and examining the cost of operations overseas. british prime minister david cameron and members return after recess. the prime minister answered questions about waiting times in the health service. on last week's decision by theeuropean union to lift weapons embargo on the syrian

opposition. this is about 35 minutes. >> questions for the prime minister. >> thank you. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties [indiscernible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. three years ago, the prime minister promised $20 billion in 2015. will he now borrow 96 billion instead? yes or no? >> three years ago, we said we would cut the deficit and we

have cut the deficit by one third. on the issue of what people said a few years ago, the very first time the leader of the opposition came, he attacked me for taking child benefits away. yet today, we learn it is our labors official policy to take child benefits away from higher earners. total and utter confusion. perhaps he can explain himself when he gets to his feet. >> i am thrilled and delighted that the government has revised lands for a right of recall instead of a proposal that would mean politicians in judgment of politicians. a recall ballot, a yes or no chance for constituents to make the final decision before an mp is removed. >> i know that my honorable friend has campaigned long and hard on these issues of democracy. i think the right approach and the one that we put forward is

to say yes, of coarse there should be a constituency mechanism. the for that, there ought to be a committee of this house for wrongdoing. i think that is the right approach. i know we will not necessarily agree, but we would bring forward our proposals. on the subject of recall, i hope that my opponent would recall his attack on child benefits when he speaks. >> mr. speaker tom a two ago during the prime minister's listening exercise during the health services. "i refused to go back to the day where people have to wait hours on end." let me be clear. we will not. what has gone wrong? >> enough about what he said two years ago. the very first time he stood

there totally condemning and attacking in the strongest possible terms what now turns out to be labor policy. what complete confusion and weakness from the opposition. he asked about accident emergency and i will deal with this very directly. the fact is, we are meeting our targets for accident emergency. it was a problem in the first quarter of this year. that is why the medical director of the nhs will be holding an investigation. but over the last three years, there are now one million more people walking into our accident and emergency units every year. we must work hard to get those waiting times down and keep those waiting times down. the way we will not do it is by following labor policy and cutting the nhs. >> the independent king fund, a

number of people waiting more than four hours higher than any time in nine years. can you explain to the country why a&e waiting times fell under labor? >> we are meeting our targets on a&e. we are meeting our waiting times. in wales, where labor is responsible, they are not meeting their times. the last year in which the welsh met their times under the government? >> we may be six months away, but he no better answer to questions. i do have to say to the prime minister, he has got to do better than this on the crisis. "there is gridlock in the emergency department. the patients in the situation say we

are reaching a crisis point." we have a prime minister who says, crisis, what crisis? the number of people held in the back of ambulances has doubled since he took office. the number of people waiting more than four hours has doubled. there are now more canceled operations than in the last decade. does in the scale of problems show that on his watch, there is a crisis in a&e? >> when is the last time labor met their targets for accident and emergency? 2009. they have not met a target in four years under labor. we asked what is happening in our national health service. i will tell you what is

happening in our national health service. inpatient waiting times lower than at the election. the rate of acquiring infections at a record low. 400,000 more operations being carried out every year. crucially, there are 5700 more doctors. let me tell him what would happen if we followed labors spending plan on the nhs. new figures out today. there would be 43 thousand fewer nurses and 11,000 fewer doctors. we decided to spend more. that man said it was irresponsible. he is wrong. >> mr. speaker, there are people all around this country waiting for hours and hours and all they see is a complacent, out of touch prime minister reading a list of statistics.

people want to know about the crisis in a&e happening on his watch. let's talk about the cause of this. in his first two years in office, more than a quarter of centers were closed. you closed nhs walking centers and put pressure on the a&e defense -- department. why is that not obvious to him? >> in the first quarter of this year, there were problems. one of the problems is the contract that was signed from the last labour government. they signed a contract that let gp's get out of hours. if you want evidence, perhaps he will listen to the labor minister in the nhs at the time. fortunately, he lost his seat to

a conservative. but this is what he said. "in many ways, gp's got the best deal they have ever had from the 2004 contract. since then, we have been recovering." one million more people coming through our doors. an excellent performance by doctors and nurses let down by the last labor government. >> he has been talking about the decline of that contract for the last months now. what happened between 2004 and 2010? things fell drastically after the gp contract. the president of the general practitioners says, "i think it is lazy to blame the 2004 contract. waning a contract that is nearly 10 years old ignores the problems recently." that is the problem about the contract. now let's talk about a problem even he cannot deny. the chief executive of the confederation said this -- "these pressures have been compounded by three years of structural reform." in other words, the top-down

reorganization that nobody voted for. why does he not accept what everyone in the health service knows? that top-down organization never did resources and betrayed the nhs. -- diverted resources and betrayed the nhs. >> i am not quoting a line. i am pointing out the minister responsible for this, part of the problem. if people want to know went wrong in nhs under labor, they only have to look at the hospitals. if people want to know what is going wrong with the nhs under labor now, they have to look at wales. that is the effect of labor in

wales. he talks about reorganization. we have been scrapping yurok mercy and putting that that money to the front lines. at is why there are 18,000 fewer ministers with jobs, what almost 6000 more doctors. >> everyone will see a prime minister who cannot defend what is happening on his watch. at is the reality. patients waiting on trolleys. operations canceled. our nhs is not safe in their hands. >> it is under this government that the number of doctors is up to read the numbers of operations are up. waiting times are down. isn't it interesting that in the week that was meant to be all about their economic relaunch, they cannot talk about their economic policies?

now they want to scrap. they told us they wanted to keep child benefits, now they want to scrap child benefits. they told us they would be men of iron discipline, yet they said, do i think the large labor government was profligate? i do not think there is any evidence for that. on the economy, they are weak, they are divided, they are the same old labor. >> mr. speaker, the people want a referendum on our relationship with the european union. will my right honorable friend welcome the private mandate brought forward by the honorable member? a referendum by 2017.

