peace alongside a safe and secure israel. the universally recognized palestine alexei commanded the dedicated efforts of secretary kerry and the courageous leadership of prime minister netanyahu and president abbas which enabled peace talks to resume. i sincerely hope both parties will make every effort to keep talks going, including a halt in new settlement building. the international community must fully support the parties as a make to difficult decisions necessary to achieve a lasting peace. and britain stands ready to play .ts part mr. president, as we wind up our military operations in afghanistan, the uk continues to work with the afghan government to ensure its successful transition. the afghan national security forces are now leading on security and continuing to grow in confidence and capability.

this is a significant achievement. in the uk, we recognize the serious challenges still ahead for afghanistan, but we strongly believe that there is room for optimism about the countries long-term future. this is a crucial time for afghan men, women and children as a prepare for elections in 2014, which must be credible, transparent and inclusive. is ofesident, poverty course a greater threat to stability and freedom as our conflict ands are oppression. united kingdom has met our spend money on national assistance. we are the only country in the g 20 to do so. following the global economic crisis, we said we would not allen's our books on the backs of the world's poorest.

we have held true to our word. on monday we announced that we would provide $1.6 billion in global fund to fight aids, tb and malaria. that is 10% of the funds replenishment, so long as others join. women and girls remain at the heart of our development agenda. they are the key to economic growth. investing in girls education is the single most effective thing we can do to break the cycle of poverty. we must and gender inequality which is the root of pilot -- the root of violence against women. this is at the heart of the uk's initiative to end sexual violence and conflict. i invite all states not yet to do so to endorse this. over 115 states are already committed. we're sending a message to the victims of these devastating

crimes that they are not alone and that their attackers will be punished. mr. president, we have also used our presidency of the g8 to focus on three areas where we can support global prosperity, boosting trade, ensuring better transparency to help developing nations and if it from resources that are rightfully theirs and cracking down on tax evasion and closing tax loopholes. this is just the start of our work on this agenda and we are pleased that the uk's trade, tax and transparency priorities have been fully reflected in agreements reached by the g 20, including measures to resist by two china's measures years at the end of 2000 sixteenths of the trade remains is free and open as possible. is inesident, whether it the g8, the g 20, the european union or nato, or the commonwealth, or one of the five

permanent members of the un security council, the uk will continue to be an active and engaged player in the world. the biggest problems we face our problems we share. take climate change. uis morning's reports by the n intergovernmental panel on climate change confirms the sea levels are already rising and ice is melting faster than we expected. the report is an authoritative rebuke to all those who still persist in claiming that man- made climate change does not exist. the uk will continue to cut our overions as well as giving $6 billion to assist developing countries to do the same and adapt to environmental changes. if we are to halt the devastating effects of climate change, we must listen to the science. together. so we welcome the secretary-general's

announcement of a leaders summit next year is a key step towards all nations agreeing a deal in 2015 to take action to avert this crisis. of course, we are all affected by the scourge of terrorism, whether it is a soldier brutally murdered on a quiet london street or innocent shoppers gunned down in a busy nairobi mall, we are all vulnerable. following the recent horrific events in nairobi, the united kingdom is working closely with the governments in kenya, somalia and countries across the region to tackle this issue. our global response to terrorism must be robust, intelligent and cover all those areas where our work together can make a genuine difference. alone, we can take small steps forward, but together we can take giant leaps.

that much was clear earlier this world'sn we signed the first arms trade treaty to better regulate the global sale of weapons. united kingdom is proud of the role we played in delivering it and we urge any countries who have not signed to do so. this treaty reminds us that with enough political will, we can come together and do the previously unthinkable. that should embolden us to do yet more. the united nations has many virtues, but it also has serious shortcomings and they must be faced. the united nations has no greater friend than the united kingdom, but it does not adequately reflect the world we live in today. the security council must be reformed. unless more room is made at the top table it will fast become an anachronism, a relic of a different time. that is why the united kingdom continues to support permanent seat for brazil, india, germany

africann, and permanent representation, too. we call on all states to play their part here and in our other international institutions, just as we all play hours. we are at our best when we engage constructively with one another and when we are ambitious in assuming our shared goals. is important for those countries whose economies have influenced and grown and transformed over more recent years as it is for the old, established powers. greater influence means greater responsibility. placerld is a better because brazil is taking a lead ,n tackling deforestation because mexico has enshrined climate change targets into law, because republic of korea has led the way on nuclear security. but there is much much more to do, many more areas to take a lead.

