sander levin? >> i appreciate joining you this morning. i look forward to receive some of the ideas. we'll need them in this kind of world religion. mentioned, i recently returned from afghanistan where meeting withw days our commanders, our troops, president karzai. and the defense minister from brussels before he went to afghanistan. he feels that things have significantly improved and changed for the better during the last 10 years.

i have been there perhaps 12 times or so. the staff later will tell me if it is really a 11 or 13. we've been there a lot. strikinges are pretty especially in the last few years. that is not the impression the american people have. that, to me, is the obvious fact that things have changed and changed for the better in afghanistan. first of all, it's more secure. we and our allies have made a the growth, the strength of the afghan army and the police now which has grown in a much more capable and respected force including the

acal police, which has made major difference particularly in the villages about anna stan -- villages of afghanistan. the most feared force are those 25,000 local police feared by the taliban. because they are so directly ed to the homes and they become a major threat to the taliban control and success. they are a resilient force and should not be underestimated. there's a long way to go in terms of becoming a country that .s freer from terror nonetheless, the changes are pretty striking. there have been changes in the economy in afghanistan.

the bowl to the american university of afghanistan -- we drove across kabul. thesh everyone could go to american university just to visit it there. if every american could go there or just see what's happening in that one place or drive across wouldto it, i believe it change the view of most americans about what we have accomplished with our allies and with the afghan security forces .n afghanistan cars.ty now is full of we could not drive across. they would not let us drive across. it simply was too dangerous. it is still a dangerous place,

by the way. i don't want to sound pollyanna here. i don't want to underestimate the difficulties. my main point is that things have changed significantly for the better in afghanistan and the american people sadly don't know it. american itself, part of the the university itself. it started with 53 student 300idate is now at 1000 and of them are women. they have a broad number of courses. new just recently opened a campus in a center for economic women development established ith the department of defense

would love to make that off the record that i can't. i'm sure some of my colleagues are wondering why we are using department of defense dollars to open up a women's economic element school. why is that not usaid binstead of d.o.d? it adds to the security of the country but the answer is, basically, the dod does a number of things including the expenditures which help the development of that country which is so essential to the security. , the town meeting that i had there, one student who talked about his life experience when the taliban and was there, he took refuge with and he was a younger boy at that time. the taliban and was driven out, he came back, was

accepted to american university, taught himself, as a matter of .act, how to read and write he's now interviewing for jobs at a sales manager at siemens and applying for a fulbright scholarship. there are four fulbright scholars at the american university in kabul. he wanted me to say thanks to the american people so this is as close as i'm going to be able to become to doing so. in education system afghanistan, not just higher education, but so many universities that the number of them even to me as counterintuitive so i don't use them. before you get to colleges and universities and before the taliban and was driven out, and

they said they have been, 9000 now onethe schools am million. about 3 million of them are girls but none of them could have been educated before we got there with our allies. 2001, there were 20,000 teachers, all-male. there are now 200,000 teachers, 60,000 of them are women. improved., much child mortality, significantly down. 5 million afghan refugees fled to pakistan and have returned .ome is it that 67% of the american people in the most

recent survey think the afghan war was not worth fighting? how does that happen? the picture is much, much better number.t i just don't believe that the american people have had a fair or more full picture of the events in afghanistan. i believe the press has missed a good story. it has not missed of the problems but it has missed the progress. the impression that our people does not come from the ether but from what they read and hear and see. this is just a study move of the problems which is a steady gain and they should not we brought

in the light, disclosed, talked about. ,hat's been missing, i believe is the part of the afghan story which represents real progress. the american people have been of ated, denied the sense least partial success that i believe they are entitled to because of the loss of blood and treasure by our people. i think it's sad that our people don't have that sense that, hey, we've made some progress in the picture, basically, has been too one- sided and focuses too much on failure, on discord.

now, we have to decide what to do in the next steps for afghanistan. we need a security agreement, a bilateral security agreement by our troops to be able to stay. i hope that will be reached and reached soon. i think we need a continuing toationship with afghanistan try to do everything that we can within reason to keep the progress moving in the right direction enough to see a fallback to taliban-control, telegram rule. in terms of security on the ground, they have not accomplished their strategic goals and they have not been able to hold any additional territory. 4000 sites that had been turned over to control of andafghan security forces

there were attacks against 3000 of those sites. , there wass temporary success by the taliban attackers. temporary. and none of them was any kind of permanent success. wasas very temporary and it turned back. the security situation from a military perspective has significantly improved. even though, and this is critical, we have turned over the entire security basically to the afghans. that's been a huge success story. our commanders have been surprised by how well the afghan security forces have gone. this is not perfect. there are places where the

.ecurity is not quite as good they are now basically on their own. seem quick. a 10-year war seems like forever but in terms of the transfer of responsibility to the afghan forces, this has been over the last couple of years essentially. i remember how much time, energy, and effort we expended trying to get the data on how many of the afghan forces were being partnered with us, led by us, on their own. are on theirey own. we have supporting troops that are still there, on their way a forceept for perhaps that will remain. perhaps the total coalition for some 10,000 will remain mainly to help in logistics and perhaps some intelligence and perhaps