and will he and do as he asked thickly encourage all sides to vote for it when it comes forward? >> i certainly welcome the private members vote brought forward by my honorable friend. i think it is absolutely right to hold that in a referendum before the end of 2017. the interesting thing about today's newspaper is that half of the labor shadow cabinet now wants a referendum too. hands up. who wants a referendum? com eon. do not be shy. why don't you want to let the people choose? the people's party does not trust the people. >> committing to tories spending plans, his greatest achievement [indiscernible] >> i hope i can do a lot better than that. >> candace prime minister

confirm that you will recall parliament before any action is taken to arm the syrian opposition during the recess? >> i have never been someone who has wanted to stand against the house having a say on any of these issues. i have always been someone to make sure that parliament is recalled to discuss important issues. let me stress that no decision has been taken to arm the rebels. i do not think this issue arises. i supported holding the vote on iraq in my premiership, when there was the issue of libya, i recalled the house and allowed the house to have a vote. if the issue does not arrive, because we have made no decision

to arm the rebels. >> yet again, we have no answers from the prime minister who blames everyone but himself. let me give him one more chance. why doesn't he admit what everyone in the house knows, his free billion has diverted resources and he has betrayed his promises? >> the abolition of the bureaucracy that this government has brought about -- the point the honorable member has to take on, this government made a decision which was not to cut the nhs. we are putting 12.7 billion pounds extra into nhs. that decision was described as irresponsible. if labor was in power, they would be cutting the nhs. how do we know that? that is exactly what they are doing in wales, where they cut the nhs by 8%. you may not like it, but that is

what it is. >> has the prime minister retained consistent representation of welfare reform? >> i know that i have been the one on holiday in ibiza, but they have been the ones taking, how should i put it, policy- altering substances. first they are for child benefits, now they are against child benefits. first they are for winter fuel allowance, now they want to abolish winter fuel allowance. only now do we find out that they might not go ahead with the policy of the scrapping child benefits. >> with the prime minister show us that the perspective film on lobbying will include a ban on people selling on downing street? >> what the bill on lobbying will do will have a register that has been promised and should be levered. it will also make sure we look

at the impact of all third parties on our politics, including the state union. >> does my right honorable friend agree that the actions of the european court of human rights, in reading our souls of terrorists, illustrates the extent to which its -- the court has betrayed its original principles. i wonder if you would update a house on what actions his government will take and the president of the court, who said that if we were to secede thomas it would put our record on human rights in doubt. it is this court that is in doubt and the way that it has treated the british people. >> i completely understand and share much of my honorable friend's frustration.

we should remember that britain helped to form the court of human rights. it has played an important role in making sure europe has not suffered the abuses that we saw in the first half of the 20th century. it is absolutely clear that this court needs reform. the former justice secretary led that reform and we have achieved some changes. we need further changes and we need this court to focus on real human rights issues and not overruling parliament. >> mr. speaker, renewable energy interest, ready to invest, but they need certainty. mp's from all sides of the house

voted for a/d carbonization target. -- a decarbonization target. will you back british industry in green jobs? >> i understand completely the point that the honorable lady makes. i do agree that businesses need that. we have given them a levy control framework on over 7 billion pounds. as they sign contracts and get the renewable obligations, we have given them the certainty of a green investment bank. it does not make sense to fix the de-capitalization target before we have agreed to the budget and before we even know whether carbon capturing storageworks properly. the businesses i have talked to say that is not their priority. >> people convicted of offenses against children are opposed to a prison sentence. will the prime minister fire judges who do not give them a prison sentence.

>> it is an important separation of powers. this is a very dangerous road down which to go. we have very clear laws on how serious parliament thinks the offenses are and judges should pay heed to those laws. >> i am going to give you another chance to answer. does he seriously land to give a parliamentary committee the right to block a public chance to vote on recalling a convicted mp? >> of course you want to have a process whereby constituents can call for the recall of the mp. because the main way we throw and he's out to parliament is through an election, there should be a cause for that recall to take place. that is why we have a standards

and privileges committee and it has outside members and the committee has the power to suspend mps in parliament and expel them. we can debate this across the house. i think it would be right. before you trigger a recall, there should be some sort of censure by the house of commons in order to avoid attempts to get rid of those who are doing a reasonable job. >> some believe government plans to replace 20,000 bridges with 30,000 reservists will prove a false economy. immobilization rates of 40%, the justice says we need 50,000. given that we have raised this matter with the secretary of state, will he meet with us to discuss this and other concerns,

including the wisdom of this policy in this increasingly uncertain world? >> i am always happy to meet with my honorable friend and discussed these and any other issues. the point that i would make is that, in the spending review, we produced 1.5 billion pounds to provide the uplift for the army that it requires. there is a difference between reserves. it is essential that we get the improvement of our reserve forces. the point i would make is we are going to have some of the best equipped or sis anywhere in the world. we will have new aircraft carriers for our navy, the hunter killer submarines, the joint strike fighter, the typhoon aircraft. when you talk about our friends in

afghanistan, they are now better protected more than they have ever been in our history. >> does the prime minister pledged to lead against hunger at the u.n.? will it also extended to the eu negotiations on the future of the misdirected 10% directive on biofuels, which should be food for the poor? does the prime minister recognized that that mandate raises food prices, compounding hunger and adding to carbon emissions? >> if you would like, i will bring the g-8 to northern ireland and hope that it would provide a boost. i agree that we should not allow the production of biofuels to undermine food security. we want to go further than the

european commission's proposal. there is considerable merit in what the honorable gentleman says. >> the weekend before last, there could have been a tragedy were it not for the brave efforts of our emergency services and the volunteer coast guard. can the prime minister join with me in thanking the coast guard, in particular paul parker and rob barkey for pulling out 56 people for our country. >> they do an extraordinary job for our country. a are really one of the emergency services. i join her in paying tribute to those brave people. >> i wonder if the prime minister could assist me with a question that he has been unable

to answer for the last two months. will the taxpayers money be used to guarantee the mortgages of citizens who buy property here? >> the chancellor will set out details of this. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to hear mr. davis. i recently visited my brother defined that a television station near his bed would cost him six dollars per day. why does it cost hospital patients $42 or week to watch a television? >> as somebody who spends a lot of time in hospitals, i absolutely share his frustration.