cutobal trade deal to bureaucracy at borders. it would mean a trillion dollar boost for the global economy. any next two years, the united kingdom wants to do as much as it can to drive progress on the u.s. millennium development goals. we are also working in the u.n. and civil society to set out a post-2015 agenda is even more ambitious. there can be no greater goal than to eradicate extreme poverty, leaving no one behind. on these and all other issues facing our nations, we are quite simply stronger together than we are apart part. now more than ever, we must fend off the forces of insularity and isolationism, stand up for our values and look out to the world. mr. president, that is what united kingdom will do, and we stand ready to work with all others who will do the same. thank you.

[applause] >> will have more from the u.n. general assembly tomorrow with an address from the syrian deputy prime minister. his remarks come just days after the un security council unanimously voted on a resolution to eliminate serious chemical weapons stockpile. that is live at 9:45 am eastern on c-span two. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] the former deputy chairman said that the u.s. agreement for syria has great potential for success than military strikes. he spoke at the wilson center in washington dc a few hours before the un security council adopted a resolution that set guidelines for the disposing of serious chemical weapons. file. this is 50 minutes. you.lcome to all of those here today at the wilson

center and those watching him either on c-span or via live webcast. today's session is -- could not be more topical, on the challenges of chemical weapons disarmament in syria. the security consul of the nationsonal -- a united is set to eliminate serious stock of chemical weapons. this action diffuses the crisis assad regimeshe use of chemical weapons in late august and the u.s. that of military action to prevent humanr use. the resolution will be binding and enforceable under chapter seven of the united nations charter. to discuss the challenge that lay ahead in achieving chemical weapons disarmament in syria, we are fortunate to have with us today one of the world's leading .uthorities on wmd issues there's a lot of hyperbole in washington, but i think that is

an accurate disruption of charles all for -- charles dolph express on iraq began in the 1980s as washington considered his role regarding the iran iraq war. dolpher served as executive chairman and later active chairman of united nations special commission on iraq. it was from 1993 until 2000. it was at the friction point between baghdad and washington in regular crises until president clinton ordered a limited bombing in response to iraq's noncooperation in 1998. after the 2003 invasion of iraq and the toppling of the saddam hussein regime, charlesduelfer

led the iraq survey group that conducted the investigation of the scope of iraq's wmd. the isg was a unique intelligence organization of over 1700 military and civilian staff that investigated iraq wmd programs. he used all the available collection and analytic capabilities in a hostile environment. thedelfer u report, i amended to you. he authored a superb book, essentially a memoir of his "hidee in iraq, titled and seek: the search for truth in iraq." it is also based on the

extraordinary interviews that the isg conducted. to give us insight into what was going on inside the saddam howein regime and affordable miscalculation on both sides led to tragedy. charles has recently headed a small entrepreneurial space launch company. he's is a consultant and lecturer and he is also, i am proud to say, a public policy scholar at the wilson center. charles will lead off with opening remarks, giving his lay down on a set of issues. he and i will have one or two rounds of questions between the two of us and then we will open it up for discussion on the floor. trost, the floor is yours. , the floor is yours. >> thank you everybody for coming out during lunch time and dozens more in the c-span audience. they are, like myself insomniacs

who turn to these programs. make my remarks in three sections. what want to do is go through some of the background to how we got to where we are today. that background has moved astonishingly fast. i want to talk a little bit iraq lessons learned from and why i think the current is a doable one. and maybe highlight some of the risk going ahead and how this may fit into other, broader issues. it really is astonishing how fast this has proceeded. 21,he last month, august there was this horrible chemical weapons attack in syria. there are horrible videos about that. and otheristration countries said how are we going to react to that? over two weeks ago on september 10, the president of the united states had a primetime television address to