,dditional training helicopters, air force. there are some special activities that will be engaged in by whatever the residual force is that has not yet decided. nonetheless, they're basically now securing the country on their round and they have done a better job as opposed to our commanders that have expected. need to be continually engaged in afghanistan and we for that to happen, a bilateral security agreement. president karzai is always a challenge, and i am diplomatic when i say that. his rhetoric has been stunningly and accurate at

times. he has said things and i cannot figure out what he's saying about what the motive is. he says that nato has not achieved any security access in we havetan or say that timed out a leave with the afghanistan taliban. what possible motive could we in league with the taliban for one minute when they are killing our men and women and your men and women? what could possibly be our motive? he said he's been trying to figure that out himself. [laughter] said it hurts. it hurts. andamerican people hear you

he's almost alone in terms of the leadership of the country and act as though it does not make much difference in whether we come or stay. the educators there want us to stay. we can have a residual force, but we cannot stay. finally, he says, there has been a western history of divided rule, divide and conquer, that's the best he can do. what happened? when the brits, the russians, whoever -- alexander. you go back further than i do. that's it. , yout told him, you know are undermining a goal which you obviously want which is for there to be some kind of a residual presence in your clearly -- your people clearly

want by any polling or conversation. we had a good, healthy with perhaps my last conversation with karzai. thanks for the invitation. i would be happy to engage in conversation. thank you. [applause] [applause] i senator, there is a lot want to ask you about afghanistan, but i just want to talk about the current dustup and the alleged espionage of our friends and allies around the world. >> still a legend the? >> i guess it's pretty much acknowledged. i tried to get explicit knowledge out of the white house but it has not gone that far. if theywas the apology have nodded knowledge that? anyway.

>> if you recall the statement from angela merkel the united ,tates, is not and will not listening in on her phone conversations there was never any statement about the past tense. it was current and future. did you know what was going on? known most i would have would have been the security and assessments without saying specifically where they came from. assessmentof some inld be high-level officials you would never know whether that was one arm -- one on one, transferred in conversation, but they do not describe in the reports that we get that so and so's conversation was tapped.

that is not the way the report reads. people assumedt there were conversations where they were overheard but it was not as though they come to us we want yout saying all to know that we are listening into conversations. >> you're not going to believe it angela merkel just said. [laughter] >> right. >> it did shock you when you read the report. >> it did. it startles us. when we hear of something that wrong, i don'tso think we ought to be tapping the phone conversations are listening into the conversations of our allies. now the question is who are our allies? >> there's a list.

nato allies.non- >> i cannot confirm, but allegedly there are nine ager leaders. i don't leave all of the things that i hear or read. excepted.mpany say anonymousguys sources, but we frequently hear in the media "an anonymous white house source." we don't know who that is. some investigative reporters, not you, who will try to get information from us. it happens all the time on the hill. y i heard youll sav are planning a trip to the moon. i should make more logical. you are planning a trip to north korea. reporter never heard that.

he is saying "i heard," hoping because i did go to north korea or 10 years ago that i have a plan to now. or there's a rumor he heard or something like that. very aggressive reporters able to get anonymous statements and .se them >> we have our nato allies and that list includes afghanistan, pakistan. would it be smart for the united to listen in on the leaders of those two countries? >> the test for me is whether or not leaders have a reasonable that we will not try to listen in on their conversations.

there's a reasonable expectation that we would not be trying to listen to their conversations without breaking our leaders. by using it as kind of a privacy the reasonable expectation as to whether or not their business records are going open to the telephone companies? what is the reasonable expectation about privacy? i think our friends and allies, the leaders, ought to have, do have, or should have -- even if they don't and they are so cynical that they've given up believing that they will not be --ped by their best friends we are better off in terms of

trust because we need the trust ' leaders.ies conversations are intended to be private that our friends and their leaders will not be intervened upon by us. >> are you concerned that we could see the pendulum swing back ? intelligence officials assume we will over correct this. there will be a move to really constrain what the nsa and our andlligence agencies do talksf the 9/11 report

about it. quite sure, it can go too far. -- >> sure. we are not anywhere near going to far. the pendulum can go to far. the whole nsa metadata issue is hard and fast. give you my views on it but nonetheless, i have not seen the pendulum swing too far yet. >> i have spoken to some officials, some off the record -- >> i don't think he's unstable. very friendly conversations, first of all. he's very direct, some of the about us ande said our people. i don't understand politics, by the way.

why is he saying things that make it either on likely, less less likely,ikely, what's the politics? i don't get it. on the politician. forsee they say things public consumption -- i'm the politician. i know it's rare. once in a great while the politician will say something for the public that they don't exactly believe themselves or would say differently. why is he saying the things? the conversation i want to emphasize is that they are friendly, very direct. his first question was about the nsa. trying to put me on the defensive.

i asked, why are you doing this to me? we tap everybody. we don't discriminate. [laughter] that's not quite true. we should move on to afghanistan rather than discuss it. he has a presidential election going on. but lots of evidence of it. we see visible signs, and a lot of discussion about it, and a lot of confidence that is going to happen. clique schedule for when? april? when?it is scheduled for is hopeful that they will be able to dissuade from dealing. >> what does karzai do after

that? establish a presidential library of jalalabad? littleas a very modest apartment for himself, 10,000 or 20,000 square foot or so, and i think he will stick around. >> do you think we will have a genuine transition? how many candidates? >> 11? 10? >> you would think my staff would help me on this. 10? thank you, bill. >> what do you think happens post-karzai? obviously -- >> i am obviously more optimistic i just see evidence of progress it if

we can maintain and work out a bilateral agreement for us and our allies that allows us to have a small but effect his -- they don't like the taliban and they like their army. they have no confidence in the government in terms of being corruption free or anywhere near it. the lack of services remained there. the afghan people have great confidence in their government, they don't. they do have confidence in the army. a few years ago, they did not have a lot of confidence in the national police. they seem to now, from what we can see in the local police, which i now is -- which i think is now about 25000 and they are trying to increase to 40,000, they really have confidence

the own elders have connected the two. they are protecting their own villages. that heart, the security part emma i believe will continue to give the taliban problems. they will continue to be a force particularly in rural areas. i don't want to underestimate that. in some places, afghanistan a slightly less secure now than it was two years ago, in some places. iser measures we've seen sort of a difference between the intelligence community and the measures that the military use, it is significantly more secure. >>, security agreement, let's be clear. all u.s. forces are going to leave afghanistan, just like iraq. >> if there is no security