it was the last government that introduced these charges in the year 2000. many an hour i have spent battling with that very obligated telephone and credit card system that you have to try to make work. local hospitals can now make themselves. in terms of prisons, the right honorable chancellor is doing something. he is taking the unacceptable situation inherited from the labour party and is saying, you cannot do that anymore. also, making sure the prisoners pay if they used the television. >> does this slashing of the labor league budget, is this going to lead to the rights of the privileged. is this by design? >> first of all, everyone in the house has to recognize that we

need to grapple with the legal aid will. even the labour party said they were going to look at the cost of legal aid. the fact is, per head, we spend 39 pounds per head. in new zealand, they spend eight pounds per head. the total cost to the taxpayer of the top three criminal cases in 2011-2012 was 21 million pounds. at a time we have to make difficult decisions, it is absolutely right to look at legal aid. we have put out the consultation. we can consider the responses carefully. we do need to make reductions. >> a loan of 50,000 pounds from

the regional growth fund has helped create 12 jobs in just six months in manufacturing startup. with the manufacturing purchasers managing index at a 14 month high, and i encourage my right honorable friend to restore the uk as a manufacturing powerhouse? >> i am grateful to my honorable friend. there has been more welcome news about the economy as it continues to heal. we saw the services figures out today, the construction figures out yesterday, the growth figures in the economy. the are making progress. but we have to stick to the plan, stick to the difficult decisions we are making. >> before the election, the prime minister said there would be no more reorganization in the nhs. later went on to say he would not lose control of departments.

why does he keep making promises that he just cannot keep? >> he promised we would not cut the nhs. he would put extra money in. we are putting in 12.7 billion extra pounds. labor's official policy is to cut the nhs. they said that our policy, no, it is not, we have a new health policy. honestly, so many u-turns they should be having a grand prix. >> a&e staff shortages do not develop in just three years. will the prime minister look into why the downgrade is going ahead without the outcome of public consultation being considered in public either by the political commission group

or the health and well-being group? >> any organization or reconfiguration has to meet the test that the health secretary very carefully set out. he is right to say there is no one single cause of the difficulties that we ace in a&e. one million extirpation's is a huge amount over the last three years. we have increased the funds, but there are big challenges to meet. will we need them by cutting the nhs, which was labor's policy? will we meet them by another reorganization, which was labor's policy? no, we will not. we will manage the nhs effectively and continue to put money in. >> a generalist masquerading as a lobbyist and trapped as a tory mp. the prime minister has decided to launch an all-out attack -- >> he conveniently forgets to mention the laborteers. we do have a problem. we do have to deal with that.

all parliamentary groups, that needs to be looked at. as we promised in the coalition agreement, we will bring forward a register and we will also be bringing forward measures to make sure the units behave properly, too. >> may i commend my right honorable friend for the continuation of the british newsgroup. now that the alternatives to try and study has concluded, there are no alternatives cheaper or more effective than trying. what are the reasons for delaying the decision so that the matter can be settled in this parliament?

>> we have set out very clearly the steps that need to be taken before the decision was made. he knows i am strongly committed to the renewal on a like for like aces. that is strong for britain. in the coalition, a study has been carried out. i looked at the evidence on becoming prime minister, which is, i believe, you need that continuous posture. you need one based on cruise missiles and icbm's. i believe that is the answer and all the evidence points in the right direction. >> mr. speaker, i visited them in the langley state in my constituency and they are appreciative on everyone -- everything that has been said, particularly the state residents. there was a ceremony that was greatly attended. middleton people were able to pay their respects. will the prime minister join me in commending the people of middleton for their strong and sensitive report to the family

during this very sensitive time? >> i will certainly join the honorable member in the great respect of support and solidarity that they have shown. it was an absolute tragedy, his death. there are many lessons we must learn from it. it is another moment for everyone in this house and country to reflect on the magnificent services that the men and women of our armed forces contribute to our country. >> today, my right and honorable friend, a world health organization metal to commend tobacco day. will he support the campaign for the passage of cigarettes? >> i missed the beginning of the question so i did not hear who got the metal. whoever it was, i would have

certainly even an introduction to the queen's speech. i commend him or his metal. at the end of the policy, we know that issue. >> question time airs every sundayay and again on night at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. watch any time on our website, where you can find video of past questions and other programs. next, a discussion on the future of syria. hearing on human rights violations in china.

>> i do think the fcc has to steer this in a way that very small and large companies be able to compete relative to spectrum, and the idea that big fish swallow up little fish i do not think is healthy for our e economy. we all have a business plan. we want to make money, but when you look at the markets, 80% is owned, in terms of each front, the most valuable spectrum -- spectrum is gold in this country. we have to do more to loosen it up. >> cyber and freedom of the monday night at eight 2.tern on c-span >> more than 80,000 people have

died in syria since the start of road test against the assad government over two years ago. now defense department officials discuss syria's civil war. this is an hour and 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction. good morning. i want to thank the council for sponsoring this very important event. what i would like to do because i think it is more important, i want to keep my remark brief. i'm sure there will be many questions and comments but to talk a where we are now on syria and to focus on the regional spillover, which is becoming more prominent. i offer a couple of remark how

we've got to where we are and then conclude with thoughts on u.s. policy in terms of where we are today in syria, the uprising, the conflict now is into its third year. it is the most brutal of the arab uprising. death toll run between 80- 120,000 people killed thus far. mostly civilians. the situation on the ground is nothing short of a human tear catastrophe -- humanitarian catastrophe and sharon is going to talk about it so i will leave that with her. what i want to focus on is the regional spillover. i think the conflict has morphed from a civil war to a broader regional conflict. i think the events over the past couple of weeks mark a real

inflexion point on where we are inflection point on where we are. let's start with lebanon. lebanon in some ways is the most volatile and fragile of syria's neighbors and the events over the past couple of weeks are extraordinarily significant in terms of the degree of spillover. we have now lebanon ease fighters in battle for a town in syria. we have reprisals taken against hezbollah inside lebanon by syria rebels in syria and more concerning in some ways, from those within lebanon. with soar seeing a melding or a melting, if you will, of the

borders. the arena nah for conflict is broadening and that has serious and significant implications for lebanon's stability. in addition, if we look to syria's other border with iraq, another country with a fragile secretariat makeup. we see that may was the most violent month in years. in part as a result of dynamics within iraq but no doubt fed by the conflict in syria. in particular, by the rise of sunni, jihad feeding into iraq. so in some ways if we put all of that together, we see the potential makings of a very broad swath of instability that stretches from the mediterranean to baghdad and -- we had spillover in israel and we raised the potential for a broader confrontation between israel and syria. there were battles that went on,

