what we were trying to do is say here is the narrative. how are we going to try to change it? i would like to argue there is not a way to change this narrative. if anything, the narratives on both sides have become strengthened. because whether or not we meant to, we looked between the confines of the two narratives', to try to define how we were going to fix things in 2008. what we were trying to do is say, how are we going to change it? how are we going to deny it? i would like to argue that there is not a way to change this narrative. it is hard for me to imagine that anyone could do this in an

american election. it is hard to imagine being nice to the americans. this bilateral focus is not the way to go. how do we go about doing it? two things that are important when looking ahead. one is that there is an opportunity with the situation we have got, there is the opportunity to look at many of the questions in a different context, and these are mainly regional. 2011 was a lousy year for me. it was not such a lousy year for india-pakistan relations. it was not such a lousy year for elements of the pakistani economy. we focus on the most dynamic

elements. they are not necessarily those that we use as partners after 2008. the most dynamic partners are business people, the media, and it is uneven, but some of the people in the universities. the women's groups, the ngo's. i am not trying to talk about this rosy, friendly, civil society, in a sense that those of us looked to civil society. it is infinitely more complex and more typical than the eurocentric notions would have it. but this is a part of pakistan, where if you talk to the pakistan is, who are furious with the united states -- if you talk to the pakistanis, we want the opportunity, and we want

that kind of social link. it would help to build ties with the united states, and put a lot more of our concentration into society where the face of society is the face of your neighbor, the engineer who works in a ditch, the face of a student, the face of your child who has come to america, etc.. our focus on what pakistan is. i am not sure that is going to be possible in the next two years, and this is my second point. i will get back to the international element in a minute. i think that it is right for us

to make sure that we focus on the issue of the counterinsurgency issues that we have. we have to deal with that correctly. we have to deal with al qaeda. we have to do with international terrorism. until 2014, it is unlikely in my mind that we can have a major change. that does not mean we cannot do our hallmark. it does not mean we cannot get, for example, the dynamic, philanthropic sector of pakistan to work with the thorough -- very dynamic philanthropic sector in the states, which, in recent years, has not happened very much. our institutions. the agricultural university and the university of california probably know between them more than any of us. so what is the government doing?

after 2014, where there is a new kind of american focus on the region, and i would like to think if all goes as well as i hope it will, it will be somewhat more focused on maintaining the peace in pakistan and investing in pakistan's long-term future and society a little bit more than in its politics. similarly, to expect pakistan will be altered is not realistic. i do not think we can apply it we can make pakistan into switzerland and a few years as -- in a few years by fixing them up. i do not think that will happen.

nor would it be right for us to think that is a worthy goal. we should see if we can do what we can to help the efforts to internationalize pakistan. it is an inward-looking country. this bilateral narrative and focus. sadly, when you talk to pakistanis and they talk about seeing the tail lights of south korea, turkey, and bangladesh, seeing them ahead of them. koreans sent teams to pakistan in the 1960's find out what pakistan had done right. the ambassador of thechinese introduced them to one of these professors, actually a businessman, who had come in 1970's and he wants to be like pakistan. that relative deterioration of

the system, i would argue it has led to inner lookingness. help pakistan reach out to neighbors. it is crucial to see whether there is common ground between the united states and china. and there may be in pakistan. the chinese ambassador, when he would talk to me about their priorities, it sounded pretty close to ours. islamic fundamentalism. that sounds like a set of goals. can we work with other people. this is not just a question of what americans will do. it is a question of if pakistan itself will be able to reach out.

i would argue thatone of the greatest things that has happened in the last few years is that, unless i read them incorrectly, the leadership of the military has blessed the opening to india. those of you who have much more experience in pakistan than i know that was not the case a few years ago. in india, there was skepticism whether or not the pakistan military supports this opening. i believe it to be the case. the point is that the traditional means of looking at this country in a bilateral way, the traditional means of trying to balance counter- terrorism and long-term stability, need to be broadened, and redefined. i am not clear how to say it, but we have the opportunity as we focus on getting things

right in afghanistan and breaking the back of al qaeda and minimizing the threat to the united states, but then in the long-term, after 2014, where we look at a region, and it was said in a brilliant piece last november in a "new york times" magazine, look at these two countries 10 years from now. afghanistan or a country with 200 million, with nuclear weapons? we will be able to conceive with our policy toward pakistan in a way that is broader, with more of a long-term focus, and is not trapped by the narratives i started out with. we do not change the status. can we go around them? can we do something else the question of whether or not pakistanis are all betrayers. and people who take our money, and whether americans are those people who, , whether that

question does not become perhaps less relevant. that is where the analogy for the people who have worked in europe have seen at the end of the cold war has some currency. it can be done. things that we thought were never possible, like poles liking germans, can happen. it is a question of experience. we all take the long view, right? it can happen in pakistan. will be hard to sell to the political party in the united states. i am, and giving you this litany optimism. again, i would emphasize not taking the relationship and saying, how do we fix it, but going around it and addressing the questions of energy and water in a much more multi-

lateral way. that is my take on where i think we can go. i would like to take the rest of the time to have a discussion. whenever you want to discuss -- whatever you want to discuss thank you. [applause] should i join you? if i can just stand here, it is fine with me. >> your presentation about these days. we thought about going to pakistan to turn it into the next is on. -- the next islam. i knew both countries very well. before we turn to the q and a, you mentioned 2008, the

captivity of the pakistan states. [indiscernible] the partnership meant some trust. it was always on the line, but never really defined. do you say, looking back, that both existed at the time? >> yes, i do. i think it still exists. people who claim we have come to a parting of ways and, why do you not just admit pakistan is bad and we are good? people are frustrated. understandably frustrated. i understand about frustration. if you are frustrated to walk away, i would make the same statement about the people who were saying, a fastener stevens -- embassador stevens was killed, so let's walk away from

libya. i cannot think that is dispensable. you have to say, which elements of pakistan are progressive that do have common interests with us? if we are to look forward to pakistan opening up, and looking forward to pakistan with an energy that is self- sufficient, and an open economy which is less susceptible to extremism in the country, i think we have to do a better job and i think many of the people in this loam have a subtle understanding and to know this, we have to do a better job who are we working with? given these fraught relations of different institutions in the country, who do we choose to work with in which way and how can we modestly work ahead on different kinds of problems? when we say, we will create a strategic partnership in 12

areas, here is agriculture, here is water, and we will do it bilaterally and we will use a one-size-fits-all institutional link, by its very nature, some of these problems are not given to that kind of structure. we would have to say, where do we have to work? the kind of strange group of people who are brought into what is trying to be billed for the future of afghanistan? what do we do about iran? what do we do about saudi arabia and the turks and these countries that have interests, some of them good and some of them not so benign, to assess them in a little more sophisticated way than in the past? i hope that kind of answers your question.

bumper sticker. it is the only way we can and gradually address these issues. >> introduce yourself before you ask your question. >> from brookings. >> thank you for being here. i profoundly agree with your basic prescription, which i would take to be developing the relationship with pakistan for its own sake in those areas where there are people in institutions whose interests aligned well with hours and a -- with ours and with a little less dependence on the government. but i would like to push back a that our problem is too much bilateralism and not enough internationalism.

what we are all on up on now is not just counter-terrorism. it is afghanistan. what you are suggesting is we need to develop a relationship with pakistan that is not derivative of afghanistan. i totally agree. i think we will have trouble dealing with the afghan factor because there, i think our interests actually do not align all that well. having said i agree with your main point, what would you suggest as the kind of approach the united states can take to the afghan problem in order to minimize our dependence on the government of pakistan that only very selectively agrees? >> i am critical of bilateralism. you are right. i am trying to do this for the

illustration of the broader than just developmental idea. that there is a world with just america and pakistan and no one else in it. it is unfair of me to say -- of course smart people have looked outside of that. i am arguing against, this is how we define it. it is a huge problem and it is foremost in most people's mines. -- minds. in 2010, a general gave to president obama the paper which outlined, in his mind, the way ahead in afghanistan. we responded in a conference in february of 2012. it is called something else now, but it was held in munich.

hillary clinton gave back our assessment. there is a great deal of space between our assessments. one of them is not just a americans not seeing eye to eye with afghanistan. it is our way of talking about it. the picture we draw of pakistan is when they say, what is your end game? we talk about a strong central government in afghanistan. we talk about education, an army, 200,000 to 300,000 people. we have experts say, who will win? who are you picking? the way we look at it is not positivistic social science. it is anthropological. it is geographical. it is historical.