agreement, we cannot stay. we will not put our troops in a situation where they are at risk because of how they might be tried in a court order we don't have confidence, for instance. >> how really possibility is it that there is a deadlock and no agreement? what happens if we just take up and leave 100 cent? likely we wills get a bilateral security agreement but there are a few issues that may remain himsolved i still call senator john kerry, but secretary john kerry did a terrific job and working on a couple of successful solutions. >> does he get along with karzai? on,e is directed his hands so i think people respect that. he does not just read from talking points come a which he makes good use of, but he also

has his own knowledge and experience which he brings to bear and his own background working out problems with people, being direct. people like him. he is a big plus there are. if it does not happen and we pull out, there's a greater chance that they will fall back into a society which they don't want. >> before you get to other questions, just a few more quick ones on this. negotiating this agreement with karzai along with his successor? is it essential to get it done before he leaves? >> it is. >> ywhy? anyou don't want it to be issue in their campaign. all of the candidates basically want an ongoing relationship, not just with us but with the coalition. whatever that number is, 8000-

12,000 number range that you sometimes read about which has not been decided upon by the president. >> let me ask you about that. left heeneral mattis was talking about 13,000 american troops which would translate to about 20,000 coalition. but do you think is needed? >> i think we have a -- it is to them to recommend. mission, or what i believe our mission is has always been to train the afghan forces and .asically leave one other comment about what happens if there is no agreement , that would be bad for the future of afghanistan, i think.

there's a difference between here and iraq. they disbanded the iraqi army, a full listing that was done by the bush administration. >> he did not do that on his own? >> he did not. i know that. here, we are going to have, we hope, 350,000 trained security forces in afghanistan. to let me bee come clear. they are going to have it. i long were member a conversation with an elder i had in this village maybe eight or six years ago now in a room not much bigger than this, a dirt floor, 100 elders sitting there and a few senators, if you have a sitting appear and just by we just happen to go to

the village that day. it wasn't set up for us. in.ame we introduced ourselves the best we could in this little village. after that, we were able to ask a few questions so i ask this old timer -- they are all old timers -- what do you want us to do? do you want us here? he said we want you to train our army and leave. >> wow. then, someday, invite you back as guests. we have not done exactly that, but a sickly that is what i have always felt their mission should be, to train their security forces so they can secure their own country and leave, basically. >> although we did not dissolve the army, for the first five

years of that army, we did we hadno training general caldwell here talking about how his efforts were starting basically from the ground floor. >> for the training? i don't think it took five years, but my memory is that -- >> let me ask you this. the afghan national budget is byut 20% financed afghanistan and 80% financed by us and others in the international community. is that ever going to change? afghanistan is a country that cannot support itself, not even close. when will that turn around? all, there are agriculture is tremendous and it has potential, including exports. secondly, there mining has tremendous potential. it is all potential.

much improved, but you're right. they will not be able to support themselves for a long time. work outrly if we can a bilateral security agreement, i'm not sure the funding we have indicated will be for this. >> from other countries as well as from us, a bilateral security agreement, i think it will be difficult as a practical matter to provide the funding to them if they don't want to have a security agreement with us. nonetheless, i think we're going ongoing support in that country for many years with our allies. it is a much smaller amount than what it costs us now. the cost to us in the budget will dramatically decline even though it is an ongoing a few

billion involved. >> great. now we will turn to questions. we have a well-informed audience with us. if you could stand and say your name and affiliation? we will get you next. you are good. you have the microphone. the deputy secretary of defense in afghanistan and pakistan and now i am on the steering committee for afghan alliance which is a source of a lot of the information you're talking about. i have two questions. me first, many afghans tell that one of the problems with the negotiation is they don't know what they're getting in return and they are afraid there has been no statement about what

kind of commitment there will be after 2014. is there any possibility of the absence of leadership from the administration that the congress and make aforward commitment to afghanistan post 2014? to put some meat behind the bones of the outcomes -- so the afghan the don't feel that they are buying a pig in a poke. the american people are getting a false picture of afghanistan and i think your questions of the senator are good evidence of that. why is the media incapable of that the the story secretary daschle sorry. maybe you should have been secretary. why do the american people have a false interpretation of afghanistan today? >> i will let you go first. >> if you want to answer both, be my guest. the administration has been fairly forthcoming in terms of commitments to afghanistan and what they could expect.

, don't see the congress particularly with karzai's comments, is going to be bore precise or forthcoming than the >> i'm not really good at speaking for the entire media, but i will say that there's an issue of coverage in afghanistan generally and is that we don't do enough of it. it is extremely costly, extremely difficult. networks havejor euros anymore in afghanistan and , if anything, the problem is there's not enough coverage. that is probably an issue that goes beyond afghanistan. we tend to focus where there are difficulties and ask those questions. >> same thing with the congress. all you read is this negative stuff.

>> i think we treated very fairly. [laughter] >> teddy roosevelt had the same complaint. >> barbara from the atlantic council. i wanted to change the topic .ittle bit to iran will the congress wait on imposing new sanctions end of this diplomatic process a little bit more time? it appears things are going well. i would like your assessment on how the talks are going. here, youyou were spoke about syria and that the u.s. should be promoting the moderate opposition more robustly and it does not seem to have happened. what's the reason? thank you. >> let me take the second question first otherwise it may get forgotten in my age. still feel that we are moving too slowly on a vote. there has been some very gradual improvement in terms of training the that itg of

opposition but i happen to think we have been much too slow and .his turkeyto jordan and about six months ago, four months ago. that assad is so unpopular in syria that if we gave greater support, military support, more lethal support and training to the vet it opposition -- they need to be it would lead-- to a better political settlement, which is the goal. in terms of iran, this is a really important point. i ran's rhetoric has changed. the tone of the meetings have .hanged whether or not there is a real change beneath the rhetoric, in