the nation describing that this set of circumstances required military action. he was going to propose that to the congress, but he felt that that wereles broken by use of chemical weapons needed to be responded to. the new yorko protocol which cover both weapons. these are things that americans had not even heard of. he was betting his presidency on taking a military course of these twoaddress relatively obscure, but important arms control agreements. that was on the 10th of september. shortly thereafter it became

pretty clear, i think, that congress is not going to go along with that. the administration's position on syria and more particular its position on the narrow focus on .yrian chemical weapons in that speech, i point out that his criteria were twofold. one was to decay serious chemical weapons capability and to deter third these are the two elements that he set out as his objectives for a military strike. this, is angers like very carefully targeted military strike. was a very careful military , bute with a limited important objective, to deter and decay or degrade the syrian capability. so what happened after that? to the point i would make is he linked it to very horrible

videos which struck me as interesting, i guess in the social media world, that is important these days. but risky, because if there were a military strike, it is safe to -- somebody would come up with unpleasant videos about the consequences of a military strike. so you wind up going down this path where policy is derived by competitive videos. in any case, what i'm trying to suggest here is that there was a bit of a dodgy position that united states got itself into with respect to syrian cw activities. rov, thees sergei lav foreign minister of russia. he proposed an astonishing idea. by usingaddress this weapons inspectors, u n weapons inspectors? now, there aren't too unique features about serge

he spent five years as the russian ambassador to the iraqd nations as the ambassador. he is a pretty good idea of the ins and outs of weapons inspectors, what they could and could not do. , theings turned out weapons inspectors did a better job than we even knew at the time in getting rid of the iraqi chemical weapons, biological weapons and the rest of their inventory. had that experience, but he also knows that syria. the right pieces of data and experience in accents --ch would have allowed him he had this idea, hey, would've figured on this weapons yours route? washington had the wisdom to say this is the good idea.

it didn't come completely out of the blue. there had been an ongoing dialogue and there was an oblique reference to this in a geneva statement, but there had been an ongoing dialogue between the staffs on dealing with chemical weapons. they met five times if i'm correct on this. it wasn't completely out of the blue, but certainly for lavrov to inject this option at the time was important. that kind of safe washington from facing some very difficult decisions. highlight about lavrov's knowledge of syria is he is a smart guy. he is not a cuddly guy, but he is very smart. he would not be proposing something if he thought the syrians were going to pull a fast one on us. , myent in to geneva

hypothesis is with preferred knowledge that at least for the first few steps, syria is going to comply. imagine the circumstances or the and by between lavrov sheer all assad. al-assad. his regime is kind of wobbly and one of the things that could help him is his resurgence of international legitimacy. if you drew lines and i can thisne lavrov during third he could say your damascus need to do something to retain your international legitimacy, and the opponents and insurgents, there legitimacy will decay. youhe russians will support if you make a forward movement on this chemical weapon side and

you will bolster your international legitimacy. is a critical piece of all this. what is in it for the syrians, unlike iraq, iraq that the si de, the positive and would be that they would get out of sanctions. eplus for him is sustaining russian support, building international legitimacy to the extent that they can and hoping to outlast the co-ceo sickness -- and hoping to outlast the cohesiveness -- only the russians answered a lavrov could've done that. i'm not standing here is a great fan of him. i was certainly on the receiving end of a lot of spears in the security council's in the 1990s. he was more than happy to play around with some of the facts to suit him. i remember at one point as a deputy chairman u or the acting

chairman ofnscom at a certain point. and on scum had brought in -- had brought in samples to serve as reference materials for a laboratories that we had in our facility in wasad heard lavrov shocked and horrified that unscom was bringing and chemical agent into a rock. who knows it would we could be doing, we could be ceding evidence. he made a pretty elaborate and unscom was part of the problem and not part of the solution. ien i speak about him and seem to be quite positive about him, i am only describing that he was in a position to take this step, not necessarily the best person on the planet are it i wouldn't be nominating him for the nobel peace prize. but he is a pragmatist and he