clashes that went on in the only border crossing between syria and israel. the rebels have that crossing in their control. this is obviously concerning from an israeli security perspective. the austrians are withdrawing their forces from monitoring their that border. once was the quietest border is now becoming perhaps its most dangerous. in addition, they are deepening concerns about the potential for this transfer of strategic weapons from the assad regime to

the syrian militant in lebanon. this is a concern to israel and we've seen three missile strikes this year from israel targeting such transfers. israel haze laid out a clear line that they will not abide by the transfer of these weapons to hezbollah. in addition, we have, of course, continuing tension with turkey. there was double car bombing last month. again, underscores the ways in

which the syrian conflict is spilling over across the border to its neighbors. that bombing provoked a lot of upset, anger from the turkish population at syrian refugees in turkey. there has been shells that has gone across the border, basically, in all of the countries bordering syria. we also have finally, last but not least, jordan. jordan is bearing a significant strain with respect to refugees. an infrastructure that already is stretched to the limit.

its resources are already stretched quite thin. there's growing concern that the burden of syrian refugees on jordan's system is becoming unmanageable and it could be the source for instability. i think we can see, essentially around the region, a picture that is quite disturbing about how serious conflict is no longer contained within its borders. we can talk if people are interested in the question and

answer about what some of the measures might be to mitigate some of that. i think we always need to be braced for conflict that is going to be endearing and will continue to have -- enduring and will continue to have consequences. let me take a step back and talk a how did we get there? how did syria go from one of the many arab uprising that started with peaceful protests then to an uprising then a civil war and now bordering on a broader conflict. the pace and the velocity of events is unmatched, certainly by anything i've seen. throughout all of this, there has been three constants that i would argue are responsible for how syria got to where they are today. the first, from the beginning the syrian regime has viewed protests, although peaceful as a threat.

as a result, they respond to those protests with now brutal force. i also think they have not been open to any sort of reform, nor i do believe this regime is -- at least the hard core center to any negotiated exit. second condition that is pertained from the beginning, the syrian opposition has been divided. it has been in a state of disarray. arguably the political opposition in area today is in a greater sense of disarray than it has been. they have been unable to come around a vision of what a post- assad era will look like. that's been a significant, i would say failing of the opposition. in addition, we have even the current opposition as it is configured risen by personal

rivalries, ideology differences, those on in inside, those on the ground, and so forth. third, the international community has been essentially at a stalemate from the beginning, unable to forge a consensus on how to handle the question on syria. in particular, i think at the top of this is enduring differences between the united states and russia. also differences in the region between saudi arabia, qatar, and supporters of the opposition and iran as the ally of the regime on the other. as a result, the u.n. has been, unfortunately, essentially ineffective. certainly at the level of the

security council on how to deal with syria. it is these factors that has led syria to where it is today. very briefly then i will conclude. in terms of u.s. policy, it has been marked by the statement made by president obama in august of 2011 that assad must step aside. that has been and continues to be the u.s. position on syria. its policies toward syria have been largely focused on diplomatic isolation of the regime, economic sanctions, assistance to the opposition in terms of both trying to help bridge some of these gaps that i mentioned, as well as training and technical assistance to those elements of the opposition or those on the ground who are already involved in some level of government on levels beyond the regime control. the u.s. has been a huge provider of humanitarian assistance. the united states is the largest provider of humanitarian assistance to syrian refugees.

but as many in the room probably know, the united states is also approached syria with a great degree of caution when it comes to the question of any sort of military intervention. whether it is arming the rebels or the question of establishing a no-fly zone or targeting military strikes. all of these military options, i think my colleague will be talk about, the u.s. has opted at this point not to pursue those. i think it's in large part because of the many factors that we can talk about that certainly the degree to which the situation in syria is chaotic and becoming more so. i think some very serious

questions, about whether military intervention would, in fact, exacerbate the conflict on the ground. we're engaged in active discussions with the russians to try to restart the geneva process. the next time u.s. and russia to meet is june 25, no specific date has been set yet. the hope is july. but that has already been delayed as a result of the lingering differences. at this point, that approach given all the various risks and difficulties and not least concerns about civilian protection, i think in my ways for syria the answer ultimately is going to have to be a diplomatic solution and i will

leave it at that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm honored to be here. i've been traveling into syria for pretty much two years. most of it has been legal entry into the country because we feel that reporting on events north of the country in territory that was contested was important for us to do and that's why we took the decision to do that. i would like to talk a little

bit about how the situation on the ground has evolved, how i see it. the bbc is not a policy make earn i don't have my own opinions. what i can answer is questions about the reality on the ground. it strikes me that a lot of policy, a lot of decisions that are taken are not necessarily as well-informed by the true story on the ground. it is very complex picture. our first crossing into syria was july 2011. at that point the entire north of the country was controlled by the government, the government controlled all the crossings and what you saw was this protest movement that was in a state of evolution. pretty much splintered, local, based around families. what we've seen over the last

earlier and a half how that has evolved. we've read stories and i want to talk a what we actually see on the ground. so this time last year, the opposition started to form around larger groups. we spent time with a group and it sounds like it is possibly islamic but it wasn't. it was a secular movement. these people were mechanics and chefs. these were amateurs, armed with old rifles trying to work out how to mount a campaign. at that point already, the

outside world was taking an interest, people were supplying weapon, and larger forces were coming to play. at that point, when the syrian government talked about foreign terrorists being inside the country, largely speaking it wasn't true. i remember this time last year sitting with a group of rebels in the north of the country. again, civilians. most of them were sunnis but they preached the language of inclusively. that part isn't as mixed as other parts. that is more problematic. i know parts of the conflict

have evolved into a struggle but i don't believe it is entirely defined by sectarian differences and it doesn't have to be that way. as the rebel commander sat there, dressed in black, had a serious beard and the rest of them joked with this guy, he was the taliban. they thought this was funny but he was the exception to the rule. you didn't see people like that. you didn't see people who were committed to the cause. that has completely changed inside syria. a trip we did recently south of the city, in order to get to parts that we wanted to report on involved getting a permission slip from a court inside the city. so what the syrian government has been saying might not be true what it started off with but it has been in some ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. many of the fears have come to light. the conflict has spread. the u.n. had figures of 9,000