this person hated that person's visions of the military. the senior general in the pakistani military told me, you americans think of your army and how sergeant gonzales from los angeles and the corporal from chicago and the major from new jersey all come into the military. you are all put into the military and it is a uniform group and you mix the pieces. we see this part of the world, especially afghanistan, as needing a regimental area. in your attempt to define the end game with institutions you are comfortable with, you are missing the point. they see the america effort, a transformational vision of afghanistan, that

transformation effort -- little girls go to school, making it into something, spending a huge amount of money. i would argue the pakistanis have a static notion. they have been this way for 1000they beat the brits and the russians. they will beat you. i am agreeing with you in coming to some sort of closure in what afghanistan is. it is not that we think of the problem in the same way and disagreed. we think about the problem differently. we have not found a common language with which to talk about the and came in afghanistan. how will we come down to the tactical questions, etc., that we want to have with the

afghans and pakistan's in talks? i agree with you it is a big problem. i do not know it is impossible for us to come to a set of agreements with pakistan about part afghanistan. the question i think we are struggling with is what is the mechanism in a bilateral relationship to try to pull people together to define those things we have in common with afghanistan? i think they are working on it right now. even in the last month, there have been developments i am not

privy to but i sense are moving ahead. your question is a good one. we do not have, we have not achieved the kinds of meeting of minds on afghanistan we will need for this process. >> thank you. i am an independent consultant. i have a couple of questions that pick up on other points i believe you made. you are really suggesting we reset our relations with pakistan based on people who share our values. i am sympathetic to that idea. i want to first make a comment, which is that many of those people who, in some sense,

identify with our values, our goals, feel deceived at this point. that is my first observation. it has put them at hazard in some ways. my second observation is that, when you're talking about afghanistan and the notion of gradual social progress with the assistance of the international community, we are still, when we are talking about sending little girls to school, talking about a set of values that are not local. coming back to pakistan with those two thoughts in mind, how, allowing for the fact there is a large role for non-government relations, where do we start an

official level once we get past the anniversary, etc.? how do we reset the official relationship and what do we do about the u.s. concern concerning nuclear weapons? security and the path of pakistan. >> that is a lot of questions. we will start with what i think is your main question. it is very important, i think, to talk about pakistan society. and not to talk about it as if it is ngo's. if we look at the people, call them like-minded people, and we are very precise about that, those people who are in the

western-oriented ngo's, it is a very small group of people. and they are concentrated in a very small area. when i speak of reaching out to society, and this does not get to your question of exactly how we deal with the government, but i will try to get back to that, we have to accept a progressive vision of pakistan is not a progressive vision in the remade, european-style pakistan. argue a very broad group of people in pakistan, to varying degrees, is tolerant, open, and certainly religious. but i do not think dogmatically religious. there are elements of society, digging deeper than just the atmosphere of the western ngo's,

and we have not reached out to the people as much as we should. it is very hard because it is very dangerous. a lot of people are not diplomats, but university professors. having those people on the street to do that is important. it is predicated on the idea that we come out of these years of a terrorist threat successfully. we have to keep up the fight against terrorism and against, and come to an equitable solution in afghanistan. when we talk about building a progressive pakistan, this is a long -- it is not just on by diplomats. the people who feel besieged, we need to work with them. i think we want to look at the people who are our friends

there who are affecting change in the country as a much broader area. what we tried to do was, in our public diplomacy, it is not enough to send out a press release in english. there are 50 million people in that country who are not very politicized. they speak another language. there are great differences in the country and we have no where near the amount of outreach to find a sympathy and areas of common ground that we could. i would argue that we have to people who are progressive. we have to see them differently. those universal values, we will have tough decisions.

let's take education and pakistan. if we are going to have, as we would like to see, curriculum reform in pakistan that does not portray india negatively, that is going to be a long-term process. it will not be something we can deal with quickly. we will have to take incremental progress to try to fix that. it has happened in kosovo and serbia. it will have to happen there. these are long, hard things. you are right we have to keep as our goal universal values and we have to keep as our goal to support the westernized ngo's who are working in these countries, but we must go far beyond that. i hope i address your question. i am not sure what your question was about nuclear weapons. if you could prove>> if i could clarify, the other end of the spectrum is what

>> if i could clarify, the other end of the spectrum is what most u.s. policy makers believe to be our ultimate, no way to get rid of this problem with pakistan, which is its nuclear. starting at the humanist end of this is great. but they have not gone away. what does the dotted line look like from reengagement of the soft side to dealing with hard issues? >> throughout 2011, my predecessors were there. we can illustrate what people would write. choose your verb. the collapse of relations. the disasters. the crashing.

there are many elements of the relationship, government-to- government, institution-to- invitation, that remained quite strong. throughout these last couple of years, we have had very close ties to the isi. we have not achieved the things we would like to. we have very close ties. here i am heartbroken about the trainers leading, but we have been very close air force-to- air force. do not let my broad categories obscure the fact that there are many things we deal with very well. one of those is safety. we are always engaged with the pakistanis about that. i would argue we have worked responsibly behind the headlines to try to make sure,

do our best, that there will not be irresponsible protection of nuclear weapons and that the chances for an accident or an attack are minimized. i guess i would disagree that we are not doing that. what i am saying is, from that basis, the basis of our isi contacts, our military contacts, that the broader context of the relationship definitely needs to expand, both regionally and socially. that is in addition. >> the end of the room.

>> i am from india. i would like to follow up on your remarks that the pakistan leadership [indiscernible] can you give us more insight? what are the reason they are doing so? is it just to buy some time? or are they sincere? >> i cannot judge their motives. i cannot judge whether they are sincere. they have told me, they have said it public that it is important to do this specifically, focusing on those items of confidence-building measures. you remember hearing what the general was saying after the tragedy on the glacier. what both of them had said to the business community. i can think of an example where they are saying, it is in our country's interest to open up to india. your guess is as good as mine.

if they are doing this as a tactic, you have to ask them. the fact is, they are doing it. >> good morning. thank you for the wonderful talk. i am in agreement with a lot of what you said. i want to shift focus to your time in pakistan and talk more about how you see the domestic politics with elections coming up in the united states impacting this relationship you speak about. you speak about working with strong societies, building institutions. i think that is a positive move. it is a two-part question.

>> in trying to make the argument that we should look beyond where we looked before, we do not want to stop working with the people in party politics. when people have asked me the question, and this used to happen quite a bit, how do you see pakistan in the arab spring, it is quite obvious that whatever you think of democracy, it is a democracy in pakistan. it is a system in which ways of social unrest and angkor can be channeled, whether it is through the outrageous media, through the courts inefficient as they are, especially at the local level. one of the things we should celebrate is that there is this imperfect democracy that is

definitely worth working with. despite the claims that the board will be swept, i do not think that will happen. i am just giving my take on what will happen in the elections. he has done more than just rallies in sports stadiums, where you see the girls in blue jeans, alliance and a lance sitting down together. you have these items. he has also sent these people out. people went out to some village and they sat down on a bench in a village. people came to them and all the people did was to come in and talk about what is wrong. the national sport of pakistan. let me tell you what is wrong with pakistan. the representatives simply

listened and after it was done, some pollsters came in and said, they are smart. i give that illustration to say i am a little more impressed with the organization than other people are. i think he will get his 40 seats, not his two seats. i think that is possible. if that vote, mixed with the strange system of local politics that exists in pakistan, my prediction would be that instead of two parties dominating, what you may end up with is something that you might recognize from germany or even

israel, where you have a number of parties, none of which is a truly dominant party, many of which have to work with each other. this could lead to the kind of stability you have in those countries where you form coalitions based on many partners. you have many partners in a coalition. the more difficult it becomes to affect economic reform. things like tax reform and energy reform. it is many months until the election. my guess is that what we will see is a stable outcome in 2013. the prospect for reform are less than their now. that is not a pretty picture.

if it means you have more people potentially, people feel their voices are heard. are there such things as been stability, so on, people are being represented. does this mean we can look forward to a government that can tackle the big issues? i am not terribly optimistic. again, that would be wide america, if america and other countries -- let's call it the japanese and australians, etcetera, if they want to see change, it is the opposite of what the dollar lama tells you

united states and elsewhere. politics having a major change that would make the structures able to take on the financial and big issues you're talking about a writ on the second question about what initiatives can we take -- you don't want -- if you are making an argument for society ties, it may be disingenuous to say the government should do this. but as a parker, i would hope we could continue -- but what i would hope is that we could work with various economic groups and foundations and the pakistani media.

as purveyors as information and business as well. to try to build ties that -- we had a rule that if you are going to come up with the new people to people idea, make sure the people are not from islamabad, not over 40, and not mail. -- not male. we have a tendency to reach out to the same old people. every country does that. i am a retired diplomat. i will fall into the same trap as everyone else. i used to have dinner with x so i went to invite x to the by to dubai. one thing i love that harvard is doing is this young entrepreneur group. young people making huge amounts of money to why have not heard of before met them.

and whose names were not famous. the more we can work with new groups, the more we are going to find that the sense of stasis can be challenged. the scary thing everyone has looked at. those very things -- tribal, ethnic, local, family issues, those things sometimes prevent progress. but they are great things that keep pakistan stable. one has to be aware that you do not really want the whole place to go up a in smoke. it is a very tough job to try to identify those people who can be the locomotives of social change at the local level.