my view, it needs to be probed a untested. the percentage is, some people say the odds are that this is just -- what did the college? a romance? -- what is the saying? >> charm offensive. >> where is my staff? i'm looking to the audience for my words. it's just a charm offensive with nothing behind it. that surely that is all it is. some people say, there is a real chance here. whether or not it's a 10% chance, 60% chance, it should be tested. it should be probed. ,he potential, if this is real could be a major, major change. >> should congress know? >> i did not mean to avoid that. i believe we should not at this

time add additional sanctions. fully keep those sanctions in place. that is how my believe, the main reason why iran is where they are out because those sanctions have had an impact. my committee, the armed services committee, has been very much involved putting those sanctions in place. alas national defense authorization act had the last tranche in that bill. who has any sense at all and opposed to sanctions. for it.ed, i am very if we respond to this possibility in a negative way instead of being study and keeping sanctions in place, if we tighten the screws now when , apparentlythough

against some opposition at home and in iran, that the iranian leadership may be willing to talk about ending, modifying, changing and making less threatening their nuclear , and to response is they could very well lose the very countries, particularly russia and china, who have stood with us to put sanctions in place internationally. it would weaken our current stations possibly, and i would say probably but at least us to respond rhetorically or through additional sanctions in a negative way before we have taken the couple of months that are needed to explore the reality as to whether there is a real change in iran's attitude.

willing but i believe we should not them at not, ate, -- we should this time, do anything but we should in a steady, constant way keep the pressure on iran because it has had a good result but not because of the negative on the countries that have joined with us on this add to the pressure at this time. addition to the nba this year? >> people might try to do it. just because i think we should not do it does not mean it won't happen. it happened even on my own bill. >> university of michigan. go blue.

also have some spartans in the audience. there you go. >> i attended the talk yesterday at the u.s. institute of peace and i was struck the fact that he granted nothing about the fact that he had mismanaged the political process and i was in brussels and had a chance to interview one of his opponents, dr. hashimi, who is now in qatar. he showed me all kinds of documents to show that he was not lt of the charges. he is very much tied with the sunni opposition and it's incredible to me that he does not bring them in because it would undercut the whole al qaeda operation. , he said that the sons of iraq are with him and i don't think they are. >> he's meeting with president

obama today. >> i think i agree with just about everything you said. i'm not sure about the sons of iraq. i would be surprised. other than that, i happen to i joined ayou and bipartisan letter with minute does, mccain and others to urge the president to make those points. i basically agree with you. also in terms of the failure of the iraqi government to protect the christian minority, to protect the people at camp liberty, for instance, whether of iraq isgovernment the perpetrator of that horrific not carry outdid that mission if it was to protect that came. the christian minority in iraq is very, very fragile and the

relationship to the sunni, if it is what you say, in terms of relationship, allowing the iranians to overfly is so totallysad terrible. nonetheless, he has a lot to talk about and if they want certain kinds of weapons, there's a lot of skepticism about providing any types of weapons if there are to be a doing an to basically number of things differently and making sure that those weapons are not put to the years that we could never support, hopefully. >> margaret warner, pbs news hour. ronnie -- rouhani or his

willing, thate the president has some authority to freeze some sanctions. the iranians are looking for a sign of good faith if they extended a sign of good faith. it would behink appropriate for me to tell you what signs of action on their part should result in signs from .s i just don't feel comfortable doing that. aret's clear the iranians going to want something and pretty soon. >> they are going to want something and we are going to want something. what we're going to give them is producing something which is significant in terms of what they need to do and i don't

innk i'm comfortable changing that. need for recognize the a quid pro quo. it would just be a negotiation measure temporarily. a first's going to be phase hopefully within a month or show that shows that they're not just talking to friendly but they are the haters going to be different -- but their behavior is going to be different. you can reduce your 50% enriched uranium down to 20% but if you are still producing even 10% hindu go down with the 50%, and other words you reduce your stockpile to -- if they are20?

still producing it, then what? you know you go what to the net? know? what's the net? months or years but take for them to produce a weapon under those circumstances? negotiated?l to be i really don't want to get into that. >> you knew they were going to move from that. >> not necessarily up and end of the day to move from that. >> if you want some sort of nuclear power, you may have to import it. >> that might be the ultimate game. >> it's a goal but it will not obviously happened in phase one. phase one will be something that, hopefully, if it comes off shows that they are willing to

move significantly and that what we are doing in return does not endanger, does not leave us off significantly any worse place that we are now in terms of should theyo act move towards a nuclear weapon. forohn sullivan, the center international enterprise. thank you for your positive comments about afghanistan. we've been there for a long time as well and i've noticed a lot of positive developments. there are afghan business associations in the afghan butber has been a way to go the builders association and others are building the foundation for an economy. i will not say market oriented because it's not there yet but it's definitely moving in that direction. the question i wanted to rescue was, you know we were talking about the negativity?

me, a good portion is coming from the various inspectors general reporting from afghanistan. you think you will get to the point where they can series the handle transfer of funds he? -- funds? >> no. pretty straightforward answer. >> i don't think they are to that point out all. the gm representative and dealer. glimmers ofal enterprise. this is a significant deal. these women work during the day and they come to this place right to the american university campus to get the skills that

they need to go into business. i know it will happen overnight and it's a real significant change to be a part of. >> i'm from the naval postgraduate school. it's great to have you here and listen to what you are saying. i want to start with what you opened with was telling the stories of the public that's it. the president was so good about telling the story when he campaigned that he lost that skill when he got into the white house. we have plenty of examples of indeed, what's going on with the health care system -- >> don't go there. [laughter] >> we should start another website.