would not be proposing something that he didn't think he could cause c-reactive deliver on. serioushe could cause to deliver on -- that he could causesyria to deliver on. some people compare this to a rock. you guys were thrashing about on iraq for a decade. in iraq we got most of the chemical weapons done in a. of probably 18 months. we didn't know what 100% was, so we didn't know how much we did in those first few months, but it turns out it was the bulk of it. the mechanical process of doing this is feasible, so long as syria cooperates. this is a very key feature of what they agreed to in geneva. like the case of iraq they levied all of the heavy lifting, the obligations, the burden of proof was put on syria.

the role of the inspectors was critically limited to verifying what the syrians say. that dynamic was essential and it was sustained and built in, beginning in the agreement in geneva and now in the draft resolution which as rob mentioned is intended to be passed tonight. implementing or corresponding agreement that they will have at the executive committee. we will also have that then amick embedded in it. one other thing i would comment on in the geneva discussion, and kerry met. they said they came to a common assessment of the serial weapons holding. you have to imagine that their intelligence and russian intelligence coming up and saying that they have about the same idea for what is in their inventories. vital, a cousin of the

syrians actually produce their declaration, it became pretty clear pretty quickly that it was in the ballpark. it hasn't been made public yet, although when it is passed around among the opcw countries, i imagine it will be public pretty quickly. that declaration has been seen as being pretty thorough and pretty detailed. that is a key first step. highv would have had confidence it would do that in advance. debate overen whether the implementing resolution at the security council would be under chapter seven or chapter six. i may be disappearing into urine jargon here, but the shorthand for this is whether under chapter seven implies a use of force. this is something that the russians felt very strongly against.

not just because of syria, but because of former events in kosovo and iraq. they needed to adjust some of the components of the opcw and most, for example obviously, the cwc prohibits the removal of chemical weapons from a country. one of the most likely avenues for addressing the syrian chemical weapons inventory problem is to take the stuff out for destruction. are some elements like that which had to be done in a as logic played out, the americans and russians were able to balance a mutual interest and they have a draft resolution which is again about to be passed.

there were a couple of other aspects, technical aspects about how inspections are done and under how under opcw a country can refuse certain specters if they don't like them or if they are from a country they don't like. that are a few things like , but the messy part in all this is the relationship between opcw and the security council. that isn't still well wired as near as i can tell. you can think about this i simply asking yourself who is in charge of all this? who is the guy or the woman who is going to be the chief person on this is it theivity e director general of opcw? i don't think so. is it and another individual report jointly to opcw and the security council? possibly. but watch that space.

be just aink it will director general who is reporting to the security council every month on the teams willspectors to go in who probably be mostly opcw people or opcw recruits, but not strictly from them. for the jargon, opcw is the implementing bureaucracy and inspectorate for the chemical weapons convention that are located in the hague. let me just mention a couple things with respect to the lessons from iraq. easiern some way is because it hasn't been blown up first. in case of a rock, when we went wentnawrocki -- when we into iraq in 1991 and 1992, all the sites had been subjected to many many weeks of bombing. , militaryacos buildings, all these places have

been blown up. so when you go in and use a bunch of 22 millimeter rockets scattered about, you don't know if their conventional, even if they're chemical rounds, it is a lot more difficult to sort all that out. , thethat standpoint searing case is somewhat easier. the other thing i would point out is that in the case of iraq, we operated what we called a chemical distraction group for two years. from 1992 to 1994, where the weapons inspectors supervised the destruction of chemical agents and chemical munitions. we destroyed this 38,000 munitions something like close , that tons of all agent is sarah and and mustard that haven't been put into it missions. there are a lot more precursors. the iraqis operated under our an incinerator and hydrolysis plant. these are facilities which the