who are not going to turn everything upside down. the embassy would be wise, when you say what the tasks of an embassy first it department, to identify different groups who are interested, whether they are business or university institutions, to go beneath the surface. >> you mentioned the fact that the united states and pakistan look at afghanistan in different ways. united states talks about institutions and the pakistani is want to know the pragmatic bottom-line. given the fact that we do not

answer the question, we come back with our response about institutions, why should the pakistanis in 2014 not feel that their narrative of we come to them then throw them away, why should that narrative not be strengthened? what is your sense of the appetite for continued aid on capitol hill, given these disparate narratives? and as we saw last week, there is some legislation that was to cut it off altogether.

there is an ugly mood out there. just your sense of the prospects of convincing lawmakers. >> of convincing lawmakers what question first. as spoke with the leadership of both chambers in both parties. what i have been impressed by is that they understand the imperfection of what we have done. the understand that if i put it in terms of failure, that is pretty tough language. many of our programs have had real impact but the failure of what we wanted to do post 2008. the leadership on the hill understands that we're not giving assistance to make pakistan love us. these are elements which contribute to instability and long term in pakistan that we are for. -- to an instability and long

term and that the pakistan that we are for. they have come to understand and the administration believes that incrementally we have made a difference. and that for us to pull money away from his programs is not a question of awarding were punishing pakistan. it is a question of achieving american goals. the stability of the country. the ability of this country to generate enough power for its people. the ability of this country to eradicate disease, etc. i would predict that the long run, regardless of pakistan, that given our financial situation, we should be realistic about expectations of what american assistance is going to be. i would predict a glide path down around the world. i think the leadership of both parties are responsible enough to know that as that works, the

way you want to deal with pakistan is to look hard at what america wants to achieve, what america's goals are long term and to guide usaid and the other institutions to focus on those things which keep pakistan on the straight and narrow. i'm impressed that the leadership says this and means it. on that, i am not saying i'm confident. it is up to congress to decide what it thinks by been impressed by what i've heard by congressional leadership and the responsibility the congressional leadership has shown on that. about the narrative -- it is the goal here to play for the domestic route, it will be easy given our need to get out of afghanistan, given the

consensus of the united states. it will be easy for leaders of any sort in afghanistan to perpetuate the myth, the narrative that the americans' use as an leave us. we have to be prepared some of that will happen no matter what. rather than using the mess or the narrative itself -- the myth of narrative itself as the intellectual focus, how do we counteract that narrative? to try our best to put it aside and work on these issues in a different way. not so much that we win the argument. we are not leaving. we have the agreement with the afghans that there will be an enormous amount of aid to go there. and there will be still a commitment to pakistan. so we can argue back, we are

not leaving, we are changing the face of our commitment. more important than that is not getting caught in the narrative as a defining intellectual construct of our relationship. that may seem like i'm trying to doctor question. in a way, i am. -- to dodge your question. in a way, i am. i would like to see us dodge this question. i like to say i do not want to talk about that anymore. we can make a fight about what the details of what you did it until -- did in prior years terry but i would like more to talk about as concrete instances in which we redefined the way we work together. it may be that the narrative a stroke strong -- the narrative is so strong. i can from the balkans if years

ago. what america is? -- you want narratives. it is not that this is easy. we tried to do it in 2008 with all good faith. i think it is worth trying. >> a and the u.s. editor of the sunday times of london. i've been going back-and-forth to pakistan for 25 years since 1987. he said about reaching out to nongovernment actors. some of us have been arguing that for years. when ambassador holbrooke -- i

asked him about what was going to do to reach out to media. and that i watched isi pay more people in the media to pay their message. the institute for peace reporting chains media in foreign countries. our trainer is in pakistan that killed -- got killed. i feel the space seems to have narrowed. i went to pakistan three times last year. i talked to people and everybody blames america for everything now. even people that he would think would be very westernized a moderate. i had people blaming america to me even for the lack of literacy in pakistan. i find it hard to see how you can convince people, given that

is such a strong feeling and with the droned attacks still going on regularly, how you can possibly convince people to work with you. in afghanistan -- he talked about pakistan a more pragmatic -- you talk about pakistan in a more pragmatic view. people live in isi to believe what al qaeda stands for. how can he persuade them to stop the havens and the pakistan? >> i disagree profoundly with the u.s. said. -- what he said. my contact with pakistani and yours is much longer the mine

but i would like to coax you to agree with this. there is a service feeling of enormous frustration. i would argue that it sometimes comes out as the man in the moon problem. if you can put a man on the moon, you can do anything. that notion of american of the patents. i think the frustration is mainly not with us. it is with the own governance. we have more than one sentence with people, it does come out. they may blame us for perceived support of people who covered them badly -- who govern them badly. when you look a polling data and and un- scientific non islamabad country club data, there is an enormous frustration in the night is states but an

enormous desire for the united states to give its approval to pakistan. almost unhealthy desire for pakistan to give for america to bless pakistan. while these things are over the top. i see a little ray of light that perhaps you do not see. i am willing to be corrected. if the fundamental problems of the life until pakistan, the frustration, the humiliation, can be addressed through institutions, i think the current, the anti-americanism will be part of that. i do not think it is a well thought out fundamental anti- americanism.

it is an enormous disappointment and lack of self- confidence in the country. and we blow enough that we contribute to this. we find ourselves being the yardstick for that. i think if we are able to address some of these questions, the reservoir of people who care deeply with the americans think about their country's great purity go to syria. we probably have 40% favorable rating and 10% of people who care about us. in pakistan, it is 10% of people who approve of of the day of abbas and 95% to care deeply about what we believe. -- who approve of us and 95% who care deeply about what we believe to read this country has more than any country i believe then blatant pro americanism. it is not a question of

ideologies. it is a question of the way people will come up to us and say -- that is what this day in iowa and elsewhere. their habits. i still maintain after getting kicked around that there is a hugely the huge affinity between the cultures. that is why i think working at a more hopeful social level -- cultural social level, showing the sides people desperately want to see, which we not done recently because they want to see students. your point is true.

the longer -- the more the space closes, the hard it is for us to show what pakistan is one. but the guess i am arguing that it is still there. people still wanted. on your point about the isi -- i think we tend to see, to over estimate both the impact and the cosmic role of the isi. it is convenient and there's enough evidence that they sometimes behave that is not wrong. that -- but i think it is also important to ponder on why america has always seemed to have a close relationship between our military. it is because that is the only

institution in the country where it is the matter what the parents name is. that you can be the son of -- and the chief of army staff. many top officers in the military, many of whom are terribly frustrated with us, many of them talk in ways we would find recognizable here. because that is an institution, it is a meritocracy etc. all is not lost. there are people in that institution who are not the evil climbers -- evil people they are sometimes said to be. i think they do dumb things. the plant are used in the newspaper. -- they plant article in the newspaper. it limits the way they come out of this.

as they demint us -- as they demonize us, i would urge us not to demonize them. i love to see one of the people in this room get a great source and write about inside the isi. i think it is not what a lot of people fear and suspect. but maybe i'm being too nice. an not convinced -- this is issue i cannot talk a lot about because that is the way it works in the u.s. government. when you travel around the country and in the pakistan and you talk to people who are not in the lead, i never ever got a question about drones. i get hammered every time i went to the gun club.

this kind of thing. i interpret that as being the drone issue is a question of the repository of the sense of humiliation and powerlessness that we have sometimes visited on pakistan's. but it is not a deep issue in pakistan. it is an important one. the issues of how do we get a hold of our future, how do we do with governance, that said, among the elite, it is an important issue and elites matter. i will like to see us be able to talk about drones and be able to have an honest back and forth about what our policy is and why whe think it is in everyone's interest that we use all the weapons we have -- all

the pakistani weapons, american weapons, afghan weapons, against our common enemies. at this point, we are not able to do that. thank you very much. >> this session has to come to a close. we will not take any more questions. it was a very interesting presentation. we can come up with a lot more questions. does the way for me to say that you're most welcome any time to come back -- just a way for me to say that you are most welcome any time to come back. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

guests include colin powell and javier solana. this is a little more than an hour per >> welcome everyone. i am pleased to be here today. i extend warm thanks to -- colin powell and javier solana. president obama went on to discuss the waves of change

sweeping the arab countries and problems related to the struggle over freedom of expression and religious tolerance. this -- discussing american support for popular uprisings around the world, president obama said we have taken these positions because we believe freedom and self-determination are not unique to one culture. these are not simply american values or western values. they are universal values. even if there will be huge challenges that come with the transition to democracy, i'm convinced altman the government must be for the people and by the people and is more likely to bring about the prosperity and individual opportunity that serves as a basis for peace. the question is, is this the right stance for the united states and europe to take? and are we taking it? what are we actually doing to

implement these values? dr. javier solana, i will like to begin by asking you from the point of view of the most senior of european diplomats and statesman who obviously watched u.s. policies for quite a while now, what do you think? is this the correct stance for the united states? are we implementing it and what about europe? how is this you did in europe and what does europe doing in terms of engagement with the arab region got to mark >> thank you very much for the invitation. -- with the arab spring. >> thank you very much for the invitation. i am very happy to be here. it is difficult to judge from

outside the policies of the united states but in this case, i have a very clear. i think what president obama did was correct. the european union collectively did the same. i did try to work in the same direction. at that we have done what he had been able to do together in the right direction. the first was tunisia, than he did, and a complicated situation -- then egypt, then it difficult and complicated situation in libya. have we done enough? i think probably not. we have not done enough in helping. when you look at money, this is

an important role in these countries in which a lot of the problems are linked to lack of hope for the younger generations, etc. if you look at the amount of money and put it to the value of today, it will be the -- about ten times more than what we have spent in this period of time in the countries of the mediterranean. in 1995, the was an engagement in the european union and the south part of the mediterranean, including also the palestinians and israel. we spent that time a good amount of money but we are not able to do what later on the

people of tunisia and cairo need. i think we were not able to get -- to listen to the wills of many people that wanted change who are not favored to do that. but they did it and now we have to help. the second question is an experience i have had. the united states today has consequences of a movie. i had to deal with that on behalf of the european union. we had people killed. we had a big -- big events.

we will win his battle, i think, and be able to continue to give hope to millions of people. we have to recognize the differences in the will to live together. >> general, let me turn over to you. dr. javier solana thinks the united states and europe have expressed the right attitude toward the changes in the middle east but perhaps have not done as much as for given as much economic assistance as we should have. how do you see it? should we be more actively engaged?

