exchanges and collaborations in science and technology. pursuing a high standard the will be a model for the world. standing up for the dignity of people run the world, like supporting the people of the middle east and north africa. patients are in transition, including egypt, libya, and yemen. the reforms strengthen governess the governance and improve growth. in the face of unspeakable violence by the regime, where standing with the people of syria to strengthen the opposition and insure humanitarian assistance and further isolating and sanctioning the regime. the day that the regime would have a government that respects their rights. beyond the region, their act of encouraging reforms in burma.

in each case, society leaders are leading the reform process. united states is committed to protecting the space for civil society to operate and the critical role plays in transitioning democracy all over the world. with a greater emphasis on a broader range of u.s. power, president obama succeeded in laying a new foundation for leadership in the world. nowhere do you see this more clearly than the commitment to the area that you focus on for the remainder of my remarks, the development in poverty and prosperity. the presiden was unapologetic,

putting to rest the old myth that development is near charity. rejecting the notion that they were condemned by the gains in human developments. as such, the national security strategy recognizes development in the moral, strategic, and economic imperatives. on that day he announced the new u.s. global development policy. the premise is on the conviction that the ultimate goal of foreign assistance and development is to create the conditions with the assistance are no longer needed. focusing on helping these broad base -- is broadbased economic growth, prioritizing the empowerment of women and girls as critical in itself, as central to achieve a broader development objectives, including new approaches to

harness the capacity of more sectors, including the private sector. the principles at work are from the development initiatives. the strategy places a major emphasis on increasing trade across the region and the world, including support for the african growth opportunity at, which is why the president signed that into law. we have partnered with countries to help create an enabling environment to subtract foreign capital and promote investments. as part of the global health initiative, we are working with countries to help strengthen access to health care to bring down the cost of vaccines. over the next few years we will help to save the lives of 4

million more children. related to this, the president has built upon the important work of president bush. we have increased the fund to fight aids and malaria. last year, they had ambitious new goals for 1.5 million hiv- positive pregnant women, helping 6 million people get treatment by the end of 2013. now we can imagine what was once unthinkable, the possibility of an aids tree generation. as part of the initiative, we have improved crop yields. partners may it lucky three years ago. this past spring the president announced an alliance that brings more organizations together around this shared goal.

starting with $3 billion in private sector commitments, we aim to boost in come and help 50 million men, women, and children lift themselves out of poverty. where dozens of nations have come together to promote transparency and accountability, it is necessary to uphold human rights and economic development. the biggest hurdle in many countries is corruption. 60 governments are collaborating with societe, making use of new technology for transparency, accountability, and institutions. broad economic growth. in closing, i've noted that these initiatives are pieces of a larger economic commitment saving lives and assisting

people. under the president to increase assistance to the least- developed countries. as the single largest donor of aid in the heart of africa, the south sudan, syria, and yemen. we have a moral obligation to help others, making sure that the united states will be a global leader in international development and the 21st century. this is how the president and our administration every oriented policy, turning the page on a decade of war. this is the foundation of a new era of american leadership the president has laid.

this is a foundation that requires all elements of american power, a foundation upon which we intend to build in partnership for all of you. thank you very much, it is a pleasure to be here with you today. >> ladies and gentleman, president kennedy once remarked years ago that he had never seen so much talent in one room since thomas jefferson dined alone. well, he never saw the talent we have on this stage. i am going to briefly introduce everyone. i think that there bios are in the material. obviously, madeleine albright is a remarkable woman who needs no introduction. the 64th secretary of state, the

first woman to hold the position, one of the great world leaders today and for a long time to come. senator dianne feinstein, the first female president boris supervisors, senior senator on many committees, known for her work in foreign policy, intelligence, and a variety of different areas. she will be remembered as one of the great members of the senate. the co-chair of the security of advisory committee for america, serving as under-secretary for defense policy for secretaries gates and secretary panetta. having most recently served as the u.s. ambassador to india, he was a congressman from indiana, a distinguished member of international trade and security.

the dean of syracuse university, with a long career in government and director of policy planning for the clinton administration. our moderator for today, many of you have recognized him as richard wolf. he has been at "the financial times" for many years. he is the author of "renegade, the makings of a president." i think that president kennedy would have to revise what he said many years ago, please welcome this very distinguished panel. [applause] >> thank you for that generous

introduction. thank you for showing up today. as moderator, in addition to having to live up to that, i have to keep the trains running on time. the plan, for the next 40 minutes or so this panel will be solving the problems of the world. and we're willing to open it up to -- to questions from the floor. i believe that there are two microphones on either side. these are not precise groups, but if you are technologically proficient, we can take your questions from twitter. news this-tag and we will get to those questions.