iraqis constructed, or in the case of the hydrolysis plant, it was a pre-existing facility that was re-dialed for destruction of sarah and as opposed the creation of sarah and -- of is not that hard and it did not take that many people. the risk that people .2 with respect to serious security -- to syria's security. that burden is put on the government of syria. logically, it is still going to be logical for the syrians to have their most sensitive weapons and places that they consider to be secure. if you believe the reports, in the press, the american and other intelligence agencies take the syrians have been moving stuff. that is good and bad. it is good in the sense that they have experience moving the stuff and when they are required to consolidated at certain

locations, they can do that. it is bad because you may wonder if they're moving stuff around to avoid inspections or so on and so forth. inspectors, ithe is probably the most difficult part of this, but again, it is the burden for that which is put onto the syrians. there is a logical path ahead in which if it turns out there are 45 sites a need to inspect, they can design a sequence to get to the sites. transportation either by ground or potentially by helicopter. if you use aircraft you have to , the about than antiaircraft things which insurgents may have. the biggest risk is he going forward is that we will be putting a spotlight on a lot of facilities and their are a lot of people fighting in syria who have an interest in and is going badly wrong.

they become targets. aheado me if i'm thinking would be the largest risk that i could see. some insurgent group decides it is in their interest to cause casualties or to cause problems. the point where was, recallingh with the president laid out in his speech for military strike which was to deter and degrade the syrian chemical weapons capability. i feel pretty strongly that the has much we are on higher probability of much greater success in terms of deterring and degrading syrian cw than anything we have done with a military strike. one other comment on how they will lay out their priorities and objectives. there are some easy things which you can do which will hobble the

cw program quickly. you can go after and destroy production and filling equipment, for example, very quickly. you can go after the components of sarin, like alcohol. you just pour that out in the ground and you're taking away a key component. there are things which you can do quickly, early on, which will hobble it and control the cw program. be managedthings can by putting them under international security quickly, international locks, seals. then when the international community can figure out a way of getting people to accept either pocky agent or omissions for destruction, this can be done. i'm going to stop there we can take questions or? >> take them from the table here. thank you, charles. that was really an excellent

overview of the issue. the neoprobe one or two issues before we open it up to the floor. with really the operational question of where we are at right now. the description of your experience in iraq and the contrast with syria. roughreement that love lays out three phases. the first of which was accomplished to some degree of satisfaction, namely the declaration of inventory by the syrians. there is some question about that, but the fact that the russians and united states on the same page on what the stocks are is encouraging. the second phase which we are heading into is on a really short time line, november is the

target date for the destruction of equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical munitions to be followed by the complete elimination in the first half of 2014, which everyone views is a very ambitious timeline, but as you point out, i actually got a whole lot done in the first 18 months or so. to this point, in the second phase that we are entering into, the focus on equipment for producing weapons, is it your judgment that of key precursors are identified and the key --ipment for weaponization there's a report in the press that a lot of the iraqi weapons are not in weapon eyes foreign. well, we willgoes be substantially further in the goal of preventing further syrian cw use. is yes.hort answer

kuwait breaks down is they are going to have people hitting the ground for this purpose starting monday. there purpose is to do a baseline survey. these inspectors will be going out to each of the sites to say, ok, what is where. that is the first half of what you're talking about, which is a 30 day. this is also to happen in our over. say, exactly as you they're going to identify key pieces which they're going to destroy immediately. making sarin is that they have special equipment. they can run over with a tractor and do very quick and early destruction which will, if i keep using the word, hobble, take the syrian program off- line. where i think you're headed on this, is you are getting that material balance. if they declare they had x number of munitions , x numbers

of gallons ofsarin and mustard on hand, can they account for all that, make it all add up. if they visited all the bunkers does this kind of add up? lot to do in a month. moreover, to request that the syrians consolidate that. once they have a record-keeping of what is where, when they wanted consolidated in certain bunkers, that is a lot to do in but, the practical matter, if everybody is working with success in mind, if it takes longer, will understand it. it will be key who heads the human effort and it will be key with the counterpart is. if the syrians name somebody who is very good and has a good relationship with the theterpart, a lot of