syrians dead and in one year it is more like 90,000. it is radicalized and if there ever was a possibility of a clear initiative that possibly could bring a swift tend to the conflict, i don't see it now. it doesn't mean it is a lost cause and i don't think anyone should view it as one. it is as complex and messy as you can imagine. i remember being in iraq in 2006, that the time people were talking about the division of the country. i believe vice president biden at that point had a plan that talked about splitting iraq into

three states to try to reduce the violence. lebanon, even if n its darkest hour and then after the war with israel and it was wrapped by political upheaval it did not go that far. i don't think it is a done deal at the moment. so that end, i would urge an international policymakers to be involved. i think it is worthying about the armed opposition as two groupings and it is changing all the time. this is not a static situation. people talk about a stalemate. we're very impatient and media is the worst. if people don't change onen the ground in two months, then

nothing is happening, nobody is winning the battle. eve seen syrian governments have the upper hand in the south of the country and re-establish control south of damascus. we know there has been fighting near the israeli border, i believe they are taking ban that border in the last 24 hours. it is not a straight line. this time last year, the armed opposition essentially controlled a few villages around the north of the country. i had no real presence south of that. nothing into da mass us -- damascus. it has been supported and sustained by weapons coming in from outside the country. where are they coming from? they come from the gulf. they come from supporters in kuwait, qatar, saudi arabia, elsewhere in the islamic world. turkish intelligence is very effective and they are capable of closing the border if they choose to do so. for a long period the rebels

were not able to get weapons but that changed last year. they contention is they are given enough to fight and die but not enough to win. that is the reality on the ground. most of the heavy weapons they have are weapons they have seized from government bases they have managed to overrun. we saw that on our last trip, essentially firing rockets that were taken from one military base on to another syrian government base.

so the armed opposition has evolved. two broad groupings, there are those that we can call islamists, which ranges from the hard-line elements, those who sworn allegiance to al qaeda. there are those who are more towards the secular side i don't think there are many secularists left. they move from one group to another, which is why we should never see it as a static situation. these groups have been evolving all the time. this time last year, it was not really a force. they carried out deadly bombings and everyone feared this was al qaeda getting involved in syria. but the truth was, they had no power, they had little following, it was impossible to establish where they were. now, they are essentially a militant islamic organization. they are not jihads. they have a certain vision for a hard-line islamic state inside

syria but they do not see the struggle as a wide regional struggle. this is what people tell you. this is what people tell you. we also know that many of the people who follow these group, follow them because that is where the focus of attention is. they are the groups who have the money, they are able to pay fighters. most of the people who pick up weapons have not worked in syria for at least 18 months. many of them fighting has been the only way of managing to earn a living and they will probably move from group to group depending on which group is getting money, which group is getting resources. for western policymakers is something to bear in mind. so i see any evolution over the last 12 months. the armed opposition control

pretty much of northern syria, the northern provinces. ethnically it is muslim and sunni. that does not mean there aren't exceptions. so things have evolved but they have got on the a point where you feel the armed opposition is probably incapable of advancing much further than it actually has. it is relied on audacity, it has relied on gorilla warfare to achieve what has done. it has relied on david and goliath tactics. it is not able to deal with military. if you put the two together, there is a potential potent force there. i just like to talk a humanitarian situation on the ground. on our first trip over was to visit people who were displaced, living in tents and woods right

on the border. you can see the road in turkey on the other side are the bushes and the barbed wire. since then it is just spiraled out of control. everywhere you travel there are duplicated displaced families living in greenhouses, living in caves. we did one story and we were shown what was essentially an old roman tomb where a family was being sheltered. this is an area that was between the armed opposition and the government. my camera man who is here went down into it and discovered five, six small boys in the dark on their own. their mother went out to get food and they were waiting for

her to return and to take them out. nobody knew they were there. the humanitarian situation is a crisis. it is as bad as i've ever seen it anywhere. i think it's probably comparable to afghanistan during the civil war. people are relying on handouts, i have no doubt foreign aid is making its way in. there is no perception on the ground that the outside world has done anything at all. people receive humanitarian aid, fighters get some weapons, but there is a general sense inside syria they have been abandoned

by the outside world. people still to this day, ask what is the difference between a syrian and the libyan? it sounds like a bad joke, there is no answer. they don't see why the libyan's were assisted in a way they haven't been. most of them are victims of a war they didn't choose. whatever their side, whatever their ethnicity, whatever their religion, they are the ones that pay the price because when the armed opposition moves into the area then the government responds and the bombing is indiscriminate in the. you can't pinpoint attacks without advanced technology on the ground, which they don't use. therefore, that is why you have so many killed from 9,000 this time last year to probably about 90,000 this year. so it is a gloomy picture.

i'm happy to take your questions and thank you for listening to me. >> thank you. next. >> thank you. i should start with saying my remark do not reflect the blessings of the department of the defense or the united states government. i imagine that the professor will say something similar. i'm not speaking to -- for the defendant on defense. today, i wish to address two topics, first is the role of the unite nations and the implications of the no-fly zone. every american president prefers to take military action with allies, even the invasion that

is forgotten, was part of a coalition organization with states contributing resources. this urge is particular strong for democrats. the gold standard is a blessing by the united nations. since the fall of the berlin wall there has been two u.s. military actions that did not have some sort of u.n. sanction or claimed sanction. one was co-sew vow and the other with -- kosovo and the other was iraq. we know what happened with iraq. among the problems in kosovo was the role played by russia that determined to thwart what they saw a u.s. political grab.