let me try to set up a tour of the horizon. by the way, this is the most challenging foreign policy environment ever. i thought the first cold war was pretty challenging. i thought that the post-9/11 era was challenging. but we have both of those here. my question would be, do we have the international architecture to deal with all of those problems? american leadership is still indispensable, but how was that supposed to function in such a complex world. >> thank you for moderating this.

i really do believe that. in this political setting, i would say that every county has been heard from in every part of the world. there are additional issues now considered national security issues. we have added an era of information technology. suddenly we know everything about everything happening everywhere, which raises a lot of issues out there to be dealt with. one of the structures, part of the problem, i believe, and i have been known as many things, including structure -- structural, we have known many things that do not work well, and we are looking at

institutional crises in some terms, with an in capability of dealing with the problems. i do not think there's a lot of space in many institutions. it happens in each country in terms of state institutions or federal institutions. the greater space is there with the local institutions, those closest to the people. inre's a real strain international institutions and how they're working. part of it is that there is a system set up for nation states, who are not the only players now. the non-state actors, we have heard from campaign #1. they are different. i do not mean to equate them with each other, but they play by different rules. the system is not set up for them.

with specific problems in certain areas, dealing with terrorists or nuclear proliferation, or poverty like energy environments, those require a lot of people to for dissipate. individual bilateral relationships felt mean that these are deeply strained. >> i had a nice question about military cooperation, but i think a will start off with something about the arab spring. it strikes me that you are an advisor to the obama campaign as well. syria has thrown up all sorts of challenges. there are limits to where american leadership and take us.

limits to the collaborative arrangements with other countries and what they can achieve. syria has shown the limits of the world we are in right now. the see this as a problem? >> the challenge in syria is enormous. the humanitarian catastrophe is getting worse. question is how long before they are taken and that will cost. we are trying to build cohesion within the opposition. at the strategic level we're working to develop transition plans. the platform crew nearly for text minority rights and the others to join in on the future

of a new syria. inviting command and control. this is going to -- everyone wants this to end as quickly as possible, but the real key is getting the political cohesion inside the opposition. you have seen that because there is no institution that can deal with this effectively, you have seen in u.s. investment in rebuilding and catalyzing international consensus in the region more broadly on a national basis to go with this difficult problem. >> so, my follow could be the next question. i am willing to criticize my own question. the media, we all focus on the tough, dramatic questions about the toppling of leaders and use of military force, but this is

hard work, post-revolution. on that level, how do we fare on that? do we have the tools to actually deal with those things, if we believe in smart power? >> i believe that this administration has really tried to make operational the notion of smart power. also obviously diplomacy are the biggest elements of that. there are cases where the relationship. it has enabled us to educate the others. that is the new concept. when you have the american

military pride themselves on being responsible. it is a very powerful way to engage these countries. >> i want to move my bias from the right side of the panel to the left. i have heard about the diplomatic surge that needs to happen in these post-war situations. and do we have anything approaching that now? can you really use civilian tools, for instance, and afghanistan where our military personnel are and the personal threat is very real to the lives from afghan security themselves. is a diplomatic search still a rhetorical phrase? or does it have reality on the ground. >> it is a work in progress.

it is one of the highlights secretary clinton and president obama have tried to do. one of the real hallmarks of the last couple of years was strong on the experience of the pentagon with the quadrennial defense review. the democracy antebellum interview because she recognize that what we did not have was the capacity to meet these needs of a diplomatic searched or developing surge. we had to think about our structures, but also our people. and to marry that up together so would not have to be a separate stovepipes on the military on the one side and the state department on the other. the partnership that has been developed between the pentagon, i think it is unprecedented in recognizing the have to work together. they work better if they're

integrated from the beginning. we are seeing a change in the with the state department does business. and institutional changes bringing together more of the operational parts. bringing together the development with democracy and human rights. seeing how we compare our planning better to do these contingency planning. we are ready to go if this crisis is developed. obviously, we need resources to do that. it is a challenging time. budgets are tight. you cannot just to a one-legged stroll here. >> if i am being the superficial journalists that i play on tv, i would say the shift we see from the bush era until now would be broadly characterized by this debate about unilateralism. when you boil it down to a country like pakistan and all

its challenges in a collaborative fashion, you have times when you need to take unilateral action. how do those things match up when there are real intelligence demands, pressures, how do democrats square that circle? >> all these are wrapped up in the same situation. i think right now with pakistan , there is a reality. that reality is that pakistan is a nuclear power with several dozen warheads. the ability to have a positive relationship is important. therefore, building trust and credibility is important. there are some changes.