>> i would like to it -- respond by offering a broader context. not just what effect to what happened to our distinguished ambassador. it is a much broader picture. first, let me say i am delighted to be here with you and pleased to be with my wing man for many years, dr. javier solana. recreated the quartet in spain -- we created the quartet in spain many years ago. when i look at the region and about what the president said today, he was expressing universal rights that all americans believed in. life, liberty, freedom, democracy. and they are universal but not necessarily accepted universally in every country. so you have to realize that it is not one uniform world out there we are dealing with. but i always like to say in

putting it in context, you take those universal values and bring them up to date. i will start with 1975 and the helsinki final act will be accepted the boundaries of the purse -- post world war ii period but we made the soviet union take a pill which also said you might be you must accept people the right to choose their own leaders. within a few years, we saw havel, the europeans come together on the central european planes and start to demand their rights. we saw the end of the soviet union. all these things happened and as i watched them happen, i could see this was not as something that was going to be contained in europe. it was a worldwide chain. that change was accelerated when masoud happened in our own hemisphere in latin america. everybody could see how other

people were prospering and we were not prospering. so this situation finally reached the shores of not reaching north africa and the middle east. the people in the region realize that we did not have to live this way. it became a very explosive situation and finally the match set off a dented tunisia when a street peddler said i have -- i had enough and set fire to himself writ -- himself. when you look at the countries individually, the thing that connects them all together with respect to their aspirations -- and of corruption, an economy that is working to greet the most important thing. all these countries need jobs. people need jobs so they can bring something into the home that buys food and puts a roof over their heads, that gives

them health care and educate their children. that is universal. all these countries will have to figure out how democracy works. none of these countries really had institutions of democracy or representative government they could fall back on after the leaders went away. we can help them. the european union and united states can help them build those institutions but where we have to be careful is not to go in and say come down and do it our way. we are going to show you, give an example. we will let our light shine before us. you can see how will work to us. adapted to your culture and history and let's work together. i did the greatest thing we can do is offer our example and stand by the offer -- stand by and offer as much assistance at the nations which. we have done quite a bit we could do a lot more. we can do a lot more and indeed a lot more. we also have to have receptive governments.

government in this country that are not corrupt that they believe in representative government. their governments may not quite be like our form of democracy but as long as it is moving in a direction of representation by the people who their leaders are going to be in this are to put in place institutions of democracy, we should do a lot more. i think it is very important for us to recognize that each of these countries is different, different history, different cultures. we just keeping an example and give them what they need. we think about our distinguished ambassador, ambassador stevens, who was killed people look at what he was doing. he had been there for a most of the crisis. he was giving itself to the libyan people and the loss of life and to the process. it became a big story and everybody was following it in commenting on it. i was honored to be at the ceremony when the bodies came back and is airforce base last week.

but look what happened afterwards. the libyan people realized they lost a friend. and the rows of the need to be to him. at the same time, -- and they rose up and paid tribute to him. at the same time they realize they started to clean this up and that is what they started to do. it has to be a gentle hand. we cannot rush in and say this is the way it has to be. we have to listen, pay attention, recognize that we wanted to mark this is a debt of these countries. democracies are emerging which means they cannot call a king or a president or prime minister and more as we might have been able to do years ago and say this is where you have to do. the approach has to be different from the european union and united states, recognizing that there is no longer a mubarak or gadhafi are people like that around anymore.

we now have people who are representatives of their populations. we have to have a more delicate touch to all this would do more. never shrank from our universal belief in the universal rights of men and women and recognize that not everybody yet belize in those rights. and we have to help the world move in that direction. we should be so pleased that over the last 20 or 30 years, hundreds of millions of people have moved in this direction. they got in the economic wherewithal to move into the middle class and have representative forms of government. i think that trend will continue. >> would you like to comment? >> i would like to make two comments. my dear friend has mentioned system that has taken place in the european union. the middle east is more difficult.

they landed on the same -- piece. they took off from the same piece and landed with a new they wanted to land -- nato and the european union. in the middle east, we do not take off. the country to not take off from the same situation. they do not have landing paths. they have to find a way out without a prescription. the majority of the country's -- countries, to try to help them to get out of a situation without giving the impression that you want to [indiscernible]

it is more difficult. it should help us to be more modest in the way we tackle these problems. we cannot say this is the way to go. >> i could not agree more. what i think it's common is you have a yearning of people for a better life. yearning for people to enjoy the fruits of this 21st century world will live in. there will no longer be satisfied living under oppression, living without the wherewithal to take care of their families. say for both the europeans and their emergence from behind the

iron curtain and what is happening into the arab spring, what i see happening in our own hemisphere and parts of asia, economic growth is the most powerful [inaudible] is an emerging government does not provide that growth so people can see better life, they will be in trouble. >> i agree with you on that. let's begin little deeper into the question. we have seen around the world that a democratic transition is often bought bought -- brought down by economic problems. that's certainly happened in the arab countries. the was a bit of a conversation going on today. governor mitt romney speaking of the clinton global initiative in new york was in the traditional form of american aid economic assistance are outdated in the global economy and what

is really needed is trade. he has proposed a new trade organization. regardless of the specific proposal he had, what about this question of -- what exact forms of assistance are helpful? economic grants, loans, technical assistance? are we talking about free trade agreement, investment? what kind of engagement are most likely to help and descanting democracies bring about the kind of economic progress that is likely to buttress the political transition and allow them to move forward? >> during my time as secretary, we always recognize that trade is more important than aid. anything we can do to enhance trade. the principal duty of our

embassies was to see if they could complete trade deals between companies in american markets over there and companies there and market here in the united states. so trade is essential. i would focus as much energy as i could on trade. at the same time, there are things you have to do before you can get a solid trading relationship. do you have corporate commercial law undergirding the economic system so that investors will be comfortable and feel their capital say? you have democratic courts so there is recourse in the law? this will -- this is been a major problem in some emerging countries of europe. the russians still do not understand law with respect to trade. the trade is important. we can help organize elections, legislative bodies. educating youngsters to attend a first century economy that

country. the traditional forms of aid still have a role to play. we should not be afraid of the word capitalism. it is with give us all our wealth. traditional forms are still relevant but there's nothing wrong with looking and new forms. we did that during the bush should ministrations with -- the bush administration. >> what is your view on this and to what extent should trade be the engine that pulls the

arab economies forward? how much as europe willing to do to change the arrangement? you negotiated many of the association agreements with the arab countries. >> i think the help that has been given to these countries -- [indiscernible] i do not think you can do the same with a country a and country b. the institutions already in place, i think we have to give consider that. what colin powell said -- it is important to help on the institution of building. it is fundamental.

that is very tricky to do. it is not very easy. you have to be sure you're helping to create an institution. that is a very tricky thing to do but it has to be done. a mixture of all the things you have mentioned. we trade and have a good trade agreements with these countries. it could be improved. one thing that is very difficult to understand is why trade -- it is difficult to close the hurdle. the border is closed between

morocco. it has been closed for years. then you go to tunisia. then egypt, a difficult country for trade. the economic structure was not very open to trade, i think we have to do -- to create more change of trade. between the european union and united states and those countries. i would like to see the trade

among themselves. it will be useful to have more integration in the mediterranean in that sense. two important countries. they do not trade among themselves. it is very difficult to have -- they do not have better relations among themselves. >> regional economic integration has been spoken of for so long but if we look at north africa, we have three countries that are embarked on this journey of chains. but others that are not or much less so. do you see greater potential for regional economic integration now? >> i cannot get optimistic about that.