as of last week's gallop poll, 68% of americans did not support military action. compounding this problem is an uncertain nation if assad were to be replaced. the leaders of the armed opposition within syria are uncertain at best and extremely shady at worst. a u.s. mandate is the minimum requirement to begin military action in syria. this will not happen as long as the chinese and the russians oppose a mandate. they feel they were hoodwinked when libya was first. the experience of libya has informed and to a great extend shaped the inaction on syria. even with the new powers team in place, it would suggest unless there is a disaster occurring, i'm talking something along the massacres the u.s. will probably

not take action without some sort of sanction. that's my points on the u.n. i draw that from my experience in peace keeping as secretary of defense. my second point concerns the nature of a no-fly zone. i'm not an air defense artillery man but i served in special operations forces. soldiers who work with big equipment they call people like me crunches because that's the sound we make when you run over us. i'm low-tech i was a guest at a major weapons exhibition and they were showing these laser weapons and they said what are you looking for and i said i

want wool socks that don't have a crease across the toe. the beauty of being an academic you can plagiarize anything as long as you acknowledge it. you can hear the panel on the u.s. institute of peace on their website and the remarks. i should also point out my colleague has written on this subject, very informative if you go the website you can link to that. so let me make a few quick points. the first, a no-fly zone is a euphemism for war. it is an act of war and it will kill people and destroy things. some to feel killing and destruction will harm things we don't want to harm. a dominant narrative becomes

yankee inspired death and destruction. let us discuss this issue without misconceptions. war even in an age of push- button warfare is exactly what general sherman said it was. there is considerably room in what a no-fly zone is. it is shaped by the decade long operations over northern and southern iraq but a clever staff officer could propose courses of actions which would not involve circling aircraft over damascus and destruction of every missile and runway. my third point is a no-fly zone would require a base somewhere close by. these bases would probably come with a cost. turkey is the only credible base but they have issues of their own.

they might insist on conditions that the u.s. will reject. our relationship with turkey is more transactional than it was in the mid 1980's. we can operate from more remote locations but this requires staging of expensive and scare military assets. particularly tankers and aircraft carriers, which are still in demand in the gulf and to deal with the next act that if ongoing freak show, which is north korea. thank you. you're kind. geography matters. syria is not libya.

in libya most of the targets were on a flat, lightly populated strip. syria is flying over mountains. the calculations involved in conducting aerial missions over syria are much more complicated.

the calculations are much more complicated. my fifth point is that modern military practice is not to deploy a pilot into an area where you cannot retrieve him shoot his plane be shot down. any manned air activity has the potential for ground combat. we should understand the implications of what is being proposed. airplanes get shot down. my study of history suggest whatever type of no-fly zone is implemented whenever satisfies those who seek a no-fly zone. we'll hear about helicopters. if the helicopters are destroyed, most of the killing is being conducted by indirect fire, as we saw in sarajevo. i do not blame insurgents for their fight. they are in a struggle for the death. the removal of assad would diminish the demand for intervention.

i've not discussed other technical matters. if you are burning to hear that, i would be delighted to take a question. thank you and a welcome your questions. [applause] >> thank you, dave. miss waxman. >> thank you, dr. anthony for inviting us here today. the conflict in syria has resulted in the largest humanitarian emergency in history. ian talked about the massive scale of displacement inside the country. more than 4 million people are displaced internally. more than 1.5 million have sought refuge in neighboring

countries. the largest funding appeal ever has been launched today to respond to the crisis in the region. my organization has been working with partners to deliver vital medical aid for field hospitals and clinics. we are working inside syria to deliver health care for people living on the border and provide education to children who can no longer attend school, and build safe places for traumatized syrian children.

they're refugees in syria and iraq and reaching out to those who are suffering the most. we have spent more than $50 million on aid to syria supported by the u.s. and the u.k. and from private donations. i want to focus on three issues. what the international community needs to do to get aid inside syria. how we can help refugees realized their rights and protect them from the conflict. the international committee needs to increase support inside syria. the u.s. and other donors have been generous humanitarian needs outstripped the support provided. the american government and american people deserve enormous credit for stepping in early and at a scale in an unprecedented assistance. the united states is the largest donor and it can claim a greater

role as a donor and as a leverager of assistance. equally important is that aid needs to flow through a diversity of channels. the international community should continue to explore to reach those across borders from neighboring countries, across the conflict lines inside syria. more aid needs to flow directly through syrian partners, especially those that are properly supported. there needs assistance in building their core capabilities. the three key areas of need continue to be food, health care, and fuel. doctors have been targeted systematically. now that summer has provided, emergency water and sanitation is essentials. the international community east to ensure that aid is not conflated with political

objectives. assistance should be provided for the purpose of alleviating the suffering based on need. humanitarian action is about saving lives. conflating political aid jeopardize his humanitarian aid workers and risk diverting insufficient resources from reaching syrian's most in need of help. formal refugee camps continued to garner most attention and resources. that is not where most syrian refugees are living. more than 70% are living in rural areas across the northeast. if they have family and friends, they live with them. in order to survive, refugees sparse sending their children to work and exchanging sex for basic goods.

tension between the refugees and communities are rising. these dynamics are clear today in lebanon. 100% of refugees live in villages across the country. many are living in settlements that are spontaneously emerging. led a non offered their borders to half a million refugees -- lebanon opened their borders to half a million refugees. the u.n. appeal today requests the largest amount for lebanon. this is a clear acknowledgment a about this massive influx of people.

the international rescue committee believes we should provide the refugees from syria. we need to increase the quality of services provided to most

refugee groups, specifically woman and non registered refugees. we need to insure that traditional development dollars buy the refugee influx. it may be months or years before displaced syrians can return home to destroyed homes and communities. planning about the future of syria is to be addressed on a multiple range of issues. it is essential that border countries remain and keep their borders open to provide a safe

haven. they may sound appealing, there is a poor record in practice and it will create a false sense of security for civilians and displaced persons inside syria. it will take a political solution to end the way inside of syria in order to protect the syrian people. i appreciate the opportunity to join you today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, sharon. our last speaker before open the floor to questions is paul

sullivan. >> a lot territory has been covered. i'll have to give the usual caveats. these are my opinions alone and do not represent any institution, i may be involved with. now i might just get myself into trouble. this could be obama's rwanda. how many people have died? this is not slow motion. from 2000 to 90000 in one year? this is far from slow-motion. my head and my heart hurts when i think about syria.

it is so complicated. this could turn into a maelstrom. no kidding. look at the neighborhood -- israel, bahrain, iraq. there was a bahrainy killed. iran. the port has kept this going for some time. syria has its own internal maelstrom. thinking as a strategic person, you know gets to me? this right here gets to me. the children in syria. if you did not read this report yet, read it. i think of myself as often a tough guy.