specifically, there is a new head of intelligence. he has been to this country. some of us had an opportunity to meet with him. he could be a breath of fresh air. i do not know. evidence will show that. but he is willing to begin a new era of cooperation between our intelligence service and the pakistani intelligence service. i have become very concerned. if i could as quickly says something about syria, because i think our government has made very clear in the real and practical world that assad must go. after 10 years in iraq, after nearly $1 trillion of expenditure, it would prevent iran from said the equipment to assad.

we have asked, and they have not. this, to me, is a very important signal of where i iraq could go. i think this meets a good deal of attention right now because, as michelle said, syria is a serious, serious situation. we have begun to work multilaterally and cooperatively. therefore, countries like turkey and jordan are taking a much greater role. even the saudis in trying to be helpful. assad must go. it has to happen relatively soon. i think the loss of life is becoming intolerable.

and the way in which this loss of lice -- this loss of life is taking place is intolerable. many of us have talked about what happens with the arab spring and the fact that we have nine nations who have been buffeted from the inside and there is no way of telling what kind of stability is going to emerge. that is a huge issue. egypt is a huge issue. egypt is kind of the 800 pound gorilla in the area. whenever you may want to say mubarak recognized israel's right to exist. he recognized a two-state solution was the only way. he was helpful in many respects. which way this president will go, and no one knows. i am strongly of the opinion that this next year is a very important year to get these things sorted out. we have to watch very carefully.

we should not compel countries. we can try to be flexible with them. candidly, i am not so sure wish to put $1 billion into egypt unless egypt is willing to move in a direction away from radical islam. >> let's openness of to ever on the panel appeared what tools to the nine states use in the next four years to try to influence iraq in terms of its relationship with iran? specifically, with the situation in syria. it is the leverage the united states could use in the realm of smart powers. we have exhausted heart power avenues, right? >> i would like to combine your question and go back to the question you asked secretary all right about what the structure looks like. at the present has done a great deal of thinking.

about how the world has changed of the last 20 years from the demise of the soviet union when we had a bipolar system between united states to more of a unipolar system. now, it is an indispensable leader of the united states, forming partnerships on different sets of issues using, i think an indian scholar came up with the term, balancing power. bouncing smart, military power. let me give you a couple of examples to come to the second part of your question. the united states has worked with the coalition. military powers to remove of gaddafi from power. work on democratic regimes coming in afterwards. their work very closely and carefully with the indian government and people on afghanistan, on development issues, economic and educational issues.

where india has devoted over $2 billion to afghanistan for a regional settlement there, the united states is working with partners in the indian ocean. this is part of the rebalance toward asia. when you have the straits of hormuz to the south china seas, we see an area where 90% of trade now is on the ocean. about 2/3 of it is petroleum -- 2/3 of petroleum trade is on the ocean. the united states is a country that needs to make sure those lines are protected. we work with a different coalition of partners on anti piracy efforts in that part. you have development partnerships. u.s. military partnerships. u.s. march power partnerships around the world that i think the president and secretary clinton have done a masterful job in trying to balance the use of these powers and that

challenges coming to america and the world over the next several years. more of thatl see formulation. >> picking up on his point, i think one of the insights has been that the submergence of these new powers is not expensive to the united states. we need all the capacity that the world can bring to deal with these challenges. whether it is dealing with energy problems. the more we can bring them together to the table and recognize that working together and seeing the capacity of countries like brazil and china to be partners with us, we have a better chance of solving these problems. we cannot shy away from making clear where we have those differences. the big problems of our time need more, rather than less capacity.

finding partners when we had shared interest. >> that we try to trip up the panel here. this is election time. obviously, we are in an election where, surprisingly, foreign policy has not played a huge role. still, there are differences that people on both sides have tried to raise. we have an international audience here. take a crack at this one if you will. are the differences we are hearing on foreign policy between these two campaigns, of a mattress of rhetoric? are they real differences in policy approach here? obviously, as a nominee, mitt romney did not talk about war at all. about afghanistan at all in his acceptance speech. in some context, try to step back from where we are today, are there significant differences?

or is it as part of the campaign. >> my own view is any candid it has to be careful what they say. i think it to make the statement that i will declare china a currency manipulator is not the wisest thing to do. i had spent a long time getting to know chinese things and watching china's development. i see the real need. i am a westerner and it is specific to all the trade, so on and so forth. china is expanding. china is moving into the south china seas. i have always been assured prior to this time in a legal way in terms of legal solutions.