i do not like the term conditions. there's always a negative connotation. but we should accept -- expect reciprocal actions from the people we are assisting with trader aid. we should expect it will start to reach out to their neighbors and drop the barriers he was talking about. also that it will create the proper environment for trade among themselves. so we have a long way to go. we have to be there with them. i did not think it can be anything but one of our top priorities, having seen what happened in the last year in that part of the world. it would be disastrous. the opportunity for democratically substations, for them to slip away from us. >> in the imf and other institutions, they have to be

engaged also. that is something very germanic. -- dramatic. somebody has to come to resolve the problem. >> we spent time now that the north african countries but we really difficult, what is going on now. this situation? who died in this uprising. and the recorder of a million refugees going into turkey, and jordan, lebanon. how does the obligation of the protect civilians tack up against the risk --stack up? how do you see the interests of europe and the united states in to consider acting?

should they consider acting blessing? [laughter] >> very difficult question. today. i talked the other day with the secretary general, ban ki-moon. he told me that what he had planned, he will have about 125 meetings about syria. it is not lack of meetings. it it lack of action.

it is very difficult. i know very well because we have gotten many of these conflicts of this nature. why is it more difficult? this comes after libya. remember that at that time, the security council was almost the ideal security council. if he were too dim what you want to have as a permanent security council, under the 50 members of that time -- it was everybody. every country name should have an opportunity. it was a perfect moment. doing it. it.

the operation was done. libya is now a much more stable country than others. the reaction has been very solid. did not have the air for structure of a new government. -- they do not have the infrastructure of a new government. but in the minds of the country that let us do, the response of is it too much -- that created difficulties. the question of russia, china, which is less understandable.

china has used a veto six ties. always with things believe in china. they do not havethey do not havy relationship at all with syria, commercially or otherwise. so there were more following on the feet of russia. we have a big problem here. i would like to describe it as i see it. this relates also to iran. syria and iran are interconnected. you understand that. in libya -- in syria, p5. we need that together to continue negotiations.

so we have two problems which are connected. it would be difficult, the dividing line between the united states and russia as a growing. and therefore is weakening the possibility of getting together the p5 to deal with iran. so we are playing with fire now because of syria. we really have to get a solution to these problems first. then continue with the solution of iran. more pressure on russia. we have to try.

try with all the energy of the united states. the russians, lots of permission i had, they were very tough with hillary -- the last information i have, they were very tough with hillary clinton. we are in a difficult situation. we did it in kosovo. the new secretary-general said this is humanitarian activity. the responsibility to protect its to late. we should have used it before. we are in a messy situation. i do not know the prescription. so i stop here and let's see you illuminate us more.

[laughter] >> everything he said as accurate. syria as far more complicated than libya or any of the others. we have a leader -- they have a leader i had met on numerous occasions to i do not like. he is a despot. he has taken over his father's role as a despot in chief of syria. i think people thought this might go just as easily as tunisia, egypt and with a little more time, libya. it is never going to happen. he has a military force that has demonstrated its competency over the last year-and-a-half. he also realizes that it is not just a matter of him being deposed, it is his background, his tribe. the alawites.

he would be putting all of that at risk. they are not a single group of people. there are other minorities. if you get rid of us thought, there may be another civil war there breakout -- get rid of asad, there may be another civil war that breaks out soon thereafter. i cannot think based on what i've seen so far that the russians will change their mind. nor will the chinese. they have a very difficult situation. they did change their mind and authorize some kind of resolution, who was standing in the wings ready to go in and put troops into syria to execute any kind of chapter 5 resolution? i do not think any europeans would do so. right now it would come from

the united states. as you talk about adding additional pressure on assad, banning people from traveling, you can do all those sorts of things. we should do as much as we can to help with the refugee problem very -- refugee problem. a lot of them are no longer in syria. should we together collectively are providing additional weaponry? will that give the opposition the wherewithal to defeat the syrian army? or will it just increased the number of people being killed and stretch it out even longer? i do not know the answer to that. should we put it into a no-fly zone? no helicopters can fly but a lot of other things are still around that can kill people. you better be prepared to follow with a further step.

i do not know the answers to that. would anybody be willing to do that? we're kind of in a difficult position where it is horrible to see these things unfold every day on television but it is a civil war. you'll be confined to a point of fatigue reached on both sides to find some peaceful resolution. it is not at all peaceful when you see what has been done to the cities and the lives lost. but both sides reach fatigue, i think neither side is close to that point. i do not see anyone coming to a solution to involving the use of military force to break the belligerence apart. >> i think either side is close

to that point of fatigue, and i don't see anyone coming to a solution involving the issue of military force to impose a settlement on the situation. it is going to continue to be ugly for a long time. i can't say how long. two weeks, maybe two years. back in the early '80s, killing 80,000 people, and not giving up allied control of the country. that is what he is facing, not just as personal destiny and his family, but his whole people. >> a grim note. i will open it up to questions from the audience. please put up your hand, and when i recognize you, a microphone will come. the police tell us who you are first and keep your questions brief. >> i'm from the atlantic council. i find it refreshing to tie a middle east discussion without mentioning israel and palestine,

but i will muddy the water. i was wondering, what are the long-term implications of the arab awakening on the middle east peace process? i can imagine the the israelis and palestinians has been an underlying source of tension for a lot of arabs that are revolting. and if i may, it seems like more of a city uprising if you think about the cases and if you go to persia. is there any kind of question of the ruling monarchies on the supreme court? gosh what would you like to start? >> what was the first question? gosh, we have been both engaged in the peace process for many years. the first that took place was in madrid. and so we have been engaged for a long time.

the frustration that i have, because things don't often move, it is very profound. i thought but something could have happened at the beginning of the obama administration, but it has not been possible. in the event that took place in lebanon, they continue to happen. the israelis of the question of iran, they claim that they are open to negotiations. but that does not happen. i don't know how things are going to of all but the beginning of the year. i know the election will take place in israel and will likely take place in the year. let's see what the situation is, if it is something that has been taken here already. [indiscernible] and that can be something that we can ultimately love that. maybe we have the possibility of

a new scheme. it is something that is very important. what we have allowed to happen, things that should not happen, we haven't spoken of the monarchists. it is true. if we apply the same measures to bahrain, it will be a difficult situation.

it is true that bahrain, nothing will happen [indiscernible] but saudi arabia should be more open and given to balance. it is ruled by the minority. that answers the other big battle that is being played, the soon as nurses the shia -- sunnis versus shia. we will not see a transformation of something else. some of these questions will not be resolved. these countries are playing a very important role. money, weapons, and they are

helping probably the more radical. [indiscernible] they're choosing to help not the appropriate ones, but be less appropriate ones. ok? that conflict is the position of the gulf.

they keep on helping not necessarily the people that should be helped. i could be louder, but no more clear, i think. >> back to the palestinian and israeli issue, i think all of our predecessors have an unbroken record of struggling with this. as my years as secretary of national security adviser, even as the joint chiefs of staff, we worked with several presidents to try to find a solution and we have not found a solution. with the changes that are taking place, i am pleased that for the most part, the agreements are mostly being kept. i hope that remains the case. i hope that as we continue the

evolution of the arabs spring, they do what they hope we will be doing. they will have stable relations with israel on like the old days where they will hold the armies together. and israel remains very strong as a nation and as allies. particularly the united states of america will always be there. iran being one big exception to all of this. we can talk about iran, but i think everybody pretty much understands where we are. i did not see an immediate breakthrough in the peace process. i think israel is secure, and about sense that their political situation and allowed them to make the kind of compromises or offers the move them forward. that is complicated. with respect to the other companies in the gulf area, a couple things strike me.

even though it is not the kind of institution that i would think would provide the wherewithal, but to some extent, they represent some sort of institution that the people looked to. they all are wealthy for the most part. they can provide for their people and keep things under control even though you have some disturbances in bahrain that the doctor said, the saudis are not going to let that get out of control. having the evolution will be much lower in those parts of the area. i remember talking to a senior official from one of those countries, and this was during my time as secretary.

i was talking about freedom and this and that. and all of the universe are rights that we take for granted. and the response to the individual is that we certainly appreciate your system and we are glad it works for you. but our system works for us and we have been around as long as you have. thank you for your interest in our welfare, but we are going to do it our way. i think you will have to start thinking about changes, maybe not right away, but over time. you'll find that if you're going to be part of a global political system and global economic system, if you're young people can watch television like everybody else's and see what the rest of the world is doing, they will start to ask, why not me? why not us? i think those pressures are

there in the gulf region, and sooner or later, it doesn't mean to give up your system, it means you will respond to those pressures. most of the countries i have worked with in that part of the world understand it. we have to move far more carefully than you can move. we can take one step forward and look around and see if everything is ok. you have to give some understanding and some credit to their ability to understand the history and culture and their people. at the same time, it should not cost us to shrink from our belief in universal rights. i think it is the example we give to the rest of the world. because of the events in recent years, the fact that our political system is not functioning as smoothly as it might have, i think that we have lost another little bit of

our ability to influence others in the world. perhaps they will start following some of the examples we have set for them. we are still the most successful democracy in the world. i think we have been an example to asia, an example to europe. not to mention the marshall plan that brought europe to where it is now. i am always amused that people say that this change can happen. if you look at my european friends, their social democrats with kings and queens. it can happen. >> more questions. >> hello, everybody. i am currently working for the

washington quarterly. i like to thank you both for a very interesting talks. my question is directed to general paul the spoke to the universal right that is not universally accepted. my question is, how can the u.s. and the you respect that right while taking a position in a conflict in a country that is confronted with a civil war where atrocities will always be committed by both sides. although, of course, i understand that atrocities are greater, the ones committed. but how do you respect the right in a situation of civil war? >> is not just accepting the right, it is the position of the international world. it is not achievable in every country right now. there are lots of countries where you don't have those kinds of rights were we have solid relations with china.