>> afghan healthcare? come on. >> i'm talking about the importance of storytelling in getting it into the education system and am wondering if you could talk about that along with the press that we need to get people interested because it's all about selling new ideas. we don't talk about complexity. we live in a complex system. finally, last night i saw a play afghanistan."n i think it's one of the most powerful plays of ever seen and i'm a performing arts junkie. i recommend everyone to go see it. it was fabulous. it addresses the things were talking about. it's a really important point. some youngought over afghan music students about six

months ago. it was terrific. we brought them to the capital so that some of my colleagues could see. i think there were like eight students on afghan instruments at a music school which could have never existed and they are there preserving their heritage. it has an impact when people can see a play or whatever, of course it does. telling stories are important. the problem on the other side is , i'm not a good storyteller, by the way. i admire those of my colleagues who are. it's the most powerful way to get a message across. my wife reminds me of this all the time. instead of statistics, you just said, how many teachers? they will not remember. there are 10 times as many teachers now, 40% are women, 30% are women. they won't remember that statistic. my wife will tell me that if she

were here, why not just tell one story of one teacher? they would remember that? the answer to that, i'm afraid, .nd i'm a victim of this you can tell an anecdote about almost anything. the question is how broadly based is an anecdote? under the taliban and i could tell a story probably of a woman who did something terrific and her relic in her village. you could probably find a story which would give you the totally wrong impression of the taliban, the tale of the elephant problem. is the anecdote a tale of the elephant or is it the elephant? the statistics are the elephant. butanecdote is detailed it's far more powerful, i think, and they could not agree with you more. >> we have time for one more

very quick question and, oninder, this has all been the record. >> now you tell me. [laughter] whoa. whoa. rebecca chamberlain, and a former intern of your stomach great state of michigan. the question is on china. can you comment on their role in afghanistan and our relationship with the? i'm thinking of all of the industry and could they be developed to operate with? >> great question and you have 90 seconds. differentread very examples and they are much more aggressive and unwilling to be partners and i think the security situation is not one that they're particularly satisfied with in terms of moving in.

i have heard stories about the chinese in afghanistan and they aboutt their general view business. they are very aggressive business people, far more any catalyst of ever seen. can i tell a story? comes with an anecdote? -- end with an anecdote? your honor. >> thank you. >> we met with him 25 years ago, or whatever, the head of the communist arty and china, the number two or three guy. it was the only communist party .n the world we are arguing with him and and webout human rights are giving him a lecture, in

, on why it's important that human rights be part of an for a country that businesses have to respect the rights of their people. you have to respect the rights of workers, respect the empire not. we are giving lectures about businesses with responsibilities, in essence. he says, we have an old saying in china. thesemix business with other things. that's the point of his old saying. business is business.

[laughter] workers have rights. the environment has rights. and he's telling me we have an old saying, business is business cap we have an old saying in america. is this is business except when it isn't. [laughter] it was the best i could do. in -- much.ry much [applause] >> looking at our primetime schedules, starting at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span, another chance to see michigan senator carl levin discussing afghan policy after his recent trip to that country. on c-span two, more arguments

from the d c circuit court of appeals on contraceptive coverage and religious coverage. and on c-span three, the mother of trayvon martin discusses on capitol hill about stand your ground laws. a tough time for an essay, when everyone says what are you doing or why are you doing it? this is what we do, when we get we actually say, it is much more important for this defend this we nation, and take the beatings, then it is to give up the program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today, telling you why we thatded these programs, having given them up and have be nation, or our allies

attacked and people killed. >> this weekend on c-span, intelligence officials defend the nsa's surveillance program. saturday morning on -- at 10 a.m. eastern time. and on c-span three, american history tv. each weekend innovate the -- n, remembering john kennedy. eyewitness accounts surrounding his assassination. >> tomorrow on washington journal, author michael alan discusses the national security agents and intelligence programs . the new york times reporter looks at the recommendation to

tighten its policy on painkillers paid plus, your e- mails, phone calls, and tweets. at 78 -- 7:00ow, a.m. eastern. the history of organized crime, and how members have made millions of dollars trafficking marijuana. >> leaders of organized crime do not trust jihadist at all. the reason for that is they are in business to make money. they will use violence and the threat of violence, and absolutely depend on public corruption rumblings, judges, legislators. they require corruption to exist and flourish come about their -- florist, but they are in the business to make money. are sustained by a

different motive than green, they do not trust you. they do not trust you. that during the transition of what occurred after 9/11 in terms of government programs. we saw many thanks. -- things. some of the directives that went 90's. the navy's -- when i took over in 1997, it was wast after organized crime labeled a threat to united states national security. therefore, the director stated that under the circumstances, the law-enforcement and

children's community could cooperate. this is a huge difference, given that with the creation of the hadlligence community, you a sickly awol go up -- a wall go up. this was not allowing a gestapo to go up, a secret police. the difference was a created the , and directed that they would not work closely with the fbi to prevent the two from poor -- forming a partnership and becoming all-powerful. if i were an organized crime, i can say this gangster is a threat to national security, and collection, but could not help us in our criminal case.

9/11, much was made about the culture of the agencies, and that was nonsense. spike and i formed partnership 1990's, and after these directives had gone out wouldcome law, nobody trust able legal, fundamental fact of our system, called the fourth amendment. when you're going to prosecute someone for a cruel case in the united states, the defendant is entitled to know how you investigate. how did you open it, what techniques did you use? wiretapping come a what was the basis of it? limited miniscule amount of information, the

identity of a confidential informant that might have been used, could be withheld. defendant is a much entitled to everything. the agency is required to open the defense attorneys, to allow the defendant to see that. these directives, including the not, should did not, and will never address that. when we started to try to develop the system to work together, law enforcement and community, we were trying to figure out how this would work. running the organized crime i ran aniran -- investigation into one of the top fugitives. probably 50attended meetings at langley were

all of the attorneys and all of the leadership of the criminal programs and the intel programs got together and tried to figure out under what circumstances could we work together. how could we share information? gather iteration without tasking them and forming this secret alliance? at the time, he was trying to perpetrate $150 million flawed wefraud on nasdaq, prevented that. we did a great deal of good, and everything was going just dojerfully, until the attorneys who were going to prosecute showed up at langley and said hi cia, open your books. we want to know what you gave the fbi, sources and methods.