hopefully that can still be put forward. one of the things they tried to do is establish a record relationship with china. there is no reason for us to be anything other than allies. we really need to look to develop that very much. saying he will declare somebody a currency manipulator on your first day in office does not make much sense to me. >> i actually do think there are differences. part of it has to do with the rhetoric. i did say when i was secretary of state that i had all my partisan instincts removed. the have all grown back. -- they have all grown back. [laughter] [applause] basically, i do think that the

romney people are living in a different century. just the flat out statement to say that russia is our biggest geopolitical problem is a 20th century concepts. we are living in the 21st century. that makes it a very different story. i do think that there is a one or two dimensional view that the romney people seem to have in terms of what national security is about. the have not made a lot of statements, frankly. except, belligerent once, if i might say. i do think one has to take into, mrs. what the mood of the american people is. clearly, we are focused domestically. we have been involved in many campaigns together. one of the things i used to say is we were both foreign policy advisers in dollar to make ourselves more important, we would say that domestic and foreign policy are interrelated. they are.

we succeeded, right? the bottom line is, never has it been more true than now. i do not think that is being pointed out in any kind of an intelligent way to explain it. the issues that have already been raised here in terms of what foreign policy and national security are about these days. that has not been out here. i do think there are major differences. what is he going to do one day number two after he is declared china? >> you'll be dealing with an appealing obamacare. >> i want to jump in. i think madeleine is being kind saying that governor romney is coming from the 20th -- it might be the 19th in terms of what is talked about his vision. let's talk about the differences. this is where i see all elections. it is a very good thing here and in the world. some people look at elections and they say that it freezes action. you cannot talk about foreign

policy. is all about the economy and jobs. as president clinton said last night, it is about jobs and with the president inherited. let's look at what he inherited on foreign policy and what he has done. the president has honorably and respectfully brought all our troops out of iraq. governor romney would have left them there. the president has said we're on a timetable to bring our troops come out of afghanistan. and honor our commitment there. and then try to help solve your smart power the reasons why we went. governor romney each day says something different about whether or not he supports a timetable coming out of afghanistan. we do not know how long the troops would be there. governor romney makes a foreign policy trip and went to our closest allies to talk about a subject matter that he should be comfortable with -- the international olympics. yet, he fumbled the can't david

cameron had to come back and a rebuke him. if you cannot handle the easy issues with our closest ally in great written on the olympic games, how are you going to handle the war? how're you going to handle peace? hearty voice to handle bringing our troops home? i think there are very big differences between what the present has achieved an accomplished. how he has used smart power. when he came to see us in india, he kept telling me over and over again -- make sure you are working on american jobs in india. make sure you are using the export power of united states to make things in america and that india will buy those products, creating jobs back home. that trip resulted in 24,000 american jobs and created at home because of the president's hard work to sell things overseas. >> i got my political fix. that is great.

let's try and look forward here. say your desired outcome comes to pass. president obama gets another four years. you worked on the first on the global developments. whoever is president, there will be positive -- there will be budget pressures. well as a small part of the budget, may be the smallest parts of the once a common first because it is not entitlements and it is not military. how does a commitment to developments survive the kind of budget pressures and the next president will face? >> i think as regret the coming budget pressures, i would look to the recent experience we have had. when the budget control act was passed, what did the president

do? he did not just sharpen knives and start cutting. he said, wait a minute. he said we have to do a strategy driven review. what are we going to do? that led to a review process that to very clearly articulate the defense priorities. it got all of the cheese, all the combatant commanders, the entire uniform military on board and supporting a new way forward. i suspect we will have to do the same thing on a much broader level, looking across diplomacy and development of the military going forward. i think this president understands the importance of doing that from a strategy-based perspective. i also think he understands, as was said, not only the morally

imperative, but the strategically economic i imperative. it is such disproportionately strategic of facts that i think there'll be strong support in this administration to protect that administration. the challenge will be in congress. i am heartened by the fact that there are some new contingencies that strongly support development, but that will be the challenge. we have to better educate the american people about the strategic values of development going forward. >> ok. we can talk about developments mark, but i am interested. what does it for years of pivoting to asia look like at the end of a second obama term? >> this is an enormously important. the stage is being set that will