and so is an aspiration and it is an aspiration that increasingly, over time, has become a reality in some many parts of the world. and so we keep pushing that aspiration ford and keep hoping that country after country, one group of people after another will learn to live in peace and build a representative form of government. when you say democracy, you think american jeffersonian model. there are lots of models. but is the aspiration that everyone has the right to self- determination. i hope it will happen in syria as well. we don't know how to make it

happen, but remember that we live with all the countries in the arab spring for years without those rights being there. we found it necessary to accommodate ourselves to the fact that these were autocratic leaders and it was their people that finally overthrew them. not us, we were prepared to live with it. the views that after we solve the nuclear problem with gaddafi, within weeks, everybody was racing to visit him in his tent. and suddenly, he is very bad and more than that, let's take him out. each one of these is tricky and difficult. there is no easy solution that applies. >> be want to comment on that? >> i am very careful with the words self-determination. they were self determination, it means two things at the same

time. we are concentrated on the self- determination, choose the people that you want to govern their country. it means the right to [indiscernible] that is the tricky point. at the end of the world war, it was different buyers. i understand the right to choose your leaders. i don't know what you call it, but choosing your leaders. someone at 30 years of age, it was 40 years of having the same control. it was the level of corruption, that as a time of being powerful.

in the beginning, you are not corrupt. in that sense, i think having the self-determination in the sense of having the possibility of choosing the people, do you want to be in government. dodge there is one in the back of the room. >> on the idea of institution building, how can the general and dr. cotton about it more in concrete terms? how is it done?

>> it took us in the united states a long time. we really set the stage for ourselves and the constitution. it starts with the lot and the constitution and the law -- but we were in moscow at the kgb hotel. we were having dinner. the only microphones in their rooms were gorbechev's. he is making us crazy. how? he is saying that we have to put this society on the basis of law. if not, it is always up to bureaucrats. lawyers, experts in writing law, especially commercial law. the building of institutions, we can help enormously with that

by helping them put in place bodies of law that will sustain a society. a self-governing government can't exist without somebody watching it and criticizing it and going after the government

all the time. we have brought this to an extreme level of the exquisite -- the freedom of press criticizes everything all the time, and we love it. we wouldn't want it any other way. i think we can help bring that about but it requires an attitude change on the part of the leaders of government.

we have seen some slid backward in recent times that thought there were going to do this and realize, it is very uncomfortable. they were becoming open to criticism, and i think that as part of institution building. laws, institutions, a free society, open society. the ability of non-governmental institutions to function and above all, freedom of press and the resources to courts. if you feel like your rights have been violated. >> i completely agree. i can make two more comments. one on the constitution. let me make an example. the palestinians created its in a short time from scratch.

i remember very well the figure -- [indiscernible] he would like to hear that. but he wrote the constitution with me. that happened a lot, and the other thing the has to be mentioned, when the country comes out of a dictatorship which has military components, to really get the new balance between civilian and military is very tricky had a very difficult. and the country's go through that experience and can -- it has been done in latin america. i think you have to help very

much -- [indiscernible] the new generation of military. and now the arab minister of defense and chief of intelligence are new. to create the relationship and the situation between civilians and military societies. that was a transition that we organized well. we organized -- [indiscernible] that is something that not many people have experienced.

i think that we should be trying to work on that direction. >> as the cold war was ending, there is a big meeting in the halls of congress. all of the senior military leaders from every european country and even the vatican was represented. i was the first speaker. . .

>> what do you think about that in terms of hispanics? what is the origin -- is it really just about immigration or are there other factors? is it a deeper problem? how successful you think they could be? it does not look like it is happening now but may be in a few years. >> it is not a leap on immigration. but immigration is a gateway issue. do republicans get a hearing on their other use if they are good enough on immigration? not for all latino voters but for many. this is where mitt romney is not getting a hearing on many issues to . many of the position of the republican party takes on economic issues are not in favor with the hispanic

population. we were talking about this. what if jeb bush american samoa is ana martinez when the ticket? it would have a very different discussion about the hispanic vote. we would talk about how he is perfectly positioned to win 50% of the latino vote and that it would shift the electoral map so dramatically that we would be talking about the southwest in a different way. the republicans have an opportunity to reposition themselves with the hispanic community. john mccain himself says it starts with immigration. it is not the only issue. but how does the republican candidate run the gauntlet of a primary season in which region

where there are attacks from the white -- from the right? we saw it with matt wittman. -- meg whitman. thegot attacked in primary. she bought out pete wilson and she wanted to deport her nanny by the end of the election. the hispanic vote turned out a dent in huge numbers for jerry brown who did very little to win their affections. >> we could easily be having this conversation about the democratic difficulties among whites. it would change -- if you have the candidate with half the hispanic vote, we would talk about why obama would drop from 42% whites to lower. a hurdle that is so high. the share of whites who have to win become the reagan-s.

-- reagan-esque. >> hispanics are not attached to the democratic party the way african-americans are. we cannot just assume because there is a growth of spending votes that those of democratic votes. republicans who run for office did very well with hispanic voters. an african-american republican gets very few african-american votes. that is not true of the hispanic republican. it is hard to run the gauntlet of the primary electorate in the short run. even the long run, republicans can get themselves right on immigration. i think the republicans can do better with hispanics. as hispanics assimilate and you have multiple generations born here, they become moderate on a lot of social issues. there have been republican hopes that for recent immigrants, he

might have some attraction. that is not true if you look at places like mexico where you have hundreds of years of hispanic residents. younger people are very liberal. you have a moderation of those issues. it is very complicated. it is not a gimmer. . >> the hispanic and a plumber rate. among african-americans, it is quite high. -- the hispanic unemployment rate. among africans, and is more height. -- high. we have a time where there is upward mobility in this large a growing constituency that has stalled, could harm republicans quite a bit.

if we are looking at a real era of economic stagnation for a decade, that will have a particular impact on the electorate. you talk about racial polarization among latinos. if you look at dominican voters and the idea that they are a group that has been rationalized in a certain way, the partisan identity is very strong. it is a localized phenomenon. economic stagnation will further deepen. one of the difficulties republicans face if they need more upward mobility to make these among latinos and to move away from the idea that it is a single issue. another thing about taxes i mentioned -- you have -- i keep

thinking of this as an emerging strategy. when you're looking at the opportunity for a republican candidate who does well over household making $100,000 a year, mitt romney is not strongly over performance in this goes. the politics of taxes has changed considerably. there are many conservatives who talk about the idea of instead of calling for more marginal tax cuts, called for a dramatic expansion of the child-care tax credit. that is an idea in our book. >> [unintelligible] >> is that an issue that resonates with primary voters are not? some people said barack obama is

someone who represented the gary hart vote as well as the jesse jackson vote. liu ever have a republican primary candidate who can actually tonight reunite. george w. bush as someone who did that. the problem it money faces -- he had a tax plan little corners. he felt the rick santorum might defeat him in michigan to hear these the plan designed to appeal to the wall street journal editorial page. totally contingent. it does not seem to have moved primary voters. when you look at their sensibility, that is what they said to do. you can imagine someone else saying let's do a big top tax credit and let's do these other things that will essentially get a lot of the urban social

liberal all for mile-class voters and that the states will not win regardless and they get a lot of parents of young pelt -- young children to play the war taxes. that would resonate with primary voters by requires some level of credibility with the primary electorate. that is a problem for some of these candidates. >> it is now 50/50. it is not disproportional. mitt romney was the upscale candidate. one college graduates in almost every state, including the southern states and lost on college in most states. there's a real class divide in the race. there is not an overwhelming balance but there is an ideological preponderant. 80% of republican primary voters consider themselves conservative. >> if you thought of like mike huckabee -- you can see someone

-- >> mitt romney did not have to do the things he had to do on immigration to win. if -- ultimately he was running as rick perry, rick santorum and newt gingrich. >> we are talking about what the republicans should do but democrats have become more assertive and to this id to predict consumer conservative in this issue. -- assertive in this issue. what the barack obama do this here? he leaned into the issue. he defied those saying we are going to lose downscale white voters if you do this.

he did it anyway. the response was quite remarkable. and lead to an uptick among hispanics. lots of praise for a progresses. a put republicans on the defensive. republicans have not only painted themselves into a corner on this but democrats are learning how to take advantage of that. parks downscale whites -- >> downscale whites have not been that alienated from obama. if obama gets elected, the of the large deficit among what -- among young white working-class waters -- workers. how do you keep them down on the farm?