problems, which are inevitable, will be sorted out on the ground. in the case of iraq, we went down a path where we get to a point where the track record was, these guys are always going to lie. we weren't excusing them. somebody said, well, we forgot the key to get into the warehouse and we weren't buying that. but it may well be that the guy forgot the key. so there is a lot of stuff which happens on the ground, which never makes it back to the security council. personalities are important. thank you. next is moving from the operational issues, i'm sure some in the audience will want to probe you further on that. two political military issues that are going to flow from the serious case. darestory of iraq importantly and has implications for dealing with future cases. in your marks you mentioned that the accord, in a way,

legitimizes the asad regime as the repository of serious chemical weapons. in so doing, one of the criticisms of this whole process has been that it has bolstered the syrian regime at a time when the u.s. objective is assad must go. there is a tension, as there was in the iraq case, between compliance and regime change. in the case of libya where there were chemical weapons in the process of being eliminated after the 2003 breakthrough with libya, even in the middle of the libyan civil war leading to qadhafi's overthrow, the u.s. government said that qadhafi was responsible for these chemical weapons and would be held accountable. you see a similar thing with syria holding the asad regime accountable. syria was never considered a rogue state in the 1990s because

it is a politically malleable concept. arab-was needed for the israeli peace process. countries, ther ui did not designate serious as a rogue state heard the question for you is, if you are from the policy side, how does the obama mismanage this tension between compliance and regime change? >> there is reference to the geneva conference on future of syria. is in thege in that same resolution as the one talking about the chemical weapons thing. you are on to exactly one of the rubs, which, you have the same problem with the rock. they said hey, listen we make you guys were happy.

he weapons inspectors. will washington really agree to a logicalanctions e question from saddam. the only answer i was able to that there's only one way to find out. it got me off and it is exactly this attention. for bosch or i'll asad he has been convinced that his best, perhaps only route to surviving is by proceeding down this path on the chemical weapons. over time, dealing with that regime, your conveying some legitimacy to it. i would hasten to add though that as awkward as that may be, it is still better than a military strike. if we had done a military strike, then you lift the burden of responsibility from his chemical weapons which we are concerned about from the bashar asad regime.

you tie responsibility to him through this process. sorting out the political stuff, that is going to be a mass. it is even worse than what you are suggesting, because the whole region is a mess, which i don't think anybody can fully understand very ability to focus on at least one narrow part which is kind of understandable, syrian chemical weapons, is not a bad thing. it is not going to solve other things such as jordan going upside down and iran. >> one more question before he moved up to the floor. your last comment really leads to this line of questioning. one of the lessons of the syrian crisis, and now only three weeks old, was that the credible threat of force had bolster diplomacy. you had written during that. about the problematic option of the use of force.

that the use of force to degrade and deter the asad regime's -- theassad regimes ability to control weapons. be developed at length at this meeting, but potentially subject for a future meeting of mep, was whether there was this threat of force as in the iranian case. even in the syrian case it looks to be problematic of environmental consequences of , underminingsites the regime's ability to to control it. i think the syria case is really being looked to with one eye toward what are its implications on the integration of force and diplomacy with leading with iran. my own view is it is inherently problematic, but this seems to be where the debate is right now. toould be interesting

your comment on that. >> i don't know what the target but i know in the case of iraq, talk about military strike, but the poor guys in the pentagon actually had to line up weapons on targets. wantedd to ask what we to blow up. it became a hard thing to do. for exactly the reason, if you book the command-and-control would sound like a good thing to do, well, do you really want to do that? odds of ancrease the nightmare scenario where the stuff gets out into everybody's hands? i am a bit reluctant to say this, but it is not necessarily the case that only syria has access to chemical weapons. argument -- thelavrov argument that insurgents had weapons, he's not going to say something completely incredible, there may

that therets of that could be some truth to. your is a reason inspection -- there is a recent inspection, she put in a lot of data in his annex about the munitions that were used. they're not real sophisticated munitions. it would be very interesting to see if those munitions are in the syrian declaration. not be surprised if they were not. all kinds ofout hypotheses about this and whether it was the irgc who brought in assistance and this and that. it can get real murky very quickly. i wouldn't want to get diverted onto that, but when you get on the ground in the circumstances and things aren't as clear as it might at.