shape politics for a generation to come. china is emerging onto a stage. how we, both united states and partners engaged with china over the coming years, i think will set a context that makes it either possible for china to take its place as an important contributing member which drives global growth, helps to with the global challenges like climate change, or creates a new era of stability. i think the willingness to see how big the stakes are is indispensable for state -- for shaping the environment. but in a constructive way. it reassures allies that they can live in a world where china is important and powerful, but there will be left alone. they're not have to do things that increase stability. we can make sure china lives up to its international

obligations, but also to welcome it as an engine for growth and to build the kinds of relationships that the president has been pushing to create a new set of links. it creates a very stable thing. to sustain our engagement. to recognize that engagement. it is political and economic. to realize how we do not have to trade that off. to bring india in as an increasingly important actor. that is the tremendously exciting opportunity, but also a period of risk. you see a very dangerous future. the next four years, it was said that iran had to be dealt with. first of all, to reach the

tipping point with iran in the next four years? and secondly, is there more room for a collaborative smart-power approach? or are reaching that road as well? >> my answer would be yes and yes. i think we do reach a critical point within the next four years. i think most people would agree that iran will be a military nuclear power within four years, unless there is a change. i think very strongly -- i was delighted to see when the european commission instituted this series of negotiations. however, it may well be that there is not sufficient flexibility within that negotiating mechanism to work something out. this is a deep concern to me.

i think, and i have said this to the administration. i think there has to be a way of ascertaining whether the supreme leader is really interested in doing an agreement. and that america may have to step up in a bilateral negotiation where all things are on the table. what could happen if iran becomes a military nuclear power, i think, is potentially catastrophic. we really have to take the steps to prevente it. as i look at this, it is a much more rigid negotiation process. than just sitting down by laterally. i just think that everything has to be done to push diplomacy and see if there is anything we can do to prevent iran from becoming

a military nuclear power. >> before we go to some questions, secretary clinton has talked about economic estate craft. you have been in a country where that would seem to loom large in india. how do you see that kind of class playing out in a country that, to be frank, is a competitor, economically, on the job side of things for america, but is also, obviously, a developing country. a trading partner. what's your experience of trying to perform with a country that is clearly a rising economic power? >> that is a great question. i think of the president has visualize this, this policy with india, is two-fold, richard .er

it is a balance of our foreign policy to recognize the number of people in china and india. the growth potential for our export markets. we are not going to turn our back on europe and nato. we're not going to turn our back on our commitment to mexico and canada. this is just a refocus and a rebalance. not a pivot away from something. there is competition with china. there is potential conflict with china. there is cooperation. the nine states was to see a successful and peaceful rise there. with respect to india and your question. i think the president has seen great potential to almost work on a concert of democracies in asia with india. india, strengthening its neighbors and the talks going on right now that showing progress

on economic issues and trade issues, india's investment in afghanistan, this very well could see a blossoming of more democracy in asia as we work more closely, not only with india, but other partners in asia. i remember when i went to meet with the president before i was a service ambassador in india, we went through the strategy. we talked about how we saw the relationship in the next five or 10 years. and then he said in terms of your question about statecraft, he said, tim, i want you to shake hands with all 1.2 billion people in india. don't just get to know the prime minister and parliament. get to know the farmers. go into the poorest areas in mind by. i want you to show the moral

imperative of american values can see where we can put together these partnerships. >> how many hands to shake? >> i had a young man, to me on the train. a 12-year-old. he said, are you the american ambassador? >> i said, yes. >> he said, ought to be one of the 1 billion people to shake your hand. >> can i add to that? i think it brings back to the first question you asked me. stagecraft requires many more players in it. in the last panel there was discussion about public-private partnerships. i think we have to figure out a system where we are comfortable with having major corporations sit at the table at the time that negotiations are taking place. they have to play a very

important role in this. not just in job creation, but also in value systems. looking at how various issues come up. the system has to adjust that to a whole new set of stakeholders. in order to deal with the issues that are out there, whether they are held or energy or requirement our jobs, it does require a larger table. i think that is with the structures have to you look at. >> we have some questions on twitter. this is from elopez92. what you think is the best way to engage the use? anyone want to take that one? >> i would be happy. as the resident with the today, i am encouraged by the tremendous change that has taken place among young people in america. this is the first globalized generation.