they're welcome was soon worn out when they did that. two competing interests in our system, the right of the defendants to know what the government did to him or her, and why, and how, and when, and on the other hand, the need for our intelligence agencies to protect the very sources and methods that they need to ensure our national security. it was not resolved completely it was not resolved by the patriot act. i do not think it will ever be completely result come a it is a very difficult issue. fortunately for us, terrorist organizations, and organized crime organizations around the world have not formed the allegiance they -- that we thought they might. in terms of cyber crime, some of the groups perpetrate chewing -- groups arbitrating the cyber the stock markets, have

been using means other than violence, that is the interesting thing about them. as long as they are stuck in their world of trying to results the methodst to they have always use, that is a benefit for us. words, a leading gangster, or organized crime group, if they team up with level a hackers, and use their ability to penetrate commuter -- computer networks and databases, when they are able to do that and then commit extortion banks, the amazon's, and security, then we will see the jeopardy to our engine that

drives our economy. caseshad e-groups in many -- groups in many cases, they want to overthrow the one fundt, and install a mental system they believe in. organized crime does not want to do that. they want the u.s. to survive and stay well because it is a cash cow. if the cow guys, no more milk -- dies, no more milk. we have seen in eastern european asia,ies, in africa, there are many countries that do not have the ability to absorb that kind of loss financially, or the degree of penetration and corruption within their system.

it does jeopardize their entire government system. we do not see that ability here, and it took the fbi and longtime -- a long time to get off its bureaucratic rear and -- end, while we were preventing the other groups from around the world from getting the same foothold here they were able to do all of those years. we were proud in the fbi to have such a role in dismantling and kening the ability for those other groups a takeover. that gave us the ability and 2001 to deploy many of those resources to the counterterrorism program. >> a portion of a conference held earlier today by the american bar association.

you can see the entire event on c-span2, or online. also earlier today, the woodrow wilson center held a discussion with the director of the international atomic energy agency. this is close to an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the wilson center. special welcome to our guest this morning, director amano of the international atomic energy agency. technology cap our president and ceo on the tarmac in new york city, for over two hours this morning. they will be here shortly, and make a closing comment.

publicson center is a private institution created by a act of congress. it serves as an official memorial to the 20th president. we tackle global issues through independent research, actionable ideas. we seek to provide a safe political space to address key public policy issues aid -- i ssues. our nuclear proliferation network'ss a global network engaged in the study of the history of the nuclear story. center follows the loop earlier talks on iran --

the nuclear talks in iran especially closely. proud to have michael adler on the program as the senior scholar. covering thenna iaea for years. he is now writing a book on the negotiations. dj amano is here to help us understand the -- help us understand how the iaea is helping to reserve the nuclear treaties grand bargain. years in theans 36 japanese foreign ministry, and he has served with the iaea

since the 1990's. a key role in securing an agreement to shut down turn nobles unit number three, as chair of the g7 nuclear safety group in the year 2000. he was chair of the iaea board of governors when the agency won the nobel peace prize in 2005. welcomingn me in director amano. he will speak briefly, and then michael adler will have a dialogue with our guest for or 20 minutes, preserving half the time for your questions. thank you for coming to the wilson center this morning. director general. [applause] morning everyone. me toa great leisure for be invited and given the

opportunity to speak to you. some highings with u.s. officials yesterday, and today i am delighted to meet michael again, whom i know very well. passed since i in 2009.e iaea i would like to explain a little bit about the activities of the iaea. is known as a nuclear watchdog. 's activity is to -- much more extensive than just a mere watchdog. for example, we are very unique

-- to obtain millennium goals. to tackle the very serious problem in developing countries. cancer is a problem in that -- those countries. , and manyancer countries, especially in africa do not have a single therapy machine in the country. chey come to the camp -- clini too late come and is not possible to provide life-saving treatment. this is very unfair, and i am control inhat cancer

developing countries should be established as a global agenda. can continueology to save lives in those entries. food shortage will be a serious problem as the world's population expands. here again, the nuclear technology can help this by mutations i applying radiation -- by applying radiation. we can lengthen the shelf life of food. --er can be matter managed better managed by using our nuclear technology. huge project in

the sub-saharan countries to better understand how the water resources -- is resourced and used. if i keep on talking about these things, it will become endless, but my point is that iaea is -- technology. we want to encourage people to use it safely. contribute to to the continued development of those and their follow-up. i never thought that there would be such a and -- such a huge nuclear accident during my tenure in japan. i'm using time and energy to address this issue. if we have time, i will come

back to this issue, but the iaea developed an action plan to improve the safety of nuclear power globally. the action plan is not limited, and i can say that -- is now implemented, and i can say that it is much safer than the time before the accident. continue toes include nuclear power as an option in their energy plans. this is only one of the important tasks of the iaea. we are providing regular reports on iran, syria, and the other states. these are complicated issues

rated the -- issues. iran is especially, gated. when i joined the agency, i created a simple statement. every country should double meant a conference of safeguard -- should implement a humphrey henson safeguard -- comprehensive safeguard. this is a universal safeguard. every country, including iran, needs to abide by it. facilities, and the east on the safeguards in iran, arvey purpose - - serve

purpose. we have to make sure that all of the activities are in peaceful purpose. in october, on october 28 and 29th of this month, we had a meeting in iran. after the coming of the president, we had observed, and -- and we hadwith two meetings. we did have a very productive meeting. i will come back to this issue. in 2011, we came to

the conclusion that the facility that destroyed was very likely a nuclear reactor. that should be reported to the iaea, and we are very confident that our conclusion was correct. , syriad like to clarify has cooperated with us fully so far. understand that syria is in a very difficult iran is theecause most important and only issue in some other parts of the world. of -- is a very

serious issue. expelled all of the inspectors, and decorated -- detonated nuclear weapons. to -- there is a framework of dialogue. buts not functioning now, countries are working formally and informally to reactivate the discussion. the iaea is ready to send back -- infectors, and we feel our inspectors, and we feel we have an essential role to play in the korean peninsula. there are others i would like to mention, but let me say the iaea

is an organization with multiple objectives,rate -- but we are working in a very highly political environment. to in verse with michael -- to converse with michael, and take your questions. >> thank you. it is such a privilege for the wilson center to be hosting mr. amano. -- in vmet him indiana ago. just over a decade amano's secondr. term as head of the iaea. has a significant style, one of plane talking and telling it like it is.