i work with the military. i read some of the stuff and i held my head in my hands and i wept. this is what is coming here. the shattering of the society. the shattering of infrastructure. this is a dangerous situation. how do we get from here to there. $500 billion for an appeal.

how does $500 billion sound? we have to figure out how preferred outcomes in the short term and the long term. i don't think that thinking has even started for what is needed to be done. maybe the first start would get to what miss waxman was saying. how angry these children are going to bay and how this will come back at us. not just the united states but the neighborhood and possibly the world. have food, have clinics. take care of the orphans. maybe bring some of them to this country.

this is a strategic thinking and just being human. do well by doing good. too well by doing good. we can talk about all the big theories and political science. it all boils down to the people on the ground that ian and others have talked about. this is about people. the no-fly zone was talked about by david. this was mentioned as a possibility. no-fly zones are messy.

people die. we can use soft power and hard power but it is probably too late and it will probably be too little. this could have been dealt with months ago. it was not. it is getting worse. it is pulling in the rest of the region into the whirlpool of syria. look what is happening in iraq and on the border with israel. you can look of this as a 3d spiderweb with intrigue. every time you change something, everything else changes. there is a military term for this, complex and ambiguous.

washington is not good with any of those. could we build a coalition to work on this? i doubt that right now. and the maelstm ing.

the timidity is astonishing. it is all over the place. so what is the option? give or a chance? -- give war a chance? we had a senior sunni official saying, it is and effective jihad for hezbollah. the russians are there. an iranian general was killed in syria. they are sending material up there. it is becoming out of control. the sunni-shia is split. the differences are of value to all that -- are avail to all of that. the more a situation like this continues, the more nihilism you will have. it is far more difficult when their lives are shattered. the harsh winds of the syrian nostrum could have global

defects in oil and other markets and other strategic issues. batten down the hatches. get out the sea anchors. here we go. [applause] >> thank you, paul. it is my privilege to ask questions of the presenters from the carts filled with questions that have been submitted. mona, two for you. i will try to have two for the others. will necessitate the your answers be shorter. that might be the case elsewhere if we had a longer time. tried to keep your responses to three minutes or something of that nature. mona, two questions. how does iran's involvement with hezbollah affect the obama administration paul's political calculus? in what ways with the current israeli government if federal prefer the assad regime to remain in power or deal with whatever regime rises to replace it? >> thank you.

on iran, i think their involvement makes the administration's cackle is more complicated. just to take a step back and look get iran's role and hezbollah. they provide financing and weapons and advice. they have some commanders on the ground. you now have a deepening involvement by hezbollah. there are perhaps thousands of hezbollah fighters on the ground operating in syria. in terms of political calculus, we have is more complicated situation. i think it underscores iran's ability to play a key role. iran and hezbollah have maybe a strategic decision to go all in.

they view this as an existential battle. there will be persistent adversaries in this. i think ultimately we need to consider iran's role in this, particularly with diplomatic solutions. iran i would argue holds the power to play a real spoiler. on some level at the countless has to take on board iran's role and perhaps how to counter them. in terms of israel, i would not pretend to have insight on to what their preferences are. israel new line israel is viewing understandably what is happening in syria with increasing alarm. from tel aviv's perspective, to take hard to see any good

outcome in syria. they are very much in the mode in establishing what their key interests are and laying out clear redlines with the people and borders. the third goal is preventing the transfer of strategic weapons. i think they will do what they deem necessary in pursuit of those goals. >> thank you, mona. these questions are for ian. given your recent experiences in syria, might you comment on the degree to which american and/or other intervention thus far has helped more or hurt more. how sustainable is the possible reality of a state spending damascus, tartous and southwest quolms. how sustainable d.c. that has now come? --how sustainable do you see that has now come? if the regime prevails. ian? >> thank you very much. i will try to keep my answers brief.

on the question of the degree the u.s. has helped or hurt. the perception on the ground, very few people believe there's been any intervention. sharon talked about the humanitarian aid. much has been delivered on the ground and see that happening. a sack of flour appears in the village. they go home and make bread. i would probably argue the message is not getting through at the moment. in terms of intervention militarily, has it helped or hurt? let's be honest here. without weapons, people cannot

fight. the delivery of arms are tools for the defense originally and have become tools of offense. it has led to greater killing. the supply of weapons to the rebels has led to this massive loss of life over the last 12 months. i don't pretend to know what the answer is in syria. the only thing guaranteed is that more people will die and the majority will be civilians. the idea of an allied state. many people talk about this. the provinces of tartous are not as homogenous as people like to think.

people think perhaps this is the government's fallback plan. i think it would be incredibly difficult to pull off.

it is hard to imagine that would be a desirable outcome for anybody in the country. six character -- sectarianism in

syria does exist. they do not have to have the day and it doesn't have to be inevitable. a highly fanciful idea. creston something similar to that if it is sustained by an outside power. we've had some contact with the kurds. they have managed to govern themselves and some are working with the rebels. some villages you travel through and they run their own village now. they have an agreement on the ground. there are a lot of practical agreements that seem to fly in the face of everything you hear. for the kurds, that local agreement stands. they are allowed to run their own affairs. the rebels are non worried. how much autonomy is granted?

they will demand a high degree of autonomy. >> thank you, ian. next is for dave. what can be done to prevent and or end spillover of violence into syria's neighboring states? what might change the calculus of russia or china moving to support assad to a greater degree than they already have? is are any point they might agree to facilitate a transition of leadership? if so, where mike that point be? how does the instability in syria change israel's caucus, if all, with iran's nuclear program?