they think about the world differently. borders are not meaningful to them. they understand connections and their relationship. i think the challenge is to take that instinct that they haven't put it to use in a meaningful way. obviously, i would love to see them engage in government service. we have to get away from the sense of people feeling that there is no future. that you going, it is a dead- ends. but to reestablished public service as an valuable position. to give them the sense that they can make a difference. they have to do it by understanding how others think. to be able to think and put themselves and other people's shoes so that when they get into

that globalize environment, they can be affected and proud of their own traditions. they are so energized by what they are saying in the arab spring, they want to be part of that. i think it is our challenge to give them the opportunities. >> we will do one more and then open it up to the floor. this one, forgive me if i'm not saying its correctly. while the u.s. dealt with iraq, south america became more assertive, pulling the rug beneath. how does the u.s. deal with it? who wants to deal with south america? >> i do think that our relationship with south america has always been complicated, if i may say so. if we are damned if we do, we're damned if we don't. we don't pay enough attention, they say we are not paying enough attention. if we do, they're out than we

are interfering. i do think that our future -- what happens, the most revolutionary thing i did as secretary of state was to move canada into the western hemisphere. it actually was in europe. but since this is in the western hemisphere, technically, the bottom line was, in order to increase the number of democracies. i do think there is a huge partnership here that we can and should have with latin america and any number of ways. in terms of values and how they could be part of the partnership act. brazil is clearly a major player, but so are other countries. we have more complicated and interesting relationships with mexico than any other country in the world. i do think there are many, many opportunities here to do more things together. but it does require a sense of respect from both sides and an

understanding of the importance of democracy and development. one of the things i have been pushing is the importance of development and democracy because democracy has to deliver and people want to vote and eat. the bottom line is how to make that happen. >> manages the one thing about young people? i think it is very important to spend some time on history of an area of the world you're interested in and really become proficient in it. sort of develop a portfolio of expertise. with senate offices, house of as is, to come in, in turn, and staff for a period of time. i think it is you a leg up. i also think that understanding a country is very important.

it's in an age of specialization to some extent. people ought to know what they're talking about. >> as somebody comes to the microphone, that this bill and on the answer about young people? i have four children. they love technology. they think sometimes that technology can replace going overseas and the living in a culture and learning that culture. and speaking their language. and sang with the people think and believe that work on every day. my children did not additionally want to go to india. by the end of the term, there were volunteering. they were traveling all over india. they now have a thirst to learn about the world. we have to get our students out of our universities and overseas. hit the second part would be we

need to be able to bring students to america and not shut our doors to foreign students coming to study here. i have another are 100 and thousand students in indian schools. that is a good thing. we should welcome that. the contrary to our economy. the help us start the jobs. new entrepreneurial efforts in the silicon valley and here in north carolina. and then when they go home, if they go home, they have the sense of what american values are all about and they like us. that is important to keep doing. let's do some questions in the spirit of twitter. can we keep it brief is not to 120 characters. >> good afternoon. i am from the parliament.

it was so great to realize that the european union has not been mentioned once. does that mean we have become irrelevant? or do you take us for granted? [applause] >> who wants to deal with europe? do not make me do it. >> my answer is always, in the european just like you, does happen to a been raised in the united states. i can say all kinds of things about you. i believe that europe is to get its act together so that we can, in fact, the partners. i think the united states counts very much on a partnership with europe. it is then our dna in all kinds of different ways. europe is not irrelevant at all. i think part of the issue is there is nothing that is saying

we are leaving europe behind. and we're counting on europe to be a partner with us as we deal -- an equal partner as we deal with various other issues out there. >> i am from parliament who came to be part of the supporting democracy movement there. i would like to think them for this commitment, even after they were forced to leave the country. they opened the link. thank you for them. my question is, about the foreign policy in the gulf region, is there any difference between republicans and democrats on this issue? i want to raise a point, which

was mentioned by the head of human rights. he was saying that the u.s. government is putting their credibility when they ignore all of the violations of human rights just because they are stronger for the united states. to have the feet -- the fleet to there. they are supporting the regime. our prime minister has not been elected. >> let me just take the question. we have lots of people wanted to ask questions. is there a difference between the two parties on this? >> i think there is. president obama has been very clear. he is the only path back to

stability in the middle east through reform, political and economic. i think this administration has invested substantially both diplomatically and economically in supporting reform movements. i think those areas for reform has not yet reached, we are also pressing regime's privately to embrace reform. there is no way to turn back the clock. there is no way for authoritarian regimes to be completely immune from the overwhelming trends of democracy that are spreading. i think president obama has been squarely on the side of reform and on transformation of governments to be more responsive and accountable. >> denied this at a word on this? i want to pay tribute. i want to talk about the role he has played.