first, i want to follow up on , themeeting which you had meeting of the two sides. talk wasme of the better, but when will he see concrete progress -- when will we see concrete progress? with iran oneeting the 28th and 29th of october. this is the second meeting after thean and iaea election of the new president. it was a get to know each other meeting. last meeting was a very substantived -- meeting, it was productive and

there was some development. there was a change. tone,was some change of and there has been a change of tone since the coming of president rouhani in the last meeting. i would like to say that enron made a proposal, and it contains -- iran made a proposal, and a step-by-step provoked -- approach. they agreed to resolve all of the president and past issues -- present and past issues in the dialogue. working -- iaea and

iran are working on the new forward, and we carried toward the november meeting. it is agreed that sometime in the future it will be a step meetings -- by no means is it the end of the process. >> you say there was real progress made. they had several key demands. firstly, to go to the site that that was anted -- open site, to have a cover over it. will they finally let you go there, and will you find anything? where you differed with them in the step-by-step approach, when you be able to go back and ask questions?

if they wanted the file close, can you not go back to the file? those are substantial issues that come to the heart of your being able to be effective. besides this change in tone, will you be able to be effective on those issues and others? the first question is about -- and this is a part of the issue. iran that it on 2011, in november of talked about 12 areas where we need clarification from iran. agreed to go back and all of those issues will be

resolved in further dialogue. it will be dealt with as part of the process. how to move forward. onarding the question whether we can go back to the list again or not, we have not as gust that much in detail at this time -- discussed that much in detail at this time did the basic agreement is that we will resolve all of the issues through cooperation and dialogue. this is very important, that there is a basic agreement. >> ok, so, i wish you luck. i hope you make some progress. my next question is about iran. are you currently expect --

inspecting iran in a full enough sure they do not have enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb? facilitiesme of the that are under the safeguards. cannotconfident that we find any deviation in this time. if there was any facility that was not declared, we do not have -- thate you concerned because you have not been applying this program called -- protocol since 2006, that they would be able to hide things from you? protocol isional

essential and very hard for us to have a better understanding where there is undeclared activities. implementation of additional fullcols will give us confidence in a peaceful nation -- nature of the arabia activities -- iranian activities. good are those center for nterfuges? >> we do not know yet. but the name purpose of the infection is not to verify how effective they are. verifyn object it is to that the mitchell ariel and the facilities stay within the code of the goodies -- activites.

>> is the agencies aim to uncover details of all alleged activity, or to simply verify that iran is no longer engaged in such activities? >> we would like to -- we are seeking clarification in a run, and we would like to clarify doesn't and practiced activities past activities. how far we can go, we cannot , but it isre essential that iran cooperation -- cooperate with us to codify these issues. ,> could they come forward expose their past, and they would not be measures against them for this, it would just be the next up towards a deal?

or would there have to be some kind of sanction? rick -- iran's , there areues several routes. independent, different, and separate. the main focus is on their vacation -- on verification. we would like to see the apple mentation of -- see the codesentation of modified , which simply means timely information about the nuclear activities. and some clarification about parties that are

part of the stocks -- these talks. other dialogs deal with possible limitation of activities as i understand them, and some of the parties that are involved are different. and china,, russia, and united states, they are all negotiating with rerun -- iran. they will be there next month. >> as you pointed out, the two tracks are separate from each other.

the president of iran said very clearly that there can be no progress in bnf until there's vienna until there's progress at home. >> i haven't heard that. in the past, it was some indication, sometimes there was none. the coming you that of the president, we had a number of of full contacted meeting.ncluding my >> that would be a true substantial change? >> i think so.

there is something in the new proposal by iran, and we will discuss it in the new meeting on the 11th of november. >> you have met with secretary secretary rice, and what are they telling you about iran, and how they feel about iaea and how you're doing? with secretary condoleezza rice, and we have discussed the issues, and some modifications along supposed police -- peaceful applications of nuclear power.

i sensed a strong support on the activities of the iaea, but it is the nomadic rectus not to talk about the ongoing diplomatic -- practice not to talk about the ongoing discussions. talks?ming not too much.lks, some discussion has taken place in vienna. for the nextaring meeting, but i don't have much to report on this issue. >> two quick questions and then i will turn it over to the audience. in syria, how intact are those sites? is there still a place you can

go and do proper verification? syria, we have so-called reactors that have some high amount of radium -- uranium, that need to be under the safeguards. regularlyhat facility , and that facility is staying in peaceful activities. not had the ability to go to the other areas for obvious reasons. we have not had any indication that things are getting worse. >> what about the other three sites you want to go to? have two different things. one is the syrian nuclear

facility, and the safeguards. the other rate -- reactor i mentioned being under safeguards. locatedroyed facility, in a different place. we drew the conclusion that it is very likely that it was a nuclear reactor. but it does not exist independently, and we have interest in our -- verifying that these functional facilities, there are three. these italy's are not under safeguards -- facilities are not

under safeguards, and we have to theseccess facilities. we you not know them for now -- do not know them for now. question, in north korea, you explained very where -- well the situation. the iaeaaea -- returns, what would be the approach, knowing that continuity has been lost? return to north korea with additional tools like the protocol you have spoken about? >> the security council resolutions, north korea has to safeguards.e iaea koreaality is that north

has -- the reality is that north korea with it.ting in line north korea has withdrawn from the iaea, and is not a member of the iaea. activities to do any in north korea, we need the first political agreement among states, and- major we need consent from the board of governors of the iaea. korea, iect to north think the first step we can take is a small step. perhaps we can send back our where there exists

a nuclear facility. it would just be a small step, but i think it would allow for a meeting. inspector upur , and now we9 continue to monitor. thank you very much. i would like to open up to questions from the audience. members of the press, please hold your fire, we will get questions from you later. affiliation,me, and please ask the question, we do not have much time. no speeches.