they said they need a vision of activist government. how can the republicans consolidate them? this is up for grabs. >> if obama wins, it is almost certain his nine college wide number will go down. it has been described as a victory 40 years later. there were not enough of them in 1972. now there are not. obama consistently runs better among working-class whites in the upper midwest than he does anywhere else. ohio, michigan, wisconsin, iowa, the numbers are a little better. 4445. part of that auto industry, and

more union tradition. the big anomaly -- fewer of the white working class in the midwest are evangelical. >> the unemployment rates are very low. >> these are voters -- they are being buffeted by this economy. they have very little reason to feel a lot of loyalty. neither party has shown they can deliver positive economic results in their life. right now the default as republicans will not take my money and give it to people -- to people i think do not deserve it. republicans are running about 60% nationally. i think it is going to be difficult for democrats to get back to a point where they are winning most of them. the goal for democrats is

different. obama seem to have maneuvered himself. in the spring, the bottom was falling out. now he is looking at modest losses. it is hard to figure out how you integrate this into your coalition. they have come to view health care as a welfare program. it is a very difficult challenge. >> the point about what working- class. he mentioned in michigan, wisconsin, ohio. i do a lot of work for labor. looking across 2011, a lot of the dynamics for mitt romney were in place. consistently democrats were doing better in states where there were pitched battles.

to have a discussion about workers and labor, we talk about the future for democrats with white working-class. labor unions are some more on the decline. but there is a way to think about the way through the labor movement to do better with white -- those white voters. >> do you think it is a matter of this benefit changes? >> when you look at the export oriented states -- ohio, iowa, they -- their economies are much better than the national economy. a lot of people said why is mitt romney talking about debt and deficits? this is just an issue that resonates almost as a psychic. that is one thing to keep it until my.

you have the strands that do not always clear in a way that works for you. that is wanting to keep it into my. it is interesting to think about -- when you have this kind of stagnation for much of the country, what does it mean? one thing is if you look at the snap and moment -- in a moment, it is increased dramatically since 2000. same thing for medicaid. limbo clinton gave a speech at the dnc, he was true. -- when bill clinton gave his speech at the dnc, he was s hrewd. when you look at medicaid and who benefits, and it's a lot of

white a working-class folks. when you think about how republicans need to talk about it, that the funny thing about mid ryan -- ryan and ryanism. he has until some respects gotten it right. you want to talk about how we care about the safety net. in matters of law to was. a debate dynamics decided, we need to have this. it is not some kind of side thing but an important part of making the whole system work. the problem is that the reason why he excites a lot of activists is for other reasons -- the way he sometimes uses very apocalyptic language about free enterprise and what have you. that is one reason why governors have a big advantage. if you look at mitch daniels, for example, he talked about

very conservative ideas. he will back collective bargaining rights at the the history. -- he rolled back collective bargaining rights in his stae. he was able to reach beyond that base and talk about how to improve the provision of services. he was deeply interested in the workings of the medicaid program. and making it more accessible. i think that is a very attractive model. unlike the conservatives i often think we to what would a daniels campaign would have looked like? he has a lot of liabilities. on the other hand, it would add in a very interesting contrast to the president. -- it would have been a very

interesting contrast to the president regrets the minority share of the voter is up. how closely does the growth in the edp track with the change in the electorate? all the mitt romney numbers count on the number being as high as it was. when you see its report increase -- when you see an increase in minorities. >> the reason why the minority share of voters has increased two points every four years is basically because the share of the population and of eligible voters increases at about that rate. things can attract each other. ptt attract each other.

-- detract each other. i can understand what they like the assumption. it just makes the barrier they need to cross so much higher if they have to factor in you might have another couple of points with minority voters. >> then it goes up to 28. both of which are within the realm of possibility. the white number becomes almost a vanishingly small. it is like 37%. for a lot of people, that will be big adjustment. what it means to be in that country. traditionally -- the margin to get even bigger. while winning only about 40% of whites, it is hard to see how that happens but the idea is a

moment for the country. we're living in a mini -- we are living in a different place them will we grew up a in. >> an article talked-about the majority of the democratic caucus in congress in 2013 will be either women or minorities. but men will be a minority. -- white men will be a minority. every of force is how different the democratic party is going to be from the republican party in the long run terry in the short run, and will cause a lot of anxiety and stress among certain white voters. >> let me ask one more question them it will turn it over to the audience. let's just say that obama does when this election.

there will be a lot of disappointment on the republican side. how will the debate plays out? how closely are people going to grapple if this does happen with some of the issues we it does been discussing. >> at the gold is a point conservative activists and democrats. the reason by people like me to care for the election as the affordable care act. when you look at a lot of folks on the right, there is a belief that the port will care act creates a universal health system that will prove product -- prove problematic. the divide between esi and the exchanges is tricky. it is hard to see how that will play out. that is the basic idea. it is extremely difficult to retrench.

people say bill clinton's health security act was defeated but -- but over the subsequent years, you have been numbered of coverage expansion efforts. i think it is very hard to see how you reverse. it will vault -- it will evolve into it is that system. then you will see a generation of republicans who will reconcile themselves to it when you look at how much medicare or cost of 30 years, they did not come true. the picture and the the thing extremely different. it is a lesson to republicans. at the 1964, you have cold water

for the result was enormous democratic supermajorities. they are linda running in zero widely -- an ally says she does not want to change it and fix it. i think that is what a lot of progressives were hoping for. it means part of the democrats my experience losses while that aggressive goal might be achieved. >> fantastic discussion. let's turn it over to the audience.

light in the front row. >> i deal with urban entrepreneurs. lot of the demographics to talk about deals with our coverage. per the 2010 census and this year extrapolated data, you are kind of looking at 30lookingto %62% as far as white minority's to minority split. and have about 120 million minorities. is there any data you had -- you're speaking about, even if there is 28%, you're still tracking to% less than the population composition in america. do you have data that shows how the demographic breakdown and

comparison to the voter position? >> the share of eligible voters of the to the united states to or minorities is about 30%. it is substantially below the share of the population. that is the reason why you see the differences. that is primarily driven by hispanics and secondaries by asians. >> bill fry -- the brookings institution says the gap in the minority share of the population

and the minority share of the boats should be narrowed at an accelerating rate over time. in theory, but a point gap in a minority share the population and the eligible voter population should be narrowing more frequently than it has because so much growth is now a natural increase for those sources as. there are trotted 3 million eligible hispanic voters that tell million as a 26% increase from just four years ago. all things are happening at the same time. he increases in the number of hispanic voters, even though

there's a huge gap. >> it is hard to overestimate their important that this point. there are mitigating factors. it means that as population goes up, voters go up three months. ok, right there. >> there were to swing states four years ago that you did not talk about in terms of this

election -- missouri and indiana. are those solidly in the mitt romney camp to be thought of as spring states? >> many people would disagree. i see it that way. there's no evidence that -- missouri is interesting. the demographic and geographic scripps -- shifts i see it making -- a more conservative over time. most people see that razor thin margin as getting wider this year in the direction of the gop. people come to wade kathy from

some morales. they're coming from the northeastern united states combat it -- that could theoretically make is that more competitive. -- make a state more competitive. >> we have got from -- they are pondering the white, older. and heavily blue-collar. now what has emerged is the second pathway available to democrats. and previously have read states that of the opposite. they are well educated and diverse.

in the long run, it is striking how well obama is holding up a that the midwestern states. in the long run, places like this were democrats build a coalition of minorities in college plus rights or socially liberal, they seem to be more the feature of the party. >> there are also different flavors. if you look at ohio, there is been no increase in minorities in the last four years. >> the very unusual. >> despite all that, mitt romney is not doing better than mccain.

pennsylvania is a state with there is a lot of democratic change. these states vary in terms of the rate they're having. some states are not changing at all. >> i'm a fellow juror allows a student at the university of maryland. theournalism didn't at university of maryland. -- student at the university of maryland. is there a danger to the democrats?

>> people were worried about that. but the most recent data behalf, showed the of disease as the gap between republicans and democrats essentially vanishing. so something is clearly happened to get enthusiasm. i doubt that will happen. you were talking earlier about the latino and disease and that seems to a growing as well. >> we were working with latino this is. in the field when obama made his announcement in may to protect young people eligible for the dream act. we were able to do a before and after. it was really quite a remarkable difference.

it has gone even further out. results in 2010. there was a narrative that hispanics would not turn out and to a large extent, they did not, except in places like nevada, colorado, california, where they were larsen the fire wall that said the democrat. so it's pretty remarkable performance. these were state that george w. bush carried in 2004. that gentleman went back there. >> there are actually two of them.