>> thank you for the questions. they're all easy ones. if i could give you -- i will give the my best effort. what can be done to prevent spillover of violence? i find spillover violence to be an unhealthy metaphor. if violence occurs, somehow your sovereignty has been defiled. borders are permeable. violence in juarez, it goes from nogales and it can be restored. states realize this and they can ratchet up or ratchet it down. what we've done it in jordan -- is so the department to prepare for a key humanitarian support and i imagine any other contingency. you see the deployment of u.s. patriot battery to jordan. that is to deter any possible

missile strikes. measures like that seem to be the effective ones. if you look at iraq. rollins could spill over into our racked -- violence could spill over into iraq. you don't have -- the u.s. border patrol does not have to intercept every single illegal alien the moment they crossed the border. they can stand back 40 or 50 miles and deal with the problem. the concept itself is relatively on helpful. you have to think h. each state as an independent element and say, what are the elements of stability and address those elements.

will lead to a change of leadership in china or russia? china is falling russia's lead china is a following russia's lead. let's just look russia. i think russia feels humiliated. they were misled over libya. what will be our place in the world if we give up a naval base?

there needs to be a graceful transition. there cannot be a win-loss. there has to be a win-win. i look at human rights, which are a motivating factor. a big issue is the idea of impunity. it is possible that assad will remain in power or that he will meet the same end that gaddafi did. "look, your client, he will have a graceful easement from power." he might wind up in moscow. bashar al-assad and his wife are graduates of the university of london. they have great columns supporting people they do not

like. that would run counter to the idea that people commit student rights violations would be punished. instability in syria and israel. if all were an israeli leader, i would prefer a centralized state where there are discreet buttons that i can push work their institutions like to take actions against and get a predictable reaction. that would be more stable for me than this maelstrom of activity.

i'm sorry these are not cheerful answers. this is the truth as i see it. >> sharon, here are two for you. what is the use of chemical weapons in chemical constitute a "red line" all the deaths of tens of civilians has not thought to the same? same how do syrians view this distinction of what is acceptable by the syrian government? and further on that, with regard to iraq, is not the case that syrian took in 1.3 million iraqis in the early years of the occupation and invasion. the u.s. until now, correct me if i'm wrong, has yet to allow one as many as 30,000 iraqis, many of whom have put their

lives on the line for the united states as translators, drivers, integrators -- interrogators and the like. how has assad been informed? what lessons might assad have learned to of him to remain in power? >> we have to tread a careful

line in not answering political questions. on the question about iraq, it is true that many iraqis fled the violence in iraq during the war and found safe haven in syria. many are now going back to iraq. many iraqis were resettled as translators and others who work for the american government. that program continues. the united states has resettled tens of thousands of iraqis and will continue to do so in the future. we have not yet reached a point

where a massive resettlement program has been instituted. there is some small-scale resettlement and that is an area in which the international community needs to plan for in the future, should this conflict persist. in terms of your question about targeting of civilians. our -- we don't have faith redline on chemical weapons. our view is that the governments should not target civilians, period. the civilians must have the ability to flee and seek safe haven in neighboring countries. we want to make sure the civilians are targeted or feel persecution can find safe haven outside of the war zone. your third question -- was about assad? >> the lessons from libya and

egypt, to what degree if that'll have they informed assad in terms of perhaps what he might be able to succeed in getting away with by remaining in power? >> we are not in opposition to analyze lessons learned from any government action. even our position is that regardless of the actions of any government, civilians ought not to be targeted and should have the ability to flee and find safe haven.

>> paul, for you. the question that was gradually put to ian about the kurds and self governance as the rebels get the reins of power. in what ways if any of which still too soon to say how the defense in turkey impacted one way or the other on turkey's role in the humanitarian matters or security issues? >> i will take the turkey question first. i don't think it's clear what is happening with this. it was not clear when the first demonstration that began in egypt and libya and syria and other countries. it could be a simple demonstration. it could be a discussion of

political differences. or it could spin it into something else. there is a huge difference between turkey and these other countries i mentioned. erdogan was elected. he is not a dictator. this is in many ways a maturation of the society in turkey. people are speaking their minds. it's happening in a small grassy space in turkey. where is this going? i do not know. turkey has a powerful military. they will be able to handle different things at the same time. if this starts to spin out of

control, turkey has to start looking inwardly for awhile. it is a serious concern for them, particularly when a missile start killing turks by the border. what was the other question? >> whomever would like to respond to these questions. "the new york times" reports today of advanced israeli preparations for the possibility of a third lebanon war, which israel souces say will be a total shock and awe war. please elaborate on the role of saudi arabia and qatar in promoting one side or another of this conflict. any takers? mona? >> on the question of qatar and saudi, both countries have played a role in supporting the

syrian opposition. the issue has been rather than according their support, they have instead often worked at cross purposes. each country has been jostling for influence in the syrian theater. that has deepened those differences. there is more attempt to be made to centralize channels of support and have the gulf countries work more closely in harmony. whether that will be successful remains to be seen. >> with regard to that, qatar is involved in many different countries in the region. it is a small country.

i know that doesn't happen. the coordination and between them and saudi arabia is limited. the idea of another shot them all war -- shock and awe war. home anybody in this room feel comfortable with that. do you think it will end in syria? you think it will end and i iraq? -- in iraq?

bad idea. >> ian, a question to you regarding more recent events in turkey on the role of the government that can now play, given what has been occurring in the last week. >> i really defer to pull on turkey, turkey has been our host for many in this week's on the border. i will talk about the qatar- saudi question. the focus of power in terms of support has shifted away from qatar. there were meetings with members of the syrian opposition.

the recognized military structure seems to be empowered by the west to be a unified military figure. the opposition being very divided, a political opposition being very effective. it is those military commanders that will be the ones potentially capable of affecting any type of political impact on the ground. it was an interesting piece, a specifically talking about the battle the was the first inside. and western policy makers in particular in this town are trying to see that as a potentially credible way forward of unifying the armed opposition. >> for thanking the audience and speakers, i want to extend a

note of appreciation to c-span for its role making decisions through a myriad of opportunities to better inform the english speaking public on these issues. it is hard to recall a more complex and the relevant and urgent program and event that

the national council has been privileged to the post in the nation's capital on capitol hill. then the one we have been treated to the last two hours. and with a note of humility, and none of the speakers or any of those in the audience would claim to be bereft of brouwer, the void of deflects or free from flock. -- bereft of blemish, devoid of defect, or free from flaw. we thank all of you for coming. we have a lot of food for thought and a lot of thought for food. until the next event, thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] >> up next, and interior -- interior secretary salinger a. >> how to secure the internet. on c-span. the senate committee held a jewell.e with sally this is just under two hours. >> good morning.