>> thank you very much. the goals is to secure against more intrusive inspections by the iaea. what would these more intrusive inspections involve? what would you need to do that you're not doing now? one ofs the issue of the paths, where i cannot give an answer. measureslly means contain an additional protocols.

a more comprehensive safeguard agreement to an inspection can more safeguard program calls -- protocols. did i answer your question? less.e or less rate -- director of mono -- amano. the discussion up to now has been on specific countries of concern. thereroadly, looking at will be an expansion of nuclear energy, for energy security reasons, and because it is the primary source of laurel -- low carbon energy going forward. howl that expansion of nuclear

energy, notwithstanding the setbacks that there has been in japan, but more but more broadly, how can that expansion be accomplished without creating proliferation risks? and what does that in turn mean for the iaea's mission and resources? to our latest estimate, there will be an power, and nuclear it would be an increase of 17% to 19%. esee -- a great

increase in nuclear power. there we're -- therefore we are tong the best we can maximize without risk. and -- very important thing that we are doing in bit -- different countries is to step.end them for the embarking on nuclear power is a pre part of -- huge logic -- oject, and requires huge participation. means to strengthen nuclear

infrastructure, the ratification of major international conventions, established regulatory bodies, training have a good selection of sites and technology. steps todentified 19 prepare for the embarking on nuclear power, in 16 of these countries. we are not encouraging or encouraging the use of nuclear power, but if we continue to use it, they must used it safely, securely, and without increasing the risk of proliferation. by these efforts, i hope that we can use nuclear power without ringing the risk of

proliferation -- bringing the risk of proliferation. >> good afternoon, mr. amano. nature ofeak to the contacts withea's the israeli officials? we have regular relation -- regular contact with them indiana -- in vienna and israel. sent some senior staff to the general conference. that is the most important meeting of the iaea, in september. they have also been there when i have attended some other

such as the munich conference, where i've had contacts with the senior officials of israel. regular, normal contact with israel, and i believe that is helpful to have good communication with israel. a i will come back to you in second. >> thank you. i'm from the partnership for global security. i want to ask if you could speak to the iaea's role in the nuclear security process, and how that has developed over the years, and where you see that going following what we expect to be the last summit in washington in 2016? thank you. >> the first big event for me after i joined the iaea was to

attend the nuclear security summit held in washington in 2009. i was tasked to make a presentation in front of president obama, and i was excited, and i was frightened, and i wasn't sure if i could survive. attendhat, i regularly the securities conference, and we make our input. role in has a central strengthening nuclear security. analyze,he capacity to information in our database. we have information on the illicit trafficking of radioactive materials.

information is very important. have helped countries by capacity of equipment, and training people. through all of these efforts, we can strengthen our nuclear security in a concrete manner. ouran make input into nuclear security summit, and the can giverticipants guidance and instruction in their own countries to strengthen nuclear security. one of the other areas that we are focusing on, is entry into conventionnt on the

of the protection of nuclear material. n. call it cppm convention itself has entered into force. the seaplied onto transports. on to the land, and it can be covered under this convention. ofare promoting the entry the amendment, and we believe , we can sendnhance thengthen -- strengthen amendment.

in july of this year, the summit was one of the biggest meetings of the iaea, and we have continued to hold these conferences, and we will strengthen our nuclear community. washington.ome to my understanding of the uranium proposals is that they want to keep the facilities they currently have an build even newer infrastructure. in return, they would provide more transparency. is that your understanding, and monitoring the

iranians 20 47 with remote 0/7 with remote cameras? route, weea iran are not discussing that much in details at this stage. we have agreed to resolve all of the issues through cooperation and dialogue, all of the issues current and past. we have brought forth a proposal andd on step-by-step work, substance. we are working toward that november 11 meeting. thank you.

good to see you. i haven't question about special -- a question about special instructions. the agency, as i understand, does have the option to it -- to speciala investigation. with a special military dimension, has the agency considered this? resolving herl in and and past questions about those activities? on technical cooperation, the agency provides a lot of technical cooperation to state including nuclear energy. what steps is the agency taking to ensure that that technical cooperation does not provide assistance to nuclear weapons programs? instance, pakistan has

heavy water operations, and has used your rating -- uranium mining to produce plutonium. what is the assurance to make sure that that cooperation does not indirectly create the benefactor of nuclear weapons -- weapons?re of nuclear theseare giving cooperations to the facilities that are under safeguards. for the countries that have not embarked on nuclear power, we are asking them to adhere to the conventions that establish a rogatory system, safeguard -- regulatory system,

saved card system, and help them in every way to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. for the special inspections, certainly special inspections is available under the iaea comprehensive safeguard agreement. it has conditions, and we can ,all for special circumstances and in the case of north korea, and romania, the case was a bit , but it was like other cases in which we have called for special inspections. >> was that successful with north korea? called for special

inspection, -- >> negative reaction. >> thank you. wonder ifeneral, i you could comment on the general state of health from your perspective and from the iaea's perspective of the protocol, which is a framework and has been implemented with specific countries. the approach of the protocol has been around for a few years. how do you feel that it has worked in strengthening your safeguard nuclear materials? if there is anything you would change in terms of the diplomacy part of it or the technical or scientific aspects of that, what would you seek to change? thank you. >> the immediate object