued having problems with them. but this is already a dynamic and when people begin to adopt the same struggle, the motivation is difference, the

struggle should be global. we need to globally identify terrorism as the danger that requires a global struggle against it. and only then will we have a proper education, a proper institution to prevent it happening. so i think that with that, if they are appropriate, the treatment can be appropriate, too. but to your question regarding young people and their leadership, i know that when we were young, one needed to be more courageous than the other. so today when one wants to be the leader to the others, i to be wiser than the other because courage is not as needed any more. we need to do better organize ourselves to face the challenges which we have to meet. and problems to solve. but then, i had actually two

strong arguments in myself. one my true belief in god. and the second is the belief in what i was doing and the way i was struggling and see how far i have got. but if i was to become the leader today then i would need to adopt a slightly different approach. if i wanted to be a union leader i would say that in 20 or 30 years from now we would have need to solve all the conflicts of the problems and in an equal sided triangle. all conflicts should be solved once we sit down to debate in a three-sided triangle. one of the sides constituted by unions and ngos, the other side that business owners, and the third side all levels of administrations. depending on what level of our

ornlle organization we are, we should meet in a triangle like this with the first question being asked what make of, let's say, 20 computers we have here we decide to choose in order to solve our problems. because we will never reach an agreement if it were not for computer. so once we decide which make of a computer we have the second question, whether all of could with respected demands and we answer this and we have follow with a third question. how many variance of the solution do you want to get following the canadian or american example once we eentter data we are given back the cd roms and only the fourth question is asked when shall we meet again in order to for one

of the variances. and this is calculated and the young people have answered that era when they can reach it in 20, 30 years you will write appropriate to help us solve conflict and emotionlessly, leaving enotions for other fields of our lives and the same should really be applied to politicians, political leaders. they should be wearing a chip that would record any -- every single move of that politician because i don't want to control the politicians. instead, i want the chip that records everything in the sexurent. and this is something you have to introduce or other wise the politicians will continue cheating us and the world will not be transparent and decent. i believe this is a target that we can reach.

this is why i encourage young people to write such stuff. and then we will have things just and fair and wisely. >> we could do another whole section just on that. but you made mention of something that leaves me perfectly i have a handful of questions here from the auddwrns and they're great. so i would like to see how many of them -- i'm going to stand up and look. i have nine minutes left before they get us off the stage. you've written about this extensively so let me ask you. the role of faith. and do you believe that faith and religion have any place in humanitarian efforts? if so, are they a help or

hindrance? >> i believe that faith and religion do have a positive place to exert itself in the future. as long as we look at the overwhelming sexatibilities among the great relidges and don't single out the differences. this is one thing that the early church had to address. forget about the little arguments but look at the overall commitments in christianity but the point i made at lunch is still i think important when you look at christianity, whether it's protestant or catholicism, if you look at judism, budism, other religions, then you find that their basic principles are all exactly the same. none of those that i mentioned including hinduism fail to

promote peace. >> then is it ignorance that makes people fear the religions that they're not familiar with or that they associate, for example, with terror? >> i don't think it's ignorance but it's a matter of people trying to be superior to other human beings. and that creates compleemism. it creates fundamentalism. and fundamentalists in any religion is that i believe that i have a peculiar or special relationship with god. that i speak basically on behalf of god in my personal belief. anyone who disagrees with me not only disagrees with me but disagrees with god. and then that disagreement can deteriorate into feeling the other person is infearier to you. and that can go further into saying that other person is subhuman. and therefore that person's life is not significant.

and i can go to war and take advantage of that other person and take that person's life because they are infearier in my opinion and also infearier in the eyes of god. so i think extremism or fundamentalism when carried to that point can be a very negative factor in religion. but that's a minor change or difference among the different religions and i think if we look at overall complex of religion, peace, justice, humility, service, forgiveness, compassion, love, even of people who disagree with you or not loveable or don't love you back that's the essence of relincolnen. so the common goal is the same and could be the same goals by the way that a nobel prize winners try to strive for and that individual human beings should adopt. [applause]

>> there are so many things going on in the world now that have the potential to have significant impact on peace. but this question comes from brandon and how do you believe the failed missile launch in north korea is going to affect world peace? >> i think every failure of countries who should not have certain capacities is a positive development. we in this organization held in hero sheema a conference pleading for a world without nuke deleer weapons. -- nuclear weapons. i think the basis for the old agreement that certain countries may have it and

others may not have it needs to be revisited. [applause] and that sense therefore it's good that it failed. it's good that we are talking again to iran. that quite a powerful delegation has started the dialogue. we must stop the proliferation. and we must bring down as a pragmatic way we must dring down the scores of weapons that the u.s.a. and england and france and russia and everybody has who are entitled to have it in terms of the international agreement and the end goal should be no missiles which can carry war heads nuclear weacheses. that we should unite to achieve. it can be done maybe not in my and mr. carter's lifetime but

it can be definitely be done in the lifetime of the young people. >> absolutely. >> no one claimed this question but it's a really good one and i'm going to ask it. how do you get people to care about injustices in the world? a trick question for one of the last questions. >> well, you know, if i knew the right answer to that question i could end up with a new nobel prize. that's why you can't really come up with a brief sensible answer to it. but i think we all feel responsible that each of us can suddenly happen to be on either

side. so let us take care of injustice in case we are faced with one. let's make sure that the regulations are there but really strongly implemented and democracy should provide for those regulations and legal regulations to be proper for the world in which we are liing and we will continue living. but i don't know whether anybody really knows the right answer for that. >> does anybody here have an answer for that question? >> no. maybe not. i think time for one final question. there are so many good ones but perhaps this speaks to many of the issues that we've been talking about today. my teacher wants me to work on many different projects. but i don't feel safe in my neighborhood. how can i make my city safer? he wanted me to give that to

president gorbachev and he's certainly welcomed to weigh in. >> you just have to have more faith. you have to have more faith in other humans, in the destiny, human destiny and providence. >> i think some of the answer have already been given. that is, the gross inequities within a community between the rich and the poor seem to put tremendous pressures on the poor to commit crimes just to support their families or because they don't have a job and become hopeless, they lose self-respect. they lose a belief that the future might be better for them and their taw children and they don't feel part of seat and don't have an investment in maintain taining the status quo maintain taining the status quo or protecting