be in washington. >> let's open it up now to comments and preferably questions from the floor. there is a microphone coming to you. >> thank you very much. how many other countries in the region have chemical weapons? as far as you know. that is one question. and really, if one wanted to destroy all the chemical weapons has, how long will it take? is it two months, four months, six months? >> the deadline which they rode out, to address a second question first, was by the middle of roughly 2014. as a practical matter, was a

consolidate these things at locations and have them under international supervision, that is the hard part. then are you going to get rid of them in syria, destroy them, incinerate them, or are you going to take them to another country. frankly, i think that is the how that inroute. fact plays out over time, i do not know, but they could probably meet their deadline by -- the bulk agent and loaded munitions, the russians have a nice days on the seaside. use it. the russians have in fact volunteered to do some of this destruction. so i am not that worried about the timeline. i think the first key phrase that rob was referring to is identifying the stuff going out and consolidating it and getting it under lock and key. the fact that we have done this under three months, i think we are in much better shape. on the

first part of your question, the short answer is that i don't really know. the glib response which we used to make in iraq was that if we were successful in a rocket might be the only country in the reason without weapons of mass destruction. that is to glib. supposition is that other countries in the region do. but i don't know what they are. they certainly have lost their appeal. where i thought you might be asking was about biological weapons. that is really a big if. assad said that he still has the capability to deter israel. i don't know what he was saying with that, but imagine the enormity of him telling his the people that all

are largely invested in his chemical weapons deterrent which she has had for decades. that is a pretty big step to get rid of it. i would not trivialize that. it may not make you more secure domestically. >> if the speakers can identify themselves. >> i work for dyncorp international now, but i worked on these issues at state when and i want unscom to first note how incredibly was inful unscom finding and destroying wmd when they were there. digging a little further into a way totalked about get the cw out of the country to a destruction facility. do you think it is practical to move the cw, the munitions out

of the country? what are going to be the paths to get it out. or do you think they will destroy them there which i think would be slower and more difficult. >> for the first i should apologize for being such a nuisance. when we read tons, i know that people hated us and we had all kinds of great ideas. you are correct. it is not easy. if the americans are going to destroy cw, it would cost billions of dollars. in the case of iraq, we caused the iraqis to build an incinerator and to modify equipment which existed there. andstroyed in situ inventory roughly the size of syria for about $10 million. be advised, that was a. of time before the cw ce was passed -- that was before thecwc was passed. there was no osha.

to do it in that environment. be interested to see in the syrian declaration if they have got to stretch and capability which they declare. i kind of thought they might because if you have chemical weapons for several decades in your inventory, they're not like wonder bread, they don't last forever. is a best if used by date. so you have to do something with the stuff that you made in 1970 and in 1990 or something. -- they may for have internally some suitability for distraction. he weapons inspector very quick way -- very quickly makes a judgment. could we get some group of international countries to accept delivery of that. getting it out i don't think we'll be that hard. i have recognized that there is an insurgency going on, but the syrians have been moving the

stuff around pretty regularly for the past three or four years. >> daryl kimball, arms control association thanks charles for your great overview and your excellent work. there is one question that you did not address that i wanted to ask you about which you should have particular expertise about giving that you were on the ground in iraq and you understand how many people it .akes or how many teams one of my concerns is the opcw's --lity, the organization for to send qualified people in for the inspection and the destruction oversight in the short timeframe. they have about 125 inspectors today. they have ongoing responsibilities with chemical weapons and this seems to me that it is going to take additional resources for the opcw, additional personnel would have to be brought in from other governments and done very rapidly. how many people would you have

freshly estimated this job base and what we know so far about the task might be involved. opcw withy can the assistance from the u.s., europe, russia, poland, get the best qualified people to get this job done. i agree with you that this is difficult, but doable. this seems to be one of the toughest aspects of getting it done. great or so focus on. i want to refer and give a plug to the norwegian government, because a couple of years ago, the foreign ministry published a study that says hey, old doddering on scum inspectors are all going to drop dead. isn't it going to be -- should we record, who knows it might happen again? they made a recommendation. they drafted a how-to book which turned out to be very useful.