i frankly regret and i think the secretary regrets that the leadership has not taken advantages. we have had a very intense and dialogue. i myself personally have been there. this is enormously important. u.s. credibility is at stake here. you obviously believe that we try to work with people who have been our friends over time to try to persuade them that it is not just in our interest, but in their interest as well to make these changes. in the long-term, it is in everyone's interest. there has to be dialogue and engagement. this will not work simply to shut out modern voices. if it will simply read five voices on the other side. i know him well. that is his job. i think you can be fairly competent and knowing that as a

prospective that they share. the president was criticized for some of the outspoken things he said about the leadership and the harsh crackdown. about the unnecessary use of force. i think we will always be pushed by human rights groups. but i think the issues you raise are legitimate ones. >> i apologize for cutting you short, but i am mindful we have a difficult time and lots of questions. let's take another one. >> good afternoon. in a member of the afghan parliament. i left my five kids at home to come here and just to know, for what will be the situation of afghanistan after 2014? i believe what is starting is just beginning. it will assure you national security in the united states. would you believe these transitions can exist and work on a proper agenda as we hope

for it? would you believe that ignoring afghanistan will be the silent majority which will be a victim for the cold war right now? and right now, again be a victim of this war against terror for the second time or not? because i believe my nation, my country also deserve democracy. that democracy needs to exist and be implemented. we should not be victimizing the afghan people because of government. or because of the 50,000 insurgent spirit would not believe that the current state and policies from the united states will give afghanistan back to be a safe haven for terrorists activity? >> a great question. [applause] >> if i might try to respond to

that and some wine. recently, i had the opportunity to meet with a number of women from the afghani parliament. i found them to be amazing women. really dedicated. one of the big concerns is that the taliban comes back and that they control or contest about 37% of the land in which people live. that is complicated, but a correct number. here and they form a kind of status situation. while we were there, after we met with the women, the taliban attack 14 out of 17 schools and close to them and then killed five education officials. i guess, and just to show their power.

the point i want to make about the women was the absolute commitment to democracy and their absolute understanding of what it meant should they come back. my own view is that it is still very dicey with respect to that. the other thing we heard a lot about was corruption, which is probably the achilles heel, perhaps unwittingly. i do not know. there are a lot of very difficult problems there. let me just say this. i felt particularly strongly about the women that we cannot go back to the way things work. we have a real investment in your security and your survival. i think the openness of your society, and i want to help in any way that i can because i really care about this. [applause]

>> if i could, since i had the privilege of visiting our country many times and worked on the present's strategy, all of our newspaper coverage tends to be about the security side of the situation. the progress being made in an area or lack thereof. the drawdown plans. but i think one of the things that has gotten lost is the fact that the u.s. government and afghan government has signed a strategic partnership agreement. what that does is outlined a longer-term relationship focused on economic development. focused on political reform and safeguarding minority rights. focus on combating and and so forth. raisek you're right to them, those will be determined whether ultimately afghanistan is able to seize this chance at

democracy and a better form of government and a better form of life. is that long-term commitment that i think will be most important. this president has been very clear that he understands that and that he is playing along in terms of support for those kinds of reforms. >> at the quick time for just a couple more. one over here, please. >> thank you. i have a question about u.s. china relations. we know that it is the most important foreign relations united states is trying to manage, but also we have seen there are many unstable factors within china itself, such as the political scandal this year before the power transition of coming next month or the very complicated relationship between the military and civilian leadership. also, the declining economic situation. do you think the united states

should be prepared in a potential political crisis that might come up? or how to do this situation? >> i cannot really see a big political crisis coming up in china. china, though, still has a certain opaque miss about it. it is very hard to fit -- there is no transparency. people do not have press conferences. did not reveal new initiatives. i mean, i knew a former president quite well because we were neighbors together. he was a very open individual. he spoke his mind. everybody knew where china was coming from. i think the government is more opaque right now. there is going to be a

transition. we will see how the new government performance. but, i believe, there is a strong willingness and interests by the united states to work closely with china. i think secretary clinton, who has been there, has tried to do exactly that. it is often difficult because there are many conflicts. human rights issues, other issues that come up and sometimes can sidetrack the relationship. basically, i believe very strongly that with the united states wants is a constructive, positive relationship with china and one where we can work together on some of the world's big problems. that would be the best of both worlds. >> is to squeeze in one more over here please. >> thank you.