>> high. there are a group of voters who are described as socially liberal but fiscally conservative. is that a large group of denton numbers and why did they seem to be getting very little respect and this election cycle? brothers speaking, that defines a lot of the upper middle class. the increasing prominence of this issue is in the principal reason for what i like to call a class of version. the reality of it is being reflected. obama we did today, -- he is

running about 3 points down from 2008. blue-collar men and women down three or four. but he is holding a number from 2008. exceeding a slightly. this is part of the issue for republicans -- a strategy built on emphasizing the economy and economic discontent. they're voting on other stuff. women are voting on social issues. minorities are voting for a sense of respect. you want me here are not? i think your same before the decree to build challenge for republicans in the ball the

name this is a structural change part of our politics. a big reason why this suburbs outside of philadelphia, detroit, have shifted from republican to democrat since. now we saw the 2008 with places like northern virginia follow them. which is what the states are following them very michael bennet 160% of college white women in 2010. it was not just hispanics. obama today is that 58% among college white women. >> abortion is a high and tense

issue on both sides of the debate. it is important to keep it that the mind. >> every republican presidential nominee endorsed -- abortion is what it is. other elements added as allowing obama to hold both among those women. that also shapes the issue makes -- mix. >> immigration is not an issue that is a core based republican conservative issue. there is a sizable minority

group within the party who cares deeply about it. why has it become the position of the party when in fact it is a huge ingrowing motor block for whom it is an important issue. >> we might have different views about this. when it is framed, all that matters is are you going to build a fence? i also think it is about how are these things represented. and what you obligated to say when you're pinned down. do you believe that enforcing these laws that seems problematic? the idea the dream act is that these are the good kids. it does not mean you're a bad kid if you're not in a community

college or to got in trouble when you were a teenager. there's something very disingenuous about the debate we have a round this book that is because advocates want to structure the debate in a certain way. i do think that advocates have structure of the conversation very ostentatiously which is their job. >> a couple more questions that we will have to cut it off. maybe back there. also to your right. >> could you address the millennials and terms of democratic party strength? >> and the gentleman over there. that is it for questions. rex thank you for the forum. i could give way damn about the passions of d.c., you are the

a political analyst. could you examine level of the old dominion -- the role of rthe the old dominion? a former governor who is very popular in richmond and how emblematic that race might be for the nation? given the long habit of being a party of patrilineal succession, who is in teh circle for republicans should governor romney lose? >> virginia is the to pinpointed this year. now it might be -- it is not

ohio because mitt romney can win ohio and still is. if it shows the two modern coalitions, they are fairly arrayed. this car minority population, it was 30% in 2008. tepper said thein was neither white nor black. -- 10% was neither white nor black. then you have the upper middle- class, socially liberal white voters that we say. he had a strong evangelical blue-collar presses for romney. obama as routinely polling at around 49% among college of whites.

an enormous gap that underscores a change request nature. he is doing better. it was like 44, 30 to last time. right now, obama has the edge. the senate race, we're seeing routinely as the average 85% of the people who vote for obama are voting for the democratic candidate. i think is very likely that whoever wins the presidential race in virginia, there will also win the event of the senate

race. >> when you're looking at this affluent voters, many are connected to the boom that the public spending. that is also something that chip to perception of the two campaigns. but the numbers are very close to nationally. the noncom the whites are a little worse. a lot of the blue-collar whites are also evangelical. i did their strong candidates. will the democratic primary look like. hillary clinton is an important figure. she is not intensely disliked by last affluent republicans.

she has a very distinctive political identity. is there a voice that says the party has to reach a broader range of voters? >> cristina think did not scale up. -- christie, i think, did not scale up. daniel, ryan -- is there a candid who invented the jeb bush analysis if mitt romney loses? >> it is not analysis that he will lose. mitt romney is at 50. if mitt romney loses, will there

be some who challenges the party on issues, particularly immigration. >> i think someone who explicitly makes that case would do worse. look at it bob mcdonnell virginia. he clearly was socially conservative. the thought of him as reliable. he was able to go after suburban voters. >> i tend to think that is the better model and some is as do have changed? >> i can imagine jeb bush as being the intellectual leader and not letting himself. amid the try to steal rubio not necessarily in the camp yet to be the horse.

i think jeb bush is going -- he is positioning himself. he went to tampa and said we're acting stupid on immigration. he is writing a book on immigration reform that would be published next year. he's very conservative, capa, married to a mexican-american. i think he will be well- positioned. he could be the guy. >> one last word on the millennial. what it does look like obama shares the millennial vote. it is creeping up. he did win its 66-32 in 2008. he is not there yet.

when all is said and done, he may be with a large margin but not as big as he did it and the 2008. >> 40% non-white. >> white millennial are noticeably more livable. >> short answer is looking pretty good for a obama. thank you all for turning up . this was a great panel . because of a lot of good information here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama spoke tuesday at the clinton global initiative in new york. mr. obama focused on him and trafficking, announcing new steps to combat what he calls modern slavery. this is a little less than a half-hour. >> thank you. i am violating all protocol today, because if you are an american citizen and you introduce the president, you are supposed to say "the president of the united states" and shut up. that is it. i just want to make one comment about this. [laughter] i want to finish that speech i started in charlotte. [cheers] there are two things i want our newer members to note. first of all, the first presidential election we had was

in 2008, and then senator obama and senator mccain came up. when the president took office in a very busy time, he would still come here every year. and i think it is in no small measure because he basically started his life as an ngo. that is what he was pictured as, a community organizer. then he picked a secretary state who was a walking ngo. so i am very grateful that he made time to give us a speech here today. i am particularly appreciative of what he came here to speak about today.

mr. president, the podium is yours, and thanks for coming in again. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. appreciate it. please be seated. everybody have a seat. good afternoon, everybody, and to president clinton, thank you for your very kind introduction, although i have to admit i really did like the speech a few weeks ago a little bit better. [laughter] afterwards, somebody tweeted that somebody needs to make him secretary of explaining things. [laughter] although they did not use the word "things." [laughter]

president clinton, you are a tireless, passionate advocate on behalf of what is best for our country. you have helped improve and save the lives of millions of people around the world. i am grateful for your friendship and your extraordinary leadership, and i think i speak for the entire country when we say that you continue to be a great treasure for all of us. as always, i have to thank president clinton for being so understanding which the record- breaking number of countries visited by our secretary of state.

[applause] as we have seen in recent days, hillary clinton is a leader of grace and grit, and i believe she will go down as one of the finest secretaries of state in american history, so we are grateful to her. [applause] to the dedicated staff and every organization that has made commitments and touched the lives of hundreds of millions of people, thank you for being an example of what we need more of in the world, especially in washington, working together to actually solve problems. that is why i am here. as bill mentioned, i have come to cgi every year i have been president, and i've talked about how we need to create jobs, the importance of development, global health, the fight against hiv-aids, to growth that leads nations to prosperity.

we talked about development and how it has to include women and girls, because by every benchmark, nations that educate their women and girls end up being more successful. [applause] today i want to discuss an issue that relates to each of these challenges. it should concern every person, because it is a debasement of our common humanity. it ought to concern every community, because it tears at our social fabric. it ought to concern every business, because it distorts markets. it ought to concern every nation, because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime. i'm talking about the

injustice, the outrage of human trafficking, which must be called by its true name -- modern slavery. [applause] i do not use that word "slaver" lightly. it evokes one of the most painful chapters in our nation's history. around the world, there is no denying the awful reality. when a man desperate for work finds himself in a factory or on a fishing boat or a field, working for little or no pay and beaten if he tries to escape, that is slavery. when a woman is locked in a sweatshop or trapped in a home as a domestic servant, alone and abused and incapable of leaving, that is slavery.

when a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed, that is slavery. when a little girl is sold by her impoverished family -- girls my daughters' age -- runs away from home and imprisoned in a brothel, that is slavery, and it has no place in a civilized world. [applause] as a nation we have long rejected such cruelty. a few days ago we marked the 150th anniversary of a document i have hanging in the oval office, the emancipation proclamation.

with the advance of union forces, it brought a new day, that all persons held as slaves would henceforth be forever free. we wrote that promise into our constitution. we spent decades struggling to make it real. we joined with other nations in the universal declaration of human rights so that slavery and the slave trade would be prohibited in all their forms. a global movement was sparked with the trafficking victims protection act. here at cgi, you have made impressive commitments in this fight. we're honored to be joined by advocates who have risked their lives to liberate victims and help them recover. this includes men and women of faith who are truly doing the lord's work -- evangelicals, the catholic church, international justice missions, and world relief.

even individual congregations like passion city church in atlanta. so many young people of faith who decided their conscience compels them to act in the face of injustice. groups like these are answering the bible's call, to seek justice and rescue the oppressed. some of them join us today, and we are grateful for your leadership. as president i have made it clear that we will continue to be a leader in the global movement. we have a strategy, we are shining a spotlight on the dark corners where it persists. under hillary's leadership, we are reaching out with new partnerships to give countries incentives to meet their responsibilities and calling them out when they do not.

i renewed sanctions on some of the worst abusers, including north korea and eritrea. we are helping other countries step up their efforts, and we are seeing results. more nations have passed and more are enforcing anti- trafficking laws. i was proud to welcome to the oval office last week a fierce advocate against the use of forced labor and child soldiers, aung san suu kyi. [applause] as part of our engagement, we will encourage burma to take steps to encourage reform, because nations must speak with one voice. our people and children are not for sale. for all the progress we have for all the progress we have made, the truth is