but we pointed out wouldn't it be useful to have a trained cadre of weapons inspectors so you could surge when an event like today happens. on the numbers, specifically, opcw says they do have limited people. my back of the envelope counsel would be they would probably need 75 people. here's my arithmetic. they need a headquarters element in damascus. you have to have guys to run a motor pool. there are going to be lab guys and guys who handles security, the samples that are taken. if there are 45 sites and you have to cover them in a month, if you do maybe a site in half in a day, if you have to bunker with thousands of people, maybe teams.e three or four the team would probably be 15 people. so that is going to be four, suv's.

the star federer stuff, you take up a lot of space in the car. of equipment. i am being a little bit glib, but we can't just get three guys in a truck and hope to drive after a site. there's a lot of stuff you have to bring. their security, you have to have -- there's a lot of infrastructure you have to bring along. i would guess, on the order of 75, and it will be tough to get that many experts, but they're not all chemical weapons experts. some of them have calm skies, you're hurting casts with some of the scientist types. you get in the front car, you get in this car. you can google that altogether. it, again, can do this is important for the russians to agree on a roster.

there are some rosters floating around. scum alumni would be happy to do this. >> >> time for one more question. i have a question, charlie, has beenn. iran finding both financial help, military supplies, even combatants to the assad government. you have a speculation on how iran is going to play in the cw destruction. are they going to be supportive? you have an iranian nation that finds chemical weapons rather repulsive. house is going to work? -- is a really good that is a really good question. publicly has said how terrible he finds chemical weapons and it is important in to get rid of it. on the other hand, what is the

irgc doing. they can make a lot of mischief if it suits them. i don't really know. it is something to keep an eye on. has narrowly defined my tasks to getting rid of syrian cw. somebody else can worry about the iranian stuff. i thought maybe you were going to head to how you're going to support it with intelligence and so on. be worked out, i think. you can imagine, when we were doing this in a rock we had a youtube which was flown at our behest. now you could have uab's or something and perhaps keep an eye on what other groups are doing. but that will be the head of this outfit, whoever it is, they're going to have to determine how much information he or she wants to receive from outside countries that will tell

issuesher about security , are there insurgents in the area, are there things moving in different ways. it is a tough question that i don't have an answer for. pretty -- we're been or been treated to an excellent presentation today thank you all of you for attending andd today.joinuelfer [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> some of our live programs tomorrow on the c-span networks include the u n general assembly meeting in new york city. deputyess by the syrian prime minister. his remarks come just days after

the un security council unanimously voted on a resolution that would eliminate serious chemical weapons stock out. that will be live on c-span two at 9:45 a.m. eastern. rader in the afternoon on c-span three, we will be live at the national press club in washington dc with education secretary arnie duncan on education priorities for the remainder of the obama administration second term. that is that 1 p.m. eastern. >> health policy experts from maryland, oregon and nevada talk about the status of their state's health insurance exchanges which are set to open foreign roman tuesday. hosted by the kaiser family foundation, this is a little less than an hour and a half. >> good morning, and welcome to

this kaiser family foundation event here in our arbor jordan conference center. i am diane brolin, the executive vice president of the kaiser family foundation and the executive director of our commission on medicaid and the uninsured. pleased to beery continuing our series of getting into gear, preparing for implementation of the affordable care act. today we are really going to be looking at the preparations for outreach and a rome and under the affordable care act and some of the lessons from the states. as everyone has come to know, open enrollment for coverage, especially in the health care market places formerly known as exchanges, we will begin on october 1 heard many states are busily preparing for the outreach and enrollment efforts that are needed to help connect millions of uninsured americans with the coverage offered under the affordable care act.