note in the vice chair of a foreign affairs committee. the secretary of state outright, thank you for relocating my country. [laughter] it feels good to be back home. i should say a lot about sister a state clinton. she has done a lot. i want to think that the biggest challenges we face i think our catastrophic climate change and nuclear proliferation. on nuclear proliferation there has been a lot of work done, particularly the speech we all remember. my question is the following. it going forward, what is the best reggy to get to zero? for many of us, we're looking at weapons-free zones. or is it to justice straight to work on the convention the people of talked about? kors is the sequence of both? i am deeply concerned that we're

losing the momentum and frankly, it is now up to middle powers to push it and citizens to push it. what is the best way there? >> it is a great question. i think the president remains very much committed to the goals of out in his speech. the truth is that it is all-of- the-above. we will have to prevent the next round from going nuclear. having a cascading affect in the gulf, for example. but it also continuing with arms control. there could be additional rounds to bring arsenals down in number. remember when he, in his policies he is laid out a number of conditions. conditions that build trust and transparency. conditions that the confidence

in our ability to verify. we need to be working at setting those conditions as well. >> i think it is also important -- the other thing the president has done is he has provided leadership. he initiated a review to reduce our own reliance on nuclear weapons. to think about different ways of achieving our objectives without assuming their way we get out of our strategy. i do in the present has really shown supported by the secretary of defense. he has been stepping up to the plate and recognizing that you need to do this but united states has a special responsibility. >> to go back to a question on one of the differences between a romney potential one, this is the biggest one. just the policies that party said, new star is not a good idea. any number of different things.

i think this is a major difference and one we have to keep in mind. >> , follow on that? >> we have a red light. clint eastwood can ignore, but we cannot. [laughter] there is no empty chairs up there. >> the start treaty is very difficult to get ratified in the senate. we have a comprehensive treaty coming up which i hope is possible to ratify. we have somebody that i have great respect for, general car ride who is one of the greatest strategists from a security point of view who believes we can do with 950 nuclear warheads and really bring the arsenal down. if you can do that in conjunction with russia, it is a major contribution because there is no reason for these big, huge warheads that we have out there in the thousands between russia

and the nine states. i think that is an area -- the deterrence that once existed when the soviet union was there, was one thing. it is a totally different world today. >> can i have 20 seconds? >> you can. i would just say i agree wholeheartedly with what madeline said. there is a distinct difference between what the president has articulated, but also with the president has devoted so much of his time on in keeping nuclear weapons and proliferated material out of the hands of terrorist groups. he does this daily all around the world. this is the kind of issue that we were talking about earlier. the kind of issue that is a non- traditional issue where you can forge the new partnerships through smart power and we have not even begun to talk about

agricultural partnerships for food security, water security partnerships. the population of the world will be 8 billion people in the next 10 years. water usage is going through the roof. how do we find ways to prevent a war? these are really compelling issues that i think many members of parliament can help work with us on. >> i am sorry we did not have time for more of your great questions. please join me in a thinking of this exceptional panel today for a great conversation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> here is what some of you are saying about this year's presidential candidates. >> i vote my conscience. i am afraid i'm going to have to vote for the democrats because they support labor and it is

what makes our country strong. >> with all due respect, it bothers me that he said you do not create this business. i have been a small businessman for a long time. you sweat. for many weeks, you do not have anything. if small businesses pay taxes, that is, we can build the roads. >> i did vote for obama the last time around. i am also now disabled. i have a problem with both parties. i am not sure who i will vote for. i may not make that decision to like it to the polls. >> to me, obama represents leadership were as mitt romney, to me, represents a multiple choice and indecisiveness. >> i cannot vote for someone who decides to spend his first two years with both the house and the senate in his back pocket and he could only past two

pieces of legislation of any meaning, of which won the american people dislike. >> i do not like any of the candidates. they never really served in the military but it will send our people out to these wars. >> bin laden may be dead, general motors may be alive, but our economy is in a coma. to the americans that are hurting, there were no real solutions in this speech. >> you are what you do. both of these candidates are owned. everyone is an illusion. they are playing good cop, bad cop. >> mitt romney is now represent me as a single mother. he does not represent my daughters. i do not think that he has our best interests at heart. like the democrats and the president does. >> watch and engage. the presidential candidates meet

in 390 minute debates next month. the first of it, wednesday, october 3, will focus on domestic policy. followed by the candidates answering questions in new york on tuesday, october 16. the final debate in florida on monday, october 22, as the questions turn to foreign policy. also, what is the vice presidential candidates' debate on thursday, october 11 from kentucky. the presidential and vice presidential debates live on c- span, c-span radio, and online >> tonight, a couple of rallies as presidential and vice- presidential candidates rally across the country. paul ryan campaigned at a truck parts and equipment co. in nevada, followed by a vice- president joe biden who spoke at a high school in portsmouth ohio. vice-presidential campaign rallies, srt